Young Kirk n Spock + Lost = new Star Trek movie

Spock ref in Intergalactic

wow, Carrie Rickey thinks this movie is "fundamentally optimistic." I guess blowing up a couple civilizations from the series to smithereens doesn't make a dent on her cockeyed Nellie Forbush scale.

Whenever I read the phrase "great summer movie," I envision the author being beaten with a sock o' manure.

gross

this is designed to thrill people who cannot tell the difference between movies and TV.

Armond OTM

Sock O' Manure would be a great name for a summer movie

for a great summer movie

you'll never guess who the holdout is! (

More dissents are coming, Simon. You do know most RT critics have a five-forked tongue so they can rim all the major studios simultaneously, right?

Ebert more OTM than Armond (tho I'm not sure why his 2.5/4 ratings are logged as rotten, and others' are as fresh):

The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action. Like so many franchises, it’s more concerned with repeating a successful formula than going boldly where no “Star Trek” has gone before.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997

ya well dude fucking loved "knowing"

anyway i thought this was pretty dece except for making the villain a fairly boring disgruntled miner

this is designed to thrill people who cannot tell the difference between movies and TV.

Armond OTM

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, May 6, 2009 9:26 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

as opposed to what movies, and what tv

not really relevant, Mr Hated Ratatouille

xxp

i mean what a fucking dated and irrelevant binary... o rite it's armond white

ratatouille was lame - history will vindicate me

maybe between real science-fiction movies and Lost

xxp

see s1ocki, the screen is bigger and wider in the cinema

ratatouille was dope imo but armond white is a lousy critic and seems like a despicable person tbqf

u do know that star trek is based on a tv show right

and i'll take lost over pretty much any "real" scifi movie of the last 10 years... what are you really repping for here morbius? the island?

i think the tv/film binary is bullshit but to some degree i understand it w/abrams, maybe? MI 3 was sorta ok but paced like an episode of alias, and for a two hour action pic it just flowed and played weird

was transformers sufficiently un-TV-like for you?

BASED ON

Widescreen is perfect for A SUMMER THRILL RIDE, or Jansco's The Red and the White, which I saw today.

stfu "binary"

I've never seen Lost, there just isn't room in my life for a convoluted long-running Gilligan's Island.

i mean i dont even know why im getting so het up over a movie that i just "liked," would just prefer to see criticism not delivered in the form of a snarl i guess

http://static.rateyourmusic.com/album_images/c209455b259dbdf2afa91a3666b13433/91194.jpg

who's snarly now?

I just barely "liked" it, essentially cuz I was a Trekkie in 1975, ie Nimoy saved it.

anyway, we agree that the Bana role sucked.

now i gotta watch this. pray for me that it's good

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crying_Fist

That looks awesome.

then i gotta wake up and watch... ugh.. angels and demons

I mean except for the fact that they are battling themselves when they really should be battling other people in the amateur battling tournament.

Yeah I'm sure glad they didn't make a TV show out of that.

the BS thing about Ebert's dislike is that he wasn't that crazy about most of the OG "Star Trek" movies - plus, he has loved lots of stupid effects porn in the past like "Phantom Menace."

"Bboys are always hollering about Dr. Spock"
I'm no beastie boys expert -- what is this about?

some of the action in this movie could have been more inventive. there were THREE whole times when kirk was hanging off a ledge by the tips of his fingers and two whole times when a snarling baddie was threatening to step on them

i think that was a "joke," or somebody loves North by Northwest.

the best joke was the inevitable fatality of "Olsen" (ie, nonstar redshirt who dies in every episode)

haha totally... as soon as you saw that red spacesuit...

Anthony Lane on the parental-revenge origin shit:

Here, in other words, is a long-range backstory—a device that, in the Hollywood of recent times, has grown from an option to a fetish. I lost patience with “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” once we learned of Willy Wonka’s primal trauma (his father was a dentist, and forbade him candies, so guess how he reversed that deprivation?), and, likewise, with “Batman Begins,” from the moment that mini-Bruce tumbled into a well full of bats. What’s wrong with “Batman Is” ? In all narratives, there is a beauty to the merely given, as the narrator does us the honor of trusting that we will take it for granted. Conversely, there is something offensive in the implication that we might resent that pact, and, like plaintive children, demand to have everything explained. Shakespeare could have kicked off with a flashback in which the infant Hamlet is seen wailing with indecision as to which of Gertrude’s breasts he should latch onto, but would it really have helped us to grasp the dithering prince? Or, to update the question: I know it’s not great when your dad dies a total hero and leaves you orphaned at the same time, but did James T. Kirk have to grow up such a cocky son of a gun?

...the director’s fondness for the retro is crucial to his non-stop knowingness, with its hints of both hipster and nerd. He gorges on cinema as if it were one of those all-you-can-eat buffets, piling his plate with succulent effects, whether they go together or not. Hence the red ravening beast that pops up on a random planet, clearly left over from the props cupboard of “Cloverfield”; the man-to-Romulan fistfight borrowed from “M:i:3”; and, I regret to say, a dose of parallel universe. Come on, guys, you’re already part of a make-believe world in which mankind can outfly the speed of light. Isn’t that parallel enough for you?

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/05/18/090518crci_cinema_lane

zzzzz

or, as we all asked of Lucas's obsession with How Vader Got That Way, WHO GIVES A FUCK?

Just got back and this is the first time in about 15 years that I'm planning on seeing a movie twice (and maybe three times) in the theater. As Carol Marcus (may have?) said: "Let me show you something that will make you feel young as when the world was new."

Also, I like how the Enterprise looks like the TMP refit, certainly in response to timeline changes. I just wish that the earlier ship looked slightly more TOS-ish. Alternate timeline also explains the "Riverside Shipyard." (wow, I guess I've been suckered in!).

Now seeing this on Saturday late afternoon, as more friends can attend.

Blimey - the UK broadsheets love it (almost)unconditionally...
****** from The Guradian and The Times. **** in the Telegraph.

<3 this film, tooo

The origin stuff didn't bother me in this film as much, mostly because we don't spend too much time w/ pre-Starfleet Kirk, and because I genuinely enjoyed the young Spock stuff.

Come on, guys, you’re already part of a make-believe world in which mankind can outfly the speed of light. Isn’t that parallel enough for you?

Has this person never met a Trekkie before?

Scott Foundas:

there’s so much talk about people’s dead parents that you start to wonder if Dave Eggers did an uncredited rewrite.

might have to cancel going to this tonight to go some performance art : (

"Let me show you something that will make you feel young as when the world was new."

"I did what you wanted. I stayed away."

20-minute video essay by Matt Zoller Seitz, "Vulcan: The Soul of Spock":

http://www.thelmagazine.com/newyork/vulcan-the-soul-of-spock/Content?oid=1152781