The sheer emotion of that trailer

[Longinus]

I never even bothered to watch Dumb and Dumber -- it just didn't look interesting to me at all -- but I don't get the criticism ID4 tends to get around here; I thought it delivered exactly what it promised, and think that nitpicking its scientific inaccuracies and such is kind of missing the point. But that's just me.

Bad science is not even the worst problem with the ID4. It's the overly cheesy "drama" and plot, spiced with ridiculous overblown patriotism. Don't get me wrong, in a sense I enjoyed the film. But I enjoyed it same way one could enjoy "Plan 9 From Outer Space", it is so incredibly bad, that it becomes good. I am not convinced that it was the intention of the film makers, though. However, when bloody president of America flies with a fighter jet to kick some alien arse, you just have to laugh.

Whatever the case, I'm not really expecting Star Trek to resemble either of them too closely.

I most sincerely hope so.

 

[USS Triumphant]

"Those poor filmgoers probably eat at Burger King afterward."

But...but...but...

How else am I supposed to get the toys or glasses for the movie?!

 

[trevanian]

I won't get into the whole "quality of art" debate, but I will throw out what I believe is a reasonably factual statement:

The more that time passes, the more time history has to filter what is really good from what sucks.

There are thousands of films from past decades that we don't see because they have been forgotten. And while there are plenty of gems in the group, there's also plenty of crap (from ALL eras).

Something to keep in mind regarding this specific discussion is that folks (critics and populace alike) realized they were in a great time for movies AT THE TIME in the 70s. You can review contemporary criticism of hoity toity critics as well as commonfolk and see that there was a great appreciation for what they were getting, and an 'allowing for' that informed criticism of 70s cheese like AIRPORT 1975 and EARTHQUAKE.

Look at some of what was considered semi-popcorn then: DIRTY HARRY and DEATH WISH, films that actually addressed vigilantism and facist tendencies in a way that invited post-movie debate, and in some instances inspired other movies to respond to their premises (DIRTY HARRY's sequel was directly inspired by critical questioning of the political notions of the main character in the first one, by putting him up against young 'uns inspired by him to go much further with their extreme measures.)

The stuff that seems to inspire this much thought these days is mostly on the tube, be it NEW Galactica or MAD MEN or some of the current SHO and recently deceased HBO shows. And critics of this era seem to be aware of how good we're getting it right now in terms of TV, and probably settling for that in lieu of having a cinema resurgence.

So it ain't just looking at the past through rose-colored glasses.

 

[the quickening]

I'm not asking whether you can, I'm asking why it matters to you whether other people like certain movies.


J.

I don't get what you are asking.

I am asking you why it is so important to you that other people enjoy movies and have different tastes from your own.
That, somehow, your standards of artistic merit are more authoritative than those of another. J.

I think you are assuming ego, were there is none. Just because I express my views, with confidence, and with what I believe to be authoritarian backup–doesn't suggest other views are unimportant. That's not the case.

 

[Amaris]

I think you are assuming ego, were there is none. Just because I express my views, with confidence, and with what I believe to be authoritarian backup–doesn't suggest other views are unimportant. That's not the case.

I assume nothing. You have created a false dichotomy by stating with authoritative reference what you believe to be acceptable film as an art, and what you consider less than worthy. It is evident in your posts and essentially stated as such. What I am asking, is why you seem to have issues with other people liking what you would probably consider low brow entertainment.

J.

 

[trevanian]

I think you are assuming ego, were there is none. Just because I express my views, with confidence, and with what I believe to be authoritarian backup–doesn't suggest other views are unimportant. That's not the case.

I assume nothing. You have created a false dichotomy by stating with authoritative reference what you believe to be acceptable film as an art, and what you consider less than worthy. It is evident in your posts and essentially stated as such. What I am asking, is why you seem to have issues with other people liking what you would probably consider low brow entertainment.

J.

The dude admitted he liked junk food as well as Billy Shakes, what are YOU after?

Rereading this thread, it is like some of your posts are resembling posts from ST ONE that follow in my wake.

 

[Amaris]

The dude admitted he liked junk food as well as Billy Shakes, what are YOU after?

Rereading this thread, it is like some of your posts are resembling posts from ST ONE that follow in my wake.

I'm just curious. I'm not being confrontational, I'm not being mean or vindictive, and I'm not being sarcastic. I'm asking a genuine question.


J.

 

[Borgminister]

Caviar is gross.

 

[ST-One]

Caviar is gross.

No, it isn't.

 

[Australis]

Have it like James Bond, with lots of hot buttered toast.

 

[trevanian]

Have it like James Bond, with lots of hot buttered toast.

FRWL's Bond has him ordering green figs and yogurt. Obviously a man of varied tastes (while on assignment, anyway.)

 

[cooleddie74]

Caviar is gross.

No, it isn't.

Looks like shit.

But actually tastes moderately pleasant if you put it on crackers.

 

[the quickening]

I think you are assuming ego, were there is none. Just because I express my views, with confidence, and with what I believe to be authoritarian backup–doesn't suggest other views are unimportant. That's not the case.

I assume nothing. You have created a false dichotomy by stating with authoritative reference what you believe to be acceptable film as an art, and what you consider less than worthy. It is evident in your posts and essentially stated as such. What I am asking, is why you seem to have issues with other people liking what you would probably consider low brow entertainment.

J.

As I have admitted to liking "low brow entertainment" (your words), how can you suggest I take issue with others who like it also?

In my previous post to you, I avoided answering your questions because I sensed you were about to "go hostile". It's my policy never to get into shouting matches on sites like these. Life is too short. Sorry, not going there.

 

[cooleddie74]

I like the art of Michelangelo as well as watching FRASIER. I also like JACKASS and fart jokes. And a ton of stuff in-between. I like to think of myself as well-rounded.

 

[Amaris]

I think you are assuming ego, were there is none. Just because I express my views, with confidence, and with what I believe to be authoritarian backup–doesn't suggest other views are unimportant. That's not the case.

I assume nothing. You have created a false dichotomy by stating with authoritative reference what you believe to be acceptable film as an art, and what you consider less than worthy. It is evident in your posts and essentially stated as such. What I am asking, is why you seem to have issues with other people liking what you would probably consider low brow entertainment.

J.

As I have admitted to liking "low brow entertainment" (your words), how can you suggest I take issue with others who like it also?

In my previous post to you, I avoided answering your questions because I sensed you were about to "go hostile". It's my policy never to get into shouting matches on sites like these. Life is too short. Sorry, not going there.

Have I been hostile? I don't believe so. I'm simply asking a question.
It's your prerogative whether you choose to answer it or not. All you had to say was "I prefer not to answer" and I would have dropped it. As I said, there's no attitude, no waiting to strike, I don't do that to people here. I don't entrap people. It's not my style.

J.

 

[Son_of_Soong]

I've lost track of this thread, it is about star trek isnt it? :P

 

[Ghrakh]

I've lost track of this thread, it is about star trek isnt it? :P

Naw, it's about caviar.

 

[trevanian]

I've lost track of this thread, it is about star trek isnt it? :P

Naw, it's about caviar.

Once Jeri Taylor started writing Picard, he suddenly started knowing about and eating caviar instead of being the enlightened non-enslaver of animals.

Something fishy about these non-Vegan posts ...

 

[USS Triumphant]

I like the art of Michelangelo as well as watching FRASIER.

Hey! Me TOO!!!

 

[Ghrakh]

I've lost track of this thread, it is about star trek isnt it? :P

Naw, it's about caviar.

Once Jeri Taylor started writing Picard, he suddenly started knowing about and eating caviar instead of being the enlightened non-enslaver of animals.

Something fishy about these non-Vegan posts ...

LOL

yeah agreed, Picard has been a victim of some inconsistent writing...his character was so strong though that one didn't notice unless scrutinized...

anyway, strong emotion in the trailer, etc. etc....I feel like I've already seen the whole movie.