Exactly. It isn't everyone's sense of humor but I usually find them funny. They were funnier when they first started, but I usually enjoy them more when I know what the films are.
Some are ridiculous and over the top, but that's the joke
CinemaSins Critiques Star Trek: TMP
- Thread starter Joel_Kirk
- Start date
Some are ridiculous and over the top, but that's the joke
Yes. That's the point. And the "____ would be amazing at CinemaSins" thing is one of their running jokes.
You should watch one of the ones where the sin count gets out of sync and they add a sin when they mean to remove one. The "sins" thing is just a device to make a bunch of fun jokes about a film. Don't take it too seriously.
That's the most often criticized part of the film. You hear about how "slowwww" and "boooooring" the film is every time it's brought up in a discussion.
I like to learn new things when reviewers go in detail. Like I do with RedLetterMedia, Oliver Harper, Nerdwriter and Every Frame a Painting if you want to get more serious about it.
I could make a decent CinemaSins video right now. It's not the "poking fun" part I dislike, it's the "DAE SLOW? DAE ENTERPRISE SIX MINUTES!?!?" part that gets repetitive and dull. I'll be damned if I watch 16 minutes of that, I already have all their complaints covered in the one or two reviews I've read before and I don't to want to hear it all over again.
Cool. Can't wait until you make it
Also, Nostalgia Critic had a lot of fun with the long scenes too.
When TMP was released in December '79 it was the first new Star Trek since TOS 1966-69 and TAS 1973-1974. For myself, I saw it as a boy back then and I was in awe of the majestic 1701-Refit. The drydock scenes still works for me. Albeit, I do understand others referring to TMP as Star Trek:The Motionless Picture.
I first saw TMP back in high school when I got a VHS set of all 6 of the TOS movies. I was so excited, and then watching it was such a chore. I kept checking the clock. Later when I was a few years older I saw the Director's Edition DVD, and I was able to appreciate the artistic and technical aspects of the film, but they were still gratuitous. It just goes on and on and on.
I imagine people back in 1979 were like "Yeah! A Star Trek movie, woooooooooooo! I can't wait!" And then they saw it, and they were so conflicted. It looked amazing and seeing the Enterprise on a huge screen was awesome, but it was slow as hell. The FX were good, but it was obtuse and cheesy and not much happens. So I guess most of them were like "Screw it, it's Star Trek! I'm seeing it again!"
I imagine people back in 1979 were like "Yeah! A Star Trek movie, woooooooooooo! I can't wait!" And then they saw it, and they were so conflicted. It looked amazing and seeing the Enterprise on a huge screen was awesome, but it was slow as hell. The FX were good, but it was obtuse and cheesy and not much happens. So I guess most of them were like "Screw it, it's Star Trek! I'm seeing it again!"
It's slow by the standards of any year, not just this one.
And to think that people thought Roddenberry could still create when he couldn't, as was shown by the script and the rewrites made.
Last edited:
Done, Jonny.
Thank ye kindly!Done, Jonny.
So I finally got around to watching both of these back to back in their entirty, They are what they are and pretty much what I expected. 
However, I did take objection to one thing he said:I forget which (pretty sure it was TMP) he said the Enterprise isn't as "cool" as the Falcon. To me, that's like saying a Shelby GT500 isn't as cool as a Willys Jeep and misses the point entirely.
Like the Jeep, the Falcon is a great ship because it isn't cool. It boxy and stiff, blue-collar utilitarian. It's a scrapper that just gets the job done. That's not cool.
On the other hand, the Enterprise is the epitome of cool. It's sleek, suave and sophisticated. It has lines where it needs them and curves where it can get them. And, in that James Bond sort of way, makes getting the shit kicked out of it look sexy. That is cool.
However, I did take objection to one thing he said:I forget which (pretty sure it was TMP) he said the Enterprise isn't as "cool" as the Falcon. To me, that's like saying a Shelby GT500 isn't as cool as a Willys Jeep and misses the point entirely.
Like the Jeep, the Falcon is a great ship because it isn't cool. It boxy and stiff, blue-collar utilitarian. It's a scrapper that just gets the job done. That's not cool.
On the other hand, the Enterprise is the epitome of cool. It's sleek, suave and sophisticated. It has lines where it needs them and curves where it can get them. And, in that James Bond sort of way, makes getting the shit kicked out of it look sexy. That is cool.
Cinema Sins shouldn't be take so seriously. But, yes, there are a lot of opinions that are often bent out of shape over Cinema Sins.
As for what's cool, I personally never thought the Enterprise or the Falcon was "cool" but I liked them any way. "Cool" is entirely subjective.
As for what's cool, I personally never thought the Enterprise or the Falcon was "cool" but I liked them any way. "Cool" is entirely subjective.
