'Variety' reviews Star Trek XI
- Thread starter jefferiestubes8
- Start date
Captain X
Rear Admiral
OTOH, Hollywood is a pretty famous circle-jerk; I can't place a lot of faith in the knowledge and abilities of an industry that counts "waiter" as the second - or first - job of a rather large number of its "creatives." Not that I have a problem with waiters - they work a lot harder than a lot of filmmakers, and for a lot less.
It's a good review; I still remain cautious. It clearly points toward a great popcorn film for non-fans, and I like a good popcorn film occasionally, but I'm not convinced by critics that what they consider a good film is what I consider a good film, especially given the hyperbole for which Variety is famous, and which just drips from this review.
Maybe I'm just not that emotionally tied to Trek that I need it to 'succeed' - so I don't have a problem with a film that isn't slam-bang action all the time, and reading this review, it seems pretty clear that that has become a real factor in deciding how 'effective' a movie is. As much as I like Iron Man, it has many of the same earmarks as those mentioned in the review, but I don't think Iron Man would be a good template for Star Trek - it's the ways that Star Trek is different from the mainstream that appeal to me - homogenize and glamorize it too much, and it's just not Star Trek to me any more.
We'll see. I'll watch the movie, of course, and if I like it, it won't be because Variety either panned it or gave it a fist-bump. At this point, the best I can say is I'm not going to bother checking the calendar every day nor hold my breath, and I won't be anxiously standing in line the first week (as I did 4 times with Serenity
).Now there was a high-brow movie...
Well now, there's an evasive, generalizing way to be dismissive without offering any actual reasoning.
It pretty much boils down to "no one is reviewing this movie negatively enough to satisfy me." It's on a par with complaining that Variety employs a slang-laden style that's been its trademark for nearly a century - which is to say, an empty criticism focusing on trivialities since one cannot address content.
Yeah, think what you want "
". Nothing evasive about it at all, nor am I looking for negative reviews to support my position - I'm not that desperate for 'vindication.' I simply don't believe every word I read from 'industry' reviews - a lot of the 'glowing' that I read is about what I consider generally superficial aspects, not what I consider really relevant to whether a story or movie is engaging or even mildly thoughtful. But then, I've seen that you have a tendency to disagree with most viewpoints that don't adhere to the most 'progressive' approaches to any of the material, and I fully understand that at least part of it is because you like to stir the pot and see what happens . Hey, if it works for you, go for it.And for the record, I do think that Variety-speak is infantile ... but it is Hollywood, after all.
Great sounding review - my wife and are are pretty excited to see this movie - She ordered our tickets and a Star Trek lanyard with a Starfleet ID Pass, but I digress, this part of the Variety review stuck out "The costumes — red for the principal officers — are similarly not out of place, but have been stripped of the dorky look that always seemed borderline laughable on TV, at least."...perhaps it should have read "The costumes — including red for expendable officers — are similarly not out of place...."
well, it's definitely improved from TFF, and the last two of the TNG films. or are you one of those who think every frikkin' TOS movie and ep, including Spock's Brain and Catspaw etc cannot be improved upon?
everything, everything, stands improvement, btw. even TWOK.
The reviews are great. Variety and Hollywood Reporter are Huge.
Even if the reviewer did mean that the movie improved on the original series, it is just one man's opinion and since opinions are subjective his is no more valid than yours. In other words why let the opinions of others both you?
That's amusing.
Didn't Indy 4 make something like $800 million worldwide?
It's amazing that Paramount survived such a failure.
By the way, anyone know when RottenTomatoes updates?
Well, who said Starship Polaris isn't eloquent.
That's the way I feel about it too. I started watching TNG when I was about 11 when it was kind of a nerd thing. The movies were more mainstream, but the TV show were for a small subset of audiences. What I found so appealing in the TV show was exactly why I didn't like the movies: stylish, expensive, action packed with no substance or soul.
One of my biggest fear for this movie is that it will become another big budget blockbuster, sacrificing what made Star Trek unique for mass appeal. Although you can make a good film that has mass appeal, many film directors fail at that and end up blowing things up to compensate for poor script and acting. I just hope the reviewers who like the movie aren't saying so because they think Trek used to be all about rubber masks, and campy costumes and this new film is great because it looks more stylish.
What I mean is, I think a lot of people never had respect for Trek as a show, but it was Trek as a TV show which was the heart and soul of the franchise. I'm hoping the movie maintains that integrity.
And that's also why I ignore the general critics and opt for scifi website reviews. Here's hoping they'll throw us long TV fans a bone too!
Similar threads
