The Escapist Presents: MovieBob Reviews Star Trek

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

I see. But the movie as its own merits is not bad. I actually thought it was good. So basically, if you go in without being a Star Trek nerd, you might like it I guess.

So, this was the first and last Movie Bob review I will bother listening to. Not saying I disagree with him, but I couldn't get past what a whiney naysayer he is. Whine whine whine, fuck this, fuck that, whine some more.

nerd, lol

I don't like the style of the review, and even more I didn't like his voice, but I agree with the review.

The film is an exercise in covering mediocre script with special evvects and the pseudo epic space battles. Admittedly I liked the battles, there ewere never enough of them in other ST films, but this film unfortunately homogenised Star Trek to the level of everything else. This is a good space shoting film, but I do not think it is a Star Trek any more. One could critisize Enterprise as being too much a story about brave american bous in flashy uniforms, but this film changed everything. I look at the Enterprise far more charitably now. It is almost phylosophic, which is what ST was always about. And what is this with time travel... out of ideas?? Here's one: Romulans from the original ST invade federation. This was allways the threat anyway, there is no need to bring them from the future...

sanzo:

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?

You're confusing a forum with mass audience, which some trumped up e-egos do.

Also, if you're trying to be clever, actually be. That whole post was an opinion.

So stop your crappy trolling. Videos on this site get far more hits than my crappy forum posts.

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.

Agreed I loved that movie so much at least Yahtzee presents valid points

MGT-Orion:

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.

Perhaps. :) Yes, I rolled my eyes a few times, but mostly I took the fan service in the spirit it was intended. Like I've said before, the coincidences (most of them, anyway) don't bother me because they're only coincidences because we already know who's supposed to end up on board the Enterprise. If the exact same things happened in a brand new IP, they wouldn't be coincidences, they'd just be plot.

Sure, there was stuff that doesn't hold up to scrutiny - why are the walkways on Nero's ship so narrow? - but that can be said for so many sci-fi movies that at some point, you have to make the decision to give folks a little slack and go with it. As long as I'm enjoying myself, I'll give a movie a bit of leeway.

Let's face it - the last several Trek movies were straight-up made for Trekkies, and they sucked. That old joke about the odd-numbered Trek movies being shite, while the even ones are good? Yeah, it's true, but not all the even ones are all that good, either. So clearly they had to try something different - what they'd been doing wasn't working. Does that mean they had to dumb a few things down, gloss over a few things? Of course. Not everyone in the audience has been studying Trek all their lives. But if we want there to be Trek on the big screen at all, we have to be willing to make a few compromises.

You're so full of pretentious crap. This movie is awesome. I think they did a stellar job of staying true to the original character concepts. They also managed to pull a convincing continuity reboot, which is a feat in and of itself. I thought the stage/set and prop designs were a good take on the (now) retro look of the original series.

Honestly, what the hell do you want out of a movie? I think it's just impossible to please people like you.

(For the record I have seen most every episode of star trek and all the movies.)

You angry people are forgetting he gave it a 6/10. 6 points for the movie visuals and exictment part, but loses 4 points for story/writing. if you dont care about those then why does it matter if it lost points there? Just watch the move if you want to. He's not petitioning for it to be banned.
I like some bad games that yatzee hates, you dont see me posting how he's wrong and a whiner. I liked transformers a tad more than bob, You dont see me declaring him wrong and he is a BIG DUMMY etc. etc.
If you guys have such awesome and perfect opinions, start up a series. Im sure people will agree 100% with you every time and NEVER complain about it in the forums. OH WAIT.....

he gave it a 6 OUT OF 10
5 out of 10 is average
STAR TREK IS ABOVE AVERAGE SO SHUT FHE TUCK UP.
remember 10/10 means perfection. 9/10 means darn close to perfection.
You cant expect a movie with such glaring flaws( as he pointed out) to be overlooked and declared near perfect just because IT IZ A GOOD POPKOURN MUUVIE.
stop caring so much what Bob thinks. Im SURE He's not fretting over all of your opinions (which you think supercedes Bob's even though HE'S the one with the series and YOU are the annoying people occupying a forum), so stop fretting over his. Are you really that insecure that you dont fell good unless averyone agrees with you? maybe When I go see Star trek I'll like it alot more than bob, but you know what?
Just as I wouldn't want him bashing my opinion, Im not going to go around saying his is wrong. and then stating my opinion like its any better.

Opinions are like butts. everyone has one and they usually stink.

I also am a religious Star Trek fanatic, and I greatly enjoyed the new movie. It was fun and I highly recommend it to anyone that like science fiction.

Susan Arendt:
Does that mean they had to dumb a few things down, gloss over a few things? Of course. Not everyone in the audience has been studying Trek all their lives.

See, here's where I'm at: I don't honestly give a damn about Trek continuity at this point. "Star Trek" as a modern franchise dissapeared up it's own ass over a decade ago, so going in to this the list of stuff I didn't care about could've filled a warehouse. I don't if they change the science, languages, history etc. around. I don't care if they play fast and loose with continuity or even junk it all together... For example: the single biggest not-fixed-by-timeline-shift continuity flub in the story is that when Nero first shows up, NO ONE is at all surprised to actually SEE a Romulan when - in the timeline that's still the same up to that point - no one in that part of the universe has EVER seen one (the fact that Romulans are just "evil Vulcans" was originally a big "twist") nor would they have for another few decades. That sort of thing doesn't bug me in the least, which is why it's not in the review.

They could've tossed every other "big" detail aside and, if they hadn't ditched the spirit of the franchise with it I'd have enjoyed it a lot more than I did this version - which has the "details" mostly right but completely misses the bigger point in favor of a dopey formula action movie. Yeah, the outfits and the gear and the ships and (most of) the continuity are on he money... but I just never got the sense of "Star Trek" so much as I did a two-part episode of "Space: Above & Beyond" re-skinned with "Star Trek" trappings. And even THAT I could concievably have gotten behind without this wretched, god-awful script. I mean, geez... "Starship Troopers" is a smarter, sharper script than this... and "Starship Troopers" is KIDDING ;)

corroded:

sanzo:

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?

You're confusing a forum with mass audience, which some trumped up e-egos do.

Also, if you're trying to be clever, actually be. That whole post was an opinion.

So stop your crappy trolling. Videos on this site get far more hits than my crappy forum posts.

And how exactly were you not trolling in your original post?

I'm also aware that your post was opinion, I addressed that in my reply. My issue was with how you think your opinion is somehow more relevant than his, just because you loved the movie and he didn't

I really want someone to explain to me how this was such a bad script. There's really only 2 times that I can think of where anyone just happened to be somewhere. When Kirk shows up on Delta Vega and Spock just happens to be there, and when Nero just happens to be at the exact same spot at the right time when Spock shows up. Everyone else? There is no coincidences. Sounds to me like MovieBob is a butt hurt Original Series kind of guy that is fluent in Klingon, but can't accept a movie or the reason why Kirk doesn't act the same way in this movie as he did in TOS.

That's the worst excuse for a half assed review I've ever heard.

Susan Arendt:

MGT-Orion:

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.

Perhaps. :) Yes, I rolled my eyes a few times, but mostly I took the fan service in the spirit it was intended. Like I've said before, the coincidences (most of them, anyway) don't bother me because they're only coincidences because we already know who's supposed to end up on board the Enterprise. If the exact same things happened in a brand new IP, they wouldn't be coincidences, they'd just be plot.

Sure, there was stuff that doesn't hold up to scrutiny - why are the walkways on Nero's ship so narrow? - but that can be said for so many sci-fi movies that at some point, you have to make the decision to give folks a little slack and go with it. As long as I'm enjoying myself, I'll give a movie a bit of leeway.

Let's face it - the last several Trek movies were straight-up made for Trekkies, and they sucked. That old joke about the odd-numbered Trek movies being shite, while the even ones are good? Yeah, it's true, but not all the even ones are all that good, either. So clearly they had to try something different - what they'd been doing wasn't working. Does that mean they had to dumb a few things down, gloss over a few things? Of course. Not everyone in the audience has been studying Trek all their lives. But if we want there to be Trek on the big screen at all, we have to be willing to make a few compromises.

Did some Star Trek fans really not like the last few movies? I thought well of Insurrection and Nemesis-- I can't say I "loved them", but I thought they were good enough to buy on DVD and watch every once in a while. I guess I could be lost in uber fandom when I say that...
I am seeing the new movie again today, so maybe a second go around will shake my bias and tame my reservations about a fresh spin on a series I've studied my entire life.

sanzo:

corroded:

sanzo:

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?

You're confusing a forum with mass audience, which some trumped up e-egos do.

Also, if you're trying to be clever, actually be. That whole post was an opinion.

So stop your crappy trolling. Videos on this site get far more hits than my crappy forum posts.

And how exactly were you not trolling in your original post?

I'm also aware that your post was opinion, I addressed that in my reply. My issue was with how you think your opinion is somehow more relevant than his, just because you loved the movie and he didn't

Stop skirting round the point, you quite deliberately high lit a specific area of my post. You half addressed it at best.

Ignoring that, I said my post was no more relevant at his. If he was posting here i'd say nothing about it, but people take 'critics' seriously, hence why people get pissed off by critics, and faux critics like Yahtzee. But Yahtzee is funny. Whereas this video comes across as a juvenile rant, at best.

You are confusing things, and lets face it you're out of ideas. Oh, no wait i'm trolling because i dared say i didn't believe a word of spewed rhetoric, full of obscenities from someone who quite clearly is trying to hide a Trek addiction.

But you aren't going to let this one go are you...

ThisNewGuy:
I see. But the movie as its own merits is not bad. I actually thought it was good. So basically, if you go in without being a Star Trek nerd, you might like it I guess.

I agree. My previous knowledge and experience of Star Trek has in a way hurt my chances of really liking this movie. It's the "I know too much" excuse. But as such a die-hard fan, I am slowly looking forward to new fans of Star Trek; and I encourage them to see other movies and the TV shows to see if there is anything else you might like.

Okay, if you have to focus on what was little more than a cameo by Tyler Perry where he doesn't even try to be funny, then you've got a problem.

Yeah, really weak review. Still, gotta give him props for trying to rail against the common thoughts. Still I'd say the weakest part was not liking how our beloved characters got together by coincidence, which is only people meet pretty much anyone they know.

SPOILERS IN MAIN-BODY, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED ;)

MovieBob:
SPOILERS IN MAIN-BODY, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED ;)

True enough, but the problem is that the only reason these characters are A.) There at all and B.) Introduced with the pomp and circumstance "requiring" coincidence is because the movie INTENDS for us to know that these people are the famous-name characters. If Scotty was just "some guy who knew tech stuff they met" there'd be no "Holy crap, it's Montgomery Scott!" stupid moment. But no, the filmmakers want to mine the goodwill/smiles/applause you get from origin/intro moments for all they're worth right off the bat, so they've set up all these dopey plot-contrivances that are only there to deliver the maximum number of "Obi Wan Kenobi, meet... Anakin Skywalker!" exchanges. It's the worst kind of blatant CYA-fanservice: "Guys? Please stop being mad about the reboot, okay? See? Look! The SHOCKING TRUE STORY of why so-and-so has their job! Isn't that nifty??"

/BEGIN SPOILER
Not to mention, there is no way that Spock would have even jettisoned Kirk. He would have put him in the brig. So Spock does something entirely irrational only to set up painful, eye-rolling coincidences? No thanks.

A smarter movie, would have had Kirk jumping in the shuttle to avoid the brig, landing on the planet, and finding Future Spock there, because Future Spock was waiting for him, knowing that he was going to land there.

An actual smart movie, would have avoided the entire scene and written something better.

In the end I think he under stated what I felt was the biggest flaw in the movie - A bunch of Cadets are given control of a federation flagship which has hundreds of people on board who should be far better qualified. If you really need 24 year-olds to take command of a starship, find a way to do it that is not insulting.
/END SPOILER

As for MB's review, I found the ranting got a little tedious but it was generally inoffensive. However, the fact the MB actually talks about the merits of the movie rather than simply rehashing the plot for 75% of the review is refreshing. Too often I see a review where they really just give a Cliff Notes version of the movie. Overall, I liked the review and look forward to seeing more from MB. (The only other review of his I have seen was for Watchmen which I also thought was good).

Two last points:
- brainless action movies can be fun, but intelligent action movies are much better. There is no reason to require stupidity.
- For those complaining that MB was negative to a movie that had 95% on RT, MB gave it a 6/10 which means he would count as positive review and be in agreement with the 95% rating.

I'll agree, Simon Pegg did a smashing job ;p

Yeah, I didn't agree with this review. I suppose that may be to do with him being a fan of the old Star Trek. I liked it too to an extent but I'm nowhere near old enough to have ever been a proper fan. I saw wrath of khan, supposedly the best star trek movie, and yes I thought it was a good story and I loved it, but even then I had to admit the script was just plain shitty. "From hells black heart, I stab at thee" sure sounds epic, but these guys are all just wannabe shakespeares and at least the modern version realises that it is modern. I think the script is a bit of a poor place to attack.

As for acting, I have to admit Simon Pegg did fantastically, so much better than I expected him to do, but was the new kirk really that bad? I'll answer for you. No, he wasn't. Especially when he's being compared to of all people William Shatner. Now please don't kill me Trekkies but old Bill has more than just a tendency to overact. On top of that, his acting was one of the main things that made the original movies so B-moviesque and alienated a lot of the mainstream audience. This new kirk was what I felt kirk always was. A hard-faced, clever, determined, arrogant, exciting hero.

The trouble with Moviebob is he is all for "movies as art" when I would rather they weren't and that they did pay attention to their audience and listen in some way to what I want instead of the director being a self-indulgent dickhead which is all too common with some directors *cough* del toro *cough*.

So I ask Moviebob, to quote awesomeness, are you not entertained?! wait, he said he was, forget I said anything...

bluerahjah:
I really want someone to explain to me how this was such a bad script.


And I found the movie somewhat enjoyable. I hate to think of the list that someone who hated the movie could come up with.

MGT-Orion:

Did some Star Trek fans really not like the last few movies? I thought well of Insurrection and Nemesis-- I can't say I "loved them", but I thought they were good enough to buy on DVD and watch every once in a while. I guess I could be lost in uber fandom when I say that...
I am seeing the new movie again today, so maybe a second go around will shake my bias and tame my reservations about a fresh spin on a series I've studied my entire life.

Afraid so. True to form, Insurrection gets more grief than Nemesis, but even that one isn't exactly what you'd call beloved.

MovieBob, points for the Space: Above and Beyond reference - I thought I was the only person who watched that. :) I'm just not sure what you wanted from Star Trek, to be honest. It's not as though previous Trek movies were Shakespeare.

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 perceived oldness of the brand upfront. Ironically, while people remember the line they FORGET that the campaign was a disastrous failure: New sales didn't increase for Oldsmobile, and loyal customers felt disrespected.

Would you agree that the meaning of something as simple as a phrase can change over time? Also, I wouldn't blame the failure of that Oldsmobile campaign solely on the slogan. After all, if that followed through, star trek should be doing horrible right now.

To me, and I understand that it may be different to you, Taking offense to this slogan just strikes me as oversensitivity to the subject. It's not as though the movie itself is just practice in waving the middle finger to classic trekkers.

Also, they need to draw in a new fanbase. I mean think about it, as a casual Trekkie, you had this many problems with the film's script and actors. Now imagine if they only tried to attract customers that were classic trekkers. How pissed would they be with the poor script(as they would have a greater emotional attachment to the movie than most of the new fans)? The movie would have easily bombed. Yes, the slogan could potentially hurt someones feelings if taken too seriously, but they do have a job to do. Market the damn movie.

I don't see how that tagline is "bash[ing] the whole fanbase" anyway.

ahpuch:


And I found the movie somewhat enjoyable. I hate to think of the list that someone who hated the movie could come up with.

I felt like having some fun. Open the spoiler for my responses.

Hit the nail on the head. I couldn't agree more about the bridge remark.

LOL this guy sucks. I like Transformers, it's a movie about shape shifting sentient robots from space..... where is the need for deep writing? I't like letting Adam Sandler and Will Farrell co-write a movie together then bitching about how silly it is. This guy is a total Trekey Fandoy..... you can sense it in his voice and feel his anghst.

Daveman:
So I ask Moviebob, to quote awesomeness, are you not entertained?!

Yes. Mildly, with MASSIVE reservations. Hence the 6 out of 10. It's an OKAY movie being massively overhyped largely - from where I sit - because people are (for a variety of reasons) amazed that it was any good at all ;)

::SPOILERS IN MAIN BODY::

ahpuch:

- The mining ship that is faster than a starship, and with better weapons and shields. How many Klingon ships did it take down?

To be fair, I think this is one of the cooler ideas in the film - that the "big bad guy" is basically just a pissed-off blue-collar schlub driving the equivalent of a dump-truck BUT, since he's zipped a few centuries back in time his "gear" suddenly qualifies as doomsday weapon. It's too bad the film has no time to spend really developing this interesting aspect of Nero as a character, since it's otherwise preoccupied giving us the SECRET! NEVER BEFORE REVEALED!! SHOCKING!!! ORIGIN-STORY OF WHY-SULU-IS-DRIVING. ;)

Well finally saw the movie and it was...okay. If you were expecting an action film and never really was a die-hard trekkie or trekker then it was good.

If you are a die-hard trek fan then this movie was horrible to okay pending how much you want the writing to get away with. I mean half of the movie in terms of script was FULL of material a FANFICTION writer could write. Acting was okay. John Cho did a decent job acting but didn't really come across as Sulu but he played a good role. Scotty did a great job filling the role. McCoy did an okay job but half of his lines was pandering so you really can't blame the actor(good actor). As for Uhura...man Moviebob had that right, she was there for eyecandy with no real method to backup she was Uhura aside from "I say therefore it is true". You never saw a single thing she contributes in terms of communicating or translating when the camera was on her, it was all "off-screen plot device".

So overall I feel that even though only 2 decades has passed since Mr.Roddenbury died his concept was already butchered and maimed in the name of capitalism.

EDIT: Also just noticed for fun, this is the first time I've seen ZP beaten in comments for a week. Congrats Moviebob for stirring up controversy among the community.

truly, terrible review

Sorry Bob, but you come across as a low-rent Yahtzee. That review was painful to watch, and listen to. At least Yahtzee is funny.

I'll reserve judgement on the movie when I actually see it, but from what everyone has told me it's pretty f'ing awesome. I work with 2 HUGE Star Trek geeks/fans and they both loved the hell out of it.

EDIT: Oh yea, and Transformers was a fun movie.

But if we want there to be Trek on the big screen at all, we have to be willing to make a few compromises.

I totally agree with this. I've been a trekkie almost all my life (IE, my parents are trekkies and I've been attending cons since I was about three) and I don't understand how ST fans can continually scoff or attempt to 'disown' anything they don't agree with. ('Enterprise' the telly series being a good example of this.) Fandom really gets on my tits to the point I don't see the point of reading or engaging in it because it's generally people throwing a wobbly over every little thing. I'm pretty dispappointed by older fans of Star Trek condeming the film for trying to make Trek 'popular'. Like it's going to take away their experience or love of the series that much if new people want to enjoy it. People who have that mindset need to GROW up and be a big person. We don't stop liking things because omgiosh! OTHERS might enjoy it. That's just silly logic. >:/

That being said, I really enjoyed the movie. I liked the fact it's trying to establish a new innovative vison of Star Trek, whilst keeping the fundementals that made it such a good show. We can't have the same old same old all the time -- evolution happens for a reason and this averison to change like it's the most awful thing ever has got to stop. Yeah, it had some classic nods to the original but who wasn't expecting that? It was a homage without being a rehash of the earlier show.

As to this review, I feel it's pretty biased and full of, I suppose, 'nerd rage'. It's clear the reviewer had already made up his mind that it was an awful movie to begin with and there was pretty much no changing his decesion about it. He wasn't objective and it shows. Also, I swear a lot in real life, but if I'm trying to make a persausive arguement for or against something, I don't use it ALL the damn time like a child who just learned the big 'F' word and wants to get a 'shock!' reaction from their parents. This was a bad review. It's not bad beacuse I disagree with it -- it's just bad in the form of reviews go. If he had brought up a SINGLE shred of good evidence against the film in an intelligent, non-ranting sort of way I would have gone 'Hrm. Okay. Good point', but this is not the case.

Anyway, yeah. This will be the last I watch his reviews I can say that much.

Hagasophia:
I don't like the style of the review, and even more I didn't like his voice, but I agree with the review.

The film is an exercise in covering mediocre script with special evvects and the pseudo epic space battles. Admittedly I liked the battles, there ewere never enough of them in other ST films, but this film unfortunately homogenised Star Trek to the level of everything else. This is a good space shoting film, but I do not think it is a Star Trek any more. One could critisize Enterprise as being too much a story about brave american bous in flashy uniforms, but this film changed everything. I look at the Enterprise far more charitably now. It is almost phylosophic, which is what ST was always about. And what is this with time travel... out of ideas?? Here's one: Romulans from the original ST invade federation. This was allways the threat anyway, there is no need to bring them from the future...

The whole point in having a time travel aspect to the story is giving us a reboot yet not having it completely wipe the original continuity off the map. Now we've got essentially two continuities, both of which are canon.

What were the other options? A: Giving us a standard prequel. There would be no sense of danger, no sense of wonder. We already knew where these characters would end up. B: completely reboot the series, in a way destroying decades of mythos (which would surely piss off the uberfans). JJ's "C" option takes care of things nicely.

Absolutely fucking brilliant Movie Bob. And though I disagree with you on some really minor, minor points, I'm think you're just about dead on here.

I mean, seriously, the movie fucking resets the entire Star Trek universe because some completely two-dimensional villain said RWARG! so loud it ripped the fabric of space time. I mean, please.

I was never anything like a hard core Trek fan. I watched the Next Generation with my family. That's really about as far as it goes. But this was just terrible writing used as an excuse to do what's trendy right now. Lazy stupid reboots. Remakes of films still current. Please, Hollywood. Just fucking give up.

 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
Registered for a free account here