@Seeräuber Jenny: When Richard Roeper was trying out guest reviewers (both critics and celebrities) after Ebert got sick, he included several women. As I recall, the most engaging were Aisha Tyler, who probably has better things to do, and EW's Lisa Schwarzbaum, who was hired by a different review show.
In the end, the only critics he kept bringing back were, um, Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott.
@icestorm: He and Ebert were mad about the dumbing-down of the show. Supposedly they're working on their own version, which will bring back the thumbs-up, thumbs-down ratings system because Ebert has that trademarked.
@FrozenHaddock: On a warm summers evenin on a train bound for nowhere,
I met up with the gambler; we were both too tired to sleep.
So we took turns a starin out the window at the darkness
til boredom overtook us, and he began to speak.
If you were one of those who, while watching the "Star Wars" prequels, laughed out loud at every forced, clumsy reference to the previous films--"I've got a bad feeling about this", etc--then "Star Trek" is the movie for you.
For those viewers, I have a mental check-list containing items of note that will be of particular relevance (and no doubt, intense hilarity):
Kirk disobeys authority? Check.
Even as a child? Check.
Nokia and the Beastie Boys in the future? Check.
Is product placement allowed in the 24th century? Check.
Kirk fucks everything that moves? Check. Check. Check.
No really, is Kirk horny? Glad you asked. Check.
Spock has emotion? Check.
Is that because he's half-human? Check.
Even as a child? Check.
Does he find things "fascinating"? Check.
How about "highly illogical"? Check.
Is McCoy a doctor? Check.
Dammit Jim, is he a doctor? Check.
That Scotty, he's funny, right? Not really. Check.
I mean, Scotty isn't trying to be funny, right? Wrong. Check.
Remember that episode where Sulu fences? Check.
I don't suppose he can fence in this film? Check.
Just as the thoughtful would-be consumer has no interest in seeing "Baby Wolverine", "Baby Boba Fett", or "sensitive pre-007 James Bond", neither should he (or she) have any sensible interest in seeing Baby James Kirk or Baby Spock.
It is worth noting that while the previous installment in the Trek film franchise, "Star Trek: Nemesis", featured a cockamamie time-travel story replete with a Lovecraftian Romulan villain, THIS new film, "Star Trek", merely features a cockamamie time-travel story replete with a Lovecraftian Romulan villain who resides in a ship that is, if anything, even more dimly-lit and poorly designed than the previous one.
What is sad is that nearly all of the forced, arch, contrived editing, scoring, writing, and acting in "Star Trek" is nothing compared to the ignominy of James T. Kirk being awarded a commendation medal and permanent command of the Enterprise by, you guessed it (who wouldn't?) Tyler Perry. Yes, "Madea".
I've never been much of a Trekkie (saw the original series as a kid, the odd-rerun, nothing of the later stuff)and I loved it. And yes, Quinto is a handsome lad. I though all the acting was pretty good.
I've been on io9 arguing that it was a bad film since Wednesday (it opened two days earlier in the country in which I live).
My main criticism hinges on the story and the dialogue. The story's moral conflicts were superficial at best. The dialogue sounded stilted -- perhaps that was lost in translation though. The special effects were distracting. There were far too many fight and battle scenes. Parts of it were tone-deaf: I'm thinking of the birth of James T. Kirk, a scene in which the writers and Abrams clearly seemed a little too eager to establish a quasi-mythical back-story that would lead to a certain fate for Kirk. The orchestration and almost People's-Most-Wanted-like over-dramatization of the thing made my eyes roll.
Saw it, liked it. Even though it made no damn sense when you think about it, which you shouldn't. And the Ryan Reynolds-ish fratboy Kirk actually gave me a new appreciation for William Shatner.
Lots of big things went zoom or boom, there were some pretty good jokes, and no one had to save any whales. All in all, it was a fun afternoon at the movies.
I thought it was fucking awesome. Not a great plot, and Eric Bana was basically nothing, but I thought it was such a good new look at the series I was willing to overlook it.
The casting for the movie made it a lot better than is should have been. Chris Pine didn't suck as I feared he would, and in fact was pretty good, and Zachary Quinto was perfect (and I don't say that just because I want him to put it whereever he likes). And I didn't know Bruce Greenwood was in the film for more than five minutes before it started, but he was awesome.
@Nunya B: I haven't seen the movie yet, but I saw the SNL skit with Pine and Quinto... and Pine, at least, is a dead ringer for what I've always pictured Kirk like when he was that age. The way he talks, his mannerisms, the way he looks, everything. You can even hear a faint hint of that halting cadence that William Shatner has, as if Kirk developed that as he got older.
Quinto doesn't seem to quite have Spock down the same way, either in person or in the footage I've seen.
But I guess I should wait to judge until I've seen the movie, which I will when it's about to disappear from theaters and I don't have to sit and be annoyed by a bunch of idiots in the theater for 2 hours.
09/01/09
Having said that, bring on the film snobs. A last hurrah against the idiocracy.
09/01/09
Is it naive fantasy to hope someone executivey got fired?
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
In the end, the only critics he kept bringing back were, um, Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott.
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
Rebelotte!
09/01/09
09/01/09
I met up with the gambler; we were both too tired to sleep.
So we took turns a starin out the window at the darkness
til boredom overtook us, and he began to speak.
09/01/09
05/11/09
If you were one of those who, while watching the "Star Wars" prequels, laughed out loud at every forced, clumsy reference to the previous films--"I've got a bad feeling about this", etc--then "Star Trek" is the movie for you.
For those viewers, I have a mental check-list containing items of note that will be of particular relevance (and no doubt, intense hilarity):
Kirk disobeys authority? Check.
Even as a child? Check.
Nokia and the Beastie Boys in the future? Check.
Is product placement allowed in the 24th century? Check.
Kirk fucks everything that moves? Check. Check. Check.
No really, is Kirk horny? Glad you asked. Check.
Spock has emotion? Check.
Is that because he's half-human? Check.
Even as a child? Check.
Does he find things "fascinating"? Check.
How about "highly illogical"? Check.
Is McCoy a doctor? Check.
Dammit Jim, is he a doctor? Check.
That Scotty, he's funny, right? Not really. Check.
I mean, Scotty isn't trying to be funny, right? Wrong. Check.
Remember that episode where Sulu fences? Check.
I don't suppose he can fence in this film? Check.
Just as the thoughtful would-be consumer has no interest in seeing "Baby Wolverine", "Baby Boba Fett", or "sensitive pre-007 James Bond", neither should he (or she) have any sensible interest in seeing Baby James Kirk or Baby Spock.
It is worth noting that while the previous installment in the Trek film franchise, "Star Trek: Nemesis", featured a cockamamie time-travel story replete with a Lovecraftian Romulan villain, THIS new film, "Star Trek", merely features a cockamamie time-travel story replete with a Lovecraftian Romulan villain who resides in a ship that is, if anything, even more dimly-lit and poorly designed than the previous one.
What is sad is that nearly all of the forced, arch, contrived editing, scoring, writing, and acting in "Star Trek" is nothing compared to the ignominy of James T. Kirk being awarded a commendation medal and permanent command of the Enterprise by, you guessed it (who wouldn't?) Tyler Perry. Yes, "Madea".
Fuck you, J.J. Abrams.
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
Star Trek: didn't see it; didn't like it.
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
My main criticism hinges on the story and the dialogue. The story's moral conflicts were superficial at best. The dialogue sounded stilted -- perhaps that was lost in translation though. The special effects were distracting. There were far too many fight and battle scenes. Parts of it were tone-deaf: I'm thinking of the birth of James T. Kirk, a scene in which the writers and Abrams clearly seemed a little too eager to establish a quasi-mythical back-story that would lead to a certain fate for Kirk. The orchestration and almost People's-Most-Wanted-like over-dramatization of the thing made my eyes roll.
05/11/09
05/11/09
Lots of big things went zoom or boom, there were some pretty good jokes, and no one had to save any whales. All in all, it was a fun afternoon at the movies.
05/11/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
The casting for the movie made it a lot better than is should have been. Chris Pine didn't suck as I feared he would, and in fact was pretty good, and Zachary Quinto was perfect (and I don't say that just because I want him to put it whereever he likes). And I didn't know Bruce Greenwood was in the film for more than five minutes before it started, but he was awesome.
05/11/09
Quinto doesn't seem to quite have Spock down the same way, either in person or in the footage I've seen.
But I guess I should wait to judge until I've seen the movie, which I will when it's about to disappear from theaters and I don't have to sit and be annoyed by a bunch of idiots in the theater for 2 hours.
05/10/09
I thought it was awesome, however. That guy from Heroes makes an oddly sexy Spock.