[Wheeljack35]

Shaun of the dead

[Viper Hunter]

Wheeljack35, on May 18 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

Shaun of the dead

LOVE THAT MOVIE!

I'm into British humor anyway, and have followed and loved just about everything Monty Pyhton and Pyhton-ish on film as it is, so Shaun of the Dead was right up my alley. HOT FUZZ is pretty funny also.

Somehow, I get the feeling that Pegg does a pretty awesome Scotty role?

[Wheeljack35]

I hate the part where Timothy Dalton has a steeple go through his mouth and the other scene where that stone peice of the church crushes that dudes head

[SUPREMEQUEEN]

Ok. I got a Trek tech question. In this incarnation of the Enterprise, how fast could it go? Its a Constitution Class starship right?

[Wheeljack35]

Its a different version but I can only assume it goes as fast as the origional

[ThisGuy]

According to dialogue from Chekov, Warp 4 is a difficult goal. TOS had 6 as cruising, with 8 as max.

[nutlog666]

Viper Hunter, on May 19 2009, 04:25 AM, said:

Wheeljack35, on May 18 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

Shaun of the dead

LOVE THAT MOVIE!

I'm into British humor anyway, and have followed and loved just about everything Monty Pyhton and Pyhton-ish on film as it is, so Shaun of the Dead was right up my alley. HOT FUZZ is pretty funny also.

Somehow, I get the feeling that Pegg does a pretty awesome Scotty role?

If you like those movies , you should check out the British TV show "Spaced" that they did & yeah , I thought Simon Pegg did a great job as Scotty .

[hoganvibe]

The Star Trek fan in me really liked this movie. I thought that the cast (including Pegg) was fantastic. The little nods to the series was appreciated but I could have lived without them. But the major draw to the movie was the cast. The bridge crew was spot on.

That said, I am not a fan of a heaping handful of this movie. I don't like quick-cut directing or zooming in on things to the point of abstraction. I felt that lens flares were overdone. Nero, I felt was a weak villain.

SPOILER AHEAD






Maybe it's because I had built it up in my mind that Nero had planned on going in the past to a time when there was still a Romulus and defeating Spock and Kirk in the past. It just seems like it's more sinister instead of showing up in the past by accident and then deciding to make Spock pay.

In addition, Nero admitted to being just a miner. Maybe Romulan miners are more tech savvy than miners that I've met but generally they don't have a working knowledge or astrophysics (I'm not putting down miners, but astrophysics are not among their many skills). Yet they have the ability to not only figure out when and where Old Spock is going to be, they know exactly how to use the Red Matter.

I'm not a fan of Tyler Perry's comedy, but I have no complaints of his performance. At least he played it with some dignity. I can only imagine if Dane Cook had the role, I would have beat myself in the head with a hammer.

As for the Enterprise... on the inside it looks huge. It looks like there's an oil refinery in there. But when Kirk is kicked off the ship, the scales didn't seem to match up. And why does it look like an oil refinery on the inside of the Enterprise? At first I wondered if I didn't like it because I "know" what the Enterprise is supposed to look like on the inside. But ultimately I think that it's just poor design. As far as exteriors go... the Kelvin has a better look (not a fan of the name).

Also... didn't Scotty say that he would have to eject the "Warp Core"? As it... a "core" unit? Yet a half dozen "cores" came popping out. Granted, a half dozen apples will have a half dozen apple cores, so are you telling me that there are a half dozen warp engines on this ship? I guess this really didn't bother me, but it's the one thing that stuck in my head as I was driving home.

As for the good... HOLY SMOKES THAT IS A GREAT CAST!! Normally I hate Eric Bana roles, but he played that weak-@$$ villain to a "T"! I mean, when the writers of this movie gave him lemons, he made gourmet lemonade!

I'm having a hard time trying to decide whether Bones was great or if I'm weighing in some prejudice because he's one of my all time favorite characters. It seemed to me that the cast understood the meaning of the characters instead of conjuring up a cheap caricature of them.

The movie is far from perfect, but I can look at it with a positive light. For one, it is basically an origin movie. It didn't have the luxury of having an established story line (since it is an alternate universe) so it had to have the origin plus the action. The next movie can be so much more. Also both the original series cast as well as the Next Generation cast had rough movies to start off with, but their second movies (Wrath of Khan and First Contact) are two of the best movies in the franchise (in my opinion).

Overall, I would have to give the movie a B- to a B. The outstanding cast keeps the movie from being "average" but the choice of shots and some weak story elements keeps it from a gold star and a smiley face drawn on the report card.

Also, what's up with a kid wrecking a classic Corvette? What did that have to do with the movie? Also the Corvette falls into a deep canyon (not really a land feature of Iowa) that may be a quarry. What are they digging for? There's practically no ore in Iowa. At best you are going to get some really nice sandstone. If starships are made of concrete (or sandstone blocks) I can see how this may be useful.

[Jmacq1]

ThisGuy, on May 18 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

According to dialogue from Chekov, Warp 4 is a difficult goal. TOS had 6 as cruising, with 8 as max.

It seems like they must be operating on a different warp scale, because this new Warp definitely seems to be "speed of plot."

[SUPREMEQUEEN]

Jmacq1, on May 19 2009, 06:27 AM, said:

ThisGuy, on May 18 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

According to dialogue from Chekov, Warp 4 is a difficult goal. TOS had 6 as cruising, with 8 as max.

It seems like they must be operating on a different warp scale, because this new Warp definitely seems to be "speed of plot."

what is......"speed of plot"? I've never heard that term before.

[Jmacq1]

SUPREMEQUEEN, on May 19 2009, 07:21 AM, said:

Jmacq1, on May 19 2009, 06:27 AM, said:

ThisGuy, on May 18 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

According to dialogue from Chekov, Warp 4 is a difficult goal. TOS had 6 as cruising, with 8 as max.

It seems like they must be operating on a different warp scale, because this new Warp definitely seems to be "speed of plot."

what is......"speed of plot"? I've never heard that term before.

It's a bit of a joke. Basically it means that in a lot of "space opera" type films, the ships "warp speed" is always just fast enough to best serve the storyline. One time they might get across the galaxy in a few minutes, the next time it'd take them weeks, depending on whether the plot needs them to be "just in time" or "too late."

[yojoebro82]

I had no idea Tyler Perry was in the movie and I barely have any idea of who he is in the first place. Now that I know he played an Admiral and thinking back, I can honestly say he delivered his "Admiral" lines in exactly the same way every other actor who ever palyed a Star Trek Admiral ever did. So no big deal there.

The one thing I did hate was the Nokia plug. Enough! I hate being advertised to in the first place. Can we keep it out of a movie that's supposed to take place TWO HUNDRED years in the future???? I can accept the car-off-a-cliff scene. It helped show the contrast between the kind of kid Kirk was as opposed to Spock. But NO ADVERTISING!!!!!!!

[Jmacq1]

yojoebro82, on May 19 2009, 08:21 AM, said:

The one thing I did hate was the Nokia plug. Enough! I hate being advertised to in the first place. Can we keep it out of a movie that's supposed to take place TWO HUNDRED years in the future???? I can accept the car-off-a-cliff scene. It helped show the contrast between the kind of kid Kirk was as opposed to Spock. But NO ADVERTISING!!!!!!!

Sadly, more and more blatant product-placement is almost certainly going to be the "wave of the future." Advertisers are looking for ways to circumvent the problem of most DVR users fast-forwarding through all their commercials. The best way to do that? Make the programs the commercials!

While you'd think that'd only apply to television shows, it's crossing into movies, as well..."captive audience" as it were.

[ThisGuy]

Budweiser also made it into the film.

[Viper Hunter]

Too bad they didn't slip a Priceline Negotiator ad in there?




He'd fix those mambie pambie Klingons!

[Jmacq1]

ThisGuy, on May 19 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

Budweiser also made it into the film.

Jack Daniels as well. Paramount wants us all to be alcoholics!

[Viper Hunter]

Jmacq1, on May 19 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

ThisGuy, on May 19 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

Budweiser also made it into the film.

Jack Daniels as well. Paramount wants us all to be alcoholics!

Commercials are like video games, books, television, movies and peer pressure.

None of it has any affect or influence on our thoughts and behavior because we have excellent parents who raised us right and trained us on how NOT to be taken in by campaigning strategies and repetitive mental stimulation (brainwashing) techniques such as these.

Now RELIGIOUS speak and related symbols are another matter all together, as just the mere utterance or SIGHT of such stuff can influence the masses...like RIGHT NOW!! Totally verboten in Hollywood! Drugs and alcohol? Death and destruction? Mayhem and murder? Rape and torture? A-OK!!



editorial review is over now.

[ThisGuy]

Jmacq1, on May 19 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

ThisGuy, on May 19 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

Budweiser also made it into the film.

Jack Daniels as well. Paramount wants us all to be alcoholics!

To me, and I think many, Jack Daniel is so overused as describing whiskey, that it approaches the status of "Google", "Coke", "Fridge" and "Xerox". If they paid for placement, I hope it was less, because there's a chance the name might have been used regardless. "Bud" doesn't have quite the same weight as "beer" does. Not yet, anyhow...

More:
http://en.wikipedia....cized_trademark

[Jmacq1]

Viper Hunter, on May 19 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

Commercials are like video games, books, television, movies and peer pressure.

None of it has any affect or influence on our thoughts and behavior because we have excellent parents who raised us right and trained us on how NOT to be taken in by campaigning strategies and repetitive mental stimulation (brainwashing) techniques such as these.

Now RELIGIOUS speak and related symbols are another matter all together, as just the mere utterance or SIGHT of such stuff can influence the masses...like RIGHT NOW!! Totally verboten in Hollywood! Drugs and alcohol? Death and destruction? Mayhem and murder? Rape and torture? A-OK!!



editorial review is over now.

Religious speak and symbolism is quite common in Hollywood, and not even always portrayed in a negative light. Of course, coming down definitively on one side of the fence and talking it up like it's the best thing ever (in regards to a particular religion/denomination or even a particular religious belief beyond "I believe in (a) God") is going to be accused of being propaganda because well...that's pretty much what it is, really. But still, the "kindly and understanding priest" still pops up in plenty of films just in time to give some pithy advice or a much-needed pep talk to the hero, even if he's not usually the main focus of the movie. Beyond that...while Christianity may not be outright trumpeted to the heavens as the greatest thing ever, it still gets a lot more positive portrayals in Hollywood than say, Islam ("They're all terrorists!") or Wicca ("They're all Satanist witches!"). Even in instances where the Church (usually the Catholic variety) is portrayed as corrupt or flawed, that corruption and those flaws are usually uncovered by characters of faith. Basically the message becomes that the institutions of man may be flawed but there's nothing wrong with faith.

It's just that the religious stuff tends to not have much place in the big-budget summer blockbusters. While there may be "no atheists in foxholes," I'm not sure that having an in-depth metaphysical/philosophical discussion fits too well in between the gunfire (or laser fire) and explosions. Plus, by avoiding the question altogether, it allows the audience to project/assume whatever they might wish to about a particular character. Sometimes it's better from a marketing perspective to leave some spaces "blank" so-to-speak.

Personally I think it'd be interesting to see a devout character on board a ship like the Enterprise, to see how the writers think faith might have evolved in the face of "Man no longer being alone" and god-like entities such as the Q running around (not that the Q in particular should be showing up, just used as an example). I think that would be an interesting character arc for somebody or another. I liked that aspect of Babylon 5. They showed that religious faith was still quite prevalent despite the revelations of "the future." It had evolved, certainly, but it was far from "everyone turns agnostic!" or somesuch.

Of course, such a storyline would probably be a C-plot at best, and better portrayed on a TV series than trying to cram it into a two-hour summer blockbuster.

[RobbieDigital]

Jmacq1, on May 19 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

ThisGuy, on May 19 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

Budweiser also made it into the film.

Jack Daniels as well. Paramount wants us all to be alcoholics!

I thought the nods to the drinks were cool and made the bar scene more "Earthly" if that makes sense. Uhura ordered drinks that were obviously named after stuff from all over the galaxy.....I thought it was a cool little nod to humans......because she was ordering that stuff while she was right next to a pretty ugly alien.

I mean beer has been around forever........I'm pretty sure it would last another 200 years. Budweiser, maybe not.......but its not crazy. I mean they are humans.....when you go to a bar you ask for a Bud, Coors, Miller Lite, or something.......not just "Generic Beer #3"


On the other hand........I'm not going to pretend to be a Star Trek geek.....I'm a GI Joe, Star Wars, Marvel, DC geek. I know the basics and I've watched some Trek in my day.......(mostly TNG....but I'm more familiar than the average person in Trek) I don't get all the love for this movie......I finally saw it today and it felt very rushed.........the plot was kinda lame......and stuff was just all over the place.

A dozen or so Starships getting their ass handed to them by a Romulan mining vessel??? Shields don't exist......(unless Nero knew the older frequencies and was able to shoot right through them). The Kobayashi Maru scene was WAY over the top. Kirk was almost asking to get caught.

The cast was excellent.........I mean the movie wasn't bad.....I'm just surprised that its not getting flamed more than it is by Star Trek fans.

All the positivity on the internet is a little weird.......

[JayC]

Star Trek continues to kick butt at the box office.

http://enewsi.com/ne...80&itemid=15209

[aerosmith6703]

JayC, on May 9 2009, 10:01 PM, said:

Another minor quibble I had is, isn't Bones supposed to be a good deal older than Kirk? I suppose we never had his age officially established, but Deforest Kelly was about 10 years older than Shatner, and Urban is about 10 years older than Pine... so why did we see Urban as McCoy dressed in his cadet's uniform at one point, which to me put him close to Kirk in age? Maybe McCoy just entered the service at an older age than Kirk? Or did I miss something?

Bones is older than Kirk, if you go back and look at the scene where they meet, Bones is clearly upset about having to join the service but he doesn't seem to have a choice after his divorce. This isn't uncommon in the real world for the service or for college students. I had a fellow classmate in college that was in his 50's.. he went back to school after being laid off and going through a divorce. So essentially Bones in the newer film reflects a more realistic view on life which is nice.

[Wheeljack35]

JayC, on May 29 2009, 08:35 AM, said:

Star Trek continues to kick butt at the box office.

http://enewsi.com/ne...80&itemid=15209

I wonder if this the highest grossing Trek movie ever?

[nutlog666]

Yep :

http://www.boxoffice...id=startrek.htm

[Wheeljack35]

Wow I thought the Wrath of Khan did better but I remembered E.T also came out in the summer of 82