|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on May 11, 2009 15:31:17 GMT -8
Why? Because it should just be one thread, that's why.
So, let's get this on with
Wolverine: Origins.
Oh.
Oh my.
Oh my fucking god.
Oh my fucking god WHY?
The good:
-Hugh Jackman's performance is of course, perfect, and he inhabits the role with supreme confidence. But after almost an entire decade in the role, this should not be a surprise.
-Liev Schrieber's Sabretooth is at once fun, compelling, and he does make the most with the role.
-I liked the title sequence with the non-stop war.
The bad:
EVERYTHING ELSE.
Poor Gambit Fans. If you went into this expecting a deep character arc, or at least, for him to contribute in some meaningful way to the plot, I'm so sorry.
Not as sorry as I am for Deadpool fans though. Jesus, that is epic-level fuck-uppery of a character right there. I mean....Jesus wept that was fucking awful.
And...that's the explanation for Wolverine's memory issues in the movieverse? WTF?
Seriously, the only "characters" in the film are Stryker, Logan, and Sabretooth (and Sabretooth barely qualifies). There is little story logic, and the double and triple fake-outs were easy to predict. Not only that, they were so easy that it really makes Logan a fucking tool for not doing it sooner.
The special guest cameo - uh...dude, could you not have helped out SOONER and possibly in a way that might have been more beneficial for everyone? Jesus you're a prick.
And there's really no good reason for the Sabretooth/Wolverine mutual hate fest other than...no, actually, they manage to undermine even the most valid reasons by the end of the movie.
You know, it's hard to say whether this is better or worse than X3, but the more I think about it, the further down it goes....
And now, for something a little more positive...
STAR TREK
Better than it had any right to be. I'm not a fan of Abrams, and haven't seen much of his work, but damn, this is good.
The only major negative things about the movie I had were exactly the same two I had going into the movie from watching the previews:
-Time Travel - if I never ever ever ever see a Time Travel story in Star Trek ever again, I will die fucking happy. At least this time the usage was relatively good.
-I'm the type of Trek fan that always thought Trek did best when it went for the social commentary and "putting a mirror to the human condition" thing. However, I have to concede that in a world where commentators genuinely believe "Happy Feet" is a super-secret means of promoting the Gay Agenda, and "WALL-E" was decried as anti-capitalism, there are few people in Hollywood with the sheer amount of balls it would take to put thoughtful social commentary into a $150 million US film production. So they went with the rather conventional choice of a summer action flick.
The only minor quibbles are that:
-yeah, the ladies don't have much to do in this film. However, this is Star Trek, and outside of Kira and Jadzia Dax, the ladies have ALWAYS been shortchanged and shoved aside (i.e. Deanna Troi, Ezri Dax, 7of9, T'Pol, etc etc ad infinitum). So it's not a huge deal.
-also not a dealbreaker but a quibble - reading the IDW "Countdown" series was actually helpful in fleshing out the backstory (unlike other Countdown series that need not be mentioned).
-Science be damned! On with the action! Seriously, science is beaten like a red headed stepchild, but again, Star Trek tends to do that.
And those are the only bad things I have to say about the movie. As to the good:
-There really should be a distinctive name for the "Media made by true fans that sends them a lovenote" because this is IT. There's a lot in here that reminded me of the fan-love clearly shown in IRON MAN, THE INCREDIBLE HULK, and NuWho. I lost track of the number of in-jokes, usage of classic lines, and etc.
-Every single cast member nails their roles. Everyone does an excellent job and I now understand the HEROES writers' Sylar lovefest because Zachary Quinto just knocks it out of the park. Chris Pine's Kirk is more hit than miss, and even Eric Bana manages to play the villain without chewing the scenery, which is a rarity for ST villains (Y HALO THAR CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER).
-It's fun, and uplifting and even when things get tragic you still feel that hope is not lost...
-because THE GODDAMNED KIRK is on the scene.
-And now, for the only major spoiler, and by far the ballsiest thing the movie did....
(SPOILER)
Blowing up Vulcan - man, I really hope that becomes a plot point for any future sequels. That was truly a gutsy move, and I could easily have seen a couple ways to reverse it before the final credits rolled, but again, the team decided to go for broke and make the reboot work.
(END SPOILER)
Also,
Kirk and a green skinned chick! What is not to love!
That is all,
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on May 12, 2009 9:54:43 GMT -8
And now for the Democratic Response:
I enjoyed Wolverine very much.
Star Trek on the other hand, is a steaming pile of feces.
My initial intense dislike of putting some kid into command of a military vessel came true, but suprisingly, the Actors came through, with Karl Urban being fantastic. And Anton Yelchin making me want to drive to Hollywood and beat him with a stick.
First of all: the story has huge gaping plot holes in it you can drive a truck through. And because of this is confusing. But no one cares because they're so busy sticking every star trek cliche into the script to get you to laugh, it's hard to notice.
Second of all: This is without a doubt one of the worst DESIGNED films I have ever seen. Oh the bridge of the Enterprise looks high tech and futuristic, but the rest of the ship? A plumbers nightmare. Seriously. This thing has valves, pipes everywhere. It looks like an industrial factory or waterworks. Makes you wonder if the ship is steam driven.
Third: Extreneous scenes such as the Kirk being chased by the monster don't do it for me. Boring and irrelevant.
Forth: And yes, this is a big sticking issue with me and will be forever. No military orginization worth it's salt sticks a kid fresh out of the Acadamy into command of military vessel, particularly the flag ship. There's a reason you go through the ranks. Furthermore, I can suspend disbelief for time travel, for ftl travel, and for particle beam weaponry or quantum teleportation. But complete ignorance of the laws of physics... no. So why aren't Kirk and Sulu splattered all over the deck of the transporter room after being beamed out of the middle of freefall? Never heard of inertia? Terminal Velocity...
FIfth: The action? Simply isn't that spectacular. Face it, Kirk is the worst hand to hand fighter in this history of film, there have been considerably better space battles through the history of film, even in the original Star Trek. Isn;t that why you go to a Star Trek movie? awesome Space battles? Doesn't happen in this movie. For that matter, the special effects aren;t that great either, especially the new transporter effect.
The big destruction in the middle of the film was ballsy. I'll give you that. But even ballsier? How do we justify throwing the entire backstory from the previous trek series' and movies out the window? Well, you'll find it in this film. What's more... it works. It makes sense. It's the only plot device in the film that DOES work.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on May 12, 2009 13:06:58 GMT -8
That's my response right there. If you want to go plot-hole to plot-hole match between Star Trek and Wolverine, we can do that. Actually, this makes a degree of sense - you'd want the bridge to look clean and impressive as a means of intimidation, whereas the rest of the ship, function overcomes form. And considering that this was the maiden voyage in a crisis, one could imagine that they rushed some of the final details of construction. OK, I'll grant you this one does stretch credulity. However, there's a couple considerations that put it on the edge of plausibility, if not realism: -One of the things that struck me about this Trek was an aesthetic of the old "Space Cadet" young adventure fiction of the old days - and something like that is not out of place in such fiction. -If you assume that the Federation is the Utopic Meritocracy that it has always been portrayed as, and given what Kirk did, it's not completely insane. Especially if you accept that the Federation is spread thin in terms of population, and with several possible hostile races at the fringes waiting for any sign of weakness, and the Federation has just lost a large number of ships and manpower, and the recommendation that Kirk probably gets. Yes, even given all that, it is a stretch, but not an impossible one. And that's not the first time the Transporter has been used to circumvent physical laws. And when you have a physics-shattering plot device like the transporter to begin with, the idea that it can be used to bend or break these things is not a big deal. The Transporter is a macguffin, and always has been, so that arguement doesn't hold any water for me. Agreed. I like the response from Post Modern Barney www.postmodernbarney.com/2009/05/there-is-no-star-trek-canon/I also like this www.postmodernbarney.com/2009/05/it-could-have-been-worse/Now, because you spent so much time on this, let me fire off a few of my big issues with Wolverine. See spoilertext below.
1) Gambit gets involved in that fight between Wolverine and Sabretooth...why? Does he want Sabretooth to live so that Sabretooth can kill him? WTF?
2) Deadpool.
3) The Cyclops appearance was completely unnecessary, and the Xavier cameo...jesus, he could have been useful if he'd gotten off his ass a lot, hell, even a little bit sooner.
4) You have issues with a kid fresh out of an academy can get a command, but you have no problem with a US General getting stuck like a pig, and the man responsible not immediately getting a court-martial by small arms fire?
5) A nuclear facility is attacked, and about a billion dollars of property damage, and there's no fallout or mass panic? Uh, no.
6) That Logan didn't immediately figure out the "co-incidence" that I did about 30 seconds in, speaks to either his clouded judgement or his lack of basic intelligence. Speaking of which...
7) So Adamantium can do that? And Logan's healing factor can do that? huh.
8) here's one for your "ignoring basic phyics" - "Claws can deflect laser beams." - uh, no.
9) The final fight sequence was worthy of X3. No higher insult can I throw
10) Logan was off the grid for six years, but he still manages to beat Sabretooth and Stryker to find Wraith and Blob. Because if he hadn't, there'd be no movie.
11) Blob knew everything about Gambit and the prison guards but not the location of the prison. That's almost as convienent as Ice planet Hoth there in Star Trek, don't you think?I appreciate that we have a difference of opinion here, and I'm willing to leave it be, k? |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on May 12, 2009 16:00:33 GMT -8
A final coda, if I may.
I saw both of these movies with my brother, whom doesn't care one way or another about comics, and absolutely, positively LOATHES Star Trek. And I mean, he hates it. Always has.
His reaction to Wolverine was that it was "alright, but not nearly as good as the trailers made it out to be." He basically thought the ending was too weak and that Logan came off looking to be rather useless and stupid.
His reaction to Star Trek.
He liked it. Keep in mind, he's spent a lifetime around me watching it, but he simply put, DESPISES it. But he was so dissappointed by Wolverine, and then he heard ST in the theatre next door that he was curious.
And he said it was a much better movie.
So, factor that in.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on May 12, 2009 23:23:06 GMT -8
Forth: And yes, this is a big sticking issue with me and will be forever. No military orginization worth it's salt sticks a kid fresh out of the Acadamy into command of military vessel, particularly the flag ship. I'd been bothered by that that myself, just from the trailers. Why is Kirk allowed to sit in the command chair? Doesn't everyone on the bridge outrank him? Including Checkov? So even Checkov should have taken command before Kirk would have been allowed to. (In this timeline, even Ensign Checkov is older than Kirk, and will probably be promoted to captaincy before him. Another thing that bothered me.) |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on May 13, 2009 4:58:35 GMT -8
Actually, my understanding is that other than Pike and Spock, nearly the entire crew of the Enterprise consists of "field promoted" cadets. And Chekov's age is given explicitly as 17, so....no.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on May 13, 2009 10:10:16 GMT -8
Not really going to get into it about Wolverine beyond I enjoyed it more than either of the first three x movies. But a masterpeice it's not.
"Actually, this makes a degree of sense - you'd want the bridge to look clean and impressive as a means of intimidation, whereas the rest of the ship, function overcomes form. And considering that this was the maiden voyage in a crisis, one could imagine that they rushed some of the final details of construction."
It doesn't make sense at all when you consider that a bunch of people in the '60's working on a shoestring budget managed to develop not only a set that looked futuristic, even now, but still conforms to the shape of the ship itself, including height and width. And that sense of design carries into just about every space movie and show I've seen since then. But I've served on boiler ships and we didn't have that many pipes and valves in engineering. It's the future. It should look like the future. Even Serenity which is an old dilapidated ship, gives the impression of "future." Additionally, anyone familiar with basic design of a ship, any ship, wet navy or space, will tell you compartmentalization is absolutely key. Go look up the Bismark story as to why.
I came out of this movie wondering where the special effects budget had been diverted to.
"Actually, my understanding is that other than Pike and Spock, nearly the entire crew of the Enterprise consists of "field promoted" cadets. And Chekov's age is given explicitly as 17, so....no."
Actually...
The command timeline of the Enterprise is as follows:
Capt. Robert April.
Capt Christopher Pike.
Capt. James Kirk.
Capt William Decker.
Capt. James Kirk.
Capt Spock.
Admiral James Kirk. (Later back to Capt.)
All appointed as would a normal military services with the following exceptions. Kirk retakes command from Decker. And Spock voluntarily gives over command to Kirk.
Kirk joined the Star Fleet at 14 as a special favor to his family due to actions of his Father, before his father disappeared. He is field promoted to Ensign while serving on the Republic. So, at the age of 32, he is the youngest man ever to become captain of a Star Ship. Also of note, Kirk was notorious for being a stickler to duty, and almost considered boring by fellow classmates, a fact cited by two former classmates in the OG series, Marshall and Flynn. Also, however, contradicting his onetime statement to Scotty of how he used to get into a little trouble at that age (referring to the space hippies.) Kirk is known to have served as a junior officer on at least two other ships. The Farragut and the Republic.
All members of the og crew went through the acadamy with Chekov being the most recent graduate.
All of this is background from the original notes of Gene Rodenberry
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on May 13, 2009 12:47:43 GMT -8
Actually, I looked at Serenity and continually thought "That thing must be as hollowed out as a fucking Quinjet to accomodate everything that appears to be in there." Sorry, but the scales of that ship did not match up with the sets IMO. And Serenity never said "the Future" as much to me as it said "Automotive approach to space ship design- reliable, ugly, and not necessarily all that efficient."
Whereas in the current movie I thought the scales between the setd and the external ship actually matched up for the first time...ever really. And the engineering and water recycling areas reminded me of nothing so much as the engine decks used in BSG. Again, function over form.
Yes, I too own "The Star Trek Chronology" as well as a few other continuity notes. I was explicitly talking about the film. I'm sorry I was not clear.
At any rate, you have made your dislike of the film quite clear, although it in no way changes my opinion of it.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on May 13, 2009 13:15:13 GMT -8
Different strokes for different folks, Jard, because as enlisted former Navy myself, I didn't have nearly the problems with it that you did.
I'll be posting my full extended review of the movie later today, but for now, I'd just note that this movie's portrayal of Starfleet - in which Cadet Kirk can jump over the entire goddamn chain of command to become Captain Kirk, in a matter of HOURS - actually represents more of a return to form, toward the style of the original series, than Star Trek: The Next Generation was.
In Next Gen, Starfleet and its operations were being written by people who were much more concerned with portraying semi-realistic equivalent versions of military protocol and international diplomacy, whereas Gene Roddenberry, in spite of being a distinguished World War II veteran who served for seven years on the LAPD, created an outer-space Navy of the future that was often indistinguishable from a '60s hippie commune, with casual sex between the ranks, and an even more casual disregard for rules and regulations, in a society in which money had been rendered obsolete (OMG SOCIALISM). Even though the Prime Directive has existed, as a concept, ever since Kirk was captain, Picard was nonetheless notable for being the first Enterprise captain whom TV audiences ever saw FOLLOWING the Prime Directive.
And I realize that it might sound like I hate Roddenberry, when nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, even though I regard Next Gen as being a much better show, technically speaking, not only in terms of its science and special effects, but also with regard to its writing and acting, the fact remains that, in my HEART, I'll always be a fan of the original series FIRST, for all its faults, because it's what I grew up with, and of all the permutations of Star Trek that I've seen since, it still feels the most like HOME to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on May 14, 2009 11:18:20 GMT -8
Kirk, my problems with movie break down into three seperate areas:
Design. Already discussed.
Beleivability: Not so much the technical but the plot in and of itself referring to how suddenly Kirk is the Chosen Jesus of Starfleet.
and Finally, and going off on Mike's earlier point regarding his brother... : How do we make Star Trek more accessible? We dumb it down and make it funny.
They didn't discuss issues such as the existence of God, the effect on someone going back into the past to change the future, man's short sightedness regarding the ecology, man's cruelty to man, or any of the other themes that have reverberated not only through the original Trek, but the sequal series and the movies as well... It was Kick! Splode! Oh look, the Black Hole is sucking the Enterprise in so if they drop the warp core and it explodes, it will push them back out again! ha ha McCoy is funny. Look. Uhura's Boobs!
They dumbed it down and America as governed by American Idol loves it all of a sudden.
Meanwhile, those of us who stood by faithfully throughout the last 40 years, hey who cares if we liked it the way it was before? We're not sexy enough for the marketing campaign anyway.
Science Fiction is not about Kirk making it with the green babe. Science Fiction asks the hard questions. Or at least it did before the collective IQ of America dropped down the Rabbit Hole and Bush got elected.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on May 14, 2009 14:11:09 GMT -8
Finally, and going off on Mike's earlier point regarding his brother... : How do we make Star Trek more accessible? We dumb it down and make it funny. They didn't discuss issues such as the existence of God, the effect on someone going back into the past to change the future, man's short sightedness regarding the ecology, man's cruelty to man, or any of the other themes that have reverberated not only through the original Trek, but the sequal series and the movies as well... It was Kick! Splode! Oh look, the Black Hole is sucking the Enterprise in so if they drop the warp core and it explodes, it will push them back out again! ha ha McCoy is funny. Look. Uhura's Boobs! They dumbed it down and America as governed by American Idol loves it all of a sudden. Meanwhile, those of us who stood by faithfully throughout the last 40 years, hey who cares if we liked it the way it was before? We're not sexy enough for the marketing campaign anyway. Science Fiction is not about Kirk making it with the green babe. Science Fiction asks the hard questions. Or at least it did before the collective IQ of America dropped down the Rabbit Hole and Bush got elected. First, I'm going to just assume that you would not imply that my brother is stupid. He just hates sci-fi, always has. Second, I'll remind you that I, and I believe a slim majority of this forum, are not, in fact, American. Secondly, as to your feeling that the old guard has been betrayed...well... that Star Trek was gone long before this movie came out. Sorry, but it is and has been for a while. I would say at least since "First Contact". Star Trek hasn't really been "going into the new" for a long time, and instead has spent the better part of the last two decades navel-gazing. It's very weird, but in someways, I think what has happened to Star Trek is the exact inverse of the current situation with Spider-Man. Both have a die-hard fanbase, and both have gone through several generations of problems, but what happened with Spider-man is that a hardline set of "classic" fans managed to wrest control of that franchise in order to "restore it" and thus has made it drop like a stone in terms of any longevity or relevancy. In the case of "Trek", the fans got what they wanted in fits and bursts - and it was never enough. Oh, and if you want to complain about the general anti-illectualism in Western Society, JJ Abrams, American Idol, NASCAR, et al., well, feel free do so. But those are symptoms, at best. The fact of the matter is WE, everyone, failed to challenge ourselves; WE, at least two generations of such (I would argue my entire lifetime - late 70s onward) got complacent and cocky and self-assured in our superiority and manifest destiny, and we forgot to be vigilant against the pitchfork and torch bearing component of our genepool - the eternally backwards looking, thoughtless mass of people who chose gut instincts over thinking, and consider nothing relevant outside of millenia old stories. But, as I mentioned over in Kirk's LJ entry, there is a small hope I'd like you to consider. Consider the current "Star Trek" movie as "Batman Begins" - a moderately successful franchise reboot that will give the filmmakers two very important things: 1) The confidence to try bolder material in the sequel (Remember, up until now, the movie cred of this team was what? 'cloverfield' and 'MI:3' - not exactly stuff a major studio would take a risk on). 2) An audience to lose. So, my advice to the people who feel cheated by the lack of thoughtful reflection in this film - the people who really want a film that puts a big mirror to humanity Get off your ass and write letters. Fuck emails and Message boards and all that shit. Hell, if your handwriting is halfway legible (mine isn't), don't even type it. And then mail it to the bastards and let them know EXACTLY what you think. Actually, isn't that how Star Trek fandom really started? Just a thought, Michael Edited to Add: Oh, and not to be elitist, but Star Trek was always sci-fi-lite in terms of asking the hard questions. Even as a kid I remember watching "measure of a man" and thinking "ok...so basically this is for people who haven't seen any of 40 years worth of Asimov" |
|
|
|
Post by jessebaker on May 14, 2009 19:55:44 GMT -8
Star Trek and Spidey are not compatible to make a comparision. A better comparision would be ST and Legion of the Super-Heroes. Both have a devoted cult base and yet moving in opposite directions. Legion, after several reboots that have largely failed, have gone back to the OG Legion while Star Trek is rebooting because they've written themselves into a corner and rebooting is the safe, easy way to get people to care about the franchise again.
Regarding Reboot ST TOS Movie #2: 99% odds lay on the second film being a kick-explode Klingon-fest, which will be even more dumbed down as far as the wrong hands being in charge of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on May 14, 2009 20:17:59 GMT -8
Except Legion has pretty much zero mainstream recognition while Star Trek is one of the two most well-known science fiction franchises. Anything done with Legion will always be directed at the fan base because those are the only customers they'll get, while Star Trek can pull in a lot of people who have heard about it or seen half an episode.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on May 15, 2009 4:55:38 GMT -8
"First, I'm going to just assume that you would not imply that my brother is stupid. He just hates sci-fi, always has.
Second, I'll remind you that I, and I believe a slim majority of this forum, are not, in fact, American."
Good assumption because no I am not implying that. I am implying that we as planetwide, not just Americans no, but we do sort of epitomize it, Are gravitating more and more away from forms of entertainment that do not require us to think.
Your brother hates Sci fi. Why? Because Sci-Fi, historically, has been one of the forms of entertainment that requires you to actually think a tad to enjoy it. One of the best examples of this is a rash of movies that came out between the 60's and 70's. Planet of The Apes. Clockwork Orange. On the Beach. Dr. Strangelove. Johnny get your Gun and Catch 22 also fit in this period of films at the time but are not technically science fiction, all these movies, and the source material they were based on, asked the hard questions about society as we saw it at the time. Soylent Green. Omega Man. and Sci Fi light it may have been but it managed to convey that 40 years of Asimov you were talking about to a wider audience. Because it's easier to watch tv than to reada book for some people.
And I would disagree with you entirely regarding any relevant social questions Trek touched on after First Contact. Insurrection asked a couple of pretty big ones. At least before it turned to Gunfight at the OK Coral. Star Trek 10 Wrath of Shinzon I will grant you was pretty much crap in that respect, yes.
But Trek is just an example.
That said... disagree with me or not, it doesn't mean Trek is a good movie. Because it's not. Seriously why did you enjoy it? Why did your brother?
Is it well written? No. It's not.
Was a special effect extravaganza? Well no. Not really.
Is it well acted? Yes, honestly yes the cast really in't that bad. Except for Chekov, which has in and of itself become a cliche.
Is it funny? Well, yes. There's some funny stuff in there. witty dialogue.
Does it require you to think? No. It's pure kick splode look at the boobs. Hey suddenly Star Trek is interesting to a bunch of people who would never watch it before.
That's not a good sign, folks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on May 15, 2009 6:12:50 GMT -8
Your brother hates Sci fi. Why? Because Sci-Fi, historically, has been one of the forms of entertainment that requires you to actually think a tad to enjoy it. Seriously Jard, take a step back and a couple of deep breaths, because now you ARE saying that Michael's brother is stupid, or a very near equivalent. |
|
