New STAR TREK Review

[Jeyl]

The audience has no idea what transpires politically or legally between Nero's death and the scene where Kirk is rightly rewarded for having saved the Earth, and this is because it's not germane to the story and of zero interest to 99% of the audience.

Of course it is. Star Trek IV had a lot of political talking stuff that goes over what's transpired and that film became one of the highest grossing Trek's ever.

In regards to the "Rightly rewarded" promotion? The guy disobeyed direct orders, assaulted two security officers, verbally attacked a commanding officer in front of the whole crew and took command of the ship so he can go fight Nero. "Either we're going down, or they are." And all Kirk did was rescue Pike.

But what about Spock? It was thanks to him that he destroyed the drill digging into Earth and his 'almost' act of sacrifice that destroyed Nero and his ship. I don't see any ceremony for him.

I don't buy it, and I have a right to say I don't buy it because your telling me to suspend my disbelief. Circumstances like this have been done in the past and they've been done a lot better. You can commend Kirk, are others who deserve mentioning.

I don't think so. The OP couldn't have written the review. It looks to have been written by a complete douche-bag.

Least he's more likable than that douche-bag named Kirk.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

Kirk is completely arrogant and just looks pathetic. I bet he uses an aimbot when playing Counter-Strike.

Don’t movie makers play Call of Duty on Xbox Live? It just doesn’t work that way.

Yes, I'm sure most filmmakers spend lots of time playing Call of Duty. This reviewer seems to think we all play video games.

 

[Kirk's_Tights]

I found this new review of "STAR TREK" - http://www.pseudocoder.com/archives/2009/06/03/movie-review-star-trek/

Reading that made me angry.


NOTHING IS GOOD ABOUT AN ANGRY WOMAN.

 

[number6]

Kirk is completely arrogant and just looks pathetic. I bet he uses an aimbot when playing Counter-Strike.

Don’t movie makers play Call of Duty on Xbox Live? It just doesn’t work that way.

Yes, I'm sure most filmmakers spend lots of time playing Call of Duty. This reviewer seems to think we all play video games.

It's pretty obvious that the reviewer does nothing but play video games..






































and is a complete moron.

 

[Australis]

I found this new review of "STAR TREK" - http://www.pseudocoder.com/archives/2009/06/03/movie-review-star-trek/

Reading that made me angry.


NOTHING IS GOOD ABOUT AN ANGRY WOMAN.

Ain't dat da troof!!

 

[CommanderRaytas]

This article is lame.

 

[Thestral]

Now remember that even though Nero killed Spock’s mom and destroyed his homeworld, Spock wasn’t going after him. Kirk, whose Dad was also killed by Nero (this fact is now swept under the rug), is gung-ho on a suicide mission to stop Nero. Which one of there two is letting their emotions affect their decisions?

I think he makes a pretty good point.

Not really, and the argument doesn't even make logical sense, because he dismisses the motive for Kirk going after Nero as being "swept under the rug" and doesn't offer any other.

More accurately, Kirk was motivated by fear for his own planet and people after seeing what Nero did to Vulcan, and determination not to let it happen again; mixed with wanting to get Pike back. He was spurred to action, where Spock was shocked into paralysis - an understandable reaction considering what had just happened. As with many other occurrences in Trek, the narrative proves Kirk's action to have been the correct one, because rendezvousing with the fleet in the Laurentian system would have led to the Federation losing at least two worlds, not just one. Calling it a suicide mission is also a misnomer; this would've been the case had Kirk & co come in with guns blazing, and probably is what Spock expected. However, the crew's creative, carefully thought out plan belies any efforts to categorize it as "suicidal."

Also, OphaClyde? That was brilliant!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Of course it is. Star Trek IV had a lot of political talking stuff that goes over what's transpired and that film became one of the highest grossing Trek's ever.

Different kind of movie, different era, different audience. It had a little "political talking stuff" as you call it, at the beginning, and the tacked-on exoneration of Kirk and company at the end provided a little harmless service to the hard-core. Many reviews noted that the stuff taking place in "Star Trek land" was not terribly interesting and that the meat of the movie was in 1986 San Francisco - and they were right.

TVH was a hit, but not because John Schuck stomped around in Klingon drag ranting about Kirk for three minutes at the beginning - rather, in spite of it.

 

[Larraby]

I found this new review of "STAR TREK" - http://www.pseudocoder.com/archives/2009/06/03/movie-review-star-trek/

Obviously, people hate the points that this guy is making because it attacks the movie that is loved by fans, but there is no denying that he brings to light some serious flaws. However, this can be said about any movie in existence.

For example, Spock did a damn good job of destroying the drilling platform over Earth, but yet the Enterprise couldn't shoot a torpedo or send a shuttle to do the same over Vulcan?

Anyways, movies are about escapism and we tend to go brain dead and simply sit back and enjoy ourselves for a couple of hours.

 

[Photoman15]

I found this new review of "STAR TREK" - http://www.pseudocoder.com/archives/2009/06/03/movie-review-star-trek/

Obviously, people hate the points that this guy is making because it attacks the movie that is loved by fans, but there is no denying that he brings to light some serious flaws. However, this can be said about any movie in existence.

For example, Spock did a damn good job of destroying the drilling platform over Earth, but yet the Enterprise couldn't shoot a torpedo or send a shuttle to do the same over Vulcan?

Anyways, movies are about escapism and we tend to go brain dead and simply sit back and enjoy ourselves for a couple of hours.

No the Enterprise couldn't. It would have been intercepted by either the drills defenses, or the Narada's defenses. That's why the small jellyfish was able to do it. It flew out of the Narada and with Kirk jumping around inside, it went un-noticed, unlike a photon torpedo would have went coming from Enterprise.

 

[Larraby]

No the Enterprise couldn't. It would have been intercepted by either the drills defenses, or the Narada's defenses. That's why the small jellyfish was able to do it. It flew out of the Narada and with Kirk jumping around inside, it went un-noticed, unlike a photon torpedo would have went coming from Enterprise.

Well, phasers can hardly be "intercepted:. I think the writer brought up many very good points, of which two follow:

• This kills me about time travel in movies and TV. Why didn’t Nero team up with Future Spock and just save Romulus this time around. They had a 125 year head start. This time they could make sure that Young Spock would be waiting with the red matter well in advance of the supernova hitting Romulus.

• Kirk made the connection that this was related to his dad’s death because of the similar “lighting storm”. But wasn’t that storm caused by the wormhole, not the Romulan ship? Why was the same anomaly detected near Vulcan?

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Obviously, people hate the points that this guy is making because it attacks the movie that is loved by fans, but there is no denying that he brings to light some serious flaws.

Uhm, no. None that I can see. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nul. Nothing. And the way the article is written (tone, grammar, spelling, orthography and the like) don't help, either.

Secondly, hate is a very strong word. I seriously doubt there are more then a few people who have such an emotional reaction to an internet page like this. There's so much crap on the internet, those few who do need serious psychological attention instead of reading crap like this.

 

[Photoman15]

No the Enterprise couldn't. It would have been intercepted by either the drills defenses, or the Narada's defenses. That's why the small jellyfish was able to do it. It flew out of the Narada and with Kirk jumping around inside, it went un-noticed, unlike a photon torpedo would have went coming from Enterprise.

Well, phasers can hardly be "intercepted:. I think the writer brought up many very good points, of which two follow:

• This kills me about time travel in movies and TV. Why didn’t Nero team up with Future Spock and just save Romulus this time around. They had a 125 year head start. This time they could make sure that Young Spock would be waiting with the red matter well in advance of the supernova hitting Romulus.

• Kirk made the connection that this was related to his dad’s death because of the similar “lighting storm”. But wasn’t that storm caused by the wormhole, not the Romulan ship? Why was the same anomaly detected near Vulcan?

I believe the lightning storm (2nd one) was not dear Vulcan. It was where ever SpockPrime emerged from the future, possibly close to Rura Penthe

 

[SalvorHardin]

Well, phasers can hardly be "intercepted:. I think the writer brought up many very good points, of which two follow:

• This kills me about time travel in movies and TV. Why didn’t Nero team up with Future Spock and just save Romulus this time around. They had a 125 year head start. This time they could make sure that Young Spock would be waiting with the red matter well in advance of the supernova hitting Romulus.

No actually this is not a good point, because it completely ignores what Nero is.

And what Nero is, is a man in pain, half mad (or entirely mad), blinded by the loss of his family, the loss his entire planet at least, his imprisonment for years by Klingons (granted,not on screen but still...) and his will to revenge.
He's got a super-weapon\ship in his hands, he's scored major victories and doesn't believe he can possibly lose.
He can have his revenge and save Romulus later.

What amazes me is how some people really expected someone like Nero to act rationally...

 

[Larraby]

Obviously, people hate the points that this guy is making because it attacks the movie that is loved by fans, but there is no denying that he brings to light some serious flaws.

Uhm, no. None that I can see. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nul. Nothing. And the way the article is written (tone, grammar, spelling, orthography and the like) don't help, either.

Secondly, hate is a very strong word. I seriously doubt there are more then a few people who have such an emotional reaction to an internet page like this. There's so much crap on the internet, those few who do need serious psychological attention instead of reading crap like this.

You are in serious denial if you can't see even one flaw in the movie.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Obviously, people hate the points that this guy is making because it attacks the movie that is loved by fans, but there is no denying that he brings to light some serious flaws.

Uhm, no. None that I can see. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nul. Nothing. And the way the article is written (tone, grammar, spelling, orthography and the like) don't help, either....

You are in serious denial if you can't see even one flaw in the movie.

And you're seriously confused by what DiSiLLUSiON posted. He didn't say that the movie has no flaws, just that this incoherent "review" doesn't "bring to light" anything worth considering.

Stipulating for the sake of argument that any movie has "flaws," part of the point here is that people have been talking out what they like and don't like about the movie for over a month now. Many reviewers have had their say. A lot of complaints - few that are universally shared, but a number that have borne continuing discussion - have been aired. That does not mean that when someone pops in here and posts a link to a "review" that could have been written by a dog if dogs were attention whores anyone is required to genuflect with "he makes some good points" when he does not.

In this instance, "people hate the review because it points out flaws" is a variation of "if I make you angry I must have hit a nerve" - that is, an attempt to impute undue value to a minor irritant via the suggestion that the irritation is prima facie evidence of value.

Mosquitoes, you know, don't annoy people because they remind us of something-or-another important. They annoy us because they're painful little bloodsuckers that need swatting when they can't be avoided.

 

[Larraby]

Uhm, no. None that I can see. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nul. Nothing. And the way the article is written (tone, grammar, spelling, orthography and the like) don't help, either....

You are in serious denial if you can't see even one flaw in the movie.

And you're seriously confused by what DiSiLLUSiON posted. He didn't say that the movie has no flaws, just that this incoherent "review" doesn't "bring to light" anything worth considering.

Stipulating for the sake of argument that any movie has "flaws," part of the point here is that people have been talking out what they like and don't like about the movie for over a month now. Many reviewers have had their say. A lot of complaints - few that are universally shared, but a number that have borne continuing discussion - have been aired. That does not mean that when someone pops in here and posts a link to a "review" that could have been written by a dog if dogs were attention whores anyone is required to genuflect with "he makes some good points" when he does not.

In this instance, "people hate the review because it points out flaws" is a variation of "if I make you angry I must have hit a nerve" - that is, an attempt to impute undue value to a minor irritant via the suggestion that the irritation is prima facie evidence of value.

Mosquitoes, you know, don't annoy people because they remind us of something-or-another important. They annoy us because they're painful little bloodsuckers that need swatting when they can't be avoided.

He said "Uhm, no. None that I can see. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nul. Nothing." I don't know any other way to interpret that.

Regardless, the guy may not be particularly elegant in articulating his view of the movie, but that in no way should be used as a reason for summarily discounting his opinion as not having "anything worth considering". I personally found that he had some good points and made me laugh while doing it.

 

[Jeyl]

Regardless, the guy may not be particularly elegant in articulating his view of the movie, but that in no way should be used as a reason for summarily discounting his opinion as not having "anything worth considering". I personally found that he had some good points and made me laugh while doing it.

I'm on the same boat. Just because they express their views differently doesn't mean they don't have a view, it's just different.

Make no mistake that I would criticize this review to be a little more down to earth. I don't play home console games that much I wasn't able to interpret all of what he was saying, but I understand the reasoning behind it.

I'm more interested in the discussion of his views than just calling him a moronic childish douche-bag.

 

[Balrog]

Anybody can write a crap review of any movie like the one the in that link. I think that's the point of the "douchebag" crowd.

I tend to agree.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

He said "Uhm, no. None that I can see. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nul. Nothing." I don't know any other way to interpret that.

Uh yeah, I could tell that the first time around. That is somewhat a result of his ambiguous phrasing, but if you can't reread it and see the other interpretation the fault lies with you.

Just because they express their views differently doesn't mean they don't have a view, it's just different.

Garden slugs probably have a "view," and if so it's certainly different. It's not necessarily interesting, nor is this guy.