News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

STAR TREK

Started by Phillip V, May 05, 2009, 09:46:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Neil

Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.
It could have been worst.  Kirk could have been a woman. ;)
I think everyone has learned, courtesy of Voyager, that women should never be allowed to command a starship.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

vinraith

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

This is probably just feeding my own reputation, but in general I find movies in the 60-80 range on RT tend to be more enjoyable than those in the 90+ category (which are often critical-darling films that just aren't very entertaining IMO). Now, this is a summer blockbuster, so it's harder to say, but more and more I find myself not taking the critical consensus too seriously.

None of which is to say this isn't a good sci fi flick, it might well be. I'm just not sure how it could be a good Star Trek flick.

Neil

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.
Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!
That website is stupid.
Why?
Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

vinraith

Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM
It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.



:blink: Seriously?

Jaron

Winner of THE grumbler point.

FunkMonk

Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.

Neil

I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

jimmy olsen

Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

vinraith

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:

Two words: frozen pond.


viper37

Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

This is probably just feeding my own reputation, but in general I find movies in the 60-80 range on RT tend to be more enjoyable than those in the 90+ category (which are often critical-darling films that just aren't very entertaining IMO). Now, this is a summer blockbuster, so it's harder to say, but more and more I find myself not taking the critical consensus too seriously.

None of which is to say this isn't a good sci fi flick, it might well be. I'm just not sure how it could be a good Star Trek flick.
you need to wait after the first week-end to get a credible rating from RottenTomatoes, imho, give time for all cricits to publish, both small and big.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

vinraith

Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 03:31:10 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

This is probably just feeding my own reputation, but in general I find movies in the 60-80 range on RT tend to be more enjoyable than those in the 90+ category (which are often critical-darling films that just aren't very entertaining IMO). Now, this is a summer blockbuster, so it's harder to say, but more and more I find myself not taking the critical consensus too seriously.

None of which is to say this isn't a good sci fi flick, it might well be. I'm just not sure how it could be a good Star Trek flick.
you need to wait after the first week-end to get a credible rating from RottenTomatoes, imho, give time for all cricits to publish, both small and big.

Yes, and, cesspool though it may be, the user response section can also have some small value after awhile.

Meh, I don't even know why I care so much. I'll probably Netflix it when it comes out, but the only way I'd see it in theatres is if I got roped into going with a group of friends.

viper37

I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

HVC

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:
I finally saw that movie. or part of it at least. had to change the channel it sucked so bad.
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

Savonarola

Quote from: HVC on May 07, 2009, 03:35:00 PM
I finally saw that movie. or part of it at least. had to change the channel it sucked so bad.

Big monkey movies will break your heart.  :(
In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace—and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock

Sheilbh

Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:00:22 PM
None of which is to say this isn't a good sci fi flick, it might well be. I'm just not sure how it could be a good Star Trek flick.
I don't care if it's a good sci fi flick if it's a good film.  The Guardian gave it a good review as a fun summer blockbuster and especially liked the portrayal of Kirk and the development of his friendship with Spock.

I imagine the Star Trek fans may hate it, though I could be wrong.

Edit:  And that's no bad thing.  An excess of fan zeal has made for some bad films in my opinion - anything with Zack Snyder's involvement for example.  He's too dedicated to the original to remember that he's actually meant to be making a film.
Let's bomb Russia!