Worffan101 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 25, 2018 5:25 pm
That was some pretty good analysis! Only real question I had was "where's the score?", lol.
I was wondering this too, but when he's talking about how this flubbed more than Nemesis, I got a bit of trepidation anticipating the final score moment. By principle, the whole thing about that homage scene and Nicolas Meyer not really blessing it speaks a bit for itself.
The ripoff scene you mean. It makes no logical sense for Spock to scream like that, and it'd be SO much more powerful if he were to be quiet and cold to emphasize the contrast with Khan. It was a scene, indeed, a MOVIE, built around a meme, with no understanding of the characters or the deeper meaning behind said meme.
My god they really didn't give a shit when they churned out this fucking garbage.
I'm sorry that I'm not up on the conversation, I just wanted to say this: I was looking forward to this review, hearing chuck tear the film apart. But I was almost taken aback by how legitimately angry and disgusted Chuck sounded. Usually with bad stuff he still has fun with it, but here I just heard true loathing for the film. It was honestly kind of startling.
And to be clear, analysis was still good, Chuck's not wrong and didn't do anything wrong, I'm not criticizing him. It was just surprising.
Star Trek V got a 1. I don't remember if Trek 09 got a rating, so I'm not even sure if the Kelvin universe gets ratings. Like how the Discovery episodes don't get ratings.
V's obvious condemnation was Shatner's ideas and themes, while Into Darkness speculation centers on how this rendition of Kirk is written so sloppily, from his demeanor to the premise of his captainship.
Is V a worse film? Idunno, you're judging the faults as analyzed in the reviews from completely different directions.
CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:46 am
One actually doesn't need to disbelieve in strong women while also believing in fanservice.
And yet funny how its never the men who the director finds ways to reveal their bodies to the audience isn't it? I must admit I never used to agree with the likes of Linkara and Jim Stirling when they pointed this sort of thing out, but as I get older I really am starting to notice it everywhere. Once seen it cannot be unseen.
We used to argue whether Star Trek or Star Wars was better. Now we argue which one is worse.
tjfd88 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 8:21 am
Speaking of the score, out of curosity, is this really worse than Star Trek V?
Every other film being better I can understand, but V too? I seem to remember Chuck ripping that one a new asshole like no other Trek film.
I contend that Kirk was in character in that film. He may have been a dick, and a bit of a Mary Sue, but Kirk was still Kirk. That alone makes it better.
We used to argue whether Star Trek or Star Wars was better. Now we argue which one is worse.
clearspira wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 11:24 am
And yet funny how its never the men who the director finds ways to reveal their bodies to the audience isn't it? I must admit I never used to agree with the likes of Linkara and Jim Stirling when they pointed this sort of thing out, but as I get older I really am starting to notice it everywhere. Once seen it cannot be unseen.
Would you believe my rebuttal to this is, "Because there's less gay and women directors than straight ones."
I fully support them and their right to do this for their fans.
Joel Schumacher for example in THE LOST BOYS and BATMAN FOREVER shows it can be done.
