Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 50 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 2
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Thu, Jan 12, 2017, 3:20pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S7: The Void

Well, only my second post and I really enjoyed this episode, it shows the spirit of cooperation, had some good dialogue and it has been said before aliens not speaking through the translator, but the translator could have done this once the basic understanding of the language had been established, but that would have not been as effective.
And this goes to the whole point for me of watching Sci-Fi, it's about the suspension of disbelief and how far YOU think it can go before it becomes ultimately ridiculous.
I smile at the different t opinions on this, and mostly with the time travel episodes.

Athough I do tend to agree the Voyager failed on some very simple levels, but I'm a sucker for anything S.T.

My other favourite observation is the constant, communism v capitalism. Or right and left wing observations. G.R. was I belive an Athiest, multiculturalist and wanted to portray a society where war, poverty and famine had been eradicated which seems quite a socialist attitude that prevails through all the spin offs from TOST.

It also very amusing when peoples description of what communism is, and quite angrily incorrectly described, and the Soviet perverted version is touted. BTW I'm NOT saying communism in its purest form would ever work but the concept isn't 'bad' and it doesn't crush free enterprise or entrepreneurs.
I assume most of the posters are from the US, where the understanding of government assisted healthcare is berated for being some socialist disease that capitalism holds the cure for.
It seems we are far from the Star Trek future, because I'm not quite sure how Trump would fit in!

Anyway it was nice to see Janway have some relationship with a 'solid' and still a shame the she and her second officer (not risking not being able to spell his bloody name on this site) didn't get together, however cheesy it would or could have been.
Set Bookmark
Matthew Lindner
Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 10:00pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S4: Nemesis

I'm surprised anyone can give this more than 2 stars. It's legendarily bad. Especially compared to the previous episode which was rather good at 3 to 3.5 stars.
Set Bookmark
Matthew Lindner
Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 7:37am (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S3: Real Life

I have to say that the new family Doc get's is rather as entirely fake as his first "cardboard" family. Real families don't have kids that nutcase rebellious nor parents that at odds with each other. It's a sit-com family made for drama, not a realistic family that actually like each other. Not like any real family I've ever seen nor heard of. It's rather frustrating.
Set Bookmark
matthew martin
Fri, Jul 29, 2016, 11:47pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

Haha, this is hilarious.

Really likes Into Darkness, doesn't like Beyond.

Lol I don't even..
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 11:57pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

I really liked it. I liked the 2009 movie and hated STID. But I thought this one was better than 2009, really fixing a lot of the pacing problems the JJ movies had.

The best thing I can say for it is that it felt more like Trek than the previous two. It really did have a “big budget episode of TOS” feel to it, just like they promised. It wasn’t very cerebral and it didn’t really explore the human condition, but the original show rarely ever did that either. For every episode like City on the Edge of Forever or A Taste of Armageddon, there were ten episodes like The Arena and Amok Time. Those are classic episodes; they just aren’t the kind of contemplative, cerebral episodes that The Next Generation would make the norm (and which I grew up watching as my first taste of Star Trek).

This movie isn’t based on The Next Generation, though, so I’m fine with them doing a fun “away mission” type movie. It captured the spirit of adventure the original show often had, while dialing back some of the pacing problems (and script issues) that JJ’s movies stumbled with.

There are issues that still bother me, but after three films, and two different writer/directors I’ve come to accept that “this is Star Trek” now and that it’s different than what I knew to be Star Trek for so many years.

full review here:

https://www.cultofwhatever.com/2016/07/star-trek-beyond-review-the-search-for-classic-trek/
Set Bookmark
Matthew (a different one)
Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 4:33pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I appreciate the review, but it seems to rationalize or overlook some of the film's problems by writing it off as summer blockbuster.

The magic blood, the torpedo switcheroo plot device, the fact that characters just do things because the plot needs them to (Why exactly did Kirk decide to capture Khan instead of killing him? He was all for killing him, against the wishes of his crew, until suddenly he wasn't. Why was Spock so emotionally invested in Kirk, they've done almost nothing but fight for two movies).

This kind of sloppiness is pretty common in summer blockbusters like Transformers (of which this film shares its screenwriters), but it is uncharacteristic of Star Trek.
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 11:33am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness



As we celebrate fifty years of Star Trek, CultofWhatever is looking back on each of the shows and film franchises that defined the Final Frontier.

We’ve talked about the Original Series and how, when it was great, it embraced the sixties social revolution. On the other hand, when the Original Series stumbled, it slipped into every silly cliche that doomed science-fiction from that era. The Next Generation took a little bit to find its mojo, but when it did it managed to surpass the original by expanding the franchise’s horizons. Deep Space Nine followed soon after, and though it was the red-headed step-child of the brand, it dared to be different and was rewarded with loyal fans, many of whom regard it as the best of the bunch. Meanwhile, Star Trek Voyager tried to be “more TNG” but ended up being “lesser TNG.” Finally there’s (Star Trek) Enterprise, which spent three years failing to live up to its premise (nevermind its legacy) before finally finding its footing…and immediate cancellation.

Halfway through Enterprise’s troubled run on UPN, Paramount decided to bring the crew of the Enterprise-D/E back to the big screen for a fourth feature film. The first, Generations, was a mixed bag with both critics and fans. First Contact followed two years later to mostly glowing reviews and great fan support. After that it was Patrick Stewart who suggested that the third movie should be more easy-breezy, with less pathos and more romp. Two years later, Insurrection premiered as a movie criticized by many for being a glorified two-part TNG episode (and not one of the better ones either). It seemed like a real step backward for the franchise, not only creatively but financially as well. It grossed a little over 100 million on a 50 million dollar budget. For comparison, First Contact grossed about 150 million on a 45 million dollar budget. Though TNG was the gold standard for TV Star Trek (at least among the post-TOS spinoffs), its success on the small screen had not translated to the silver screen. Paramount took four years off before trying again.

After two movies (one of which is among the film-franchise’s best) Johnathan Frakes was out of the directors chair. He took the fall for Insurrection‘s poor performance (despite Stewart’s insistence on a lighter film, and Michael Piller’s disappointing screenplay) and was replaced by Stewart Baird. Baird had previously directed such cinematic gems as US Marshals and Executive Decision. Baird was an admitted Star Trek neophyte but long-time producer Rick Berman insisted this was a value, since he could bring fresh eyes to the struggling franchise (he said this, while continuing to stifle creativity on the TV side of the franchise, but I digress). The screenplay was also taken out of the hands of Star Trek veterans (Michael Pillar, who ran the TNG writers room during its peak years, wrote Insurrection, and Ronald D. Moore & Brannon Braga, who co-wrote many classic TNG scripts, wrote Generations and First Contact): John Logan (fresh off of writing Gladiator‘s acclaimed screenplay) was brought in to pen the script. Logan was an admitted Trek fan but had never written for the franchise or even worked in the science fiction genre (he had yet to write his The Time Machine screenplay). That’s fine though, according to Rick Berman; his newness would bring fresh blah blah blah.

Really the problem was Berman. He was the only decision maker that stretched across a decade of post-Roddenberry Star Trek, with two failed TV shows and three (out of four) failed movies. After throwing Frakes under the bus and after giving Moore/Braga the boot, Berman was the only one left. And then Star Trek: Nemesis was released and it bombed. It was the worst box office performance for a Star Trek film ever. It ended up grossing less than 45 million dollars. It’s opening weekend was a paltry 18 million and that number dropped to a dismal 4 million the following weekend. After that Star Trek was effectively dead. Nemesis‘ terrible performance probably pushed Paramount toward the decision not to renew Enterprise for a fifth season and to let the franchise lie dormant for a while. And with that, the long continuity of Trek which stretched from 1987 until 2005, much of which was overseen by Rick Berman, was finally finished, not with a bang but with a whimper.

star-trek-movie-bts-1

Seven years later, a whole new team was put in charge of bringing the franchise into the modern era. JJ Abrams was originally only going to produce the reboot, but he agreed to direct because he loved the screenplay so much. Though he was an admitted “Star Wars > Star Trek” guy, he has spoken of his love for the Original Series and the dynamic between Kirk and Spock that it showed (he apparently missed that the true heart of the show was the Kirk-Spock-McCoy relationship, with Kirk being guided by two very different friends, one stoic and the other emotional, but I digress).

Paramount’s goal for the new movie was to make Star Trek into a box office franchise. They wanted a series of movies that appealed to action movie fans moreso than science-fiction fans. It was assumed that the diehard Trek fans would come to see the movie regardless; it was “Joe ticketbuyer” that they needed to attract. Abrams, creator of the ABC smash-hit Alias and director of Mission:Impossible 3 was a good choice to do just that.

To say he succeeded would be an understatement. Abram’s two Star Trek films, Star Trek (2009) and Into Darkness, together grossed over 480 million dollars. Star Trek is an almost two-billion dollar film-franchise for Paramount; JJ Abrams has directed half of that. People are going to see these movies.

But at what cost?

Paramount would say everything has worked out for the best. Star Trek is popular again. It’s no longer “just for nerds” or “just for fans” or whatever else people said fifteen years ago. Although if I wanted to be testy I would say Star Trek, when done well, is not “just for” anyone; it’s great for everyone. TNG had incredible ratings, the good Star Trek movies were all big earners at the box office. Star Trek didn’t need a makeover, it just needed competence behind the scenes, some fresh creative minds working through Gene Roddenberry’s original vision, and—after going from TNG to DS9 to Voyager to Enterprise, boom-boom-boom, non-stop, with movies along the way—it needed a break. When it came back in 2009, the franchise had been given its break. All it needed was for a new team to come in an interpret Gene’s vision for a new generation.

Instead JJ and Paramount decided to water everything down. The movie was successful, but did it need to be done this way to be successful? Paramount will say yes because they have the box office receipts to back them up, but purists will maintain that the franchise just needed a break and a return to form. The debate continues as the third movie in the rebooted series is released and if there’s a fourth movie featuring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and the rest, the debate will continue to rage between new fans and old.

Personally I enjoyed the first JJ-Trek film. It was fun, much more fun than the pitiful Nemesis or the stupid Insurrection. It lacked the theatricality of First Contact, but that was entirely by design. The movie had a very specific agenda and it accomplished it very well. Was it shallow? Yes. Was it convoluted in spots? Yes. Were there moments of scientific illogic that would make anyone who gave it two seconds’ thought lose their mind (Spock sees Vulcan—which looked bigger than our moon from the earth—be destroyed…from Delta Vega!)? Yes. But JJ wasn’t into making a thinking man’s Star Trek. He was into playing Star Wars with Star Trek action figures.

It was what it was, but it wasn’t bad. It wasn’t very Star Trekey, but it wasn’t a bad movie, which is more than can be said for Star Trek: Nemesis…

…or Star Trek Into Darkness (no colon…except for the one in my gut which wanted to release itself immediately upon seeing it)…

star-trek-itd

STID, as I will henceforth condescendingly refer to it, is an insulting motion picture. There are some wonderful moments, and a few stand-out acting performances. The direction, score, costume design…so much of it is on point. Just looking at it, you’d say “this is a great Star Trek movie!” It’s modern, big-budget, and if I weren’t a fan of the franchise I might have enjoyed myself as it was edited to be a fun little adventure movie.

But I am a Star Trek fan, and as a Star Trek fan STID is the most offensive movie in the series. I know what you’re thinking: Can it actually be worse than the snoozer that was The Motion Picture? Yes it can. TMP was slow, cerebral and contemplative, but at least had a big science fiction premise. I can appreciate that. Can STID actually be worse than the laughably cheap Star Trek V: The Final Frontier? Absolutely it can. Hate on Shatner’s directing all you want, but if nothing else, that movie offered viewers the Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic on the big screen in a way not felt since The Original Series went off the air. It was basically a two-hour episode of TOS (season three) and that’s just fine with me (because it was a fun stupid episode, as opposed to Insurrection, which was just a boring stupid episode). What about Generations, with its convoluted plot, or Insurrection with its neutered action, or Nemsis! How can it actually be worse than Nemesis?! That movie killed The Next Generation! It forced the franchise into hybernation! It betrayed its own continuity!

Alright: We’ll call it a tie.

But in absolutely no way is STID anywhere close to being a good Star Trek film, or even a passable one. Maybe it is to you, but not to me. I have too much “cracky, purist nerd” in me. First of all, the fact that Wrath of Khan is not just the most definitive Star Trek movie, but it is also one of the best movies of 80’s means that Paramount (1) never should have tried to recreate the magic and (2) could not help itself but try to recreate the magic. I get it. It’s business. But if you’re going to make a film that is an homage to a masterpiece (which Wrath of Khan certainly is) then you had better at least have something worthwhile on your own to say, otherwise your work is just going to be criticized as derivative.

And that’s the biggest problem with STID. It’s (insultingly) derivative. It mixes things up here and there, but not in any substantial way. The whole “Cumberbatch isn’t Khan, swearsies!” from JJ Abrams, throughout the filming and pre-release promotion, was moronic. I appreciate that he wanted to surprise us, but along the way it went from a headfake to a flat-out fabrication and once the “reveal” happened in the movie, there was no shock or excitement or anything. If anything it produced a chuckle since everyone knew it going in. Using Khan wasn’t even the problem, however. It was that they used him to retell Wrath of Khan’s major moments in a less satisfying way than in the original. If I want to watch Wrath of Khan I’ll just pop in the blu-ray. I don’t need to see a subpar remake.

What’s worse was the feeling throughout the movie, as though everyone involved really felt like they had a message to tell. The scene where Kirk dies and Spock shouts “Khan!” was filmed uber-serious, but it ended up being a joke because (1) it was just a character-swapped rip off of two major moments in the original film, done better in the original film, and (2) no one took it seriously because it was much more hamfisted than in the original Wrath of Khan film.

STID may have wanted to have a message, but it had none. Wrath of Khan, on the other hand, had a message; all great sci-fi does: It uses the aliens, spaceships, laser beams and what not as window dressing to tell a story about us. Great sci-fi is about something. Wrath of Khan was about something: It explored aging, dying (and the acceptance of the two) and being forced to face up to the sins of the past (after running from them for so long). Kirk is put through the ringer in the movie: First we meet him sulking away as an admiral when he wants to be on adventures commanding a starship. He celebrates his birthday in the midst of a mid-life crisis. Then, an old nemesis of the past returns and—purely by happenstance—runs afoul of an old flame. Along the way he discovers he has a son (the ultimate “past catching up with you” moment) and then loses a best friend.

And unlike in STID, Spock stayed dead. Yes he came back a movie later, but originally there was no “movie later.” That was it. Nimoy was done and his death was to be permanent. Thankfully for us all he had too much fun and came back for more, but at least Wrath of Khan had enough respect for its story to end with one of its heroes really dead for real. Kirk “died” and was back to action in twenty minutes. It was insulting.

Most frustrating of all is the fact that STID hit many of the same story beats as Wrath of Khan but without any of the meat of the story being explored. It was hollow and pointless. It had nothing to say. Wrath of Khan earned the ending with Spock’s death because it was not only built on fifteen years of backstory but also on two hours of thought-provoking drama. STID aped it with Kirk’s death but it hadn’t earned it, not in the timeline of NuTrek and not in the two+ hour runtime that built up to it.

Watching the two back-to-back (and STID basically invites you to do that, so its not unfair to compare them) reveals just how much Wrath of Khan had to say compared to STID, despite being shorter than Abrams’ movie by ten or so minutes.

full comments here:

https://www.cultofwhatever.com/2016/07/jj-abrams-modernized-star-trek-at-great-cost/
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Sat, Jul 2, 2016, 1:03pm (UTC -6)
Re: Independence Day: Resurgence

"...the review practically wrote itself..."

Hehehe, so did the movie.
Set Bookmark
Matthew Thomas
Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 1:00pm (UTC -6)
Re: Trailer: Star Trek Beyond

Another trailer.

Now with even more pop music that will date the movie in 10-15 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep3A-yJ3P3Y
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Wed, Jun 1, 2016, 12:26pm (UTC -6)
Re: Trailer: Star Trek Beyond

@nooffenseintended

Ok, a lot here, I will go point by point then.

1. Sure, some fans probably are enjoying this more than they are admitting, but a great many, like me, are sincere in not liking NuTrek. The Onion thing is funny, and true in a few ways, but also meant for comedy. All the people in it are straw men.

2. Titanic and Avatar don't have fandoms the way Star Trek the franchise does, those films are broad and hate for them is broad (e.g. some people hate Titanic for being popular, some people hate the dialogue, some people just hate that Celine Dion song).

3. Entertaining a mass audience and pleasing Star Trek fans are not mutually exclusive goals. Star Treks II and IV, at a minimum, are proof of that. It's a question of how that's done.

4.Metacritic scores are meaningless. Perceptions of a film's quality can change over time, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. For example, attitudes towards Man of Steel have only gotten worse.

5. It's not a stretch to say that NuTrek isn't Star Trek. The framework for the first film was very obviously taken from Star Wars. The second film was trying to be The Dark Knight. Just because something is branded as Star Trek, doesn't mean it is. Branding is the most superficial part of a media property. Toss out the names and visuals and look at the way the story and themes are presented in Classic Trek vs. NuTrek, they are simply not the same thing.

6. Yes bad episodes and movies exist, even really dumb ones, but they don't outweigh the good, an argument I wouldn't make of NuTrek.

7. As to liking or hating something on the merits, well that's true and it isn't. Is it really unreasonable to judge a film branded as Star Trek, a well established franchise, on both its merits as a film and its merits as compared to the rest of the franchise? I don't think its wrong to expect Star Trek to be Star Trek, and not to be Star Wars. And these aren't mutually exclusive either. I can find a ton of things in NuTrek that aren't Trek-like, but I can also point out a ton of things wrong with them just as films.

8. Never knew that about Meyer. I can kind of see my way to seeing what he means. In comparison to TMP, WoK is middlebrow. But it's been 34 years since WoK, and we're all so used to seeing dreck like Transformers make money. So maybe Meyer's middlebrow is is now highbrow.
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Sun, May 29, 2016, 2:07pm (UTC -6)
Re: Trailer: Star Trek Beyond

@nooffenseintended

I'm not sure I follow your analogy all the way. I do see the irony in Star Trek fans having more hate for the franchise, at least in it's current incarnation, than non-fans. But that in and of itself is unremarkable, lots of Star Wars fans were in a similar position in the mid 00's.

But are you saying that the hate for NuTrek coming from fans is a result of trying to be hip or avoid being unhip? As though there is elitist cache in hating on NuTrek.

Because that seems ludicrous on it's on its face. When was Star Trek ever hip, or even hip to hate on (like a Michael Bay or M. Night film)? And particularly now that it's been remade using the highly marketable Star Wars template, there's absolutely no cache in being "that guy" in the room arguing for more "boring" Star Trek.

It just so happens that this fansite is a place where a good number of "that guys" come from time to time. (And for the record, I got a lot more positive about the new series after they brought Bryan Fuller on.)
Set Bookmark
Matthew Thomas
Sat, May 21, 2016, 12:58pm (UTC -6)
Re: Trailer: Star Trek Beyond

Is it really though? How much of this trailer being better is just the super dramatic Batman v. Superman meets Inception trailer music?

I like how there looks to be a couple scenes where characters are just sitting and talking. And if that one shot was the Enterprise's warp field as it flies through space, that's an awesome visual.

But, Jesus, we're three movies in and Kirk is still moping over his daddy issues and finding himself? Are they just going to keep retreading this character arc until NuKirk becomes a not-terrible captain?
Set Bookmark
Matthew Thomas
Sat, May 21, 2016, 9:38am (UTC -6)
Re: Trailer: Star Trek Beyond

New Star Trek Beyond trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvq3y8BhZ2s
Set Bookmark
Matthew Thomas
Thu, May 19, 2016, 1:38am (UTC -6)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

New teaser trailer for this series. It's supposed to have easter eggs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaVWIVOdUSQ
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 8:21pm (UTC -6)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

The man who wrote/directed my favorite Star Trek movies, and the man who enthralled me for 3 seasons with Hannibal. Working together.

Now I just have to figure out whether God was answering my prayers, or if this is Satan's way of telling me he took my deal and my soul belongs to him now.
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Tue, Feb 9, 2016, 7:38pm (UTC -6)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

@ Pattrick D

The thing is, you kinda have to BE optimistic for a show like that to happen. The 60's and the 90's had their problems, but those were waaaaay better decades for America than the last 15 years have been. Making that kind of Star Trek today, would seem quaint or naive.

I would argue that's why Enterprise got better in seasons 3 and 4, and of course it's why the reimagined BSG was so good, because it better reflects issues of now.

Humanism can be there, and optimism can be there, but it's going to need to be a little more bitter. More episodes like the ends of In the Pale Moonlight and Chain of Command, and less of everyone finding a fair compromise at the end.
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Tue, Feb 9, 2016, 1:21pm (UTC -6)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

@Paul M.

Yeah Hannibal is just amazing and if Fuller brings that kind of creative force to Star Trek I will die happy. Just as long as Kurtzman's hands are kept far, far away from the writing desk.

And it would definitely be fascinating to see a Golden Age of TV style, complicated, serialized Star Trek show. DS9 proved it wasn't totally impossible after all.
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Tue, Feb 9, 2016, 12:46pm (UTC -6)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

Oh my god, Bryan Fuller is going to be the showrunner for this show. It might have a chance in hell of being good now. Maybe Kurtzman being attached can just be a vanity credit and we can get some real Star Trek.
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Tue, Jan 26, 2016, 6:56pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Wars: Episode VI — Return of the Jedi

I love C-3PO's story time. It's a great callback to his line in A New Hope when he said "I'm really not much more than an interpreter, and not very good at telling stories."
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Mon, Dec 14, 2015, 1:51pm (UTC -6)
Re: Trailer: Star Trek Beyond

That's probably a good idea. People will need a place for their speculation and....well, let's be honest. People will need a receptacle for their hate.
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Mon, Dec 14, 2015, 1:04pm (UTC -6)
Re: Trailer: Star Trek Beyond

"All I can say is, 'I have a bad feeling about this.'"

Understatement of the year.
Set Bookmark
MatthewAlex637
Sun, Jul 20, 2014, 9:52am (UTC -6)
Re: BSG S3: Maelstrom

This was the first episode where I cared about Kara/was interested in an episode revolving around her. Brought me to tears at the end.
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 6:31am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: The Motion Picture

@Rhyan W thank you for proving me right.

What you've just said is exactly what I was talking about in my comment. My problem isn't that people like this movie it's that fans have this terrible attitude that anyone who doesn't like the movie is being anti-intellectual.

There is nothing intellectual about this movie and that's not just me saying that. There is actual PROOF given by people involved in the production that there was no story and that the film was the rushed production disaster you saw on screen.

If you like this movie, that's fine, but when you're ARGUING that it's a great, philosophical work you have to contend with FACTS. There's no great masteriece here, no work of genius. It's a sloppy production disaster.

You like the film, great. But seriously, I don't like your attitude, with all due respect. It's extremely obnoxious and won't endear you to anyone. Just because people worked out this film has no story, no characters and is quite possibly one of the biggest insults to Star Trek fans doesn't mean they're drooling idiots who only like 300 (which is a great movie, by the way, nothing wrong with that, it's just an example of what you're probably thinking).

Additionally, Leonard Nimoy said he hated this movie. Are you saying he suffers ADHD and loves Justin Bieber?
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Fri, Apr 13, 2012, 1:39pm (UTC -6)
Re: VOY S2: Second Season Recap

@Keiren This is about the only thing Jammer got right in his reviews. If what you're saying is the case, then why bother having an interesting premise like Voyager did (yes the premise was interesting before Rick Berman and Jeri Taylor screwed it up).
Set Bookmark
Matthew
Fri, Apr 13, 2012, 1:37pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Oh my God Jammer. Thank you for cementing my opinion that you are one of the worst critics who has achieved success, and thank you to everyone who commented on this for proving what bad attitudes you have.

I have no problem that you liked the movie. If you did, great. What I do have a problem with is that you portray it as some kind of misunderstood masterpiece. WHAT BULLCRAP!

I hate 2001: A Space Odyssey with a passion that's hard to put into words, but Kubrick at least spouted some rubbish about how his film was supposed to be unintelligible, which at least makes the fact it's about something arguable. NOBODY SAID THAT ABOUT THIS MOVIE!!!!!

There are first hand reports from the cast and crew at all levels that this films was the RUSHED, SLOPPY, PRODUCTION DISASTER THAT MADE IT'S WAY ONTO THE SCREEN! DID YOU BOTHER READING BEHIND THE SCENES MATERIAL?!

There is EVIDENCE that this movie is about nothing. So to all you snotty nosed superior fans who tell me that this movie being a masterpiece is inarguable, I can definitively say you're complete jerks and are completely wrong. THIS. IS. CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!
Next ►Page 1 of 2
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2017 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.