Author Topic: Star Trek fans bash new film as "fun, watchable" (Read 37767 times)

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #240 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:19:05 PM »

No way. I'll take shakycam action sequences shot like a fucking movie over something shot like Battlestar Galactica any day of the week.

WrikaWrek · « **Reply #241 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:21:58 PM »

Quote from: Synthesizer Patel on May 11, 2009, 10:11:27 PM

My office mate just got back from Star Trek and said "when I saw the Transformers 2 trailer I just felt blind rage for Michael Bay"

Irrational Michael Bay haters are just another form of distinguished mentally-challenged fellows.

Terminator 4, from the footage available looks more entertaining than Star Trek no doubt. Regarding Transformers....Transformers 1 was more entertaining than Star Trek, and Transformers 2 just looks like Michael Bay decided to push it to the max.

Star Trek was very tame. It wasn't that smart, and it wanted to appeal to the big crowd, but it didn't know how to pull off the crowd pleasures and when it's all done, it just wasn't very exciting.

I don't know if i had more fun with Quantum of Solace or Star Trek, see Quantum of Solace did have a badass car chase at the beginning, and it did have the opera scene, but i think Star Trek is more well rounded i guess. Both were forgettable.

Quote from: Chipopo on May 11, 2009, 10:17:39 PM

the first Transformers movie had the worst camera work. The worst! Way worse than Star Trek.

No...there's a difference between using fast camera work, which make for amazing action sequences, and have most of the audience at the edge of their seat, and this shit that Star Trek uses that is terrible, and is shaky when it makes no sense and lens flare up the eye lid and the action sucks, and nobody is at the edge of their seat.

Like the big "whoa" moment in the whole movie was what, the slow mo jump where Kirk flies to this other platform?

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #242 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:26:24 PM »

I really didn't understand why they employed such low-budget handheld television camerawork - like when Kirk and Pike are talking to each other, despite the fact that they were totally stationary, the camera was moving around constantly.

This is utilized on Battlestar Galactica (in addition to the shaky space zoom, also in effect here) to present the show as gritty and more of a documentary than a fictional space opera, but this is a motion picture with a bridge that looks like Steve Jobs' designed it.

Diunx · « **Reply #243 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:28:03 PM »

Transformer's shaky cam was fucking horrible, I don't know why you guys are talking about, the action scenes in that movie sucked

Barry Egan · « **Reply #244 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:29:28 PM »

I'm not sure what "television camera work" is, but at the very least I was never confused as to what I was seeing on screen. Whatever choreography was involved in the actions sequences of Transformers are totally lost in Parkinson's disease-cam.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #245 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:31:38 PM »

Because it was shot like a fucking movie and had robots fighting and was badass!

Not to mention, the shakycam was limited. There are a ton of aerial shots, slow motion shots, shots done on dollies, etc.

... but, hey, it's Michael Bay, so let's bitch and moan.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #246 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:35:32 PM »

Quote from: Chipopo on May 11, 2009, 10:29:28 PM

I'm not sure what "television camera work" is, but at the very least I was never confused as to what I was seeing on screen.

You can't tell when something is shot like a television production and when something is shot like a film production?

Of course there was nothing to be confused about - as very little happened in the movie! You had two or three ships fighting at the same time throughout the movie - no more, no less!

I'm not necessarily a proponent of shakycam, but people bitch about it entirely too much, even when it's used in select sequences. People griped that Batman Begins was entirely shakycam, when it hardly was. The phrase has become a catch-all for any handheld work that moves too fast for the viewer and nobody pays any attention to differentiate between how it's used.

I'll take shakycam in an action sequence over mild shakycam during dialogue, as seen in Star Trek.

ManaByte · « **Reply #247 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:47:00 PM »

Going to go drive an hour later tonight to see it on a huge IMAX screen. That shot of the Enterprise leaving Titan's atmosphere should look awesome

EmCeeGrammar · « **Reply #248 on:** May 11, 2009, 11:24:42 PM »

I like my dumb fun entertainment as much as the next yokel, but transformers fails. And now there's destiny and visions and archaeological symbols and unicycles. Was the first movie not corny enough with teen sexual frustration, piss jokes, and fat black guy plays ddr? It would've been a guilty pleasure if it was just mech battle fetish fanservice, but you know, ancillary bullshit.

I saw Trek today. Previously I've only ever watched one episode. I teared up a few times, emotions evoked. The motivations of some of the characters were kind of weak but mostly alot of enjoyable portrayals. Can anyone explain the deal with Scotty? Why was he just there on the ice planet by himself considering his aptitude?

ManaByte · « **Reply #249 on:** May 11, 2009, 11:38:50 PM »

Because he killed Porthos.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #250 on:** May 11, 2009, 11:39:25 PM »

He teleported Admiral Archer's beagle to God knows where and got sent to the outpost as punishment, pretty much.

... Tear up a few times? Really?

... Really?

AdmiralViscen · « **Reply #251 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:05:19 AM »

Can Willco have 50% of the posts in this topic by the time it's run its course?

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #252 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:23:46 AM »

I'm aiming for 90%

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #253 on:** May 12, 2009, 01:36:27 AM »

I saw it again tonight in IMAX

the pseudo-science was a bit more obnoxious on a second viewing but otherwise it's still an excellent movie

haters need to STFU

it's far better than anything I suffered through last summer or will suffer through this summer

cool breeze · « **Reply #254 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:11:25 AM »

I would be shocked if Transformers 2 ends up being more enjoyable than Star Trek. I might not find out until it's out on DVD either. Don't know about Terminator 4, I'm pretty undecided on that one.

EmCeeGrammar · « **Reply #255 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:34:10 AM »

Oh, yeah the dog story.
Yes, there were some sadface moments. Its kind of fucked up to listen to your newborn baby crying while thirty seconds from matyrdom.

Cheebs · « **Reply #256 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:06:43 AM »

Quote from: Willco on May 11, 2009, 11:39:25 PM

He teleported Admiral Archer's beagle to God knows where and got sent to the outpost as punishment, pretty much.

... Tear up a few times? Really?

... Really?

I didn't tear up but the start of the movie when its George Kirk on the bridge and it all goes silent no noise except for the Giacchino score as he starts putting the ship into a collision course as his baby is being born? Hard not to get a bit worked up.

border · « **Reply #257 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:30:41 AM »

Willco - IIRC your original claim from way back when was that moving this film from December to Summer was evidence that the studio had no faith in the production and that it was a disaster (or at least too mediocre to turn a profit during the less busy winter movie season). Having seen the final product, do you think it would have tanked in December?

I gotta admit, I do kinda miss the Christmas/Star Trek tradition. It looks like they will be locked in to summer releases for the rest of the franchise (or at least as long as it is helmed by JJ Abrahms).

OptimoPeach · « **Reply #258 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:38:35 AM »

Quote from: Willco on May 11, 2009, 10:31:38 PM

Because it was shot like a fucking movie and had robots fighting and was badass!

... but, hey, it's Michael Bay, so let's bitch and moan.

People don't hate Transformers because of Michael Bay, they hate it because they somehow took what should have easily been AWESOME ACTION GIANT ROBOTS DESTROYING AIRPLANES AND SHIT FUCK YEAR and turned it into GOD THIS IS SO BORING. I could have at least tolerated all the lame jokes if the rest of the film wasn't coma-inducing.

ManaByte · « **Reply #259 on:** May 12, 2009, 05:31:28 AM »

Quote from: Synthesizer Patel on May 12, 2009, 01:36:27 AM

I saw it again tonight in IMAX

the pseudo-science was a bit more obnoxious on a second viewing but otherwise it's still an excellent movie

haters need to STFU

it's far better than anything I suffered through last summer or will suffer through this summer

Yup still good on a second viewing, and it looked great on IMAX. Haters are dickheads (so says Nimoy).

Quote from: Cheebs on May 12, 2009, 03:06:43 AM

Quote from: Willco on May 11, 2009, 11:39:25 PM
He teleported Admiral Archer's beagle to God knows where and got sent to the outpost as punishment, pretty much.

... Tear up a few times? Really?

... Really?

I didn't tear up but the start of the movie when its George Kirk on the bridge and it all goes silent no noise except for the Giacchino score as he starts putting the ship into a collision course as his baby is being born? Hard not to get a bit worked up.

Yea the movie had a couple parts like that.

Solo · « **Reply #260 on:** May 12, 2009, 05:41:53 AM »

Quote from: Willco on May 11, 2009, 10:10:02 PM

Quote from: Solo on May 11, 2009, 09:39:27 PM
Well, you could be in for a long summer, since nothing else really looks better than Trek. Worst overall looking summer in a while.

Terminator and Transformers both look more entertaining.

... Solo was once a great man, but that was another lifetime!

Terminator? Really? McG makes Abrams look like Spielberg. Not to mention the neutered rating.

Solo · « **Reply #261 on:** May 12, 2009, 05:42:32 AM »

Quote from: Synthesizer Patel on May 12, 2009, 01:36:27 AM

I saw it again tonight in IMAX

the pseudo-science was a bit more obnoxious on a second viewing but otherwise it's still an excellent movie

haters need to STFU

it's far better than anything I suffered through last summer or will suffer through this summer

Agreed!

Reb · « **Reply #262 on:** May 12, 2009, 07:57:09 AM »

Synthesizer Patel

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #263 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:07:10 AM »

Quote from: border on May 12, 2009, 03:30:41 AM

Willco - IIRC your original claim from way back when was that moving this film from December to Summer was evidence that the studio had no faith in the production and that it was a disaster (or at least too mediocre to turn a profit during the less busy winter movie season). Having seen the final product, do you think it would have tanked in December?

I don't think it would've done as well. I know there some test screening issues that they smoothed out, but this was a good move - the film was good pick to debut in May.

Quote from: Solo on May 12, 2009, 05:41:53 AM

Terminator? Really? McG makes Abrams look like Spielberg. Not to mention the neutered rating.

McG is leagues better than Abrams in directing - he may be a total douche, but he's got a few chops. His problem is that he has a tendency to "Mc" everything he touches, but he looks totally reigned in. Film looks pretty entertaining.

And neutered rating? I like my R-rated action films as much as anyone, but I highly doubt that the rating is going to make much of a difference here. Terminator 3 was practically PG-13. Actually, the only thing from Terminator 2 that pushed the envelope was T-1000 sticking his arm through Todd's mouth and the eye of the security guard.

... And Star Trek went from "fun" to "excellent", Patel? C'mon! As for emotional parts in the film - there were none. Nobody had any emotional depth. For a film that destroyed an entire fucking planet, it had the emotional impact of someone losing their car keys.

Solo · « **Reply #264 on:** May 12, 2009, 11:05:19 AM »

Feder, sooner or later you're gonna have to except that you're in the minority on this one. I love my box office and critical/fan reaction A-bombs as much as anyone else (hello thar, Speed Racer!), but this isnt one of them. Trek has made nice bank, and has been incredibly well received by critics and movie goers alike. Those of us who enjoyed it arent fighting a losing battle like we were with Speed Racer.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #265 on:** May 12, 2009, 11:19:54 AM »

Huh? I don't hate the film, nor do I really care that it made bank. Critical reaction is meaningless.

The only thing I'm stunned is that Patel called it excellent, someone admitted to tearing up, etc. Whether or not that makes me the minority is irrelevant. Who cares? I freely admit that I enjoyed Transformers; peer acceptance is hard anything I crave.

Cheebs · « **Reply #266 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:24:20 PM »

Willco you know the fact it made 80 million opening weekend bothers you after a year of claiming in every 'Trek thread at EB that it was going to bomb.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #267 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:30:32 PM »

It doesn't really bother me, I have no real emotion connection to this series. Like I said, it's surprising, but even I'm wrong!

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #268 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:32:38 PM »

my friend who's not a big trekkie and saw it last night turned to me after it was done and said "that was a thoroughly excellent movie"

it's not just fun, it's well-made, well-written, and well-produced! IT'S A LEGITIMATELY GOOD MOVIE! sorry

also after suffering through that trailer in IMAX I think I would rather have an enema than see Transformers 2

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #269 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:33:15 PM »

Well written? ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

Now you're blatantly trolling.

Cheebs · « **Reply #270 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:35:46 PM »

It was the best script Orci & Kurtzman have done. Even you must admit the script is better than the duo's script on Transformers.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #271 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:37:35 PM »

I think they're both about the same.

Star Trek had a pretty awful script. The plot has more holes than the U.S.S. Kelvin, there's no emotional depth, the antagonist is one of the weakest in the series, full of corny Orci/Kurtzman in-jokes, etc.

The cast and special effects carried the film.

Cheebs · « **Reply #272 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:40:36 PM »

The cast did carry the film, I agree. Chris Pine did far better as a lead then I could have imagined. Dude oozes charisma.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #273 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:46:13 PM »

That sounds pretty gay.

Cheebs · « **Reply #274 on:** May 12, 2009, 12:47:52 PM »

Chris Pine was very charismatic in the movie, cigarillo or not.

WrikaWrek · « **Reply #275 on:** May 12, 2009, 01:13:30 PM »

Keep bringing up Star Trek making money. Who gives a shit. Wolverine will probably make more money worldwide. And Transformers 2 will double these bitches up.

And how can you say Transformers was boring? And wtf at you people wanting it to just be about mechs fighting mechs, go watch your weird anime for that shit. Fact is, tranformers was funny and action packed, and people cared more about Bumblebee than people did about billions of vulcan dying. Shit i don't think people even quite realized it, not even in the movie did people seem like they actually cared.

And Transformers, so you know, only had bad reviews by professional reviewers. The movie scored off the charts in pre screenings, in all ages, and word of mouth carried it into 702 million dollars worldwide. And it's a movie based on toys. It made 155 million dollars in the 1st week.

And home release was huge too.

Solo · « **Reply #276 on:** May 12, 2009, 01:17:01 PM »

Quote from: Willco on May 12, 2009, 11:19:54 AM

Huh? I don't hate the film, nor do I really care that it made bank. Critical reaction is meaningless.

The only thing I'm stunned is that Patel called it excellent, someone admitted to tearing up, etc. Whether or not that makes me the minority is irrelevant. Who cares? I freely admit that I enjoyed Transformers; peer acceptance is hard anything I crave.

So then why are you trying to turn it around on us (those who liked it)?

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #277 on:** May 12, 2009, 01:27:43 PM »

I'm confused - I'm trying to get you to hate it?

Robo · « **Reply #278 on:** May 12, 2009, 01:31:06 PM »

♫ willco and wrikawrek sitting in a tree ♫

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #279 on:** May 12, 2009, 01:32:39 PM »

Quit it, RoboJ! You aren't helping me!

EmCeeGrammar · « **Reply #280 on:** May 12, 2009, 01:52:25 PM »

Quote from: WrikaWrek on May 12, 2009, 01:13:30 PM

Keep bringing up Star Trek making money. Who gives a shit. Wolverine will probably make more money worldwide. And Transformers 2 will double these bitches up.

And how can you say Transformers was boring? And wtf at you people wanting it to just be about mechs fighting mechs, go watch your weird anime for that shit. Fact is, tranformers was funny and action packed, and people cared more about Bumblebee than people did about billions of vulcan dying. Shit i don't think people even quite realized it, not even in the movie did people seem like they actually cared.

And Transformers, so you know, only had bad reviews by professional reviewers. The movie scored off the charts in pre screenings, in all ages, and word of mouth carried it into 702 million dollars worldwide. And it's a movie based on toys. It made 155 million dollars in the 1st week.

And home release was huge too.

Its a movie based on toys i.e. transforming from video tapes into Jaguars or some shit. Why am I watching Bumblebee helping some douchebag teenager get tail? Who honestly related towards any of the characters who acted like loud morons all throughout? Ever since Armageddon, I can tell if its a Bay movie without his name attached because I end up being disgusted with his characters. I'll always contend it would've worked so much better if we had a movie of helpless observers to a war between MUTE Transformers. At least it would be consistent dumb fun compared to the plot they came up with.

And since your so fond of sales figures, you'll admit Nintendo is awesomesauce now right?

WrikaWrek · « **Reply #281 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:06:12 PM »

Too bad you can't read, i was talking about how Cheebs keeps bringing up Star Trek doing bank as some sort of badge of quality.

And if you couldn't relate with a high school kid wanting to get himself his new car, with the hopes of it attracting the likes of beautiful girls like Megan Fox....

If you can't relate to that, then i don't know what kind of weirdo you are. And beautiful and exotic looking girl coming from a low class family, ugh hello? Tons out there.

Bumblebee helping his owner get tail, is just a metaphor for what happens in reality. And it was funny.

Who did you relate to in Star Trek? Spock? ahahahahahahahahhaha

Cheebs · « **Reply #282 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:22:50 PM »

Quote from: WrikaWrek on May 12, 2009, 02:06:12 PM

Too bad you can't read, i was talking about how Cheebs keeps bringing up Star Trek doing bank as some sort of badge of quality.

That isn't why I brought it up. I brought it up because I can't count how many times since this was announced in 2006 I was told on EB it'd bomb.

ManaByte · « **Reply #283 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:25:41 PM »

Saw it twice already, and I'm probably going to see it again tomorrow night.

Had no desire to see Transformers or TDK more than once.

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #284 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:25:53 PM »

okay, people are pretending Transformers had characters now, it's time to leave this thread

ManaByte · « **Reply #285 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:26:29 PM »

Well I did see TDK a second time when it got to the $3 theater because I was bored.

ManaByte · « **Reply #286 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:28:58 PM »

BTW the entire opening sequence through the title reveal is FUCK AWESOME on a 72' screen and IMAX sound system. Well worth the extra cost.

Herr Mafflard · « **Reply #287 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:43:07 PM »

Yeah the opening sequence was the most memorable bit of the film for me.

Btw I didn't like Star Trek, but even I would admit it's better than Transformers.

ManaByte · « **Reply #288 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:47:15 PM »

The first time I saw it, Spock's "I have been, and always shall be, your friend" bugged me as "oh those Transformers tards just tossed that in there because they HAD to", but on the second viewing it didn't bug me as much.

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #289 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:49:40 PM »

mana, are you liveblogging this from the theater

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #290 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:03:05 PM »

I'd pay good money to see that green alien broad totally naked, but sans green makeup.

Cheebs · « **Reply #291 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:06:29 PM »

Quote from: Willco on May 12, 2009, 03:03:05 PM

I'd pay good money to see that green alien broad totally naked, but sans green makeup.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #292 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:06:56 PM »

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #293 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:07:02 PM »

Quote from: Willco on May 12, 2009, 03:03:05 PM

I'd pay good money to see that green alien broad totally naked, but sans green makeup.

wait, apparently she's Scarlett in the G.I. Joe movie. WTF

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #294 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:07:32 PM »

... so maybe there's a reason to see G.I. Joe after all?

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #295 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:07:58 PM »

NO, THERE ISN'T.

Tauntaun · « **Reply #296 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:08:29 PM »

Quote from: Willco on May 12, 2009, 03:03:05 PM

I'd pay good money to see that green alien broad totally naked, but sans green makeup.

She has a vagina full of razors.

Eric P · « **Reply #297 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:08:45 PM »

Quote from: Synthesizer Patel on May 12, 2009, 03:07:58 PM

NO, THERE ISN'T.

i'm going to have to second this

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #298 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:10:10 PM »

But that chick is pretty hot!

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #299 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:10:43 PM »

Willco if you go see G.I.Joe in theaters your are telling them THAT'S OKAY

News:

Author Topic: Star Trek fans bash new film as "fun, watchable" (Read 37767 times)