Eh... what? Is this a trick question?
Or did you mean "is not the best Star Trek movie"?
Double bollocks.
I need sleep...
Which of these statements wold you consider "blasphemous"?
- Thread starter Candlelight
- Start date
Double bollocks.
I need sleep...
Eh... what? Is this a trick question?
Or did you mean "is not the best Star Trek movie"?
Double bollocks.
I need sleep...
Some black coffee might be of use to you too.
Eh... what? Is this a trick question?
Or did you mean "is not the best Star Trek movie"?
Double bollocks.
I need sleep...
Some black coffee might be of use to you too.
Does black coffee take away 3 month old twins?
Does black coffee take away 3 month old twins?
If applied in the right manner...
Probably.
And to be clear, it has nothing to do with silent films in general, which can be pretty great, but Metropolis really just kind of drags itself by its own self-important metaphors to its conclusion.[/QUOTE]I don't agree, but this was a common criticism of the time, and Lang himself if I remember correctly said later in life that it was a bit too overblown and that the story was a bit simpleminded.
I hated Alien 3 the first time I saw it, but it's grown on me over time. Ressurection is dreadful.
Nice post! I think these questions simply raise the problem of fanboy tunnel vision.
Why do we need to rate films as best or worst or pit franchises against each other? (Trek vs. Wars for example)
I enjoy all the original Star Wars films, each on their own merits. I could say the same for the Alien films and the Trek films. In the case of Trek, there are some films that just make me cringe like STV just like there are some episodes that make me cringe like Threshold. But, on the whole, I don't "rate" episodes or movies and when something is less than I expected I don't think it is the end of the world.
Now for my blasphemous statement
:Star Trek 2009 is a complete, 100%, reboot of the series and not a parallel universe as evidenced by the use of the Enterprise insignia as the Starfleet insignia from the very beginning and the fact that Kirk doesn't have a brother in the movie.
So there...
...fun fun.
I saw Star Wars as a child, and Empire was my least favourite of the three (because it was slow and the good guys didn't win). As an adult, I can appreciate what Empire was doing both on its own and as part of the trilogy... but nostalgia insists that the original Star Wars is still the best Star Wars.
Alien 3 sucks equine phallus. Can't disagree there.
I think Wrath of Khan is greatly overrated, and wouldn't even place in my top five. Actually, here's something that might qualify as a blasphemy of my own: Khan is a lacklustre villain. He's a scenery-chewing, two-dimensional plot device.
theenglish said:Now for my blasphemous statement
Star Trek 2009 is a complete, 100%, reboot of the series and not a parallel universe as evidenced by the use of the Enterprise insignia as the Starfleet insignia from the very beginning and the fact that Kirk doesn't have a brother in the movie.
Well, one would think that was obvious. The temporal mechanics don't work otherwise; if going back in time splits off new universes, Spock never would have shown up in the new reality Nero created.
Here's my own blasphemy:
Richard Donner's Superman is a cartoonish, puffed-up cornball of a film that does violence to the viewer's intelligence.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
LOL--well, the original Superman I like much more than Superman II, but both were products of their time and it dismays me that they are both still treated as the "gold standard" of superhero movies.
2001 is a boring drag.
how's THAT for blashpemy?
personally, my favourite OT movie is Jedi. sue me.
i thought it was common wisdom Resurrection was the worst Alien flick, not counting the AVPs. personally, i've only seen 1 and 2 and as far as i'm concerned, there's only one: Aliens. ooo, how's THAT for blasphemy?
TWOK is my 4th favourite Trek flick behind FC, TVH and TUC.
JJTrek sucks balls.
how's THAT for blashpemy?
personally, my favourite OT movie is Jedi. sue me.
i thought it was common wisdom Resurrection was the worst Alien flick, not counting the AVPs. personally, i've only seen 1 and 2 and as far as i'm concerned, there's only one: Aliens. ooo, how's THAT for blasphemy?
TWOK is my 4th favourite Trek flick behind FC, TVH and TUC.
JJTrek sucks balls.
It is. It makes TMP look like a Michael Bay movie.
Star Wars is the best Star Wars movie
Alien Resurrection is worse than Alien3
The Wrath of Khan is not the best Star Trek movie
= 1 out of three. I don't know which is blasphemous though.
Concur. The first Superman movie kind of sucks. Lex Luthor is a jackass (where did they get that real-estate thing from? was that a common Luthor strategy from the Silver Age that I'm just not aware of?), and especially the ending is pretty messed up.
Empire may be the best film but the first is still the best Star Wars.
I've only seen 2 & 3. 3 was the worst I saw.
Can't agree. When I think of Star Trek films, I think of TWOK first and best although a few others have merits.
Abrams abomination could only surpass it in having a vasty larger budget and 28 years of special effect advancement.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
Could we have a moratorium on "sue me" and "deal with it"?
It was the "standard" insofar as most "comic book film" audience members had seen it and could therefore judge whether or not new flicks were better or worse. Considering the age and increasingly dated nature of the film's final hour (it's first hour or so is, IMO, about as timeless as one can get) a new standard should probably be used. I'd offer Spider-Man as that new standard, considering its popularity and generally favorable acclaim -- and it's balance of storytelling. One could reasonably suggest that The Dark Knight is the new standard, too.
Here's a blasphemous statement:
Jar Jar Binks is an underrated, mostly misunderstood character.
The problem with large special-interest forum communities is that these kinds of statements are never "blasphemous" at all - there are always plenty of people who would agree with them.
Still, it's always fun to speak heresy
I liked "Star Trek Nemisis" better than "The Wrath of Khan"
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
You couldn't have liked it that much I think.
I'll just trot out my standard blasphemy.
There is no such thing as "underrated" or "overrated." Everything is just as good as people think it is, because our experience thereof is mediated through our own bodies.
So when we talk about how "good" or "bad" or "better" or "worse" something is, all we're really talking about is ourselves and our own reactions--not some intrinsic merit or demerit of the work in question.
So, interpreted properly, the following statements (for example) are both (at least potentially) true:
"Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus was the worst movie ever made"
"Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus was the best movie ever made."
There is no contradiction between the two because they're describing two different things: namely, two different people's responses to the film.
And when we criticize something that other people enjoy, we are essentially criticizing them for being different people, and enjoying different things. Thus, it is entirely appropriate to take such criticism personally, since that's what it is: personal criticism.
If someone dislikes a movie you like, then they dislike the person you are. If they say it's a bad movie, then they're saying that you're a bad (or at least inferior) person. Respond appropriately.
There is no such thing as "underrated" or "overrated." Everything is just as good as people think it is, because our experience thereof is mediated through our own bodies.
So when we talk about how "good" or "bad" or "better" or "worse" something is, all we're really talking about is ourselves and our own reactions--not some intrinsic merit or demerit of the work in question.
So, interpreted properly, the following statements (for example) are both (at least potentially) true:
"Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus was the worst movie ever made"
"Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus was the best movie ever made."
There is no contradiction between the two because they're describing two different things: namely, two different people's responses to the film.
And when we criticize something that other people enjoy, we are essentially criticizing them for being different people, and enjoying different things. Thus, it is entirely appropriate to take such criticism personally, since that's what it is: personal criticism.
If someone dislikes a movie you like, then they dislike the person you are. If they say it's a bad movie, then they're saying that you're a bad (or at least inferior) person. Respond appropriately.
Similar threads
