SageOfCalm:
So what if he's a critic? Why does everybody make that spurious argument? If I don't like his review I have every right to come on here and say I don't like it just like he has every right to say he didn't like the movie.

My problem was that it's seemed like he was letting personal experiences of being beat up in high school affect his review.

Of course you can come on here and say you didn't like it, but people are coming here and attacking the man and his opinion under the guise of "disagreeing." People are going through the trouble of registering for the simple reason to insult him, because they feel he insulted them.

I don't know how you got that the entire thing was colored by whatever experiences he may or may not have had in high school. Personally, I think you're overemphasizing a humorous throwaway comment.

Well this has been the first moviebob review I've watched, yuck
Your right but you come off as a angry nerd, not a funny angry nerd, just an angry nerd
It hurts to agree with your ramblings, I felt embarrassed for about half of it

Ouch. I wouldn't feel welcome here after 4 pages of ad hominem. I wouldn't take it too personally, though. Most are seemingly pissed off Yahtzee fanboys, which pretty much invalidates their entire post.

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.

I think this sums it up nicely, and it's not getting enough attention.
I don't exactly have a stand-point to agree with what you said Moviebob, as my film interest is non-existent (would much prefer game over-thinker on here, but you don't meet the criteria of "incessant Nintendo hater and PC worshiper," so I don't think that would be wise), but unless someone has a decent argument or can simply state that they don't agree with you politely, it would be nice compared to the mass of useless flaming you're receiving.

Community was better than average when I got here, but it seems to go down overtime. Oh well.

I've seen the movie now so I'll make a couple of comments.

The movie is quite watchable, good for what it is but only really gets great when Simon Pegg is on screen. As a Star Trek fan I can't get too angry about it as I'm used to Star Trek movies being bad. I don't even think that Wrath of Khan is that good. Star Trek is a TV show and this reboot is no TNG but fortunately it's also not an Enterprise that tried to shoe horn dark and gritty themes into the Trek universe. This movie doesn't completely miss the point even if it isn't really excellent.

@dogrum1:

> 'those damn jocks are ruining my life, them and their stupid self confidence, dashing good
> looks, and sweet cinnamony breath. I hate them cuz I'm such a socially awkward fuck and
> because they accomplished what i could accomplish if I'd stop living in my grandmothers
> basement continually watching star trek re-runs in the hopes capt krunch will beam me up one
> day. And now there giving those flies, I mean non-pimply-faced-dipshits, star trek! HOW could
> they do this to me!

Let's see. Apeman was smart and pressed reply-button after regis-uh-tration, now words must be typed on key-thingie. Now apeman must only find "relevant" stuff to say.

> WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

"Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind." - Terry Pratchett.

Just another one of those 10 gazillion people out there apemen don't know squat about...

THE_ZAR.

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.

I agree. I thought Transformers and Wolverine were good movies, and the amount of hate dished on then irked me, but I found this review to be surprising entertaining.

The most interesting thing noted in this review was the similarity the villain had with Khan from Star Trek II. They were both rag-tag groups bend on vengeance who'd gotten a hold of plot McGuffins of mass destruction. This is interesting because this is the second time a Star Trek movie has aped Wrath of Khan. The apparently did this with Star Trek: Nemesis. (Although I didn't see that one because the last Star Trek movie I saw was First Contact, and that movie was so terrible, I gave up on the franchise) It's just interesting to me that when they try to make a good Star Trek movie, they wind up copying Wrath of Khan in at least some way.

Markness:

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.

I agree. I thought Transformers and Wolverine were good movies, and the amount of hate dished on then irked me, but I found this review to be surprising entertaining.

If you wish I can write out a point-by-point review detailing why Transformers is one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life, and an excellent "how not to make movies" reference piece.

It is not a misunderstood or unjustly-ridiculed movie. It is crap. Glossy, explosions-everywhere hi-tech state-of-the-art-CGI crap. The explosions and generic movie cliche garbage just hide how truly abominable the movie is.

For one thing, it is WAY too long for the subject material covered. Most action-y summer blockbuster titles with no depth are about an hour and a half long. This is because only a really good shallow action piece can hold the audience's attention for longer. Transformers is NOT a good shallow action movie, and so it has no excuse for being as long as it is.

It also flits between cliches with the attention span of a gnat that just drank an extra-large espresso. One minute it's a crappy horror movie, the next they try to throw some crappy comedy at you with the annoying Jar Jar Minicon, the next minute it's getting all "Dawson's Creek" up in there (but still crap, mind you) with the moronic love story featuring a whiny nerd and an impossibly-hot chick that he somehow has a chance with (by virtue of him being the main character, I assume, because he's completely detestable from a personality viewpoint). Perhaps worst of all is the uberhaxor squad. They're not funny, they're not witty, they don't add ANYTHING to the show. Nothing would have been lost if the entire group were cut completely out of the movie.

I'm not a Transformers fan (though the PS2 game was awesome), but the Michael Bay Transformers movie is putrid all the way through. What isn't outright bad is cliched in the extreme, and the Transfomers themselves begin to feel like guest stars (albiet guest stars who help make parts of the movie not suck so much) before long. And this is just the tip of the iceberg-I could go on for hours about this movie. Transfomers is the Daikatana of movies, or maybe the Enter the Matrix of movies.

Just to reiterate what's been said before, your taste, as a reviewer sucks balls. Because this was a fantastic movie, and it really did the Star Trek franchise great justice.

You seem to be wearing rose-tinted glasses when you look back on the crap-storm that was Old Trek.

Also, please go see this movie before you form an opinion on it, to avoid being one of the shit-fed douchebags that the OP Reviewer mentioned at the start.

TRAILERS ARE NOT GOOD INDICATIONS OF MOVIES.

The movie was Meh.

Lots of explosions, action, explosions, and a hot Uhura.
If you like such things (explosions) then you will also like this film as the explosions are very well done and it has very good CGI of spaceships shooting at each other.

Just don't try to think while watching it as the plot is weak and the characters are overdone and silly.
Like it was said before its a popcorn film. Go in, turn brain off, watch explosions, go out again. That it does very well, but nothing more than that.

Well that was a waste of time, I am dissapointed in the escapist for choosing this guy.

Arkitext:
Just to reiterate what's been said before, your taste, as a reviewer sucks balls. Because this was a fantastic movie, and it really did the Star Trek franchise great justice.

You seem to be wearing rose-tinted glasses when you look back on the crap-storm that was Old Trek.

Yes, because anyone who thinks differently than you about a movie must be wrong. Opinions are for suckers.

Neosage:
Well that was a waste of time, I am dissapointed in the escapist for choosing this guy.

Yes, if they're going to sit you down and force you to watch something, it really should cater to your every whim.

It's not like they're giving you it for free or not bothering you about watching it. That'd be silly

It's cool to see Bob's opinion, but I think more and more reviewers are attempting to be "edgy" and contrarian to popular belief in hopes of being the next Yahtzee. I haven't seen Star Trek yet, but I have hopes for it.

By the way, this perfectly explains why trekkies won't like the movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM&feature=PlayList&p=2059FFBAD4A76EE0&index=0&playnext=1

Honestly I enjoyed the movie and even somewhat looked forward to seeing it. I understand the nerd rage going on and the clueless reaction to that rage of the outsiders who are all but new to Star Trek on the whole. Maybe because since the original X-Men movie my expectations have been lowered and then doctored to go even lower to the point of cautious optimism as with most things that are building off the fan bases of old as opposed to creating new and original material.

sanzo:

Neosage:
Well that was a waste of time, I am dissapointed in the escapist for choosing this guy.

Yes, if they're going to sit you down and force you to watch something, it really should cater to your every whim.

It's not like they're giving you it for free or not bothering you about watching it. That'd be silly

So you mean I'm the ONLY one being put through the Ludovico technique here? Weird.

LazerLuger:
By the way, this perfectly explains why trekkies won't like the movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM&feature=PlayList&p=2059FFBAD4A76EE0&index=0&playnext=1

It's just like I said. Nothing but utter comntempt.

Fuck those guys and fuck this movie.

To clarify my position from earlier:

It's not the points of MovieBob's "review" I particularly disagree with (hell, on some points, I agree completely). It's the presentation.

I'll have a more complete response to the video as a whole later, but in the meantime all I can really say is that he should take this shit more seriously. Be more in-depth, and stop going after the cheap, easy targets on the movies.

By the way, he's done what, four videos on this website? With cheap MSPaint / Windows Movie Maker effects? And obvious nerdrage? Focusing more on the actors and directors' previous works than the movie itself? MovieBob is not a movie critic. That implies professionalism. Which is one thing in particular that he does not have.

PS. I'm watching the Watchmen video, and once again we have MovieBob complaining about "all those fratboys". Nerdraaaaaaage.

I might be able to take this review a bit more seriously had the critic not all but flat-out stated that Watchmen was in the same class as Citizen Kane and The Godfather.

Nostalgia:

(would much prefer game over-thinker on here, but you don't meet the criteria of "incessant Nintendo hater and 360 worshiper," so I don't think that would be wise)

Fixed that for you, was pretty glaring.

ChromeAlchemist:

Nostalgia:

(would much prefer game over-thinker on here, but you don't meet the criteria of "incessant Nintendo hater and 360 worshiper," so I don't think that would be wise)

Fixed that for you, was pretty glaring.

You're kidding, right? Perhaps as far as actual consoles go, but people here fap over their PC and PC gaming far more than the 360.

Nostalgia:

ChromeAlchemist:

Nostalgia:

(would much prefer game over-thinker on here, but you don't meet the criteria of "incessant Nintendo hater and 360 worshiper," so I don't think that would be wise)

Fixed that for you, was pretty glaring.

You're kidding, right? Perhaps as far as actual consoles go, but people here fap over their PC and PC gaming far more than the 360.

I think what might make PC gamers worse is that they don't have to say much when people (are stupid enough to) badmouth the PC. Personally though I think this place is heavily 360 orientated, you get so little hate for the 360 compared to anything else I believe.

Or am I wrong?

ChromeAlchemist:
I think what might make PC gamers worse is that they don't have to say much when people (are stupid enough to) badmouth the PC. Personally though I think this place is heavily 360 orientated, you get so little hate for the 360 compared to anything else I believe.

Or am I wrong?

No. You're not wrong. 360 is definitely the preferred console of choice here.
PC superiority is pushed into almost every console thread I've seen here though, whether it's an option or not. PC gaming seemingly gives an automatic ego, and they love to tout that around.
If anyone else does hate PC gaming, I'm sure it's not entirely for the PC itself or even at all, but the arrogance instead.

Nostalgia:

ChromeAlchemist:
I think what might make PC gamers worse is that they don't have to say much when people (are stupid enough to) badmouth the PC. Personally though I think this place is heavily 360 orientated, you get so little hate for the 360 compared to anything else I believe.

Or am I wrong?

No. You're not wrong. 360 is definitely the preferred console of choice here.
PC superiority is pushed into almost every console thread I've seen here though, whether it's an option or not. PC gaming seemingly gives an automatic ego, and they love to tout that around.
If anyone else does hate PC gaming, I'm sure it's not entirely for the PC itself or even at all, but the arrogance instead.

I can agree with that, fair point.

PayNSprayBandit:
First off, outside of the coincidence thing, which merely made me smile, I couldn't have disagreed with you more. And not just about Star Trek, but in fact everything you said.

And now J.J. Abrams with a rebuttal from three months ago.

I don't agree with much of this review. The movie was great, the script a little lacking, but it was mostly negligible. I will agree that Simon Pegg was fantastic as Scotty though.

Also, on the whole, "It's not your fathers star trek!", Couldn't that just be them being upfront about whats in the movie not trying to bash the whole fanbase?

This reivew, to me, seems like just trying to rip through Star Treck because it seems like a cool thing to do.

Now, it's time for me to rip through the review because it's the right thing to do.
1. Judging from the trailer while he is speaking. The movie more than holds its own as better than average action movie that deserves attention. In fact, the first time I saw the trailer, I was extremely interested in the movie without knowing that it's Star Trek (yeah, that's how much I know about that franchise).
2. It'd be nice if Moviebob can read the piece on yellow journalism that was published not so long ago by escapist. Please, stop reviewing something by saying it's something else. That's like me looking up "donkey" in the dictionary and find "Equus africanus asinus." It doesn't help. So when he compares the characters to others from other movies, it's vague at best.
3. Actually, the specific people meeting up at that exact moment is extremely unlikely (that's 1 / (total population+every location)). But, to take that as itself is retarded because by that logic, it must be absolutely impossible for anyone to see anything ever. So then it must be that someone met someone, it could've been anyone, at one point, which means that these specific characters are not there by random chance, but it could've been anyone, but it must be someone. So the chance of meeting someone would be total population/total population which is 100%, and since someone MUST be met, it seems logical that these characters meet up in the way they did. (I hope I'm making sense).
4. There aren't any car chases, unless you count that one about 30 seconds scene of a tiny police chase. Sky diving and sword fighting are dumb action cliches now? Wth is he talking about? That's like saying "gun fighting is such a dumb shooter cliche." What an idiot.
5. Why does he assume that something that looks clean and white = apple store? I don't get it. So it's a crime now to show a clean white room? And if anyone can find an apple store that looks like the bridge, please link me. I'd love to see it. And maybe looking like "apple" is a good thing, which is why white and clean is chosen.
6. I do agree with the acting. Kirk annoyed the hell out of me.

So, I'm not saying that he can't have his opinion. I respect that he didn't enjoy the movie. I'm just saying that he's a bad movie reviewer because his reasonings are poor. I enjoyed the movie, and I am not a trek fan (since I've never seen Star Trek before this). I'd definitely recommend it to anyone even remotely interested.

PS. that black girl (don't remember the name) was not a sex piece in the movie. I'll admit that she didn't do much, but that's just it, she didn't do much.

Susan Arendt:
Oh, for the record, I'm a total Trekkie (yep, been to conventions, the Star Trek experience in Las Vegas, the whole bit) and I loved the movie.

I have watched every Star Trek movie at least 3 times, have religiously watched every episode of EVERY one of the TV series (except the Animated series), and have copies of the star charts and encyclopedia books and some novels, etc.-- things I'm sure every die-hard Star Trek fan would admit to have done. I still find it hard to like the new movie, even if its prospect is getting more people interested in Star Trek. There isn't anything that bothered you even a little bit? The constant barrage of coincidences? The forced, fan-service mandatory one-liners? Maybe you are a more forgiving person than I am.

MovieBob:

jboking:
Also, on the whole, "It's not your fathers star trek!", Couldn't that just be them being upfront about whats in the movie not trying to bash the whole fanbase?

Actually, it's a cheezy joke - a reference to an old ad campaign ("It's not your father's Oldsmobile") remembered in marketing-biz lore as the first big-scale attempt to remake a standby into a hip item by "copping" to the percieved oldness of the brand upfront. Ironically, while people remember the line they FORGET that the campaign was a disasterous failure: New sales didn't increase for Oldsmobile, and loyal customers felt disrespected.

You make a good point, as I felt disrespected by this movie. I appreciate what Paramount was trying to do by getting new fans and trying to make Star Trek exciting to the masses, but... c'mon, really? I will admit I am biased because I've never like anything JJ Abrams had ever done. I like the idea of the movie, but overall, the execution was not what I had hoped.

corroded:
What...the hell?

I know everyone has their right to opinion, but clearly yours should be blocked from mass audience, you don't have a clue.

I thought Pine did a decent job of Kirk, whilst not being Shatner. The casting was pretty much spot on, though my favourites were Urban and Pegg. I thought the ending was rushed, and the whole story seemed to miss a trick or two on the old writing front but in reality this is probably the best Trek i can remember. I honestly can't remember Wrath of Khan, so you'll have to hold me to that till i've seen it.

I like how you say his opinion should be blocked from the public, yet you're very quick to tout yours (Bolded it)

Hypocrite much?

ThisNewGuy:
This reivew, to me, seems like just trying to rip through Star Treck because it seems like a cool thing to do.

So, I'm not saying that he can't have his opinion. I respect that he didn't enjoy the movie. I'm just saying that he's a bad movie reviewer because his reasonings are poor. I enjoyed the movie, and I am not a trek fan (since I've never seen Star Trek before this). I'd definitely recommend it to anyone even remotely interested.

If you really care to know or better understand what Moviebob's review was referring to, you need to see other Star Trek movies or at least some of the TV shows (preferably The Next Generation or Deep Space 9). If someone has never experienced any Star Trek-related media, then I think they would be at a slight disadvantage when countering Moviebob's points.