The Escapist Presents: MovieBob Reviews Star Trek
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
::SPOILERS IN MAIN BODY::
To be fair, I think this is one of the cooler ideas in the film - that the "big bad guy" is basically just a pissed-off blue-collar schlub driving the equivalent of a dump-truck BUT, since he's zipped a few centuries back in time his "gear" suddenly qualifies as doomsday weapon. It's too bad the film has no time to spend really developing this interesting aspect of Nero as a character, since it's otherwise preoccupied giving us the SECRET! NEVER BEFORE REVEALED!! SHOCKING!!! ORIGIN-STORY OF WHY-SULU-IS-DRIVING.ahpuch said:
Sorry Bob, but you come across as a low-rent Yahtzee. That review was painful to watch, and listen to. At least Yahtzee is funny.
I'll reserve judgement on the movie when I actually see it, but from what everyone has told me it's pretty f'ing awesome. I work with 2 HUGE Star Trek geeks/fans and they both loved the hell out of it.
EDIT: Oh yea, and Transformers was a fun movie.
I'll reserve judgement on the movie when I actually see it, but from what everyone has told me it's pretty f'ing awesome. I work with 2 HUGE Star Trek geeks/fans and they both loved the hell out of it.
EDIT: Oh yea, and Transformers was a fun movie.
I totally agree with this. I've been a trekkie almost all my life (IE, my parents are trekkies and I've been attending cons since I was about three) and I don't understand how ST fans can continually scoff or attempt to 'disown' anything they don't agree with. ('Enterprise' the telly series being a good example of this.) Fandom really gets on my tits to the point I don't see the point of reading or engaging in it because it's generally people throwing a wobbly over every little thing. I'm pretty dispappointed by older fans of Star Trek condeming the film for trying to make Trek 'popular'. Like it's going to take away their experience or love of the series that much if new people want to enjoy it. People who have that mindset need to GROW up and be a big person. We don't stop liking things because omgiosh! OTHERS might enjoy it. That's just silly logic. >:/
That being said, I really enjoyed the movie. I liked the fact it's trying to establish a new innovative vison of Star Trek, whilst keeping the fundementals that made it such a good show. We can't have the same old same old all the time -- evolution happens for a reason and this averison to change like it's the most awful thing ever has got to stop. Yeah, it had some classic nods to the original but who wasn't expecting that? It was a homage without being a rehash of the earlier show.
As to this review, I feel it's pretty biased and full of, I suppose, 'nerd rage'. It's clear the reviewer had already made up his mind that it was an awful movie to begin with and there was pretty much no changing his decesion about it. He wasn't objective and it shows. Also, I swear a lot in real life, but if I'm trying to make a persausive arguement for or against something, I don't use it ALL the damn time like a child who just learned the big 'F' word and wants to get a 'shock!' reaction from their parents. This was a bad review. It's not bad beacuse I disagree with it -- it's just bad in the form of reviews go. If he had brought up a SINGLE shred of good evidence against the film in an intelligent, non-ranting sort of way I would have gone 'Hrm. Okay. Good point', but this is not the case.
Anyway, yeah. This will be the last I watch his reviews I can say that much.
The whole point in having a time travel aspect to the story is giving us a reboot yet not having it completely wipe the original continuity off the map. Now we've got essentially two continuities, both of which are canon.Hagasophia said:
What were the other options? A: Giving us a standard prequel. There would be no sense of danger, no sense of wonder. We already knew where these characters would end up. B: completely reboot the series, in a way destroying decades of mythos (which would surely piss off the uberfans). JJ's "C" option takes care of things nicely.
I saw it, I liked it. All that matters to me.
But for yor next review I suggest a less nagging and more well rounded focus. This movie is a tribute not the movie to change the hopes of the masses. When viewed as a tribute, I think it's a great movie.
But for yor next review I suggest a less nagging and more well rounded focus. This movie is a tribute not the movie to change the hopes of the masses. When viewed as a tribute, I think it's a great movie.
I've seen several people pointing out that MB gave it a 6 out of 10 (a generally positive ranking) and trying to figure out why everyone is on him about "hating the movie".
Personal anicdote - I am a big time Tolkien geek (admit your inner geek, and embrace it). Coworker is likewise quite the Tolkien fan. We both had gone on Opening night to see Fellowship of the Ring. During lunch the next day, we talked about all the things they left out, changes made, and why we didn't like those. Someone in the break area said, at the end of lunch "So you hated the movie?" When we replied "No, we really liked it a lot" they replied "But you just spent an hour listing everything you hated about it..."
Thus my main issue with this review; the first part was a 'before' bit saying how he was totally prepared to hate this movie. The large majority of the second part was spent detailing everything he hated about it.
In doing so, he drowned out his own message that it wasn't a total bomb. If you think they got 60% right, and spend all your time complaining about the other 40%, you lead people to form the conclusion "Wow, he really hated that"... and having said so much, when you try and throw out something that seems to contradict most of your message (I'll give it a 6 out of 10), the easiest thing for a viewer to do to reconcile the conflict is disregard the smallest part possible. That would be the bit at the end where MB says 6 out 10.
So, I think that, while MB may have thought the movie OK but not great, he's managed to convince everyone he'd prefer to burn the print than admit he'd seen it.
That is why I think it's a bad review; not his opinion, but the fact that he seems to so horribly miscommunicate his overall view (an OK film) by ranting so loud and long on the parts he didn't like. To be honest, skip the last 30 seconds, and I'd have thought he gave it a 2 out of 10 max...
Personal anicdote - I am a big time Tolkien geek (admit your inner geek, and embrace it). Coworker is likewise quite the Tolkien fan. We both had gone on Opening night to see Fellowship of the Ring. During lunch the next day, we talked about all the things they left out, changes made, and why we didn't like those. Someone in the break area said, at the end of lunch "So you hated the movie?" When we replied "No, we really liked it a lot" they replied "But you just spent an hour listing everything you hated about it..."
Thus my main issue with this review; the first part was a 'before' bit saying how he was totally prepared to hate this movie. The large majority of the second part was spent detailing everything he hated about it.
In doing so, he drowned out his own message that it wasn't a total bomb. If you think they got 60% right, and spend all your time complaining about the other 40%, you lead people to form the conclusion "Wow, he really hated that"... and having said so much, when you try and throw out something that seems to contradict most of your message (I'll give it a 6 out of 10), the easiest thing for a viewer to do to reconcile the conflict is disregard the smallest part possible. That would be the bit at the end where MB says 6 out 10.
So, I think that, while MB may have thought the movie OK but not great, he's managed to convince everyone he'd prefer to burn the print than admit he'd seen it.
That is why I think it's a bad review; not his opinion, but the fact that he seems to so horribly miscommunicate his overall view (an OK film) by ranting so loud and long on the parts he didn't like. To be honest, skip the last 30 seconds, and I'd have thought he gave it a 2 out of 10 max...
Yahtzee: "Fans are clinging complaining dipshits who will never EVER be grateful for any concession you make"
Thanks, MovieBob for single-handedly proving how completely RIGHT Yahtzee is.
Just because it's not the Star Trek movie YOU wanted to see doesn't mean it's a bad movie. The movie was great. As someone who has never liked the other Star Treks, I thought it was a fun, action-filled ride, which is all it was supposed to be.
The filmmakers didn't set out making this movie so that it would win academy awards and tug at the heartstrings of stuffy film critics. They did it so that they could take an otherwise dead saga and give it new life and make it enjoyable, which they did with great results.
And it doesn't matter what you, or I, or anybody else thinks about the movie, because it's raking in cash either way whether you think it should or not.
(Oh yeah. No offense, but no matter how hard you try, you won't be as funny, as popular, or as intelligent as Yahtzee, so stop trying to rip his fast-paced brutally honest style of Internet humor. He knows how to do it like nobody else can, so it's pointless to try)
Thanks, MovieBob for single-handedly proving how completely RIGHT Yahtzee is.
Just because it's not the Star Trek movie YOU wanted to see doesn't mean it's a bad movie. The movie was great. As someone who has never liked the other Star Treks, I thought it was a fun, action-filled ride, which is all it was supposed to be.
The filmmakers didn't set out making this movie so that it would win academy awards and tug at the heartstrings of stuffy film critics. They did it so that they could take an otherwise dead saga and give it new life and make it enjoyable, which they did with great results.
And it doesn't matter what you, or I, or anybody else thinks about the movie, because it's raking in cash either way whether you think it should or not.
(Oh yeah. No offense, but no matter how hard you try, you won't be as funny, as popular, or as intelligent as Yahtzee, so stop trying to rip his fast-paced brutally honest style of Internet humor. He knows how to do it like nobody else can, so it's pointless to try)
Speaking in my own defense: The thing is, the "liked" category in this case isn't really jam-packed with stuff that lends itself to longform dissortation. The things I can unequivocally praise in it's favor are, in order: It LOOKS great, two of the actors REALLY bring it and it's well-directed. Two of those things you already know from the trailers, and even though the FX are top-shelf they aren't really worth "writing home" about... it's not like Jurassic Park or Matrix where the FX are good AND it's stuff you've never seen that permanently changes the visual landscape of filmmaking. It's pretty, but it's nothing new. "The effects are good" pretty-much covers it.Oldcastle said:
On the other hand, the "disliked" category is mostly stuff you kinda have to elaborate on: Script is REALLY bad, main story is badly-structured, female lead thinly-sketched and uninteresting, male lead is a block of wood, etc.
Fair enough. If most of your talking points are "bad things", and you really can't say a lot about the good parts, it does put you in a difficult spot. It's a damned if you do or damned if you don't situation. I never said people were being rational about drawing the conclusion; just that they were.MovieBob said:
OK... The Female lead not having much may be a valid point. But, in the original series, she didn't really have much. People talk about the historic nature of the part, but forget that Nichols was ready to quit at the end of the first season because most of her dialog was "Hailing Frequencies Open, Sir". She has said the only reason she didn't was that MLK Jr. asked her to stay on, because just seeing a black female office on the bridge was inspiring.MovieBob said:
So, sadly, in that manner, not much has changed.
You know it was actually a good film for me, althought he was dead on with his critism of transformers for me (even riftrax couldn't save it) and there was a few issues with it.
1. the enterprise herself, the neck needs to be further forward , it looks more like it was designed for bobsleding in its current condition and the engines and there plyons need to be moved a little further forward and abit more outward like on the original and the ship would be perfect.
2. tone down checkovs accent, I know hes actually speaking russian but god that accent is annoying, I could barely understand a word out of his mouth
3. the sets, the engine room looked like a plummers nightmare, and why does half the ship look like an industrial complex with white hallways full of tubing everywhere?
I would have liked it better if some of the hallways resembeled the ones off the enterprise from star trek 2, battlship like with space tight doors for hull breaches and piping in places that made sense, like a cross between the old engine room from the original series with the one from st2 would have made much more sense, it just seemed like half the ship sets we're lifted from battlestar galatica
4 the spock/ uhura thing: if it wasn't for the kissing, and abit more conversation between the two that showed of it smiliarites I think it would have worked.
5. tone down kirks sexual drive, seemed like all he was obsesed with was sex, and the boob grab was just stupid.
if they had made it more about him being obsesed with starfleet and why she was going in it the thing in the bar would have worked without it seeming like he was sexual harrasing her.
you know like "lingustics?! then why the hell are you going into starfleet your just wasting your time there and you'll get yourself killed out there in the middle of nowhere for no reason"
and made it seem like he liked her more as a person rather than her body, you know a sparring partners rather than an object of desire like dianna and tom in "waiting for god" sort of like bones and spock in the original series, they always loved to have verbal fights.
but as is it was a great film I liked it better than all the tng films, althought I still thing st2 was the best but this is a close second behind 3,4 and 6.
1. the enterprise herself, the neck needs to be further forward , it looks more like it was designed for bobsleding in its current condition and the engines and there plyons need to be moved a little further forward and abit more outward like on the original and the ship would be perfect.
2. tone down checkovs accent, I know hes actually speaking russian but god that accent is annoying, I could barely understand a word out of his mouth
3. the sets, the engine room looked like a plummers nightmare, and why does half the ship look like an industrial complex with white hallways full of tubing everywhere?
I would have liked it better if some of the hallways resembeled the ones off the enterprise from star trek 2, battlship like with space tight doors for hull breaches and piping in places that made sense, like a cross between the old engine room from the original series with the one from st2 would have made much more sense, it just seemed like half the ship sets we're lifted from battlestar galatica
4 the spock/ uhura thing: if it wasn't for the kissing, and abit more conversation between the two that showed of it smiliarites I think it would have worked.
5. tone down kirks sexual drive, seemed like all he was obsesed with was sex, and the boob grab was just stupid.
if they had made it more about him being obsesed with starfleet and why she was going in it the thing in the bar would have worked without it seeming like he was sexual harrasing her.
you know like "lingustics?! then why the hell are you going into starfleet your just wasting your time there and you'll get yourself killed out there in the middle of nowhere for no reason"
and made it seem like he liked her more as a person rather than her body, you know a sparring partners rather than an object of desire like dianna and tom in "waiting for god" sort of like bones and spock in the original series, they always loved to have verbal fights.
but as is it was a great film I liked it better than all the tng films, althought I still thing st2 was the best but this is a close second behind 3,4 and 6.
I would class myself as one of the masses that this film is trying to entertain.. and i really enjoyed this film 10/10.
It was funny in parts, full of action, well paced and it explained itself.
While i disagree with MB about a lot of things, i do agree that the script wasnt amazing, however this film didnt need an amazing script. If its aim was to entertain 'trekkies' then it had mixxed reviews as far as i can see. Some were happy to see there loved old series given a new boost, however the really hardcore people who have learned to speak klingon will not have liked it...
I watched the film last night and have spent the morning watching old star trek videos online... and MY GOD.. that is some of the most boring dialoge and acting i have ever seen...
Seriously, how did people get hooked onto that?? the script was dry, the acting poor, the visual effects were worse than the orriginal star wars which did well with the technology of the time. There was too much time spent sitting around chatting..
And what you said about ahora is wrong... in the old star treks she appeared to do nothing... would ocasionally say something but never of importance.. saying she was a role model and inspiration to women is wrong, she showed what women of the time were thought of as..
Sorry if it seems i;ve gone on..
But i respect MBs opinion.. and feel he is clearly a frustrated trekkie who would like a boring film with amazing script and deep emotional charachters rather than to be entertained.
If i wanted to be bored i would attend my Quantum Mechanics Lectures instead of writing this.. but if the film was as i feel you and many trekkies would want it.. it would not sell and normal people would never see it.
p.s
MB i do feel your reviewing style is similar to that of yatzees but done in a worse manner. Not as funny or clever.
Sorry if this seemed a personal digg at you, but your review style and content annoyed me.
It was funny in parts, full of action, well paced and it explained itself.
While i disagree with MB about a lot of things, i do agree that the script wasnt amazing, however this film didnt need an amazing script. If its aim was to entertain 'trekkies' then it had mixxed reviews as far as i can see. Some were happy to see there loved old series given a new boost, however the really hardcore people who have learned to speak klingon will not have liked it...
I watched the film last night and have spent the morning watching old star trek videos online... and MY GOD.. that is some of the most boring dialoge and acting i have ever seen...
Seriously, how did people get hooked onto that?? the script was dry, the acting poor, the visual effects were worse than the orriginal star wars which did well with the technology of the time. There was too much time spent sitting around chatting..
And what you said about ahora is wrong... in the old star treks she appeared to do nothing... would ocasionally say something but never of importance.. saying she was a role model and inspiration to women is wrong, she showed what women of the time were thought of as..
Sorry if it seems i;ve gone on..
But i respect MBs opinion.. and feel he is clearly a frustrated trekkie who would like a boring film with amazing script and deep emotional charachters rather than to be entertained.
If i wanted to be bored i would attend my Quantum Mechanics Lectures instead of writing this.. but if the film was as i feel you and many trekkies would want it.. it would not sell and normal people would never see it.
p.s
MB i do feel your reviewing style is similar to that of yatzees but done in a worse manner. Not as funny or clever.
Sorry if this seemed a personal digg at you, but your review style and content annoyed me.
First off,
To qoute: "The worst film of the decade"
-about the film "Transformers"
Surely someone remembers some craptastic film like, I don't know...Catwoman with Halle Berry? Nuff said.
Okay, I'm agreeing with Baby Tea here, you can't expect every single type of film to be a masterpiece especially when it's branded. In the world of Hollywood movies, movies that can cost HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of DOLLARS to make your not gonna want to make out just to please the fans. You are going to wanna make appeal to the entire general audience. Take for instance Transformers, Only the fans know what all the Transformers are or who the Fallen are or how many constructicons it takes to make Devastator (7) most other people don't. So if your going to make exspensive and appealing you can't make it out for the fans alone, TRansformers don't need to look like cardboard boxes glued togehter to make a body and Star Trek doesn't need to look like it was made IN THE 60's!
And one more thing bout Transformers, I like it, sure the acting was sub-par, but the only reasons people went to see it was becasue it was an awesome action flick. Personally I went to see cause I wanted to see my favorite cartoon/comic book series be brought to the big screen and made to look awesome. Also to see Megan Fox her name suits her she is hot!
Sorry for the long rant and oh yeah, MovieBob...don't cuss so much in your reviews. It's hard to take you seriously when you sound like you have an extremely limited vocabulary.
To qoute: "The worst film of the decade"
-about the film "Transformers"
Surely someone remembers some craptastic film like, I don't know...Catwoman with Halle Berry? Nuff said.
Okay, I'm agreeing with Baby Tea here, you can't expect every single type of film to be a masterpiece especially when it's branded. In the world of Hollywood movies, movies that can cost HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of DOLLARS to make your not gonna want to make out just to please the fans. You are going to wanna make appeal to the entire general audience. Take for instance Transformers, Only the fans know what all the Transformers are or who the Fallen are or how many constructicons it takes to make Devastator (7) most other people don't. So if your going to make exspensive and appealing you can't make it out for the fans alone, TRansformers don't need to look like cardboard boxes glued togehter to make a body and Star Trek doesn't need to look like it was made IN THE 60's!
And one more thing bout Transformers, I like it, sure the acting was sub-par, but the only reasons people went to see it was becasue it was an awesome action flick. Personally I went to see cause I wanted to see my favorite cartoon/comic book series be brought to the big screen and made to look awesome. Also to see Megan Fox her name suits her she is hot!
Sorry for the long rant and oh yeah, MovieBob...don't cuss so much in your reviews. It's hard to take you seriously when you sound like you have an extremely limited vocabulary.
Ok, this is the 1st time that I've seen MovieBob. However, in conjunction with what movieBob said, and what my friends have said after seeing it. This movie isn't (obviously) for the "hard core" Classic/Next Gen fans. I'm not going to see it as I'm one of them, and I might watch it if it comes out on satellite (ok, not if, but when).
From what I heard, aside from what MovieBob has said I don't like it since it basically re-writes the history and (from what I've seen) smacks the original fanbase around a little. And (again from what I've seen) it's about the bling in this movie, which the original and next gen was NEVER about.
Pantherman
From what I heard, aside from what MovieBob has said I don't like it since it basically re-writes the history and (from what I've seen) smacks the original fanbase around a little. And (again from what I've seen) it's about the bling in this movie, which the original and next gen was NEVER about.
Pantherman
Sad to say but the 50 years of Star Trek
The fan film "Of Gods and Men" made more sense than this.
To be fair the erasure started with the prequel series Enterprise which thanks to its "Temporal Cold War" plot hosed what little continuity existed in the Star Trek Universe. This movie sadly follows that trend and makes things worse in that it doesn't explain how the main villain would avoid the Grandfather's Paradox.Rogue 09 said:
The fan film "Of Gods and Men" made more sense than this.
