Shows I'd like to see Chuck review

[GandALF]

Random idea that just occurred to me re: this year's Xmas 'worst' special; I know Chuck's said he refuses to do the Star Wars prequels, but what if he's decided to relax that and do one for this year?

Can we please wait for the Hermit's Journey to start the prequel fans vs prequel haters flame war?
I'm trying to limit myself to pedantic corrections for the moment.

Is it really hate flaming to say "this decisive entry in a series might snag the title of 'worst' if said series is up for this year"?

Besides, the Hermits Journey is going to be about the making of the prequels and what lead to their creation, not about the strengths and weaknesses of the films themselves; that will happen in reviews of the relevant films themselves. And that assumes they will actually get reviewed; as previously stated, the PT was barred from review, so unless that's been relaxed, they won't get reviewed, and in turn can't snag a 'Worst' anyway.

The prequels have had enough said about them already that's why they're barred. At this point all he would add is his own brand of hyperbolic negativity without any new observations which really wouldn't be worthwhile.

[Admiral X]

Pretty much my take on it. Red Letter Media pretty much ruined it for everyone in that regard just because of the amount of exhausting detail they went into, to the point that their "review" is long enough to be a movie itself. And I say this as a fan of the Plinkett videos.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm sure they've been mentioned before, but I'd really like to see Chuck review Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond, so he has the full set of films.

+1

Maybe one will be this year's Xmas episode? At the least we know Transformers won't be this year as B.O.T was just done (unless it'll be the episode that was so racist it made Casey Kasem quit).

Isn't Christmas reserved for the worst episode of a series, traditionally? I haven't seen Beyond, but it seems fairly positively or at least neutrally regarded, while Into Darkness got a lot of criticism, but from Chuck's initial mini-review of it, he didn't seem to regard it as "worst film" material.

Depends on what is classed as a distinct series; iirc the first ten Trek films were split into TOS and TNG with a worst TOS (STV) and a worst TNG (Nemesis), so it'd only be natural for there to be a worst Reboot at some point, which currently can only be Darkness or Beyond (although unless it's been announced there'll be no more reboot films, that may be classed as an ongoing 'series' so a worst will be held off until it's been completed). Also, remember the Trek scores are relative to its series, so a totally amazing film can still get a 'worst' rating if the other entries in a series are better; it's like how say a Voyager or Enterprise '5' can be more like a TNG or DS9 '3' or '4'.

Well, if only held up against the other Abrams films, Into Darkness probably qualifies for worst, yes. And its been long enough that it seems due a review.

Fingers crossed.

[Archon_Wing]

Do I really want to know about New Trek? Have been put off by the trailers since day 1. I've never been too fond of the "action-oritented" approach the majority of Trek movies take and those only work because of the tv shows established the characters. I mean it worked kinda well for TOS but the TNG movies were a good example of how it really didn't work, with First Contact being the only good one and honestly that hasn't aged well over the years for me.

[phantom000]

If i had $650 i might donate it to his show and ask him to review Big-O if only to hear his explanation of the last episode and what it means.

[The Romulan Republic]

Do I really want to know about New Trek? Have been put off by the trailers since day 1. I've never been too fond of the "action-oritented" approach the majority of Trek movies take and those only work because of the tv shows established the characters. I mean it worked kinda well for TOS but the TNG movies were a good example of how it really didn't work, with First Contact being the only good one and honestly that hasn't aged well over the years for me.

Star Trek '09 has some good effects and a decent musical score, some fine performances (particularly Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike and Zachary Quinto as Spock), and a few nice character moments. However, it suffers from plot holes you could fly the Enterprise through (mostly highly implausible coincidences to get the plot to work, plus some especially silly, if thankfully not overly-wordy, pseudoscience), as well as a Kirk who can best be summarized as "arrogant douchebag" and, in my opinion, an underutilized McCoy.

It does, as I recall, hold the distinction of being the first Trek film to win an Oscar, albeit for makeup or something.

Into Darkness isn't as bad as a lot of people make it out to be, but it tries to follow too much in Wrath of Kahn's footsteps rather than being its own thing. It also (like the preceding film, but more so) has some completely gratuitous sexual objectification, if that bothers you. And it got some flack for "whitewashing" Kahn, though since Kahn was originally an Asian played by a Latino, I think the damage was already done their.

And if you know about one of the writers' real-world beliefs, you'll see that the film was almost certainly intended as a thinly-veiled analogy for 9/11 from a "Truther's" point of view.

The final showdown between Spock and Kahn is quite good though in my opinion, and both films have a lot of references to old continuity (rather oddly for a semi-reboot, mind) as well as being the final appearances of Leonard Nimoy in the role of Spock (in fact, I might be wrong, but I think Into Darkness is his finale film role).

I can't comment much on Beyond, because I haven't seen it, but reviews generally seemed to make it out to be the best of the three.

Edit: I presume by "New Trek", you are referring to Abrams Trek and not the as-yet unreleased "Discovery", obviously.

[Archon_Wing]

Thank you.

On the subject of plot holes, I've seen enough of Star Trek and Anime to drive a borg armada through various plot holes, so that is fine. To me Star Trek was never really about the plots as much as it was about ideals towards the future of the human condition. It's also why I could not stand early TNG and huge swaths of Voyager because the characters felt too plastic at times.

That being said, Kirk being an arrogant douchebag (So Chris Pine is playing William Shatner? Just kidding) is probably going to be an issue because as I said above, the characters not being that fun to watch would make a poor plot obnoxious.

Sexual stuff? Well, same as above. However, imposing one's beliefs into a plot could be disastrous if it feels too preachy (read: Voyager).

And yea, I was thinking of the movies. I am not sure what to think of Discovery.

[The Romulan Republic]

Having now seen the new Spiderman, and knowing that Chuck is a fan of the character, I'd be very interested to hear his thoughts on the newest version.

[Darth Wedgius]

I wonder if Buckaroo Banzai has enough following to be worth a review. I enjoyed the Flash! review.

[Robovski]

I wonder if Buckaroo Banzai has enough following to be worth a review. I enjoyed the Flash! review.

It's a cult classic with the older geeks but I don't know if the kids are hip with it.