[Movie] Star Trek (2009)

"Close" makes it sound like you walk around with a sewing kit in your pocket. I think you mean "fill".

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Tentacle Rapist

Judging from what I've seen so far, the more you like Star Trek the less you like the movie. At least if Colonel Whinypants and Lehah are any sign.

If its any consolation to your empty reaction to my post - my dislikes with the film are firmly centered on the film and not the Star Trek aspect to it.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Tentacle Rapist

For the record, I didn't even read your post.

You could date sprout with that level of "head in the sand" mentality!

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by sprouticus

I can't seem to recall an example of my "head in the sand mentality" considering I saw Star Trek, but something is coming back to me now... Something from late February...

Aww, look at him try to think.

Okay, college grad, lets show you learned some critical thinking at school when you weren't trying to clear up the previous night's mishap with some cranberry juice.

Watchmen exists in comic form, correct? I am familiar with this material very, very well. I wouldn't say I'd write a paper on it because only awful people try to validate their personal emotional response of a comic book with a logical process of deduction.

Watchmen was turned into a movie. Follow me still? It followed the comic directly, page by page. It took the material that existed and I had read and put it to the screen.

I have seen Hitchcock's Psycho. I have also, by osmosis, seen the 1998 remake of Psycho since its the same thing. Watchmen is absolutely no different and the failure of Zack Snyder is the same failure of Gus Van Sant.

Why is this? (Pick up your number two pencils and begin filling in the bubble test, children) Because one of these things is not like the other. Synder and Van Sant did not understand why things were done in the source material; like George Carlin said about the blues "Its not enough to know the notes - you need to know *why they need to be played*".

Moreover, Snyder both did not understand that the intent of the material on page is rarely the intent of a film. When Dave Gibbons drew panels that played with perspective or had scope, it wasn't intended to be turned into a movie storyboard as it is a figurative machination of the storytelling and not shoved-like-a-cat-in-a-shoebox literal adaption to film.

SHORT ANSWER TO THIS ENTRY: If you do not understand the difference and disparate functions between written word and film, you need to go back to school.

(As an aside - what made you think that posting my own write-up was a good idea? Did you bother to read the explanation? Or did you just go AHA I REMEMBER WHEN HE WROTE SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEFORE AND ITS A MATCHING SET AND I WILL BE CALLED CLEVER FOR NOTICING.)

I should not have to explain this to you - you are a film grad, are you not? Why is it that a failed art major can have higher deductive reasoning than you in a subject that you have a degree in? Why must you act this stupid? Why must I constantly correct you in things which you are accredited in?

Here is where we separate beast from man - and please don't take this as a personal affront Sprout, even though I know you will - the huge difference between when I write about something and when you write about something is that when I do it, its an attempt to circumvent the clever aspects of my person in an attempt to make an argument for a discussion while you go right for being clever to create an argument that should otherwise not exist.

So please, please, save your words for someone a little younger than you who just got beaned in the head with a lighting scaffold. The rest of us are getting a little too old to babysit those of you with asperger's syndrome.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Shin

Holy fuck Lehah, can you split that into a couple of posts so I can prop it more please.

Cast:

LeHah as THE POPE
Sprout as THE KID

The pope comes to New York and goes to Saint Pats. The masses are lining the streets, with flags and banners, all cheering for their religious icon. The limo pulls up and the pope walks out in his long, flowing purple robes, gently waving to the crowd as he walks up the stairs.

A little Puerto Rican kid from 54th street sneaks in between the balustrades and gets right next to the Pope as hes walking up the stairs.

"Hey man, you the Pope?" says this little kid in a thick accent.

"Yes, my son - I am the pope."

"Fuck you."

Everyone stands, shocked. The pope looks down at the kid as he furrows his brow, "Excuse me? I'm the POPE. I rule one of the vastest dynasties of faith the world has ever known. I am the head of a sovereign religious nation under the True Lord. We have more money than most countries in the world - people in Africa starve so they can send us nickles every week. Water supplies in the Middle East are bad in the poorest areas because they pay tithe to me daily! We have so much money, we can never possibly use it all! I am one of the most powerful men who walk the Earth in this modern age! Fuck me?

FUCK YOU!"

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by ramoth

Perhaps having moved to San Francisco may have spoiled the move for me; but that movie is pretty fucking 80s in some pretty awful ways.

I think thats the point?

One of the "problems" with Star Trek time travel is that its almost never, ever done right. Like the time Sisko and Bashir went "back in time" to the ... early 21st century? First off - the show was made in the mid-1990s and it still *looks that way*. I'm not even talking about the obvious "lower" production value, you have a guy walking around with a fedora like he's Joey from DeGrassi.

Star Trek IV got it right in that it was "timely". Its suppose to be painful and dated. Duh. Get with the joke, man.

FELIPE NO

Now that we've seen the toys, lets see what Abrams does with them before we damn him.

I would perfer if he leaned more toward the "morality play" situations of yore. Time will tell.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by ramoth

So no movie that directly referenced 80s culture or even the fact that it was made during the 1980s was supposed to be shit. They're all painful and dated and utter crap.

One time I went to a party and someone made a really great joke about something. We all laughed except for my buddy's girlfriend; then she said AHAHA I GET IT with a straight face and walked off with a blank stare.

Couldn't tell you why that just popped into my head just now, but it did.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think blowing up Vulcan (what, we're not using spoiler tags anymore?) isn't a bad bit of storytelling. The peaceful society being blown up by a... warlike... giant... death machine... has never been done before in a ... science fiction... franch--

Shit.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bloodcinder

Anyway, just referring to what I'm projecting as a similarity with the dichotomy between Uncanny X-Men and Ultimate X-Men. I think Pangalin knows what I mean.

I know what you meant. Thats why I dissed it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.