The Escapist Presents: MovieBob Reviews Star Trek

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

I enjoyed the movie, yet that said, I agree: it's dumbed down for the masses. In other words, the infidel. Well, maybe hard scifi just will never translate to movies very well, they're far too short. If this new take on ST will energize the franchise and grant it new life, I can accept the sacrifices it's made in terms of an intelligent plot, character development, social issues, and interesting new twists on technology and future lifestyles.

If it breathes new life into the genre - well, I've been waiting for a new ST tv series *cough-cough*

One change I did find hopeful: a greater variety of aliens as members of the Federation. The series (and the movies, aping them) featured only "human-centric" aliens, mostly due to budget concerns. They trotted out wave after wave of aliens that were simply humans with weird nose jobs. (pssst - you guys, where's an Andorian crewmember? Or an Orion . . . ).

Disagree about Pine's Kirk. The only thing I didn't like about him was: he was always getting his ass kicked. Hit the dojo, buddy.

As for Movie Bob being "far too indepth", it's what he does. I like him, even if I don't agree with him. One I do agree with:

The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action.

. . . is Roger Ebert, who summed it up for me in that one sentence.

Well, someone had to post this:

I enjoyed the review.

That's really all I can say until I see the movie myself, which I won't do for another few weeks, after the kiddies have cleared out.

Three things I wanted to comment on. From the forums.

One) I'm utterly amazed by how personal some people take things. He doesn't give a favorable review to something you like, so you attack him? I even read a couple comments about punching him. Holy crap people, get a grip.

Two) To people complaining about the quality: It's too bad your free entertainment doesn't match up to what you'd like. It must be incredibly inconvenient to be strapped down and forced to watch, a là Clockwork Orange.

Three) About the people saying "what do you expect," "it's just a popcorn movie," "I just wanted some good special effects," and the like. No. No no no no NO. Do *Not* take that attitude. It may be easier to just settle like that, but the more you do, the more you're telling film makers and companies "I don't care, I'll still watch it" and they'll keep lowering and lowering the bar.

Think Idiocracy. (Not the best movie imo, but it highlights things for some people nicely.)

I somewhat liked Transformers, yes there could have been more robot bash fests, but I think it was a farcry "one of the worst movies of the f-ing decade." I mean it wasn't great by any means, but I found it enjoyable, and there have been some awful movies this last decade, so I find it hard to say Transformers was one of them. Again, definitely could have been better, but I didn't find it anywhere near as horrible as moviebob did. Then again, it is entirely possible he caught on to something that I missed completely.

I have never really watched any of the original Star Trek, and I don't know whether or not I will see this new one, but that isn't because of the review. I wasn't sure whether I would see this even before this review. Even when I disagree with the opinions he states, I can still find enjoyment in moviebob's videos. I have always like his gameoverthinker segments, and like someone else already pointed out "in depth" is his style, and I can respect that. Still I can understand the points that Baby Tea and others have made.

Baby Tea:
This is my first time watching MovieBob, and I'm usually entertained by the videos hosted by the Escapist...but not this one.

First I certainly hope it's not supposed to be funny. I got a whiff of 'humor vibe' every now and again, but found my brow furrowed through most of the review. Never smirked or smiled, so I hope those attempts at humor aren't meant to be hook for this series.

Second, I was really very disappointed with the production values of this video. Maybe that's me, but everything else here, even ZP, looks better. This looks like it was done in Microsoft Movie Maker. Maybe it was? It works for ZP because ZP is fast, random, and humor centered, not 'review' centered. This might work if it was funny, but even if it was funny it just seemed thrown together in 15 minutes after hastily writing the review in a previous 10 minutes (Don't forget a bunch of expletives, because that obviously makes a point more valid) and doing the voice-over in one take on a crappy analog $6 mic from Staples. Maybe it's the compression, maybe it's the quality reduction in order to make the whole thing 'streamable', but it sounds like it was done by sitting at a kitchen table and talking into the mic built into your netbook. I suppose this second point is more aesthetic then anything else, but it really bugs me. Maybe that's me.

Thirdly, and finally, it seems I have the same problem with this movie reviewer as I do with nearly every reviewer around: Everything has to be an epic masterpiece, or it's balls. Granted that Star Trek was given a 'in the middle' sort of 'grade', but with the hate on the new X-men Origins flick and Transformers, it just strikes me as nerd rage rather then serious review. Apparently you can't just have a fun action movie anymore, it has to be super well acted with no artistic license from the source material whatsoever. Anyone remember the first Die Hard? Poorly acted, campy action, and silly one-liners. But you know what? It's awesome. It's awesome because it's a fun action movie. But as soon as it's a brand, it's shit if it's hits that same style. Yes it's important to have at least decent acting and story and the like, but it seems like lately it has to be Oscar worthy and exactly like the source material in order for people to just shuttup and enjoy a movie these days.
But maybe that's just me.

Anyways, pardon the long post. I'll try watching some of the older ones to see if it's just this one that bugs me.

that really summed up what i was thinking.

spot on.

P.S. "Movie"Bob, trying to imitate Ben Croshaw is reaaaaaaally lame.

DalekJaas:
That review sucked. Your taste in movies is terrible. Transformers wasnt that bad, at least it was entertaining, which is what a movie is meant to be. What the hell do you expect? Also you have an annoying, grating voice I'm sorry to say. Stop trying to be Yahtzee.

Dude, don't be a jerk, give constructive criticism, not "you suck go die"

OT: I liked it, I thought it was interesting to see a legitimate attack on the writers lol

I saw an early screening of this last night at 7. I agree w/ basically everything in this review. I went in thinkin this was a 95% movie and it ended up a 60% movie which felt like a 40% movie because i was expecting a 95% movie. Screw you rotten tomatoes!

He's on the money with transformers, I hated it and I stole the rifftrax version and even that was barely watchabile, I guess I'll see how much he's on the money with star trek and if he is theres always the sequel, after all tmp sucked ass as well, and then TWOK fixed everything.

Thats a fair score, 6/10

I have never seen a full episode of the original Star Trek, too young and not that much time to find out when it comes on at 2 in the morning on Spike in between paid programming.

I JUST got home from seeing it looking forward to listening to Moviebob's review of it. I did notice the thing about the bridge, it is a little to clean, crisp, and white. I got annoyed by the parts with the kids, not the Spock one that was cool, cause Spock rocks is an understatement, but the voices of little kid Kirk hurt my mind.

I would have given it a 8, but i got into love with the action scenes, not the car chase, that was dumb, even the situational irony of the cliff was bad.

But i liked all of the scenes with kid Spock, speaking of which there must have been ALOT of green screen use in those, kind of funny the few times it happened seeing one Spock then his green screen partner look-alikes.

Nice review though, Also i didn't much care for the scene with the undressing so cliche now.

Baby Tea:

Slycne:
If this was any other generic action space movie I think I would agree with you, but Star Trek carries quite a depth to it. So I think it's a fair assessment to expect more of it.

But that's my point! As soon as it has a brand, then it better be epic or it'll be decried. It's higher rated then any previous Star Trek film, according to Meta Critic, but it gets a '6' for what? X-Men Origins slaughtered at the box office, and so did Transformers...but they are bad because...? They aren't like the show? The cartoon? The comic book?
Where has the simple enjoyment gone?

I agree with you there. Less nerd rage, more enjoying the movie for what it is (even if it does shoves stakes into the source material). It isn't art, it's entertainment, and that's what I want when I go into theatres.

I think a trope applies to this: It's Different, Now it Sucks.

I've never understood the criticism of "coincidences." And then to complain about fate and destiny seems kind of contradictory (i.e. looking for something to complain about). You've eliminated coincidental as a reason for their getting together, you've eliminated fate as a reason for them getting together. So what other reason is left to explain how the crew winds up together? The Federation secretly orchestrating the entire thing to ensure they get the original series' crew together on the same ship?

It's like arguing that it's a coincidence that R2-D2 was on the Queen's ship when it left Naboo, and that Anakin build C3P0. Had R2-D2 not been on the ship, it would have been E3-Z1 or some such thing instead. Had it not been Scotty at the outpost, it would have been some other random engineer named Jim. Had it not been Sulu, some other Asian would be at the helm. For one thing it's a prequel, so obviously the characters are going to end up. Secondly, what would you prefer? Half the characters not appear until four movies in to ensure there's absolutely no chance of coincidence or fate being involved?

Half the people I went to school with ended up working at the same place as me, and half of those people ended up working with me at another job. Coincidence? Or perhaps the fact they the Enterprise is the new big thing for the Federation and the crew is clearly intended to comprise the best of the best.

But that's just me, it just irritates me when that's an argument against a film. By the reasoning of "everything is just a bit too convenient" 99% of films ever could be invalidated.

eh.....he's kinda critical and unappealing.

Just seem like he was pissing on everything; storyline, character development, and all that jazz.

Sounded like a nerd rant and I'm still left wondering whether I should go see it or not.

I mean Transformers was the shit, but apparently it sucked and destroyed the series, but if this movie does the same thing does that mean its good? It seemed like he was just bitching like a fanboy that didn't get what he wanted.

I have to disagree with a few points on this review.

For one, he portrayed Kirk how he truly should have been portrayed. Way better than Shatner ever did.

Anyway, most criticism seems to come from the fact that this movie involves trends. As a stand alone, this movie is incredible.

I hate plots involving time travel. But that only brought it down somewhat.

Although I disagree with you entirely, its nice to know that the opinion of the film isn't all good. Too much praise for something makes me think that the entire population are just sheep, its nice to have people like you and Yahtzee to knock us down when we are all acting like a bunch of brainless dopes.

Hang on.. Did he say Eric Banya? If so thats an insult to maybe our 1 of 3 good Aussie Actors.

WanderFreak:
I've never understood the criticism of "coincidences." And then to complain about fate and destiny seems kind of contradictory (i.e. looking for something to complain about). You've eliminated coincidental as a reason for their getting together, you've eliminated fate as a reason for them getting together. So what other reason is left to explain how the crew winds up together?

(SPOILERS FOLLOW)

That's a fair point, so allow me to respond. As to "what other reason," that's just it: There really doesn't need to BE some big "whoa, so THAT'S how it happened!!!" reason for these guys to be there. These characters are in what is essentially The Navy serving on what is essentially a Battleship but in space. The only explanation NEEDED for why someone is at a post is because "it's my assigned duty." But instead we have "I'm Sulu, I'm here filling-in for another guy, coincidentally the same day that ALL the other 'name' crew members will show up and also more-or-less 'luck into' their best-known duties" and so on. It's just unecessary extra detail that in a few cases actually serves to undermine the characters - Sulu and McCoy no longer have their jobs because they're exceptional, well-trained men who've worked hard to get where they are; they have them because they were "there and still breathing" when the Enterprise stumbles into a disaster.

And let's not even get INTO the lead-in to the third act: Kirk just happens to be dropped onto the planet where Old Spock is, which contains ONE other guy who JUST HAPPENS to be the only guy who could possibly help them who ALSO JUST HAPPENS to be yet another 'name' crewman. C'mon, now. That's just lazy writing.

And the thing is, there doesn't seem to be a purpose to doing it this way save for the lamest of reasons - i.e. they're under a mandate that the new/old crew has to be a Hip Young Fresh Ready-For-The-CW bunch, so you need all these coincidences to explain why the main posts of this ship are all staffed by what appear to be Freshmen on a field trip ;)

Fortesque:
Hang on.. Did he say Eric Banya? If so thats an insult to maybe our 1 of 3 good Aussie Actors.

I'd been under the impression that's how it was pronounced. I'd been saying it "Bah-Nah" for years, and was recently "corrected" that theres a "y" sound in there. Hm. Troubling. Y'know, come to think of it I don't think I've ever heard the fellow pronounce his own name...

MovieBob:

Fortesque:
Hang on.. Did he say Eric Banya? If so thats an insult to maybe our 1 of 3 good Aussie Actors.

I'd been under the impression that's how it was pronounced. I'd been saying it "Bah-Nah" for years, and was recently "corrected" that theres a "y" sound in there. Hm. Troubling. Y'know, come to think of it I don't think I've ever heard the fellow pronounce his own name...

With the many years of watching him on Full Frontal on Aussie TV and him playing the classic character Peter, or as he pronounces it Poyta. But i have seen him recently in interviews for his new film Love the Beast, and all the Australian guys have been pronouncing it as Ba-Nah. So it could just be a language thing

MovieBob:
(SPOILERS FOLLOW)

That's a fair point, so allow me to respond. As to "what other reason," that's just it: There really doesn't need to BE some big "whoa, so THAT'S how it happened!!!" reason for these guys to be there. These characters are in what is essentially The Navy serving on what is essentially a Battleship but in space. The only explanation NEEDED for why someone is at a post is because "it's my assigned duty." But instead we have "I'm Sulu, I'm here filling-in for another guy, coincidentally the same day that ALL the other 'name' crew members will show up and also more-or-less 'luck into' their best-known duties" and so on. It's just unecessary extra detail that in a few cases actually serves to undermine the characters - Sulu and McCoy no longer have their jobs because they're exceptional, well-trained men who've worked hard to get where they are; they have them because they were "there and still breathing" when the Enterprise stumbles into a disaster.

And let's not even get INTO the lead-in to the third act: Kirk just happens to be dropped onto the planet where Old Spock is, which contains ONE other guy who JUST HAPPENS to be the only guy who could possibly help them who ALSO JUST HAPPENS to be yet another 'name' crewman. C'mon, now. That's just lazy writing.

And the thing is, there doesn't seem to be a purpose to doing it this way save for the lamest of reasons - i.e. they're under a mandate that the new/old crew has to be a Hip Young Fresh Ready-For-The-CW bunch, so you need all these coincidences to explain why the main posts of this ship are all staffed by what appear to be Freshmen on a field trip ;)

Good points all around. The Old Spock certainly was the least plausible thing in the entire movie (I can see Old Spock being left there to see the death of Vulcan, but Kirk also ending up there's a bit of a stretch).

I've always hated the star trek franchise. Never once managed to watch a single episode all the way through without turning it off repeatedly to massage my temples vigorously and take another couple ibuprofen. My friends dragged me to the movie and I have to say I actually enjoyed it, no pain medication necessary.

DrGero:
I enjoyed the review.

That's really all I can say until I see the movie myself, which I won't do for another few weeks, after the kiddies have cleared out.

Three things I wanted to comment on. From the forums.

One) I'm utterly amazed by how personal some people take things. He doesn't give a favorable review to something you like, so you attack him? I even read a couple comments about punching him. Holy crap people, get a grip.

Two) To people complaining about the quality: It's too bad your free entertainment doesn't match up to what you'd like. It must be incredibly inconvenient to be strapped down and forced to watch, a là Clockwork Orange.

Three) About the people saying "what do you expect," "it's just a popcorn movie," "I just wanted some good special effects," and the like. No. No no no no NO. Do *Not* take that attitude. It may be easier to just settle like that, but the more you do, the more you're telling film makers and companies "I don't care, I'll still watch it" and they'll keep lowering and lowering the bar.

Think Idiocracy. (Not the best movie imo, but it highlights things for some people nicely.)

Thank you. I was about to post the exact same thing, and you've saved me the trouble. Haven't seen the movie either, but I did really enjoy the review, and I hope I see more MovieBob on the Escapist.

This was my first and last MovieBob. Uninspired attempt at reviewing a movie. You seemed set from the get go to hate this movie, so I would hardly call it an unbiased review. Enjoy your rage.

Now this was entertaining, but it seems blury at times which was annoying.

I have to admit I'm actually (dare I say it) excited to see this movie? I've heard good things about Pegg and the guy that does Bones elsewhere, so I can only hope that it turns out to be decent.

Also, X-Men 3 and Transformers were ok. X-3 needed to not have the Pheonix in it(the rest of it was really sweet), and Transformers needed less preteen humor and less boobs.

...Yes, less boobs. The IQ of the film dropped 20 points every time the girl showed up, and I can't forgive them her for making the other human lead about as interesting as those wise sayings printed on Popsicle sticks.

And please, NO MORE ROBOT URINATION. That... that was just unecessary in every way, shape, and form.

never seen any of these reviews just saw his star trek, wolverine, and watchmen reviews and for the most part he is right on the money, that said id love too see another thought provoking deep movie such as watchmen or v for vendetta or a epic movie like 2001 a space odyssey or lord of the rings.

"One of the worst films of the fucking decade" That made me laugh. Nice review bob, I like your films and I hope you make more episodes.

Wouldukindly:

DalekJaas:
That review sucked. Your taste in movies is terrible. Transformers wasnt that bad, at least it was entertaining, which is what a movie is meant to be. What the hell do you expect? Also you have an annoying, grating voice I'm sorry to say. Stop trying to be Yahtzee.

Wow, someone's a little emotional today. A review sucked because you didn't agree with it, that's completely logical. Don't judge it on its merits, instead just randomly trash the reviewer and his opinions.

Excellent review as always, Moviebob. Although I disagree with your opinion and actually enjoyed this film, I still enjoyed this review (it raised some excellent points, especially the ones about the new Kirk).

Also, I don't know who invented midnight screenings, but thank you for giving the geeks one more Star Trek devoted night.

Now children for an important public service anouncement. Don't fee the trolls, that is all.

DalekJaas:
That review sucked. Your taste in movies is terrible. Transformers wasnt that bad, at least it was entertaining, which is what a movie is meant to be. What the hell do you expect? Also you have an annoying, grating voice I'm sorry to say. Stop trying to be Yahtzee.

Please keep your fanboy rants to yourself. You may regret them later.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Well, someone had to post this:

We come in peace shoot to kill? That is really wierd... Like in a stoner way...

Patrick_and_the_ricks:

DalekJaas:
That review sucked. Your taste in movies is terrible. Transformers wasnt that bad, at least it was entertaining, which is what a movie is meant to be. What the hell do you expect? Also you have an annoying, grating voice I'm sorry to say. Stop trying to be Yahtzee.

Please keep your fanboy rants to yourself. You may regret them later.

How is that in anyway fanboy?? Transformers-is-an-entertaining-movie. I've seen it once on DVD! It seems your ability to tie two and two together is extremely flawed. I can't help it if it was a bad review, and as you may be able to tell from other peoples comments I'm not the only who thought that.

And for something to be a rant, it at least needs either substance or length. Mine had neither. Please keep your fanboy comments to yourself, you may regret them later, or you probably won't. Which is worse.

DalekJaas:
That review sucked. Your taste in movies is terrible. Transformers wasnt that bad, at least it was entertaining, which is what a movie is meant to be. What the hell do you expect? Also you have an annoying, grating voice I'm sorry to say. Stop trying to be Yahtzee.

Don't like it, fine. But if all your going to say is essentaily "I hate you and I hope you die", then don't bother.

Many of the posts on this thred dissagree with this video. Heres and example of one that does it better.

Susan Arendt:
Couldn't possibly disagree more with the review. I think it's a welcome and entertaining reboot of the franchise, while staying true and loyal to the spirit and core of the original series. Pegg and Urban are, indeed, the standouts, and Uhura does get short shrift, but I think Pine does a fine job as cocky, reckless, girl-chasing Kirk. Let's face it, Kirk was a bit of a dick, but his passion and sense of responsibility (if one can do something to help, one should, whatever the consequence) ultimately made him a good captain, and Pine carries that off well.

Yes, the original series did attempt to disguise discussions of serious and weighty matters in sci-fi trappings, but not every episode was meant to be some sort of object lesson. Star Trek was, at times, nothing but a ripping good yarn, and that's what this movie is.

See, this is polite, and give concrete reasons for opinions without saying things like "you're a fucking retard".

Also you may be surprised to know that this guy has been doing you tube reviews of games in much the same style long before yahtzee.

anyway, if you can't be polite don't bother poasting.

DalekJaas:
That review sucked. Your taste in movies is terrible. Transformers wasnt that bad, at least it was entertaining, which is what a movie is meant to be. What the hell do you expect? Also you have an annoying, grating voice I'm sorry to say. Stop trying to be Yahtzee.

Excuse me, but do you know what an ad hominem attack is? Its a logical fallacy that occurs when one's argument relies mostly on insulting the opposing arguer's character rather than focusing on the point and providing data in favor of his or her own position. Instead of saying, "Your taste in movies is terrible," why don't you back up why the review "sucked" with something a little more valid than an insult on moviebob. For instance, what about what he was saying "sucked," or what made Transformers "entertaining."

You have to put a little more meat on your arguments for anybody to take them seriously. Simply saying, "You suck, your taste in movies sucks, and your voice is annoying," doesn't quite cut it.

Well, I liked Transformers but I wasn't a huge fan of the originals. I suppose I watched it as a kid but I scarcely remember it. For those of you that thought X-Men Origins was good, you have been sucked in by the George Lucas brand of apologetics that drove sales for the prequel trilogy. Origins was short, the plot was absolutely everywhere, and the entire box of "good" parts could have been copy pasted from every action sequence from every movie in the last ten years. It was old when it was new, and when its old nobody will be watching it.

As for Star Trek, there is alot of talking about whether it was an entertaining movie. This isn't the issue at all. The original canon is vastly more cerebral than this new reboot. The entire point of the show was to explore the human condition through unclear moral decisions between Hail Mary style ship-to-ship combat scenes. The action sequences were more like breaks for the mind than they were integral to the plot.

Originally Gene Roddenberry made it his business to explore a future without money, or poverty, or war on Earth. But to also paint the universe itself as a shifting dangerous plain. A frontier where the just and peaceful would be challenged time and time again to protect themselves without crossing moral lines. I liked this story.

I'm sorry but this new Star Trek was a fraud. The canon of this original series formed over the course of forty years and had a built in, fanatically adherent following. I'm not sure why they'd change it other than the two obvious reasons. The director and writers were unfamiliar with the franchise, and they needed to make a movie that departed from the lore of the first ten movies, two mega series, two long-running TV dramas, a comic book, and countless other publications to make something that appealed to the beer guzzling, crack smoking masses that wouldn't have noticed another Star Trek coming out unless the preview had alot bangs, whizzes and tits throughout.

Gene would roll over in his grave.

Why is MovieBob still here? He's not funny ; he's not insightful; he's not right! His reviews consist of self absorbed misinformed ranting. Not only that, but he's acting like he's one of the Old Guard Trekkies who actually watched the original series when in all likelihood he probably wasn't even born until at least a decade after the original series ended. Not that this is his fault, but he shouldn't be acting like he is one of those who is going to get especially offended by this movie.

He's trying to be Yahtzee, but Yahtzee and this guy a very big difference. Yahtzee starts playing a game with a neutral mindset, but intending to pick out every single deficiency of the game in a manner which his scathing and yet humorous and lighthearted. MovieBob, on the other hand, goes in to watch a movie already decided if he's going to love it (Watchmen) or hate it (Star Trek) and then give us six minutes of asinine fanboyism on whatever arbitrary stance he decided to pick.

To re-iterate, he is not funny; he is not insightful; he is not Yahtzee. Why does he try to be?

My number one pet peeve: People stating definitive things about completely subjective... subjects. (Could've phrased that better.)

For instance, saying a movie is good or bad. You *Cannot* say that, because it depends entirely on the viewer and every viewer has a different frame of reference and perspective they're viewing the movie with.

You can only definitively state that *You* thought something was good or bad, not that it *Is* good or bad.

I really, really wish more people understood that.

Chris B Chikin:
Why is MovieBob still here? He's not funny ; he's not insightful; he's not right! His reviews consist of self absorbed misinformed ranting. Not only that, but he's acting like he's one of the Old Guard Trekkies who actually watched the original series when in all likelihood he probably wasn't even born until at least a decade after the original series ended. Not that this is his fault, but he shouldn't be acting like he is one of those who is going to get especially offended by this movie.

He's trying to be Yahtzee, but Yahtzee and this guy a very big difference. Yahtzee starts playing a game with a neutral mindset, but intending to pick out every single deficiency of the game in a manner which his scathing and yet humorous and lighthearted. MovieBob, on the other hand, goes in to watch a movie already decided if he's going to love it (Watchmen) or hate it (Star Trek) and then give us six minutes of asinine fanboyism on whatever arbitrary stance he decided to pick.

To re-iterate, he is not funny; he is not insightful; he is not Yahtzee. Why does he try to be?

Take a look a few posts above yours, at SuperMse's post. They explain what an ad hominem argument is. You might find it illuminating. Many here might, actually.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here