^^^Please, stop with the passive-aggressive pretend-pity party. The problem people who don't like Abrams doltish vision of the origin of the Kirk/Spock friendship is that it means there will never be another Trek series or movie that is any good. That's worth some lamentation. It's not bad taste on our part, it's sorrow. Yes, that implies the bad taste is on your part, but, hey, I watched the damn movie and there's not much way to be diplomatic. I do the best I can with what I've got to work with.
Yes, liking any movie is a matter of taste. The problem comes in when we begin judging one another for their taste in movies.
Five! [squints at stj's post] Or is that six? Honestly, I enjoyed the story except for three plot points: the extraordinary coincidence of Kirk, Old Spock, and Scotty being marooned on the same planet within walking distance of each other; the idea that jettisoning and detonating the warp cores would do something the warp engines couldn't; handing Kirk the Enterprise fresh out of the Academy with only one success under his belt. As it is, it was a fun, dumb adventure. A bit like Battleship, which I also had problems with, but enjoyed.
Thank heaven there is someone out there in netland who is SO MUCH better than me! Thank you for feeling sorry for me. It's rare that such a superior being would lower themselves to feel compassion for someone so clearly undeserving.
Thank you for your pity. That said we didn't raise the issue. We were talking about John Carter and someone else raised ST09. When they said there were only three people around here objecting to ST09 we simply added ourselves to the count. We're up to six or seven now, right?
I feel sorry for you. It must be terrible to be so haunted by such fear of inadequacy that a fan bitching about a terrible movie that you personally like makes you feel "judged." You liked it a lot more than I did, so I'd say I make the fifth one.
Actually, I think only 3 or 4 of you chimed in, so, you gotta subtract the originally stated 3 from that
I honestly didn't think that remark would stir up as much vitriol (and butthurt) as it did. That's the reason I stopped talking about NuTrek/ST09 shortly after release. "My Bad." Let's return to the discussion about a semi-lame version of John Carter OF MOTHERFLIPPIN' MARS.
I didn't mean that at all!! Far from it. My statement was not intended to be perceived as any type of an attack. I apologize if I was not clear enough. So I will restate it. Movies are a personal preference. I have no problem when people hate a particular movie or love a particular movie. I don't think we should bash people based on their preferences. I don't think a person should be bashed if they hate a movie I don't think a person should be bashed for liking a movie. I hope that was clearer.
But, if it had been called John Carter of Motherflipin' Mars, Samuel L. Jackson could have done promos. The movie would have been a monster hit! Despite the imperfections in the script, they were nothing to the imperfections in the Barsoom novels. These guys did an amazing job to make something as musty as that into a rather entertaining movie that didn't just grossly pander to overgrown thirteen year boys. You wish people would appreciate what an achievement the script was, so much more impressive than others. But all that really got reviewed is the budget, the marketing and the box office.
I still don't understand why the movie was made in the first place and why it's so important to the geek community. The Barsoom series always felt liked a bad hybrid of Conan the Barbarian and Flash Gordon (yes I know PoM came first). I mean no one is rushing to make a Scarlet Pimpernel movie even though it's the first example of a modern superhero and influenced everybody from Zorro to Batman. John Carter reminds me of "Le Morte d'Arthur". Both were very influential in their day but both are utterly worthless now because they are not very "artistic" and their anachronisms hold them back.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I've been aware of the Mars/Barsoom books since the '70s but then didn't yet know how old they already were and their pedigree. Why do we still bother with Sherlock Holmes to Tarzan or Frankenstein or Dracula or ancient myths?
Get a note off to BBC (and SyFy) right away, they've already wasted money on The Adventures of Merlin for 4 Series and working on a Fifth (And possibly more and/or a movie)
Because they are constantly updated and reinterpreted. I remember reading the original Frankenstein and being totally shocked that it's nothing like the movies I saw as a kid. Granted unlike PoM, Frankenstein feels very modern but that's a testament to Shelly's abilities as a writer.
"Le Morte d'Arthur" is a SPECIFIC book. I did not imply that the whole Arthurian legend is outdated since it's been reinterpreted for modern times. Shakespeare is another example. It's getting harder and harder to teach it to students but his themes still survive in modern works.