Star Trek at Comic-Con: Trek Vs. Wars

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-07-14 01:08am

Crazy Goji wrote:
Phyre wrote:Actually, Harry Potter (number 1) beat Titanic. But that's only pure movie money. They mean what Lucas LTD had generated total from Toys, the movie, anything star wars.....
No, I think Spiderman beat Harry Potter.

Spiderman may well have been the shittiest movie that's ever garnered critical appraise.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-14 01:50am

I wouldn't go that far. Second-shittiest.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2003-07-14 04:42am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Crazy Goji wrote:
Phyre wrote:Actually, Harry Potter (number 1) beat Titanic. But that's only pure movie money. They mean what Lucas LTD had generated total from Toys, the movie, anything star wars.....
No, I think Spiderman beat Harry Potter.
Spiderman may well have been the shittiest movie that's ever garnered critical appraise.

What are you talking about? I liked Spider-man, but I admit there's flaws and I can understand why some people won't like it. But to say it's the worst movie EVER to be praised by critics? To me, and many other people, "critical praise" usually means the OPPOSITE of good. Many critics are completely out of touch with the normal moviegoer, and they mostly go for boring, pretentious arthouse flicks. I'm not saying that all critics are like this, or that some movies that they love don't deserve the praise they get. I'm just saying that critical praise is hardly restricted to good movies.

For example, I rented You Can Count on Me a while ago. There was no plot, nothing important happened at all, and it was an utter bore. Check out the movie yourself and you'll see what I mean. Later, I read some reviews of it on the internet, expecting every critic to trash it. Instead, I was shocked to see glowing reviews like "A+," "Brilliant!" and "The best movie of the year." One of the critics said it was so good she didn't want to stop her tape for anything. I was half asleep five minutes into the movie.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven · Post by **Rightous Fist Of Heaven** » 2003-07-14 08:41am

I have long since stopped to listen to any critic. Quite frankly 95% of them are utter assholes and just dont know what the fuck they are talking about. For example, in one Finnish newspaper a game critic gave C & C Generals TWO STARS OUT OF FIVE! All that because he thinks that its US propaganda with evil terrorists etcetera. The guy spent almost the entire article of the game on bashing the ideological setup, he didnt say a word of the actual game! Looking at how Generals has gotten excellent reviews in every game magazine i have come up against and on the net too.

Critics claim they are objective, but thats bullshit. They only give their own opinion of the movie and nothing else. Thus i rather use my own judgement to critizise movies rather than listening the supposed "professionals"

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-07-14 11:31am

Phyre wrote:Actually, Harry Potter (number 1) beat Titanic. But that's only pure movie money. They mean what Lucas LTD had generated total from Toys, the movie, anything star wars.....

Both are mediocre, but the "Philosopher's Stone" book is actually much more entertaining than Titanic, which had me snoring in seconds.

Phyre · Post by **Phyre** » 2003-07-14 08:20pm

Eh, I think we agree that Titanic sucked. What a suprise ending

.... It was a 3 hour long wankfest.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-07-14 09:10pm

Phyre wrote:Eh, I think we agree that Titanic sucked. What a suprise ending .... It was a 3 hour long wankfest.

As one aspiring scriptwriter I talked to remarked, Titanic was merely Romeo and Juliet set in a quasi-historical setting...

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-07-14 09:17pm

Crayz9000 wrote:
Phyre wrote:Eh, I think we agree that Titanic sucked. What a suprise ending .... It was a 3 hour long wankfest.
As one aspiring scriptwriter I talked to remarked, Titanic was merely Romeo and Juliet set in a quasi-historical setting...

The one enjoyable part of the movie was when I cheered the deaths of thousands of people, including two hated non-existent characters.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-07-15 04:51am

YT300000 wrote:The one enjoyable part of the movie was when I cheered the deaths of thousands of people, including two hated non-existent characters.

I think everyone got a kick out of the one guy who fell off the ass-end of the ship when it was up in the air and bounced off a propeller on the way down.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-07-15 05:56am

AdmiralKanos wrote:I think everyone got a kick out of the one guy who fell off the ass-end of the ship when it was up in the air and bounced off a propeller on the way down.

I actually felt more sorry for the propeller, than for the guy.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-15 06:07am

Warspite wrote: I actually felt more sorry for the propeller, than for the guy.

A well built propeller is a beautiful thing

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-07-15 05:34pm

Crayz9000 wrote:Yeah, by current standards, Citizen Kane sucks. It was better than anything before it, however, and that's what's earned it a place in film history.

The same could be said of Star Wars to a certain extent. By current standards it's a little corny, but in 1977 it was simply amazing: nobody had ever done so realistic special effects before. And that's why it's on the top 100 films of all time list.

Bullshit. Watch the OT and then watch Episodes 1 and 2 and tell me which looks better. Compare the detailed, textured, wonderful TIE models to the bland, glassy N-1 nubian starfighter, or the Falcon to the Nubian transport. Hell, even the "fantastic" battle between Darth Maul and Qui Gon + Obi-Wan didn't have the flashes and crackling as the lightsabers hit like the OT battles did. CG can never replace models for good looks, and while the OT (especially Empire and Jedi) still look good today, the prequels are already starting to look like shit, and in 10 more years will seem vomit inducing.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-07-15 07:37pm

Flashes and crackles are good...

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-07-15 11:48pm

Well I guess in theory, GL can continue to "upgrade" the CGI effects in each movie until the day he dies (and leave a provision in his will for the Evil Robot Clone Lucas, patent pending, to take over the job).

So is anyone actually going to this event? I hope so... ; )

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-07-16 05:23am

Triple pose! Ha ha!

*points and laughs*

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-07-16 05:23am

Pose?! DOH!

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-07-17 09:34am

LoL!

In all my years on the 'net, that has to be a first... ; )

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2003-07-17 09:45pm

I'll be at Comiccon tomorrow, I'll report back on it that evening or saturday.

Incidently, a coworker went the Comiccon this afternoon, and he said it was very much geared towards Trekkies. (besides comics, obviously)

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2003-07-17 09:50pm

I find the second half of Titanic to be quite enjoyable. I just fast-forward past Rose and Jack blabbing and watch the ship sink. You won't find another movie with a better sinking ship, that's for sure (although the Exxon Valdez at the end of Waterworld was pretty cool).

Atlan · Post by **Atlan** » 2003-07-18 03:35am

Crayz9000 wrote:The same could be said of Star Wars to a certain extent. By current standards it's a little corny, but in 1977 it was simply amazing: nobody had ever done so realistic special effects before. And that's why it's on the top 100 films of all time list.

[cough] 2001 [cough]

(yes, I KNOW it isn`t big explosions and fancy fighters. It is still a SF movie which presented utterly believable and wondefully good looking special effects)

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2003-07-18 05:45am

Atlan wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote:The same could be said of Star Wars to a certain extent. By current standards it's a little corny, but in 1977 it was simply amazing: nobody had ever done so realistic special effects before. And that's why it's on the top 100 films of all time list.
[cough] 2001 [cough]

(yes, I KNOW it isn`t big explosions and fancy fighters. It is still a SF movie which presented utterly believable and wondefully good looking special effects)

For most of 2001 there was only one or two ships in the frame at a time during any of the effects shots, and they were pretty much all moving slowly in straight lines. Star Wars, on the other hand, had multiple ships in high-speed dogfights. Quite a bit more impressive.

Plus, Star Wars actually had a plot.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-07-18 11:53am

Drooling Iguana wrote:Plus, Star Wars actually had a plot.

2001 had a plot as well (although it was harder to understand), and yes, the special effects were rather realistic. I think it's also on the Top 100 film list.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-07-18 12:40pm

2001 was so very far in advance of anything that came before it, it's not funny. And it came out in what, '68 or '69? Until Star Wars, it set the standard, and doesn't look too bad today, even.