I kind of want RLM to review the Clone Wars movie next, but at the same time I don't want to wish that kind of torture on anybody.
For some reason that movie was nowhere near as atrocious as I thought it would be. It shouldn't have been released theatrically.
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
i can not wait for ROTS. anybody have any predictions on what he will rip on, or maybe even approve of?
I concur with captainsolo The Clone Wars was much better than any of the live action prequel films (for all it obvious flaws) and the series just gets better and better.
Sure it's got daft battledroid slapstick, the occasional Jar-Jar incursion and a gay Hutt but it's the nearest thing we will ever get to a likable Anakin Skywalker.
Making the Clone Troopers worth caring about is a stroke of ingenuity sadly missing from the parent films and the Jedi seem less stupid.
The experience is rather like reading the better Marvel comics when I was a kid.
It was a mistake to put it in cinemas though.
ROTS is the obvious next subject but I'd love him to do ROTJ too.
If you want to goof on prequel boredom at this point, it's so much easier to just let them do all the work. They do a better job than anyone could.
In the spirit of "Backstroke of the West" I started playing RLM's AOTC review with YT's transcribe audio CC option. It's pretty funny try it!
http://twister111.tumblr.com
Previous Signature preservation link
Lord Plinkett's Next Review Is.....
http://www.redlettermedia.com/index.html
or
(after a stupid ad)
One Minute of Frontier Revenge Dog Milking.
He gives JJ crap Trek a pass and a positive review, he obviously has lost his touch. Why not use the same criticism he used on the prequels on that film, many of the same problems are there. And the things that work are direct rip offs of star wars 77, empire strikes back. The things that are huge failures copying nemesis and wrath of khan.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
JJ Abrams Trek was a good movie. Good characters, humor, adventure and some really good special effects, and a decent, easy-to-follow plot. Isn't that what people sort of wanted from Star Wars? Its the reason why I like the originals.
Its what i want from star wars but not watered down, and not what i want in star trek. I don't want Trek to be the same as Wars. I liked its nerdy uniqueness and ability to question and ponder the deeper mysteries and be a thinking mans sci fi.
As a generic sci fi flick or movie of the week i thought it was great. But star trek was once more than that at least before the next generation movies when all actioney.
First contact was also one of my fave action sci fi flicks and yet it was a cop out for star trek. There was very little there, other than reference to Melville's Moby Dick.
Anyway Star Trek 2009 was worth a single viewing but their was nothing there to ponder or chew on on repeated viewings.
I think its the weakest star trek film in terms of message or subtext, very colorful and bright but lacks any additional layers. Even weaker than First Contact even Nemesis and the Final Frontier had a theme. Trek 2009 was purely visual eye candy and very Lucas like, not very Roddenberry like.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
I really enjoyed Star Trek, though I have to say my knowledge of Star Trek was zero, I have never seen any of the TV shows or movies, so I had no expectations, other than my prejudice that ST is supposed to be boring.
In fact, leaving the theater, one of my first thoughts was "why couldn't the prequels be more like this?".
Especially the way they did the Kirk-Spork relationship, getting to know them and seeing them slowly become friends or on the way to friendship anyway, it felt real. I really wish the Anakin/Obi relationship had been developed more like that. Also it's a fun movie, which to me is the worst problem with the prequels (and Indy 4), they're just boring. It would be harder to see all the plot holes and ridiculous stuff in the prequels if you could be entertained by them.
Diego said:
Especially the way they did the Kirk-Spork relationship...
lol
Star Trek (great title) was the film that ended the Star Trek phenomenon for me. I refuse to buy a copy of it, or go to the cinema to see any more Star Trek films. It will be great to see another of RLM's reviews though.
I don't buy any of that. There's plenty to think about in ST, as it deals with time travel, alternate universes, and it plays with the established timeline so you don't know how the future will truely unfold and how character dynamics will play out. TOS didn't have every episode filled with endless pondering, lots of time the main focus was just on action and adventure and humor. A good example are two of the best episodes from season two and the series period, The Trouble with Tribbles and The Doomsday Machine. Great episodes, classic Trek. Theres some interesting ideas in there, but the episodes are really just about characters, the plot, and humor (in the case of tribbles) and action (in the case of doomsday), you aren't going to have a lot to think about after those episodes are over any more than with the new film, its mostly whats there on the surface with a couple interesting ideas for the plot. Its just solid entertainment, and before the 1990s Star Trek series screwed things up a bit people used to remember what the original series was actually like--it varied from episode to episode. And so should the films. In some ways, ST encapsulates all the qualities of the original, because it had time travel and sci-fi ideas like alternate universes, it had some inter-planetary relationships between cultures, some element of mystery, it had humour and some cheesiness, it had tragedy and pathos, it had sexiness, it had space scenes, planet scenes and fighting on the Enterprise, and it had action. Thats pretty much every thing that was in the original series, and it balanced it all to pretty close preportions. It could have used a bit more intellectualism, and the original series actually had more romance than the new film, but I think it captured the spirit of the original astoundingly well.
TV's Frink said:
Diego said:
Especially the way they did the Kirk-Spork relationship...
lol
Yeah well, guess I don't even really know the names of the characters, that's how big my ST ignorance is, still, fun movie.
The JJ film was an alright Star Trek film (as they go) it's very similar to Nemesis (the remake of TWOK) and Enterprise (the two things that were supposed to have wrecked the series), neither of which were as bad as most people made out just as ST11 wasn't as amazing as most people made out.
It's certainly got a number of plot holes and eye-rolling moments but it also has some strong performances and some pretty eye candy.
I got my money's worth when I saw it at the flicks (once) and paid half price for the DVD.
zombie84 said:
I don't buy any of that. There's plenty to think about in ST, as it deals with time travel, alternate universes, and it plays with the established timeline so you don't know how the future will truely unfold and how character dynamics will play out. TOS didn't have every episode filled with endless pondering, lots of time the main focus was just on action and adventure and humor. A good example are two of the best episodes from season two and the series period, The Trouble with Tribbles and The Doomsday Machine. Great episodes, classic Trek. Theres some interesting ideas in there, but the episodes are really just about characters, the plot, and humor (in the case of tribbles) and action (in the case of doomsday), you aren't going to have a lot to think about after those episodes are over any more than with the new film, its mostly whats there on the surface with a couple interesting ideas for the plot. Its just solid entertainment, and before the 1990s Star Trek series screwed things up a bit people used to remember what the original series was actually like--it varied from episode to episode. And so should the films. In some ways, ST encapsulates all the qualities of the original, because it had time travel and sci-fi ideas like alternate universes, it had some inter-planetary relationships between cultures, some element of mystery, it had humour and some cheesiness, it had tragedy and pathos, it had sexiness, it had space scenes, planet scenes and fighting on the Enterprise, and it had action. Thats pretty much every thing that was in the original series, and it balanced it all to pretty close preportions. It could have used a bit more intellectualism, and the original series actually had more romance than the new film, but I think it captured the spirit of the original astoundingly well.
Couldn't agree more. I think the idea that the new film is somehow "not Star Trek" is based on this weird myth that Trek is a deeply thoughtful franchise.
People who found flaws in the time-travel obviously never watched ANY Trek before this, bacause none of it makes much sense. And the idea that the science isn't HARD ("Red matter?! Egads!") enough is confusing coming from a franchise that many of the great episodes dealt with outwitting a trickster god.
It was a fun action romp with some sci fi, some lovin, some big ideas, and some silly bits... as you said, like the show and the good movies.
Frankly, as a TNG kid, I stand that REAL Trek has to have show tunes.
They changed the nature of time travel in the new film, it is not anything like the canon definition of time travel as seen in star trek IV. Or spock could just slingshot around the sun in a ship and go back and save Romulas before it is destroyed. Hence no movie, or at the end of the movie the real original timeline would be restored.
It does not even follow the definition of alternate universes as in parallels because worf returns to the real prime timeline and nothing changes.
Even in Yesterdays enterprise where the Captain of the Enterprise C dies and Tasha joins the crew due to the timeline changes the timeline as history recorded it still happens. The Ship is destroyed and the timeline unaltered as far as people know.
Considering this is the same Spock as played by Leonard Nimoy who planned the timewarp in Trek IV the fact he forgets how to do it is a huge joke.
Might as well call the new movie star trek 1 or universe B, since it is clearly outside of continuity with the other original films.
Another thing is this film cheats long time fans out of a true origins movie for the prime universe of the kirk years. Not only that they will now no longer make Trek in the original universe so it may just as well have been erased. Would have preferred for a total reboot and separate franchise altogether and left out Nimoy. Would have been like having Connery in Casino Royale hand off the reigns to Daniel Craig.
JMS proposed a total reboot of the original series in 2004, some of the suggestions seem to had been picked up by Paramount, even if the story is too dissimilar for him to get any credit. I thought his story concept was terrible but the idea of two separate franchises existing concurrently to be interesting. Too bad for studio types that is too confusing, like those that did not want new Classic Galatica and New Galatica on the air at the same time.
Confusingly the JJ film is both Trek 1 and Trek 11, it is as they were confused as to what to make of it be it sequel, a prequel or a reboot.
I totally dug the new film really but i won't pretend it somehow matches up with the other films, be honest and alienate the true fans and make a separate franchise for non fan regulars.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
You are reading too much into it. TOS was never so serious, or so technical. There was like 3 episodes of TOS where they travel back in time to 20th century earth (convenient for viewers). Seems like they do it all the time, right? In fact, one episode (assignment earth?) is so ridiculous it just opens with the Enterprise already back in the 1960s and Shatner's voice over goes something like "we are on a routine time travel mission to further understand 1960s culture on earth..." or something like that. No further background is given. And the thrust of the episode involved a guy in a bad suit who has a magical black cat and a secret portal in the closet of his Washington office, and he accidentally abducts an I-Dream-of-Jeane counterculture ditz girl as his secretary, in a plot to sabotage a nuclear missle to teach humankind about the dangers of the nuclear Cold War.. And then at the very end of the episode you discover that the magical Black Cat is actually Elvira or something, but its only for one shot and its not really elaborated upon. The episode ends before the Enterprise even travels back to its own time, I guess we just assume that they know what they are doing since it was like the 2nd time in that season alone that they did it.
Yeah.
And you know what, its a pretty amusing episode. That was Star Trek.
So, if time travel is so fucking routine that the Federation sends the Enterprise on a casual mission to the 1960s to study American hippie culture, you'd think whenever there was any problem in the universe the could just hit that magical "undo" button by going back in time. Fuck Spock knowing it, by TOS it seems to a casual technology the entire Federation uses.
Again, the science in Star Trek never made sense, and none of the plots were ever consistent. The Boost had it right, there is this myth that TOS was this ponderous, perfect show, but it was a mainstream 1960s adventure program with karate-chopping captains and bellbottomed, beehived seductresses in every episode, with about half the episodes involving the crew trying to overcome some flamboyant trickster god or escaping from a world that ridiculously was exactly like earth in a certain historical period except for one crucial difference.
The JJ Abrams ST captured the spirit of TOS pretty perfectly. I think a lot of Trek fans these days just grew up with the 90s' Trek, which is pretty far removed from the corny, actiony, sexy, adventury Trek of the 1960s.
"Even in Yesterdays enterprise where the Captain of the Enterprise C dies and Tasha joins the crew due to the timeline changes the timeline as history recorded it still happens. The Ship is destroyed and the timeline unaltered as far as people know."
Uhm, maybe that's because the Enterprise C traveled to the future and not the past? Spock went to the past*. And alternate universes are nothing new to Star Trek, if you recall that one with Worf shifting through dimensions.
*Just realized this point is invalid as Tasha goes back with them, thus restoring the timeline... gah!
A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em
So RLM's next review will be Star Trek 2009?*
^Nah it will be a review of superglue strength hair gel for kids.
Great review. Looks like Episode III is next.
And that shit will be biblical.
The idea that this movie fits in with TOS better than anything else is a great thought. I agree.
As for TNG/DS9/VOY - They make so much more sense if you just assume that TOS isn't canon.
Anybody else notice he has a thing for Bowie? I caught "Let's Dance" and "Golden Years" as background music, albeit it sounded like a high-quality instrumental imitation.
A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em