Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 94 (Showing 26-50)

Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Thu, Aug 14, 2014, 11:55am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I think the time has come to draw a conclusion.

Reviews don't take THAT much time to write - and even new-found fatherhood couldn't possibly interfere so much with such a simple project.

Truth is that, despite our 750+ posts here, there's nothing abut this film worth writing about except to either lament or (in a few cases) celebrate what Trek has been turned into. I don't believe Jammer is of a mind to celebrate this new incarnation, and I can't say I blame him for not wanting to lament it, either.

You can either love this movie or hate it (as I do) but whatever your view, it's really hard to get around the appearance that Star Trek has been permanently transfigured into an action vehicle. Chances are that that wasn't what drew the young Jamahl Epsicokhan to Trek. It certainly isn't what drew me in.

My point is that his silence speaks volumes more than any of us have.

Happy trails, Jammer.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Thu, Jul 31, 2014, 10:55am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

MSN: It's time to quote you directly:

"STID is bland, unimaginative and Michael Bay-ish."

I couldn't have put it better. TWOK may indeed have all of the flaws you outlined, but it sure doesn't have any of these.

Therein lies the difference between our aesthetics.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 3:29pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@jojo:

Well, disgusting or no, Daphne is hardly the first person to use the rape analogy when it comes to AbramsTrek:

redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09-short-film/
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 12:55am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Inappropriate to what, exactly? Your personal desire for people to like STID? Daphne hated this movie - that happens every now and then. At least she laid out her reasons, and maore importantly, she attacked the film itself, not (**ahem**) anyone who might disagree with her.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 12:24pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Ditto Paul M, Midshipman, but let me congratulate you on your month's sobriety - keep it up, and also for a well constructed argument. You make some good points: I'll fully admit that I'm one of those people who would jump up and down like a five-year-old on his birthday if an art-house Trek film came out. Even if it failed I'd be ecstatic that the attempt was even made. I never counted myself as one among the majority (though it would appear that that's the case here). I simply know what I like.

Sure, the San Francisco apocalypse only takes up a few seconds of the film, but in my view, that's precisely why it doesn't belong there. 9/11 was a real event, with real death and real consequences, and STID is a world with absolutely no concept of consequence. It seemed to me that the only thing Abrams & co were thinking was: "If it's good for the trailer, it's good for the film." I found it kind of insulting, to be honest.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Mon, May 26, 2014, 12:13am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@ Eddington:

Whatever the Space Seed writers claimed Khan's origins were, Sikh or otherwise, the character wound up being a kind of "noble savage" type that you saw quite a lot of in early 1960's television - everything from Gunsmoke and Bonanza to Star Trek and the Lone Ranger.

What ultimately made the character so amazingly memorable was what Nick Meyer and Ricardo Montalban did with this cardboard cutout in its big screen incarnation. For TWOK, Khan was transformed into pure savage - no recognizable ethnicity beyond Montalban's accent. He could have been from anywhere. But wherever he came from, one thing was certain. This guy was truly human - anyone could identify with his anger, and yet still be appalled at the route he took to give his anger expression.

You really should take time to watch TWOK - the story is so straightforward and yet totally engaging. It really is a shining example of the kind of A-plus storytelling that Hollywood seems to have totally forgotten about.

Sorry, but Cumberbatch-Khan did nothing for me. He was just an exposition-spouting pseudo-badass with absolutely no human qualities that I could relate to.

Crap, crap, crap, chase scene, crap. Pretty much sums it up.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Tue, May 20, 2014, 1:23am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

The dude is not incapable of thoughtfulness. I've seen it. If this forum is going to stay lively while we wait for Jammer to post his review, we need someone to debate with. Disagreement is by far the best catalyst for discussion.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Mon, May 19, 2014, 1:41am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

MSN, I guess I'm not quite done with you after all:

Have you never disagreed with a Rotten Tomatoes rating? I doubt it.

Your post (and here it is again in it's entirety:

www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/

90%.

All I'm saying.

...is just that, and only that. It truly is all you're saying. How utterly lazy. If this forum is, as you say, taken over by haters, then I have every right to say that RT has been taken over by a bunch of stupid "lovers," and it's that easy to cancel out each other's points of view.

BUT (and forgive me for yelling this) THAT'S NOT WHAT DEBATE IS ABOUT!!!!

We're repeatedly giving our reasons here for disliking this film, and I can count a total of two argument you've made in your mountain of posts citing what it was you liked about STID.

PLEASE stop being so damned lazy. DEFEND your point about Scotty, or concede Brandin's point. If this were real debate, those would be your only two choices. Citing popular opinion is never going to work, especially if you prefer to think of yourself as an individual, and it seems to me that you really are enjoying this role of "outcast" that you've given yourself.

So gallop ahead, dark horse. Put at least a little bit of effort into these posts of yours, and I guarantee they'll yield fruit.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Sat, May 17, 2014, 10:28am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

1) In Treatment (US version)
2) The Wire
3) Breaking Bad
4) Six Feet Under
5) House of Cards
6) Northern Exposure
7) Mad Men
8) Deadwood
9) Silicon Valley
10) Weeds

For the record, my Trek preferences are:
1) TNG (between 2 and 3 above)
2) TOS (right after TNG)
3) DS9 (somewhere near 8 or 9 above)
4) Voyager (didn't make it on the list)
5) Enterprise (are you kidding?)
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Tue, May 13, 2014, 1:50am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Dem-

I hate to blow the whistle here, but do you really think your topic proposal belongs on this forum? It's super cool and all, but this is supposed to be a Trek discussion by its very definition, and it's really supposed to involve STID, at least marginally. Can you come up with something else?
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Mon, May 12, 2014, 7:58pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

How about this: rank the movies in M's list 1-12 and then average them out within each category. That would give you:

Good: 4 movies @ 2.5 points each

Okay: 2 @ 5.5 each

Boring: 6 @ 9.5 each
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Mon, May 12, 2014, 7:12pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Demosthenes-

I can't help but notice that Matrix's list of movies within each category is not alphabetical. Could this be an indication that Matrix's list is indeed a 1-12 ranking? Oops, nope, they're chronological. Matrix, help us out here...


MSN-

To interpret Brandon's post as BS is a decision you and you alone have made. I vehemently discourage it, as it gets neither you nor anyone else anywhere, but fine, if that's the bed you want to lie in, go for it. But me, I'm done with you.


A final note:

I have another reason for ranking TMP at the top and Trek'09 at the bottom. Back in the late '70s/early '80s, there were two very distinct camps: people who preferred Roddenberry and those who preferred Lucas. Each camp had its radical devotees, but there were plenty of floaters. I would know, since I was one of them. TMP was different from Star Wars in every way Roddenberry could conjure - this was quite deliberate, and even those who complained of the film's slow pace immediately recognized and respected the direction G-Rod wanted to take the franchise.

In this respect you can see why Roddenberry disliked TWOK. Still, that film's focus remained on tight storytelling and developing (in a believable manner) the characters that we had all come to know and love. What Abrams and co. did was to completely rework the franchise to conform with the George Lucas handbook, and by now of course they had six Star Wars movies to rip off, not just one. Enter the endless use of mind-numbing action sequences and lame dialogue bridging them.

What element did they add to give their "reboot" some distinction? Answer: hedonism, revenge-porn, conquest, cynicism. And more aping of other blockbuster formulas.

One example: for all the talk of Shatner-Kirk being a "ladies' man," which he certainly was, the seduction scenes in TOS were generally with Kirk as the seductee, and even when he did act as seducer, it was as part of a plan to serve a greater cause. Seduction in TOS was ALWAYS problematized.

A..J. Abrams: F*** that sh**, this guy needs to have a permanent hard-on, and nothing less will do. Kurtzman, Orci, get on it.

STID is nowhere near the bottom of my list for the simple reason that at least this one issue was somewhat corrected. The others were left begging, to be sure...
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Wed, May 7, 2014, 1:39am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

MSN:

Brandon's remark, as blunt and jerkish as it might be, is not a personal attack against you. He's only giving his opinion of a scene you expressed a liking for, and presenting an argument as to why he dislikes it.

If you feel as though your comment has been "shredded to pieces," you're basically conceding defeat.

You're the one who wanted to sharpen your debating skills, so get back in there and make your case! In spite of what most political pundits would have you think, debate is not something you either win or lose - it's something you engage in as you search for the truth, so engage!

Rethink your argument, get introspective, ask yourself the really hard questions. You can even dare to concede points to your opponents: Brandon, Demosthenes, me, whoever. But here's the point: when you do that, take advantage of it - fire back a rebuttal, hold on to your main point. You have every right to like Star Trek: Into Darkness, SO DEFEND YOURSELF LIKE A MAN!!!

Let me give you an example: Brandon definitely has a point when he remarks that Scotty's exit in act one is an obvious and predictable trope to set him up for an act three return. I saw it coming a mile away. I didn't think it was necessarily "crappy," but sure, utterly predictable. And "kicking ass" was never something I was personally hoping for as far as Scotty was concerned. Is this something you can concede?


Brandon:

Yeah. I'd eat my own hat if Orci and co. haven't thrown that one into the mix as a possibility, but I would also bet that it got shot down. The old guys are just too old, I'm afraid.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Fri, Apr 25, 2014, 12:35pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Well, I don't suppose there's any law making PWI a crime, and I guess if you're going start a drunken brawl, it's better to do so online than at your local pub.

Which reminds me of a joke:

Guy walks into a bar and orders a Bud Classic. Bartender says, "Hey, what are you doing here?"

Guy says, "Paying tribute to Nick Meyer," and punches the bartender in the face.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 1:50am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Norris, I would actually be interested in seeing your list as well, but only if you can avoid the snark-baiting and stick to the topic of the films and what you liked/disliked about them.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 8:59pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

The following list is based on my initial reaction to the films after seeing them for the first time, so take note: this is not a critic's list. I was 12 years old when TMP came out, and its placement at #1 is based on that twelve-year-old's reaction. The only movie I didn't see in the theaters was Final Frontier, which I just now watched on Amazon in order to create this post.

1. Motion Picture - I came out of this movie with STARS in my eyes. I had never been so wonderfully dazzled by a film since Kubrick's 2001.

2. Search for Spock - With the lone exception of Spock's resurrection at the end, this movie surprised me in every way imaginable. Every single one of the seven lead characters was given a surprising new edge, and Spock's resurrection came at a shockingly satisfying cost.

3. Voyage Home - Nimoy was on an absolute roll. What a shame they didn't keep him on for any more directorial projects.

4. Wrath of Khan - The only movie to successfully invoke the campiness TOS was so famous for - and still tell a damn fine story.

5. Undiscovered Country - A good story, but it's perestroika allegory was a bit too trendy for my taste. Still, an entirely enjoyable experience.

6. First Contact - Kind dumb, and had some weird character inconsistencies, but it was okay.

7. Insurrection - Would've made a good TNG episode, but otherwise meh.

8. Generations - Disappointing. Nuff said. Don't know why I liked it, but I kinda did.

9. STID - see above posts.

10. Final Frontier - God, this was bad, but fun too in its own way.

11. Nemesis - A bleak and depressing exploitation film. Insults the intelligence to boot.

12. Star Trek '09 - As much as I've heard people complain that STID is worse, it would never have happened at all had it not been for this god-awful travesty. They could make another 20 films and this one would still be at the bottom of my list.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 9:06pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I have to say, CM's really tearing it up:

www.confusedmatthew.com/star-trek-into-darkness.html

Clearly, there's plenty more to say about this film, so I'm still very much looking forward to Jammer's take.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 11:40pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Indeed - what could Jammer possibly add to this discussion that hasn't already been said? 600 posts now and counting...

Still, the fetishist in me wants the damn thing written and posted. This is the finest Trek website out there, and there's still no STID review!

Get on with it, man! You can type and burp your baby at the same time, can't you? Can't be that hard...
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Fri, Dec 6, 2013, 1:54am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@Brandon: To give JJ Abrams the benefit of the doubt for a moment (just a moment mind you), is it possible that his marketing trademark really is backfiring on him, and that he is genuinely frustrated at STID's final outcome? After all, I would imagine that studio execs hire him with full expectations that he'll deliver the big bottom line bonanza he's become notorious for, and that any deviation from established strategies - strategies that Abrams himself perfected - would make them nervous as hell. What if he was pressured into it? It's true that Abrams is an extremely powerful Hollywood player, but the very fact that he's being groomed for the top spot ("the next Spielberg," "the next Lucas," coming soon: "the next Cameron" - why not?) makes him particularly vulnerable to artistic compromise. And it doesn't matter how powerful you are: artistic compromise sucks. It's as painful as having your teeth pulled.

Of course, that's only if you're an artist, and Abrams may not be one. But you yourself have argued in favor of some of his earlier stuff, that it was genuinely inspired, etc. What if, buried beneath all the seizure-inducing action and gratuitous aping these last two films are so inexplicably applauded for, there was an actual germ of an idea that simply got bulldozed for a buck? And what if that idea originally came from Abrams himself?

Ouch.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Fri, Nov 22, 2013, 12:54am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I personally wouldn't go higher than two stars, but Jammer gave three to Trek'09, and STID, for all its flaws, was better. He may go lower than three, but it would have to be based on the "disappointment" factor - i.e. that the "potentials" opened up in Trek'09 weren't adequately lived up to.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Wed, Oct 9, 2013, 3:42am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Wow - to watch "Best of Both Worlds" for the first time...

Of course, to get the full experience, you would really have to wait three months after watching part one before moving on to part two.

Those three months back in 1990 were excruciating, but delicious. The hours my friends and I spent speculating on how the story would conclude were almost as fun as the episode itself. An absolute landmark in television history.

Whatever it took to get you here, Moonie, is fine by me.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Tue, Sep 24, 2013, 1:50am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Plus, these latest two movies have an infinitely more cynical tone than any of the previous franchise incarnations.

Like the movie all you want, MSN, but knock off the snarking, please. You're better than that.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Fri, Aug 30, 2013, 1:14am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I predict another three-star. He'll probably give it a qualified positive, citing industry pressures for blockbusters etc, much like he did with Trek '09, and then go on to say that while this is a flawed film, there's reason to hope for better in the future.

Just like he did with Trek '09.

Just like we all did, for that matter. That's the problem with these latest two films: Love 'em or hate 'em, it's impossible to speak about them except in comparative terms: "Look at where the franchise was when Abrams was first signed on," "Trek needs to be as exciting as possible nowadays considering the other franchises out there," "Now that a new generation of moviegoers have been exposed to Trek, the franchise can continue," etc. It's all just one big friggin' promissory note. We all have no choice but to hope it'll be better next time. I just want it to be good now.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Tue, Aug 27, 2013, 10:24pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Then why did you even bother posting the above comment? To insult us, perhaps? To badmouth us? If so, I too have lost interest in this particular discussion. So on to others:

@Yanks:

Horror movie? Really? Hardly any consolation in that, bizarrely accurate though it may be. I have to admit that Cumberbatch came off as something of a cross between Hannibal Lecter and Michael Myers. Just kind of a pancake-flat "EVIL" guy whose face you light from below so that he can look extra spooky. If only they had shown us even the remotest glimpse of a human being underneath all that menace, it might have helped.

But then, that would have taken up precious screen time, and they needed THAT to blow more stuff up.
Set Bookmark
Genre-Buster
Tue, Aug 27, 2013, 6:28pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@ MidshipmanNorris - Tue, Aug 27, 2013 - 6:01am (USA Central)
"If you can badmouth the film, I can defend it. I don't see what's so tiresome about that."
"It's my opinion that you're simply thinking too hard about what you're watching."
"If you were a small child who liked spaceships and action movies, what would you think of this film?"


If all I've been doing is "badmouthing the film," then I would fully expect you and everyone else to call me tiresome. But yes, that's exactly how I'm starting to feel about this "debate."

You'll never win ANY debate by suggesting your opponent "think less" or (my god!) devolve his mindset into that of a small child with comically low standards. You might as well ask a round peg to go cram itself into that square hole over there. I seriously doubt that was Meyer's point.

Besides, STID doesn't come even close to being a children's movie. WTF?

Can we talk about the actual movie, please? 22 posts and counting...
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 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.