Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 33,429 (Showing 51-75)

Next ►◄ PreviousPage 3 of 1,338
Set Bookmark
Del_Duio
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 6:07pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Just watched ST2009 and this back to back in preparation for Beyond tomorrow.

Even with its flaws, this is a pretty good movie IMO. It had been a while, but even the whole hands to the glass thing wasn't nearly as cheesy as I had remembered it before. I guess I was too stunned that they actually had to balls to steal this classic scene and it took a few years for me to get over it haha.
Set Bookmark
Louis
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 5:57pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Woohoo! Congrats on finally posting it, Jammer!

Even handed, balanced, nuanced, and well-written (if a bit long), sir. Thanks!
Set Bookmark
Yanks
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 5:49pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Jammer,

Is there a link to the other thread that had everyone's reviews/discussion?

If there is, I can't see it.

Thanks
Set Bookmark
MidshipmanNorris
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 3:35pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Indeed...

Telling the truth, my exact words on the line "My name is Khan" were silently mouthed, so as not to disturb movie patrons who might be enjoying the film...

"Oh come on."

But it's a solid movie, I think...not the greatest there ever was, but certainly not the shit show that Star Trek V was.
Set Bookmark
jim360
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 3:15pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Wars: Episode VII — The Force Awakens

There are some valid criticisms about this film, but Daisy Ridley having a British accent is hardly one of them... Also, wasn't there a scene where Kylo Ren and Snokes actually discussed her unique talents? Before the "bring ... her ... to ... me" line?

I've seen this one four times now, including three cinema viewings -- a record for any film, so I did like it. When I saw it on DVD it felt a bit flatter, though. Perhaps it was the smaller screen; perhaps the already-derivative plot was wearing even more thin. But there are too many things to like about this movie, I think. Rey is awesome -- perhaps in a too perfect way, I can see that, but for some reason I genuinely don't care. There's something endearing about her. I could put this down to Ridley's fine work, or maybe like Finn I'm too enamored to see the flaws in her relative lack of them. That scene where she was able to save herself from the attackers early on, as FInn was running to save her, was brilliant I thought. And why not? It's the perfect counter to Leia's relative passiveness in A New Hope, where to be sure she stands up tall to Vader but otherwise falls quickly when attacked and spends a lot of the time in a cell or otherwise powerless while the men do all the hard work. What that means for TFA and feminism is anyone's guess but I seriously enjoyed watching it -- although as a counter to her all-round badassery in this film it seems clear that she has to come off worse in the next confrontation with evil.

I think her complexity, though, will come from discovering who she is and where she comes from, and that is useful because Luke already did the "flawed hero" thing in this story, so it serves to differentiate the two. Prior to the famous line in Episode V, Luke's background was a relative non-issue (indeed if I remember correct, it wasn't established that Vader was Luke's father until after ANH anyway) so it's a different way of developing a character. I hope it's not too predictably resolved -- although on the other hand as Star Wars was initially meant to be a story about the Skywalker family (and not Qui-Gon...), it's hard to see her being anything other than a Skywalker.

I also loved Kylo Ren, and think he's one of the finer villains I've seen. Oh, hes not intimidating as Vader is for sure, but then isn't that the point? He's intimidating in a different way as he's totally unpredictable and out of control. I suppose there's an allegory to be drawn with the different nature of modern societal "villains", essentially randomers who draw on the experience of the far more sophisticated and, while never in total control, still end up being deadly. I enjoyed him all the same, his "wannabe badass" nature played off well. Again, this is kind of the point -- when he removes that mask you aren't supposed to be intimidated; perhaps even, feel a little sorry for someone obviously so young nevertheless being so evil.

I also liked Finn, although his set-up is rather too rushed and I don't think the film does enough to explain what drove him to reject years of mental conditioning. But he seemed well-intentioned and also had some decent comic material. Well, it made me laugh anyway.

The only real weakness of the film -- aside from that monster-in-the-tunnels scene that I think should have gone for a more nuanced introduction of Han Solo -- is the plot, of course. Too derivative. They sort of try and get out of this by even openly admitting it: "oh, just like the last [two!] Death Star[s] then?", but StarKiller Base goes down too easily anyway, and it would have been better for it to either have still survived the film if it had to be included at all. On the other hand, I think some of the character dynamics make it a better film in some ways than A New Hope was. They end up being paced very similarly, and TFA is (unavoidably) more convincingly connected to its world's past than ANH was.

Since ANH came first it remains the better film in the end, but I would rate TFA higher than the prequels and possibly on a par with, or even slightly better than, ROTJ. Although that would appear to depend on whether I'm judging it by my second viewing of it or my fourth one. Better than the prequels, anyway, that could have been awesome but were poorly executed.





Set Bookmark
NCC-1701-Z
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 12:52pm (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

They haven't actually said when in the prime timeline Star Trek Discovery will be set in to my knowledge, just that it will be in the prime timeline, not the Abrams timeline (yay!). Does anyone have any documentation on when they said it will be set between TOS and TNG, besides the original unconfirmed rumor?

I'm going to suspend judgement until the first full trailer comes out, but I'm not too sold on the ship design. There's a reason the original concept art was rejected, put it that way.
Set Bookmark
Latex Zebra
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 12:05pm (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

They wanted to show something but the CGI is computer game level stuff. I'm not thinking this will be any kind of representation of what the series will really look like. It's like a proof of concept.

I'm hoping for set after Voyager/Dominion War rather than a midquel. I have faith though, they have some of the great names of Trek involved in this.
Set Bookmark
Alex (in the UK)
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 11:31am (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

I was hoping the version of the video I saw was a spoof - Klingon-like Starfleet ship in an asteroid with terrible (as in obvious) CGI. From comments here I guess not. Oh dear.
Set Bookmark
Peremensoe
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 11:08am (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

I'm glad it's Prime Universe. I'm glad it's in an earlier time-period (whatever flaws Enterprise had, they weren't *because* it was a prequel).

The ship design is odd, but we still haven't seen anything important about the series on-screen. No real clues about themes, characters, or writing.

I shall remain optimistic and excited for new Trek.
Set Bookmark
Dom
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 11:04am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@MidshipmanNorris, you have a good point about fans sometimes being too picky. However, I think there are still movies that manage to impress. Interstellar, Mad Max, Ex Machina, Dawn of Planet of the Apes, just to mention a few in recent years that received pretty universal acclaim. Yes, it's possible that as we get older we also become pickier, but there are plenty of examples of movies out there that manage to meet our higher standards. So I don't think that's a sufficient excuse for the type of bad writing in a movie like STID.
Set Bookmark
R.
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 10:59am (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

I'm pretty disheartened by what I've seen so far. The ship design didn't exactly grab me (even the NX-01 had a nice symmetry to it) but this will be the third prequel we've gotten since 2001. It would have been nice if they could have moved beyond the 24th century into uncharted territory. Instead it looks like we're going back again. I expected something a little more daring from Bryan Fuller. :/
Set Bookmark
MidshipmanNorris
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 9:48am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

...Is this real life? Have I just read Jammer's STID review?

And he says it's good???

...There is a lot wrong with the movie, but my main gist of conversation back when was that we, as a fanbase, have learned how to pick apart a Hollywood Movie since we started watching Star Trek with our parents as children. :)

Of course we're going to notice the seams eventually.
Set Bookmark
Latex Zebra
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 8:59am (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

Notice Klingon style musical motifs in the last part of the trailer.
Thinking the Klingons have joined the Federation and this is the first of a joint design Star Fleet ship.
Set Bookmark
james alexander
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 8:12am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

being a bit fussy, but is it possible for a performance to be "too strong"?

I remember seeing it and getting the impression that Benedict was completely overwhelming the rest of the cast. it isn't something that I can easily explain though.
Set Bookmark
KuberShark
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 6:49am (UTC -5)
Re: TOS S3: Turnabout Intruder

I can see how female reviewers would cringe at this episode - and all reviewers for that matter from a 21st century perspective. Imagining though just for a second that the opponent was male (i.e. eliminating the gender issues) I think this one of the best episodes in that it posits relocating souls from one body to another - a concept which has some traction now in alt-media. Again ST light-years ahead of main stream. Then supposing you are stuck in someone else's body how do you free yourself? How do you convince others when we are all conditioned to accept identity from outward appearance? ps. LOL @ scene chewing!
Set Bookmark
Paul M.
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 5:58am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Now if we can get ST:B review in a week or so... :)

I bashed ST:ID in the previous thread, so I have no intention of repeating my points again. Let me just say that I was thoroughly disappointed with this standard summer blockbuster punch-in-the-face-solves-all-your-ills fare.

I'd give it 2 stars.

(To put things in perspective, I'd rate ST 2009 2.5 stars, and ST Beyond solid 3 stars.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 12:52am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

3 stars seems about right.

The one thing that still bothers me to this day is having the writers backpedal on Kirk's death. it's not even the matter of the magic blood as a plot device. I can buy that.

It's that they brought him back at all.

Kirk's death is a beauifully handled scene. It made a direct statement to viewers: don't expect anyone to be safe in this timeline. Kirk didn't feel he had a place in this ship or being in command. He made the choice of self-sacrifice and ended it in his terms, facing the fear of death head-on. This was Kirk at his most vulnerable. Probably the character's most naked scene since losing his son in ST3.

It also defined the Kirk/Spock relationship in a whole different light. Back in Wrath of Khan, they've had decades of fulfilling friendship and trust to fall back as they parted ways. In this film, we get to see Spock losing control of his emotions as he realizes the depth of a potential new friendship that would never ever be truly fulfilled.




Then McCoy brought him back, all in the interest of a hollywood "happy ending" and the need to maintain the franchise. Honestly, I can't even blame the writers. Hollywood executives and marketing "specialists" are to blame here. You want your franchise to remain interesting? Take risks.




My only other problem, as pointed out, is named Admiral Marcus. Like Section 31, it's too easy to put all of Starfleet's problems in a single basket. Weller managed to give us a character way less interesting than the one seen on Enterprise's fourth season. I'll take the Enterprise story arcs created by Manny Coto and Brannon Braga any day over Abrams and Orci's tentpole blockbuster sensibility. These films have their place in the franchise. And they work on a visceral level. But needless to say, I'm definitely more interested in Bryan Fuller's take on the new Star Trek: Discovery.
Set Bookmark
Jixs
Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 10:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S7: Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang

Hated this episode with one exception! Listening to Avery Brooks beautiful voice when singing at the end!
Set Bookmark
Del_Duio
Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 10:23pm (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

Ugh.

I make computer games and have been an artist most of my life. I don't think I'd ever try to slap a friggin' triangle on a round saucer like they did with the Discovery. It just looks so shitty to me, but if this is for some hybrid Federation / Klingon crew I might get used to it. This would also explain why that teaser trailer had said "New Crews" before: I thought that meant it was an anthology series, but it could very well be a combined crew a'la Voyager's Feds and Marquis. Oh no, don't look to VOY for inspiration, guys!

Regardless of this, I am much less a fan of the CGI they're using. Honestly guys, it looks worse and more fake than ENT. It looks much worse than early season episodes of DS9.. Made with presumably much less of a budget and more than 20 years ago! I know everybody is quick to say "it's an early prototype release footage!" but they made a big deal about something getting shown at the CC, and it shouldn't look like something a 7th grader in his bedroom could whip up in a night.

If ever there was an argument to bring back practical effects and ship models, god damn it this is it right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqm9HSYbf0o




It also looks like this isn't going to be set after DS9 and VOY, which is also disappointing. I thought they learned their lesson with ENT in that Trek shouldn't look backwards, but forwards.
Set Bookmark
Del_Duio
Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 10:05pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Though I did enjoy Into Darkness and ST2009 I just really felt that they went way "beyond" a nice homage to Wrath of Khan and cheapened the original movie. Then Spock yells "KHAAAAANN!!" I almost laughed at this in the theater. I was almost embarrassed. That's not supposed to happen!

I'm willing to forgive the magic blood. I'm wiling to ignore how they completely changed the way 'KRONOS' is spelled. And I'll look past how transporters can now beam people halfway across the galaxy when normally they can't even get though a ship's shields at 5%...

I'm super enthusiastic about Beyond, and will be seeing it Monday. I hope we can get this puppy back on track! Or is that Trek?
Set Bookmark
NCC-1701-Z
Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 10:04pm (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

The Phase II concept art in question. You can see the visual similarities between this and the trailer:

geektyrant.com/news/2010/12/31/concept-art-and-story-details-for-unproduced-1976-star-trek.html

I'm not so sure I'm a fan of the ship design...
Set Bookmark
NCC-1701-Z
Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 10:01pm (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

News drop on Star Trek Discovery, as the up-till-now-nameless 2017 series is called, and there's a trailer featuring the ship:

www.cnet.com/news/star-trek-discovery-is-name-of-new-trek-series-featuring-a-new-ship-the-uss-discovery/

It reminds me of some concept art I saw for the cancelled Star Trek Phase II series (not the James Cawley fan series) which later became ST The Motion Picture - especially the spacedock carved into the asteroid.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 7:12pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Thanks, Jammer, for confirming my prediction that you would give this film three stars, but I have to say, this has to be the most negative three-star review I think I've ever read; it comes across more as an act of forgiveness than enthusiasm.

Still, I'm glad you finally got the thing done, and all in all, I think most of your points are well taken. If I had given myself as much time to vacillate as you did, I might very well have done the same.
Set Bookmark
Panagiotis Karatasios
Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 5:27pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

With all due respect jammer if you give this movie 3 stars i doubt that will agree in much of anything.
Set Bookmark
Alex (in the UK)
Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 5:19pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I had a feeling the review might have been posted today.

Like others I can understand the mostly positive review given to this film by Jammer, but disagree with it personally. That said, a very interesting review with some points I have not seen made by anyone else. Food for thought.
Next ►◄ PreviousPage 3 of 1,338
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2016 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.