And has a torpedo that can instantly create life on dead planets.
Ebert.. "Star Trek" 2 and one half stars
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
And has a torpedo that can instantly create life on dead planets.
And the straw men continue to walk amongst us. Being "more" science fiction isn't the same thing as claiming it is "great" science fiction
. Sure, we 'know' that warp drive is a fantasy, that we could never disassemble a human being and accurately reconstruct them, that aliens the galaxy over aren't all going to look like humans from Central Casting, and none of that erases the fact that, yes, whether you like it or not, many of the concepts in Trek were legitimate science fiction concepts, far more than the concepts in Star Wars - but SW wasn't trying to be sci-fi, either. If all you ever got out of Trek as "sci-fi" was Spock's lineage (which I don't recall ever being claimed to be a natural, sexual conception - hell, we've grafted totally different species' DNA right here!), then you haven't been paying attention.
I really have to laugh at all of the people dismissing Ebert's review and his relevance as a film critic. Obviously all those posters are silly and haven't ever been relevant and have zero ability as film critics in any genre.
Ebert the only film critic to win a Pulitzer, he's written genre films, he's always been more down to Earth than not (much more so than Siskel ever was, I grew up in Chicago and watched their show and read them both since the 1970's) and he understands genre very well and has written several good reviews of comic book films and science fiction films.
His points about transporting vs free fall and swords and fists vs. phasers is an established critique that goes all the way back to TOS. In TOS the Enterprise was so advanced that it was easier to break it (Oh no the transporters don't work, and neither do the shuttles! How will we get Sulu off the planet before he freezes?) than it was to write scripts with problems that were difficult to overcome with all of the technology in tact.
Ebert references Arthur C. Clarke with he critiques the "science" in this science fiction movie. That's a pretty good reference when it comes to science in science fiction. Ebert had Clarke attend his film festival (via satellite) when Ebert picked 2001 to show at the festival. So Ebert knows science fiction and his review of this movie as well as several others show it.
I'm guessing most people who are dismissing Ebert's review are doing so because they're upset he didn't gush over it. Too bad. He's smarter than you, deal with it.
Ebert the only film critic to win a Pulitzer, he's written genre films, he's always been more down to Earth than not (much more so than Siskel ever was, I grew up in Chicago and watched their show and read them both since the 1970's) and he understands genre very well and has written several good reviews of comic book films and science fiction films.
His points about transporting vs free fall and swords and fists vs. phasers is an established critique that goes all the way back to TOS. In TOS the Enterprise was so advanced that it was easier to break it (Oh no the transporters don't work, and neither do the shuttles! How will we get Sulu off the planet before he freezes?) than it was to write scripts with problems that were difficult to overcome with all of the technology in tact.
Ebert references Arthur C. Clarke with he critiques the "science" in this science fiction movie. That's a pretty good reference when it comes to science in science fiction. Ebert had Clarke attend his film festival (via satellite) when Ebert picked 2001 to show at the festival. So Ebert knows science fiction and his review of this movie as well as several others show it.
I'm guessing most people who are dismissing Ebert's review are doing so because they're upset he didn't gush over it. Too bad. He's smarter than you, deal with it.
Just because Ebert has gained great success does not mean that he is smart.
Yes it does.
And the straw men continue to walk amongst us. Being "more" science fiction isn't the same thing as claiming it is "great" science fiction
The "science" in Star wars is bullshit. The "science" in Star Trek is bullshit. Trying to pretend one is more scientific than the other is like trying to decide whether the infirm quadriplegic or inform comatose patient at a nursing home has a better chance of winning a triathlon.
How so?
If he's too smart for anyone to say anything bad about his reviews, then no one can say anything good about them either.
I don't understand all the Roger Ebert bashing? He just gave his opinion. Most of the people who have issues with the review have yet to see the film. Maybe his points are valid and your love of Star Trek isn't allowing you to take a rational stand?
Ebert has always been fair. He didn't say he disliked the movie, but he didn't love it either. Not everyone has to love it.
For those who are saying Ebert is irrelevant these days. I would suggest you are living in fantasy land. He is by far the most influential film critic in America. Go see the movie and judge for yourself.
Ebert has always been fair. He didn't say he disliked the movie, but he didn't love it either. Not everyone has to love it.
For those who are saying Ebert is irrelevant these days. I would suggest you are living in fantasy land. He is by far the most influential film critic in America. Go see the movie and judge for yourself.
And he's the most influential for a reason. He knows his shit. People always write him off a pretentious because he loves art films, but he loves popcorn fare like Star Trek too (although not in this case).
The motherfucker gave Transformers of all films three and a half stars IIRC. I loathed that fucking movie, but he justified himself well. You can disagree with him all you like but he's far from prejudiced toward this stuff.
This isn't about one Star franchise having more plausible "science" or technology than the other. You are correct that, viewed as a whole, they are both completely implausible.
This is about the story topics. In Star Wars, space and high technology are abundant, but the story doesn't revolve around them. In Star Trek, space, technology, genetics and so on are frequently the key focus of the plot. That is the difference Ptrope is talking about.
This doesn't mean that one way is "better" than the other, either. It's a difference, that's all. Defining the genre based upon the stories.
Similar threads
