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: 37 (Showing 26-37)

◄ PreviousPage 2 of 2
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Sun, Sep 28, 2014, 7:10pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I think I'm going to be wrong, but I'll guess anyway. He'll post a review for Into Darkness right before the next one is released.

At this point, I'm more interested in if he posts the review than the actual review itself.

While it's true he posts to TNG as an example of things taking a while but still getting done, this is a bit different. There was three years between posting the Season 4 and Season 5 reviews (2008-2011) but during 2008 and 2009 he was still reviewing "Battlestar Galactica". In 2010, he was reviewing "Caprica". In 2011, he picked up TNG again. There were still reviews. This isn't the case here.

True, it's a hobby, definitely. There was an expectation of a review though, with readership in the hundreds or thousands (I'm not sure which). When Tim Lynch stopped reviewing in 2003 after the second season of ENT because he didn't have time for it anymore, it was six months after the release of "Star Trek: Nemesis" and he said if the review wasn't out by the end of the summer, it wouldn't be out at all. He knew when to let it go.

I think Jammer will ultimately go through with posting a review but only out of a sense of commitment after having put it off for too long. A hobby shouldn't feel like an obligation, so if it's an obligation, something's wrong. To quote Jammer after he finished reviewing TNG, "This site is as complete as it needs to be" and maybe he's right.

Round about way of my saying if he wants to move on, I think he should. No one will fault him for that. I don't think he should leave people hanging, though, about when or whether or not a review will be posted.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Sat, Jan 4, 2014, 8:05pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

He bought the DVD, so that puts it above 1.5, which he gave TFF.

Let's be realistic: he's not going to give it 3.5 or 4.

So that leaves 2, 2.5, or 3. He's defended JJ Abrams' films but I think he would've felt compelled to write something by now if he were *really* enjoyed the film. Moving and taking care of a baby are a lot of work but everyone needs a break.

Taking all that into consideration, I'm 99.9% sure, Jammer would rate this a 2.5.

Just my opinion of what I think he'd give STID. In lieu of a review, that's my educated guess.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 11:50am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

At this point, I think a capsule review, as opposed to full length, might be worth considering.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Fri, Aug 30, 2013, 1:00am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Scotty couldn't be happier that Engineering is also the Brewery. ;)

I agree with Patrick on these points:

"AbramsTrek is designed to be disposable entertainment, just like Michael Bay's Transformers."

This is true. Even though I liked ST XI when I saw it in the theater, I've only seen it once after 2009, and that was in 2011. I have no burning urge to watch it again.

The main problem with these films is that they try too hard to emulate other franchises and exaggerate the what pop culture associates with TOS.

STID made less domestically than ST XI, so there's obviously going to be a tapering effect.

What they should do is take the data on who's seen these movies and extrapolate from there. Star Trek, however its done, is capturing a mainly Over 25 Audience. Paramount should partition its demographics. If they took a two-pronged approach they could use Transformers to target Under 25 and Star Trek to target Over 25. Then there are the European and Asian markets. I feel like smarter and more sophisticated writing would be well-received if they want to lean more on the foreign box office. I'd think the less "American" it is, the more Star Trek appeal overseas. STID has a very post-9/11 vibe, except 9/11 was 12 years ago.

"The majority of people who go to see these films couldn't give a damn about Star Trek. The jocks will move on to the next spectacle once it becomes old hat, and the Trek nerds will feel put off."

I think it's going to become old hat once Star Wars VII hits. That's where the they'll flock to.

Bad Robot will do ST XIII because they *have* to. After that, Star Trek will go onto its next incarnation, whatever it is, wherever it's produced, and however it'll be seen.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Tue, Aug 27, 2013, 11:12am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Norris: I liked "Star Trek" (2009) when I saw it in the theater and I was 29. Not exactly what I'd consider when I was a "small child".

I discovered Star Trek at the age of 11 in 1991. It was around the same time I started puberty and I thought it as one of the first "adult" things that I was a fan of.

Obviously what's considered "adult" television has become more even more *adult* since the early-'90s but, at the time, I knew that I'd become a fan of something that wasn't aimed squarely toward children.

I'm one of those "half-breeds" who liked the first Abrams film but didn't like the second.

"Prometheus" was mentioned earlier. Reaction to that film was mixed. It's one of my favorite movies. I don't keep at it and at it with people. That was the point I was trying to make earlier, it seemed to me that you wanted to keep at it and at it more the sake of it than anything else. I'm also a fan of "Alien 3" and "Alien Resurrection" the latter of which I know is a debate I'll never "win" so I don't bother to go into it.

So I do know *something* of what it's like to be a fan of something that receives a negative reaction from other fans.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Mon, Aug 26, 2013, 9:00am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Midshipman Norris, give it a rest.

You said you want to use this place to sharpen your debating skills but if that's all you're doing than haven't you had enough practice? If you legitimately want to defend "Star Trek Into Darkness" then that's fine. If you want to keep this going just to keep this going, so you can get more practice, then that's something else altogether.

I think I speak for a lot of people when I ask if you would mind practicing somewhere else?
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Sat, Aug 24, 2013, 11:11am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I agree with whoever said upthread that he's waiting for the DVD/Blu-Ray. He's also a new father. I'm not a father myself but I am an uncle and I've heard stories about how being a new parent goes... Best of luck to Jammer!

For comparison: Nemesis was released in December 2002 but the review wasn't out until June 2003. I think that's when the VHS/DVD release was.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Sun, Jul 28, 2013, 1:43pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

MaxG: Having wished for a better plot, less sexism in a *2013* film, and pointing out that someone acted out of character is autistic? Gotcha.

If you like "Into Darkness", fine, but no need to take digs. Some fans of STID are just as defensive as they say people who didn't like it are whiny (or worse). The extremes on both sides are just as bad. The same as with anything, not just Star Trek.

"plenty of entertainment value." I think that's a better description of the 2009 film.

"Having grown up with the star trek series since the 90s, that is, multiple series, and eventually re-watching the originals, I must say I am anything but a star trek fan boy."

It sounds to me like you're trying to have your cake and it too. Don't take this the wrong way, but if you watched *all* the series, are reading Jammer's Reviews, and feel the need to post, then you're a fanboy too.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Thu, May 30, 2013, 1:46pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Clarification: "Look like" as opposed to "be like". I just realized it might've seemed as if I were knocking The Dark Knight and the original Star Wars trilogy. That wasn't what I meant to do. :p
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Thu, May 30, 2013, 1:10pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Looks sarcastic to me.

As far as making Star Trek more action-packed and less thoughtful to appeal to the "masses", STID is the end result of that effort.

How did that effort turn out now that we're there and the music has stopped? 75% of the audience is over 25 (so much for going "younger") and ~70% is male.

Maybe Star Trek should be a 21st Century version of itself instead of trying to so hard to look like Star Wars or The Dark Knight.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Wed, May 22, 2013, 12:27pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I liked the 2009 film. Not so much "Star Trek Into Darkness". It had too many plot holes.

These were the problems I had with STID:

1. Why would Admiral Marcus need to revive Khan to figure out how to fight the Klingons? It would be like someone today reviving Napoleon to figure out how to fight the North Koreans. Second of all, Starfleet has had 100 years to prepare for the Klingons by this point. The two sides have always been portrayed as powers of equal strength. The Klingons are a threat, but they're not an overwhelming one. Humanity also seems savage and primitive enough that they don't need Khan's insights. The humans in the Abrams films, unlike the Roddenberry series, would fit right into today's world.

2. Khan would never allow himself to become a pawn of Starfleet or Section 31. He'd never save Kirk from the Klingons. And he's not really that ruthless in this film. He should've killed Kirk right before beaming his corpse back to the Enterprise or fatally wounded him at least so he'd be dying and in as much pain as possible even as he intended to destroy the Enterprise. He does horrible things but he himself doesn't act villainous enough. The original Khan, as well as Kruge in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock", were much more black-hatted, which is what Khan should be.

3. The movie was supposed to show Kirk becoming more mature and growing into an adult. When he's repeatedly punching Khan, he's acting like a 15-year-old. When he constantly turns his head whenever a woman walks by, he's acting like a 14-year-old. When he's having a threesome, it's like a teenage boy's fantasy. I see nothing in the film that shows he became more mature. All I see is a kid who had a bad experience and a rough mission, then made a good speech at the end. He's not an adult. He's still reckless. He's still immature. I don't think this is the type of Captain you want to send out on a five-year mission into the unknown. Is this who the Admiralty wants representing the Federation? The only rationale I can think of is to get Kirk out of the way. It would make more sense to have him in Federation space, thinking outside the box to solve unconventional local problems where he can be of help and they can keep an eye on him.

4. Spock is much too emotional. Spock shouldn't be yelling "KHAAAANNN!!!" and going crazy while fighting him. Spock shouldn't be jealous when Dr. Marcus is assigned as Science Officer and, yes, he was jealous. Spock wouldn't give Pike lip.

5. The treatment of Doctor Marcus is extremely sexist. She undresses while Kirk is in the same room and the only reason is to show a shot of her in her underwear. When she screams after Admiral Marcus is killed, it's like something from out of a '50s B-movie. They can't even stay away from the sex jokes while McCoy is down with her while they perform "surgery" on the torpedo.

6. Why would Khan's blood restore anything to life? They don't even try to explain it. It's just magic blood that can somehow reanimate every cell in your body. Does that mean Khan could be immortal? Not that the film is even smart enough or aware enough to pose the question.

7. While we're at it, there's an entire ethical dilemma that's not even touched upon. Now that the location of the Botany Bay is known, should these escaped supermen and superwomen stand trial? I'm surprised they were all just left in suspended animation but that could've been mitigated if there was at least a discussion about what should be done with them. But why ponder those types of questions when they'd take up too much time that would be better spent on chase scenes and explosions?

8. There's absolutely no comparison between the scene when Spock was dying in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and the reverse scene in "Star Trek Into Darkness".

9. When Spock is fighting Khan on Earth, it feels more like "The Matrix" than "Star Trek". And why just beam down Uhura to let Spock know not to kill Khan? Maybe Uhura is the only one who can get through to Spock quickly enough but she's Communications Officer. There should be at least one Security Officer as well.

10. Why would that officer toward the beginning of "Into Darkness" blow up a building just because Khan/Harrison saved his daughter? Seems like an extreme thing to agree to.

11. Starfleet has sensors, ships in orbit have sensors, spacedock has sensors. Why did it take Kirk to figure out that "Harrison" was about to attack where the briefing was being held?

12. This is last because I realized as I was watching that this was the least of the film's problems: if you're going to cast someone to play Khan, it should either be a Hispanic actor, like Ricardo Montalban was, or an Indian. The fact that a 1967 episode and a 1982 film are more diverse than a 2013 film is inexcusable. This is not to slight Benedict Cumberbatch but I think he was miscast, unless they had him just be John Harrison. On that note: I understand that Khan went by a false identity but, if you're going to have the false identity, why not go the rest of the way and have McCoy or Khan himself mention that he was surgically altered?
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Mon, Mar 11, 2013, 10:36am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S7: Bloodlines

The Captain with a full-grown son, at least until they learned he wasn't, who he thought he'd have to do some catching up with. An enemy who wants revenge for what happened 15 years earlier and the death of a loved one. This episode always reminded me of TWOK.
◄ PreviousPage 2 of 2
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2020 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.