My Star Trek review
- Thread starter 3D Master
- Start date
- Status
Jeyl said:
Originally Posted by J. Allen
You take things too lightly here.And you take things WAY to seriously! It's FICTION! RL things should be taken seriously!
This by Bishbot:
Nailed it!
3DMashup, damn, dude, you have way too much time on your hand. Most of your points, taking them individually and very concisely, aren't wrong.
It's how you say it with your smug, superior attitude that because we DO like it, we are OBVIOUSLY ALL IDIOTS!
Let me repeat: you aren't wrong, with the lens flare and the plot holes and some of the dialogue and on and on. But how you say it, loaded with arrogance and a lot of self-preening congratulations obout how clever you are to figure this stuff out.
But we... don't... care. We went and saw a movie. We had fun. It wasn't perfect, but we'll go next time, and hope for better.
What'll you do? Sit in your basement and sulk? Or see it multiple times again so you can pick it to pieces as well?
I echo Guartho's call - come down to TNZ, bring your opinions with you. We have LOTS to talk about.
Yes, he can go back to utilizing his precious time writing Duke Nukem, and Naruto fanfic.
Really, at this point many of his "critiques" have been refuted over the last 8 weeks on this board and the "review" is a not so subtley disguised reworking of his pre-movie rants. I don't think anyone needs to waste their time arguing point-for-point.
RAMA
Man I love that smile from your avatar...
RAMA
I nominate Lumen for the win.
Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that buried in part 3 or 4 there is this quote: "Hey guys, I'm actually having you on. It's a decent movie and it breathes new life into Trek. Also, I'm sorry for all the condescending sighs over the years. I've realized that I've been denigrating others for no good reason and I apologize," but none of use will ever know it because no one's read that far.
So, the day breaks...
...and this film is still a huge success!
...and not one person who enjoyed this film before reading this review hates it now!
...and everyone predisposed to agree with the reviewer - all three of them - agrees with the reviewer!
Mission accomplished!
...and this film is still a huge success!
...and not one person who enjoyed this film before reading this review hates it now!
...and everyone predisposed to agree with the reviewer - all three of them - agrees with the reviewer!
Mission accomplished!
I had a lot of fun reading the review. Although, I enjoyed the movie, my wife went 2 times with me, and before that she always felled asleep when i watching anything with Star Trek in its title.
The movie has indeed some plot holes and inconsistencies that 3d mentions, and some of the science seems like JJ Abrhams "Fringe". But is a well executed action movie, full of good special effects.
3d, on the other hand every movie has mistakes, every produced video has them, even Kubrik's movies. Lighten up, you will be lot happier. Thanks for the review, you seem really passionate about Star Trek, and you speak your mind.
The movie has indeed some plot holes and inconsistencies that 3d mentions, and some of the science seems like JJ Abrhams "Fringe". But is a well executed action movie, full of good special effects.
3d, on the other hand every movie has mistakes, every produced video has them, even Kubrik's movies. Lighten up, you will be lot happier. Thanks for the review, you seem really passionate about Star Trek, and you speak your mind.
Obviously I haven't read this whole thread or even the whole post from the original OP but I've read some and also some responses..... Plainly the "reviewer" doesn't like the film -- ok got that...but this is what annoys me from both sides of the fence....very few people are able to say I loved this film but (for instance) the OP is correct about this or that. Very few people can say I hated this film but I'll agree with you that the movie delivered on this or that. Some objectivity is needed around here....so I'll set the trend, because hey that's what I am.... a trendsetter.
So obviously the OP doesn't like the new movie...that much is clear....a lot of the gripes are really nitpicky and you can ruin the movie for yourself with getting hung up on that crap...which this person did. I can however, agree with him/her about a few things...not most but a few....such as backin' that camera up.... The extreme and not so extreme closeups were a bit annoying and distracting. I thought it was because I was seeing it IMAX that everything was in my face...I would of preferred some more visual perspective with quite a few of the scenes in the movie. I remember I could count the stubble on Spocks face in several scenes.
I also agree about the lens flares...Jeri, bless her heart, tried to 'splain it to me but I still didn't get it. I STILL don't understand the reason or purpose for these lens flares (which didn't bother me in the movie the least) but I'm just trying to understand the artistic reason for them.
It's true what he/she said about Uhura intercepting that distress call...you'd a thunk that perhaps "someone" should be alerted to that right away -- someone other than Kirk. (?????)
So obviously the OP doesn't like the new movie...that much is clear....a lot of the gripes are really nitpicky and you can ruin the movie for yourself with getting hung up on that crap...which this person did. I can however, agree with him/her about a few things...not most but a few....such as backin' that camera up.... The extreme and not so extreme closeups were a bit annoying and distracting. I thought it was because I was seeing it IMAX that everything was in my face...I would of preferred some more visual perspective with quite a few of the scenes in the movie. I remember I could count the stubble on Spocks face in several scenes.
I also agree about the lens flares...Jeri, bless her heart, tried to 'splain it to me but I still didn't get it. I STILL don't understand the reason or purpose for these lens flares (which didn't bother me in the movie the least) but I'm just trying to understand the artistic reason for them.
It's true what he/she said about Uhura intercepting that distress call...you'd a thunk that perhaps "someone" should be alerted to that right away -- someone other than Kirk. (?????)
Last edited:
I made it through the OP. And then I hit the part that said something along the lines of "To be continued.". So, I scrolled down to part two, say it was just as fucking long as part one.... and found that it was also a cliffhanger. So I scrolled down through each of the following parts, to found that they were all cliffhangers and all just as long. And, if part one of the review is any indication of the rest of the posts, I think I have all of the information I need: you did nothing but nitpick the hell out of the movie. Who knows, maybe you made some valid along the line, but you completely lost me after post 1. I don't have all day to dedicate to reading a 2 page thread, and I certainly have no interest in dedicating a whole day to reading 17 and a half thousand words of silly nitpicks.
Ain't life grand?
This is what Star Trek is now - entertaining, sleek and sexy. The undeniable success this movie has had - both critically and financially - ensures us several more movies in the same vein as JJ Abrams' ambitious effort.
As for the "review" I doubt someone that anal can enjoy anything in life. Pity.
Umm... you did say that... see above. I hope you realise that when I say "the tech works by magic" I don't mean that literally. I mean that it runs by made up science. And if you try to argue that it doesn't, you'll fail - you just will. I'm sorry, but there is a lot of science in Trek, but there's also a HECK of a lot of bullshit. It doesn't matter to tell a good story, but don't pretend that there's anything different about this movie. The only difference was that people got on with the sciency action, rather than talking about made up words like they had any idea what they meant.
It was, in fact, a lot more like TOS.
Anyone who's been paying any attention at all could have told you that you were never alone, and 3D Master has been quite vocal for many months about things he dislikes in Star Trek, so the appearance of his review at this late date can hardly be seen as any sort of sudden revelation. That so many who had issues with the movie (or aspects thereof) continue to proclaim their supposed aloneness to the extent of leading a significant number of their posts with phrases such as the one I've underlined here is beginning to strike me as... well, a bit pretentious and over-dramatic, to say the very least, and possibly also as baiting.
This, though, might be considered trolling if it wasn't so utterly and absurdly inept. I'd recommend dropping that sort of thing, anyway; it doesn't reflect well upon you.
I won't be going to see "Transformers 2" in any event - that franchise does nothing for me. Orci and Kurzman clearly deliver what's required there, which is what matters - and is more evidence that they're very good at this. 
Can someone explain why the fanboy negative reviews are always so interminable?
Here's a hint, folks, if you want people to read them...
A review can include a capsule of what happens in the movie. It's not a blow-by-blow account.
Yeesh.
It is not his way, and never has been. YMMV.
You know M...you may be right that the opposite side of the fence proclaims they're alone and it's not valid. But as someone who's been on the "wrong" side of the fence it can sometimes just FEEL that way and not actually BE that way.
I didn't bother reading that "review" beyond the first paragraph, because life is way too short. I say this as someone who has his own problems with the film (way too many coincidences and contrivances, etc), but in the end enjoyed it quite a bit.
However, quite a few people who defend the film are using the "it made lots of money so it must be good" argument...
...and really, that means very little. Quite a few entirely crappy films make huge amounts of money. It doesn't mean those movies are good. It just means there are lots of people with low standards out there who are happy with the lowest common denominator, and lots of people in Hollywood who will take advantage of that (a certain giant robot movie comes to mind...).
I know we all want some objective standard that proves a movie is good (or bad). But these things will always be subjective. You can't prove a movie is good by quoting box office take - or even, for that matter, a metacritic rating.
And since it will always be subjective, all you can do is make the best effort you can to defend your views. As to whether or not this review does a good job...well, I'll leave that up to you to decide.
However, quite a few people who defend the film are using the "it made lots of money so it must be good" argument...
Yes, yes, yes, we've heard it all before, only YOUR criticism on the movie is correct, not the 96% of legitimate critics, or the 85-90% of viewers who voted they liked it, or the 33.426 million ticket buyers who voted with their wallets.Don't call us, we'll call YOU after the sequel.
...and really, that means very little. Quite a few entirely crappy films make huge amounts of money. It doesn't mean those movies are good. It just means there are lots of people with low standards out there who are happy with the lowest common denominator, and lots of people in Hollywood who will take advantage of that (a certain giant robot movie comes to mind...).
I know we all want some objective standard that proves a movie is good (or bad). But these things will always be subjective. You can't prove a movie is good by quoting box office take - or even, for that matter, a metacritic rating.
And since it will always be subjective, all you can do is make the best effort you can to defend your views. As to whether or not this review does a good job...well, I'll leave that up to you to decide.
A
Amaris
Guest
I give each post the respect I think it deserves. I also despise "teh drama". So when I see a post that is purely self aggrandizement or just blowing smoke up someone's ass, well then I take it very lightly indeed.
J.
- Status
