Vagueland - Latest Comments

Re: District 9, or why Hollywood sucks

Girgetta — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:31:15 -0000

question: what do you mean by "the rest of the world"?

Re: District 9, or why Hollywood sucks

ken — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:49:29 -0000

ORIGINAL?

you did see Alien Nation, right?

Re: District 9, or why Hollywood sucks

Tyrone — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:27:13 -0000

Haha! Oh man! This shit is epic.

I think you would enjoy reading this.

http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2009/06/t...

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Brent — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:13:13 -0000

Ummm....what?

"THERE'S something about today's society..." what is the point of capitalizing that?

"Act like they're ENTITLED to better things"? Oh, I'm sorry, you're right, we should all just be happy paying $9 to sit through any movie that happens to be a piece of shit, all this wanting a plot and a story and as few plotholes as possible in any given movie is such a waste of my time; thank you, Rob, you've really opened my eyes with this comment. I bet you can't wait for "2012" to come out.

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

alturiste — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:56:47 -0000

I feel exactly the same way. I really enjoyed the original series and the Next Generation, but they too, had their plot holes and defects. And quite frankly, I stopped following the newer series because I had found them stale, boring, predictable and a bit too preachy. This was more action-oriented than other Trek movies, true, but I felt the characters were captured very well in ways that "showed" rather than "told" (A cardinal rule of storytelling). My wife especially liked the take on a passionate, feisty Uhura.

Everyone has different tastes, and I can understand old-time fans not liking the movie. Just be aware that there are any many who followed Trek for some time who really enjoyed this. My wife, parents and I all enjoyed the movie, for once a Trek thing we could agree on. (My parents found Next Gen boring, much to the sorrow of my wife and I)

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

John — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:39:41 -0000

I'm guessing you were so caught up in the changes from the original series that you didn't notice the whole premise of the film.

It's an alternate reality. The Enterprise will still find the Botany Bay because the Enterprise does find the Botany Bay in the original series reality. What did you think about "Mirror, Mirror"? The Enterprise doesn't have giant daggers going through Earth painted on it. No, wait. That was an alternate universe. I enjoyed the "Enterprise" episodes in the mirror universe. Anything after the 24 century in the universe we're all familiar with may be different since Spock is gone, but we really don't know much about that universe (cannon-wise) anyway (yes, there's an NCC-1701J, but what else?).

If you can manage to get past some of the huge loopholes in the original series why can't you get past some of the loopholes in the new movie? Paramount has made tons of money from the film, regular people (not just Trek scholars like us) are talking about Star Trek again. Maybe we can get a weekly series again, not just a movie every few years.

We got 79 episodes of Mr. Roddenberry's story about Kirk, Spock, and the rest because it was on TV. He had 22-24 hours per season to flesh out the characters. This movie was just over two hours. You can't fit much character development in two hours. I've read interviews with Mr. Abrams where he said he wasn't he wasn't a fan of Kirk, Spock, McCoy or any of the characters. He went on to say that he is now.

I love the original series, I love the next generation, I liked "Enterprise" alot. What I enjoy most about Star Trek is the exploration. How the crew of the Enterprise deals with new situations. How we could grow as a people if we give up old ideas like war and money.

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the new movie.

The lens flares horrible, but I am humming the theme from the new movie as I type this.

IDIC.

Live long and prosper.

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

wahr — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:08:37 -0000

What I find unforgivable about this movie is it even violates its OWN plot line absent any externally established facts in enterprise or previous movies.

Spock came back in time after witnessing the romulan cataclysm which created this whole plot line.

All that was necessary was that he communicate the exact dates, times, and locations to federation high commmand and avert the destruction of vulcan.

The fact it was not done is a wholesale violation of logic, in both the vulcan and the mathematical sense.

The "alternate reality" simply should not have persisted beyond the point at which spock gets the opportunity to relay the information and avert the initiation of the loop in the first place.

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Kris — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:25:07 -0000

I wish they would do for this movie like they did for the Incredable Hulk. This movie should be written off as a HHHHHUUUUUGGGGEEEE MISTAKE. Star Trek was such a great Story premise because it has always been character driven. When the writers forgot this fact the franchise suffered.

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Nissne — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:58:47 -0000

Finally , this is what i have been waiting for. People to actually comment on how bad this film as being a "movie" , its bad , stop nit picking about star trek , this is just a horrible made movie.

at the moment this movie is at #96 at imdb , idiocracy here we come.

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Wong Feihung — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:47:24 -0000

This movie was gay.

The young Spock and Kirk seemed gay.

The usage of memorable one liners from other star trek movies was gay.

The usage of Khans coercive techniques by a filthy tattooed Romulan was gay.

The art deco warp nacelle styling was gay.

Star Trek the College Years is gay.

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Jeff — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:18:03 -0000

You forgot to mention something. They left out the biggest character in the Star Trek universe!!! The Enterprise. In pretty much every movie the first time you see the ship, emotional trek music flares up and all us trekkies get teary. The enterprise is a living, breathing character...a lady who in the old days was cherished. They spent no time loving the "new" ship. This new trek makes me totally sick.

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Gorn — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:50:26 -0000

I think that I have an explanation as to why what came before needs to be erased by this new Not Star Trek movie...

JJ abrams does not have to pay royalty participation to any other writers who may receive royalties from their creations. This is ALL about money. So, now he can make up stories and not include previous inventions or use other's inventions and not have to pay...

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

gail — Sun, 31 May 2009 20:00:09 -0000

I fell into an alternative universe nightmare from which there was no escape. My 24 year old son took me to see the movie on Mother's Day. Mother's Day will never be the same again. I went blind at some point during the movie. I believe I lost my sight when (not)Uhura started slobbering all over (not)Spock. Or it could have been when (not)Amanda dropped dead along with the planet (not)Vulcan. Well, actually it could have been when I saw (not)Kirk's blue eyes...blue??? When did they turn blue? Oh yeah..Alternative universe crap. Of course seeing Nemo...Nero...Bozo pop on and off the screen could have given me a mild stroke that caused my eyes to glaze over for approximately two horrible hours. My eyesight came back miraculously as we walked back outside the movie theater and into the light of day after that movie ended. What movie? I blocked it from my mind. There was no movie. It was just a Saurian brandy induced nightmare.

gail

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Pat — Thu, 28 May 2009 16:55:18 -0000

Agreed! This was total crap and an offense to the memory of Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek as a whole. Your critique is excellent! I am saddened by the throngs of 'fans' who say that this movie 'was not bad', or like it outright, rather than have no new Trek to worship. I am a fan from Day 1 of its creation, and i would rather have NO Trek than CRAP Trek.

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Mark Lechman — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:28:48 -0000

I completely agree. I would have rather seen a complete reboot without any sloppy tie-ins to the cannon universe. Instead, they used a time-travel device to specifically say "everything that you've watched since the original show, the movies and the spin-offs, never happened." So when you watch the new Trek, it's not really the backstory of the characters from the original series like most of us had hoped it would be, it's the backstory of an alternate universe Kirk, Spock, etc. What a wasted opportunity! And what's worse is that by simply eliminating a few pointless plot elements, such as the destruction of Vulcan, the building of the Enterprise in Iowa, and some other things, the movie could have more or less passed for canon. What a muddle; Abrams tried to please both the fans and the masses and totally alienated those real fans that have followed Roddenberry's story for the last forty years. They forget that those fans are the bread and butter of Star Trek. They're the ones that go to cons and buy novels and comic books during the lag-time between movie releases and spin-off launches and keep the money flowing into Paramount's pockets. What a slap in the face. As far as I'm concerned, Star Trek 11 may as well have been Galactica 1980.

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Brandon K. Stevens — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:49:10 -0000

Your f'n lame. Go watch star gate SG1 or what ever you call quality sci-fi.

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Brandon K. Stevens — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:47:49 -0000

Preach on, preacher man! The new ST makes me want to OD on black tar heroine!

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Brandon K. Stevens — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:35:46 -0000

I totally agree! Thank you for your well thought critique.

This movie destroyed a lifetime of loyal Trek love. I came out of the theatre confident that I now know what it is like to be prison-raped!!!!!

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Brownman — Tue, 26 May 2009 17:55:57 -0000

Fantastic analysis.
I concur whole-heartedly and wanted to add a few additional points of my own to the disdain.

I do not like it as a Star Trek movie.
As a summer action movie - great.
As a piece of science fiction - terrible.
This alternate timeline pisses me off... yes, I read the lengthy explanations by Bob Orci at trekmovie.com which essentially say "yes, it's an alternate time-line, so all previous experiences still exist"... but me? - I don't like it overall.
http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explai...

Bulletpoint summary of interview with Orci:

* Q: Why do some things appear different in the new Star Trek movie?
* A: There is an alternative timeline created by Nero traveling back in time.

* Q: Is everything different in the alternative timeline?
* A: No, some things remain the same.

* Q: Does this alternative timeline wipe out the original timeline (from TOS - Nemesis)?
* A: No, quantum theory says they both co-exist.

* Q: Does the original timeline continue?
* A: Yes, again as explained by quantum theory.

* Q: Does this quantum theory approach conform to ‘Trek science?’
* A: Depends on the episode, but it is explicitly cited by Data in the episode “Parallels.”

So - let me start with what I did like :

Yes - it was a GREAT action film... and every time a young version of a character I knew and loved came on screen - I'd lose my shit. The first time we me McCoy I was dancing in my chair. And the first time we see this alternate-timeline enterprise was cool (but paaaaled next to the first time we see the re-fit in Star Trek: The Movie... christ that was emotional... like seeing an old friend again... cept he looks healthier and fitter than ever... yano?). And I genuinely enjoyed all the actors and the way they portrayed their characters (though have to agree with the original poster that Shatner, with all his failings, delivers an infinitely stronger Kirk than this new kid). As a MOVIE on it's own - without referring to the Star Trek canon in any way - I would give it an 8.5 out of 10.

HOWEVER...

I don't like that there are 2 Spocks running around in this time-line... I feel that this was just an excuse to put our old Spock in front of a new Kirk... and - though titillating I admit... only creates potential problems in this new time-line given Spock's knowledge of the old. And having 2 Spocks run around in the same verse is wack if you ask me... (felt the same way about the 2 Riker plot in TNG.), and am in agreement that having a Spock who knows future technology gallivanting about this verse is unsavory.
I don't like that Vulcan itself and most vulcan's are GONE... why? Dramatic effect? Awful.
I don't like the Kirk DIDN'T go to the Farruget in this time-line (thereby having to EARN his placement on enterprise). Weak.
I don't like that they killed of Amanda... why? Cuz you can't incite emotion from Spock without murdering his mother as a plot-device? Awful.
I don't like Uhura and Spock as bone-buddies in this time-line... why? What's the point? Aside from letting us know that Spock likes him some darkies - what was the point of that? C'mon.. Nurse Chapel being attracted to Spock's brooding character makes sense - but this? Why?

And MOST importantly - I think this movie is a piece of shit as a science fiction film. I mean - truly garbage. Let me elaborate -> what makes Star Trek (and all great science fiction) truly GREAT aside from the incredible triadic relationship between Kirk, Spock and McCoy? It's social commentary. All great science fiction (I mean truly great - ie - Asimov, Clarke, Niven, Heinlein, H.G. Wells, Orwell, Bradbury, Herbert) have been a vehicle for social and human commentary.... it's teaches us what COULD BE (like traveling to the stars)... it examines what SHOULDN'T BE (like racism)... and always brings into light our own human failings and eludes to bigger and better things for us as a species. And what was THIS Star Trek movie? A dick-out full-on over-paced adventure film with zero science fiction implicit. No lessons. No subtext. No underlying moral commentary. No implicit ethical analysis. What? Nero - bad, Kirk - good counts? C'mon. I'm VERY pissed off about the lack of anything substantial in this over-paced film. Oh - and THAT'S the word for it - "over-paced". Look - the GREATEST moments in Star Trek history have come from slow percolation... from a build-up to some dramatic moment that inevitably leads to Kirk outwitting some enemy... the best example EVER - is Wrath of Khan... christ man - think about how many minutes passed slowly in that movie as they built tension... them trapped on the genesis planet awaiting Scotty's repairs... them in the Mutara Nebula in a tension filled, but REASONABLY paced cat-and-mouse game with Khan... percolation of the plot was key to forward motion of that film. This new movie moves waaaay too fast allowing almost no character development and little plot development... and is a laughable piece of garbage next to Wrath Of Khan... I think JJ Abrams was a bad call for directing it. Stick to your monster islands man.

As a summer action movie - fantastic. Enjoyed myself greatly... what a ride: Brown rating - 8 of 10.

As a Star Trek movie - please bring me JJ Asshole's head on a stick for fucking with shit that didn't need to be fucked with. Go away alternate time-line... I'm hoping the NEXT Star Trek movie has NOTHING to do with this time-line and we can get back to the business of making REAL science fiction within the EXISTING GIANT PANTHEON realm of Star Trek without needless committing genocide and killing mothers as plot devices. The Brown rating as a Star Trek movie: 2 out of 10 - weak as fuck, please crawl back into the black hole from whenst you came..

A'ight... I'm out. Peace.

- Brownman
----
If there's a heaven, they must have one hell of a big band...
----
brownman@brownman.com
Official Website : http://Brownman.com
MySpace: http://MySpace.com/BrownmanMusic
Facebook: http://Facebook.com/profile.php?id=1286372348
Twitter: http://Twitter.com/BrownmanMusic
LinkedIn: http://LinkedIn.com/in/Brownman
Gig Schedule: http://Brownman.com/GigSchedule.htm
Purchase Music: http://CDBaby.com/all/Brownman

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

allen — Tue, 26 May 2009 12:47:47 -0000

I dont get how can you take a show that has 5 series and 10 movies and just start changing things, its just not right. If you cant follow a story line thats been around for the last 40 years then dont make a movie.

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Schlicky13 — Tue, 26 May 2009 10:00:34 -0000

I just thought of another possible way to undo this disaster of a movie, Q. They could just blame Q for messing around with the timeline, have the Continuum smack him around for it, and then restore it back to the way it was. Or just explain it away as Q subjecting the original crew to one of his warped little fantasies to test their ability to grow as a species, and then just continue with the timeline as it had already been established. If only we lived in a world where people respected the work of others, instead of crapping all over it and saying they made it better.

Re: Why the new Terminator Salvation movie sucks

Schlicky13 — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:42:49 -0000

Very good chronicle of this movie, overall. The only correction I would offer is to #17, about the C.T.'s heart. It was mentioned earlier in the movie when it was discovered that he wasn't human, that his organic tissues seem to heal very quickly. Perhaps, once revived, and given a passage of an unknown length of time (probably several hours, but perhaps even a day or two), his heart could have healed the massive trauma sustained by the punch and electrocution. I'm also a little surprised that you didn't mention the timeline inconsistencies. They certainly acknowledged them in the film, but didn't bother to explain why the T800's were being introduced years ahead of schedule, and why there was a C.T. when before there had been no such thing. Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but doesn't mesh well with the existing Terminator movies, or common sense in some cases.

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Schlicky13 — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:19:36 -0000

This would be the worst possible scenario. If people who are "Trek virgins" love this movie, and want more, they are going to be completely baffled when they start to watch anything that came before (with the only exception being Enterprise, since those events occurred before this movie). Especially the original series, which is by far the most thoroughly obliterated by this movie. What happens when new fans watch the first few Trek movies, when they take Spock and McCoy to Vulcan to reunite his "soul" with his body. Anyone who's first experience with Trek is the new movie is going to ask, WTF? I thought the Vulcan planet was destroyed, I though Spock's mother died, I thought Chekov was a pasty-faced girl with blond, curly hair. I think anyone with reasonable intelligence (which I believe most Trek fans possess), who is a new Trek fan as a result of this movie, will just become disgusted with the glaring inconsistencies and decided that these ding-a-lings don't know what the hell they're doing, and will just say piss on it. Will this new movie generate a new, younger Trek fan base? Probably, but how many of them will change their minds when they decide to check out the other 40+ years of Star Trek that we already know and love. Our only hope (and I'm sure it won't happen), is the 29th century. As it has already been established by Voyager and Enterprise, one of Starfleet's primary missions by this time is to monitor the timeline for changes and if severe enough, will go back and fix it. They would surely see these new events happening and go, "What the hell is this crap! Some idiot Romulan fricked up the timeline. Somebody better get back there and delete his sorry ass." We can only hope.

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

Nikki — Mon, 25 May 2009 09:34:04 -0000

I'm young, but hear me out.
I have never watched an episode of the original ST, but going into this movie I went with the expectation that it would be hated by most Trekkies and loved by the few who loved the new Star Wars'. Really, it seems like a similar scenario. Star Trek/ Wars pretty much made the Sci Fi industry so big. Granted you have fifty thousand other leading movies and television shows which got big but the SW/ST really seemed to be the most well received- that fans still obsess over today.
With cheap... and not so cheap, over the top graphics and other characteristics of the movies that sell, you without a doubt lose the initial feeling that Star Trek gave you in the 1960's.
At the point where they are selling "Star Trek Combos" for 12 dollars, you know that you aren't going to receive much more than "Live Long and Prosper" said on repeat to honor the original as well as the same names and species. Yes this movie is a story line of its own and really goes against, from what I can tell, anything to do with the t.v. show. But that doesn't mean the plot wasn't interesting or that the lens flare didn't make us all cringe.
If you watched the movie with the idea that it would remind you of the good old days, you went with unfair intentions. Come on this is Hollywood. Movie magic only goes far enough to make money. Everyone knows that.

Re: Why (the new) Star Trek Movie sucks

tehfanglyfish — Sun, 24 May 2009 18:09:23 -0000

During the drama over Enterprise (when it was initially going to be cancelled, but then was given one more season), my husband said it would be cool if they perhaps did a series that wasn't focused exclusively on the Federation... for example, a series with a focus on the Romulans. Trek really did need something original, but I don't feel that throwing out canon is the way to go.