Akwat Kbrana

I saw it in 24 FPS. Did not notice any shots that looked "sped up" (and that includes sweeping camera moves). As for sharpness, it didn't strike me as noticeably sharper than any other digital film I've seen.

Hilarious. Definitely belongs in the LOL archive.

^Izzat you?

Captain America said:

There's only one God, ma'am; and I'm pretty sure He doesn't dress like that.

You mean you're not a...?

I stand by my statement. I'm glad you got some enjoyment out of Generations and First Contact, but in my opinion they are little more than dumbed-down action schlock covered with the paper-thin veneer of "plots" that are shoddily written and riddled with plotholes. The same goes for Insurrection and Nemesis.

I suppose I could type out a long rant summarizing all of my various gripes with these movies, but RedLetterMedia pretty much sums them up better than I ever could:

-Generations

-First Contact

-Insurrection

-Nemesis

corellian77 said:

That's exactly what Abrams did--and I do mean that in a negative way. He wants to make a sci-fi action movie? Fine. I just don't get why he'd brand it as Star Trek. He's taken a TV and movie series that was about thought-provoking stories with moments of action and created action stories with... Well, who are we kidding, with no thought-provoking content at all.

The blame for this doesn't lie with Abrams, though. The Star Trek movies have been dumbed-down, plotless action movies ever since Generations. The only major difference between the TNG movies and Abrams' movie, in that regard, is that Abrams' movie was a well done action movie.

My pleasure. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

No question about it: Zahn understands Star Wars much, much better than its creator does. Really looking forward to Scounrdrels. As far as the EU goes (most of which is unreadable), Zahn and Stackpole are easily the cream of the crop...

darth_ender said:

See, considering the many lukewarm reviews, I was feeling a bit depressed.  But it seems the real fans like you guys enjoy the movie.  Thanks for the spoiler-free reviews, and for keeping my spirits high.  I'll probably end up seeing it this coming weekend.

I haven't had time to write a review of The Hobbit yet, but I guess this is as good a time as any.

I'm a long-time Tolkien fan and am also extremely fond of Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy; although I have a few major gripes with The Two Towers and Return of the King (namely, the handling of Faramir's character, the reticence of the Ents to go to war, and Frodo and Sam's "breakup"), overall they are among my favorite movies of all time. For that matter, The Hobbit the book is among my favorite novels of all time. So when the mixed reviews of this film started hitting the internet, I was a bit taken aback.

Turns out I needn't have been. While it's true that The Hobbit has a slightly different "feel" than the LOTR trilogy and it alters/adds to the source material at several points, I don't feel that these detract from the film in any way. Sure, if you go in expecting a straight-to-screen adaptation of the book or a film with the scope and gravitas of the LOTR trilogy you may be disappointed. But such expectations are unrealistic, not to mention inappropriate in this case. The Hobbit has never been in the same category as the Lord of the Rings. It's a fun, light-hearted adventure, not an epic quest to decide the fate of the world. Furthermore, to those ultra-purists who are mad about Jackson's additions and alterations, I suggest you go back and re-read The Hobbit and imagine what it would look like if ported directly to the silver screen. My guess: not that great. While the story (which mostly comprises a series of the party getting captured and then being rescued, getting captured and then being rescued again, getting captured again and then...) works great in print, I don't think it would have worked very well as a film. And for the most part, I felt that Jackson's adaptive choices were very respectful to the spirit of the book while permitting the story to thrive in a cinematic environment. And furthermore, even with the additions and alterations, I'm impressed by how faithful to the book (for the vast majority of the running time) the adaptation remained. It's not as though Jackson re-wrote the plot (a la The Voyage of the Dawn Treader) or replaced any of the characters (a la any of the recent David Suchet Poirot adaptations). The majority of Jackson's changes fall into the "expansion" category, not the "alteration" one. In short, if you're willing to appreciate this film for what it is rather than criticizing it for not being something that it was never meant to be, I suspect you'll find it thoroughly entertaining and more than acceptable.

Now there were one or two things that bugged me. Specifically (and I'll try to keep this mostly spoiler-free), I felt that the characterization of the dwarves was too crude (no surprise; the same was true in the LOTR trilogy) and the relationship between Thorin and the Elves was inappropriately handled. But these misgivings in no way wrecked the film for me.

Also, I'm a bit flummoxed by the frequent castigation of this movie's pacing. That's one aspect of The Hobbit that I feel was handled perfectly. If I want a mindless, non-stop action-fest, I'll go see a Michael Bay movie. Jackson's Middle Earth films are so strong, in large part, because of the balance between great action scenes on the one hand and plenty of characterization and dramatic scenes that give you time to "warm up" to the characters and allow the films to breathe. The Hobbit is no exception. (I think it's become trendy to bash Jackson's films just because he's a thoughtful, successful filmmaker; witness a similar trend with Christopher Noland's movies.)

Rating: 9 out of 10 flaming pinecones.

I suspect the following three individuals of being trolls:

This theme is getting worse all the time!

Amen to that.

Brooks said:

The trilogy that chronologically followed the PT (I'm talking about OT, even though it came first of course) only referenced the PT by mentioning that vader used to be a jedi.  There's no mention at all of qui gonn or mace or dooku or battle droids or even clones.  And that's what, twenty years after?  Why would something fifty years after talk about these things?

^This. Narratively, there is no reason for the ST to reference the PT. Sadly, it probably will, which is just one reason I refuse to get my hopes up this time around.

Please, please, please don't include Samuel Jackson (or any other PT actor) in the sequel films. The last thing the ST needs is overt association with the prequels. Even the most-likely-inevitable inclusion of PT terminology (padawan, youngling, battle droids, midichlorians, etc.) will only serve to highlight how far the Star Wars franchise has fallen. But overtly featuring PT material visually (like showing elderly Boba clones, including the stupid padawan-braid, or casting any of the PT actors in these films, except for Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, and Peter Mayhew) is possibly the worst decision that the new franchise owners could make.

Stop missing the point! It's funny because dinosaurs aren't real!

georgec said:

I don't get it.

That's because you're not looking closely enough. If you look reeeaaaly close, you'll see that the baby is surrounded by VHS tapes of "Jurassic Park."

Get it?? A baby laying in money surrounded by "Jurassic Park??" It's funny because dinosaurs aren't real!

Will the winner get to pick the color of the AT-AT lasers? ;)

:(

Also, there's a Chinese Dragon.

Wha...?

SpilkaBilka said:

I'm basically a fan of 2 SW movies.  Star Wars is my absolute favorite movie of all time.  The sense of adventure, excitement, the great characters, the build-up and release of tension, the incredible environment/universe, and the absolute flawless pacing make it, IMHO, the greatest movie ever made.

I do like ESB a lot... it's a great movie, but for me, it's not even close to SW.  Gonna be totally honest here- and I swear I'm not trying to troll anyone... I'm not a fan of Vader being Luke's father- in fact I think it's kind of silly and takes everything to soap-opera land.  I often wonder what other SW movies could've been like if Vader was not Luke's dad.  The universe would've been much bigger, that's for sure.

ROTJ... I like purely out of nostalgic value.  It was actually possibly my favorite SW movie when I was a kid, but now I think it's a below-average movie.  It's got some cool scenes in it, but really the only interest I have in it is that it wraps up the story of these characters that I'm incredibly invested in.

I've got nothing to say about the prequels that hasn't already been said.

Excellent post. I agree with you an all points. In my opinion, the pinnacle of the Star Wars universe is, well, Star Wars itself. Many people accuse ROTJ of being the point in the Star Wars saga where the infection set in, and that thesis can certainly be defended. But I tend to think it was actually ESB. The Vader reveal is where the series stopped taking itself seriously, and the universe (in reverse-Grinch-fashion) shrunk "three sizes that day."

Fortunately, ESB is such an expertly-executed film (with solid writing, deep characterization, and brilliant direction) that it still works, despite the mind-boggling implausibility of Vader and Luke being Father and Son. But take away that excellent execution, and you're left with a descent into utter silliness, which builds over the course of the next four films.

Leonardo said:

Stargate?

Yes. Specifically, the season 8 finale of Stargate SG-1, a two-part episode entitled "Moebius."