StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The latter half of the film, where Ilia dies, sort of, and then possibly dies again, sort of.

Video

I LOVED your conclusion Spoiler .

Great work.

You have added the word "awesomonium" to my vocabulary.

You summed up perfectly why Kirk is such a bad ass. Kirk will play chicken with a super computer and win.

Good second half, my only issue was that your voice over was wobbly at the beginning (up to about 2:30). You didn't sound confident in what you were saying, and I got confused for a second as to what you were talking about as a result.

"Pornstache" had me laughing my ass off, I always thought that when I saw this movie.

I was pleased that you gave the movie credit for what it does deserve. Kirk and Decker and McCoy and Spock struggling through their various development arcs. And of course, it was pleasing to hear you lambast it for the dumb stuff that it really didn't need, particularly the five minute Enterprise flyby. Ugh...I couldn't even watch that last time I saw the film, and I watched everything else, including Flying into the Cloud.

Spock following the crewman down was a HILARIOUS good catch, as well as in the first one where he rolls in as Dracula. I'm surprised you didn't rip apart the concept of a sonic shower which was introduced here, and also, your asessment of Chekov's performance doesn't address his EXCELLENT slow mo delivery:

PhO Ton TORpedDOES...










....aaa rrrrr mmmeD

Ultimately you made great points about TMP. it was a giant space opera without opera singers. The best thing it offered us was a really detailed reintroduction to the refit Enterprise.

Oh yeah, I also wanted to add that I appreciate how you acknowledged the people who liked it because of the atmosphere.

I liked the Motion Picture it was atmospheric, and because it was full of groovy acid-trippery, but I have to agree with you that the story is weak.

Excellent as always!

I know you already have a lot already planned, what with the rest of the films and your regular reviews, but I am intrigued by the idea of a character review of someone like Kirk.

Indeed, or perhaps of other important trek characters?

I know you're already doing somthing similar with going through the entire Q arc.

Themightytom wrote:PhO Ton TORpedDOES...










....aaa rrrrr mmmeD

Oh God... ...that was probably the funniest part of the movie for me when I was little. Chekov's greatest contribution to the film, and it's kinda sad that I have to say that.

Sonnenburg, somehow I think it would be interesting to compare this original incarnation of Kirk - that faces down a completely logical being with all the knowledge of the Universe and then some and wins - to the new JJKirk, perhaps after a few more movies have come out.

Prannon wrote:
Sonnenburg, somehow I think it would be interesting to compare this original incarnation of Kirk - that faces down a completely logical being with all the knowledge of the Universe and then some and wins - to the new JJKirk, perhaps after a few more movies have come out.

I sincerely hope the new Kirk gets more character development and reaches the badass-level of the old Kirk.

Serafina wrote:

Prannon wrote:
Sonnenburg, somehow I think it would be interesting to compare this original incarnation of Kirk - that faces down a completely logical being with all the knowledge of the Universe and then some and wins - to the new JJKirk, perhaps after a few more movies have come out.

I sincerely hope the new Kirk gets more character development and reaches the badass-level of the old Kirk.

Never ever ever going to happen. The authors of AbramsKirk have definitions of "awesome" and "badass" that forbid this outcome right out of the gate.

I'm not seeing how it's 'badass' to constantly win due to writers fiat. That's EXACTLY what nST Kirk does, remember?

People wanking over how he 'faced down' a robot with 'all the knowledge of the universe' and 'won' because he's 'awesome' make me wonder if they watched the fucking movie.

Stark wrote:I'm not seeing how it's 'badass' to constantly win due to writers fiat. That's EXACTLY what nST Kirk does, remember?

People wanking over how he 'faced down' a robot with 'all the knowledge of the universe' and 'won' because he's 'awesome' make me wonder if they watched the fucking movie.

True, but in nST it seemed that Kirk won more by a series of coincidences and really, REALLY outlying luck that worked in his favor. The difference here is that there was a character standoff and Vger blinked first. Call that lucky, and it is, but to me it's a big difference from "ZOMG gonna get eaten! ZOMG Spock happens to be here!!"

Stark wrote:I'm not seeing how it's 'badass' to constantly win due to writers fiat. That's EXACTLY what nST Kirk does, remember?

People wanking over how he 'faced down' a robot with 'all the knowledge of the universe' and 'won' because he's 'awesome' make me wonder if they watched the fucking movie.

He did it before in an episode of TOS where the probe confused him for its creator.

Which is part of what made this movie so unbearable for me. Instead of doing a new story, or continuing a story from TOS, they practically reshot an old episode of the series with but a few added scenes, most of which are incredibly boring.

Prannon wrote:True, but in nST it seemed that Kirk won more by a series of coincidences and really, REALLY outlying luck that worked in his favor. The difference here is that there was a character standoff and Vger blinked first. Call that lucky, and it is, but to me it's a big difference from "ZOMG gonna get eaten! ZOMG Spock happens to be here!!"

There it is again.

Putting macho toughguy bullshit like HE STARED V'GER DOWN AND HIS DICK WAS BIGGER around a climax that was nothing of the sort. Frankly, without Spock and other characters, Kirk had NO CHANCE AT ALL of saving Earth.

And the Nomad thing is the same. Nomad had great powers, but was pretty much dumb as shit and was defeated in a laughable example of 'what people in the 60s thought computers would be like' (as seen on Doctor Who).

Instead of doing a new story, or continuing a story from TOS, they practically reshot an old episode of the series with but a few added scenes, most of which are incredibly boring.

There actually was a completely new plot for a TOS movie in '76, but you should really be glad they didn't film that one. I doubt you'd have seen another series afterwards.
Spoiler What's interesting about TMP's plot is that it's basically a reworking of a possible Phase II pilot script... but worse. The original lacks much of the character conflict, but it had a far more interesting backstory and motivation for V'Ger and a more mundane, and better for it, conclusion.

Frankly, without Spock and other characters, Kirk had NO CHANCE AT ALL of saving Earth.

It's also worth keeping in mind that it's not hard to bluff when you are screwed either way.

I watched both videos yesterday, great stuff man, very funny. But then I have always found your vidoes to be quite insightful (a mite nostalgic about some of the "better" TNG episodes like the one where Picard goes back and stops himself from being stabbed, but still excellent).

A funny story: when I started up the first video, and "nothing" was on screen, I thought my computer was glitching. After refreshing YouTube about ten times, restarting my computer, and even unplugging it for a few minutes, I decides to just let it run...and then you said it was supposed to look like that because the whole movie begins with a blank star field for three minutes. My jaw hit the floor, it never crossed my mind anyone would put that at the beginning of a movie, basically three minutes of literally nothing. That was easily the most boring movie I've ever seen, and all I saw was your video (don't get me wrong the video was fine, but the movie was still dull as shit). I don't think I've ever seen a movie that slow and meandering in my entire life...and I saw 2001 and the Brown Bunny.

18-Till-I-Die wrote:A funny story: when I started up the first video, and "nothing" was on screen, I thought my computer was glitching. After refreshing YouTube about ten times, restarting my computer, and even unplugging it for a few minutes, I decides to just let it run...and then you said it was supposed to look like that because the whole movie begins with a blank star field for three minutes. My jaw hit the floor, it never crossed my mind anyone would put that at the beginning of a movie, basically three minutes of literally nothing. That was easily the most boring movie I've ever seen, and all I saw was your video (don't get me wrong the video was fine, but the movie was still dull as shit). I don't think I've ever seen a movie that slow and meandering in my entire life...and I saw 2001 and the Brown Bunny.

It's an Overture. It's fallen out of practise in Hollywood in recent years, but quite a few epic movies made in the classic era were prefaced with two to three minutes of the main title theme or a medley of the film's score as the audience filed into the theatre and settled into their seats before the fade-in to opening credits. You see these in Turner Classic Movies' broadcasts of movies like Dr. Zhivago, Gone With The Wind, The Bridge Over The River Kwai, It's A Mad Mad Mad World, 2001: A Space Oddyssey, Lawrence Of Arabia, Ben-Hur, Spartacus, The Agony And The Ecstasy, and The Fall Of The Roman Empire. Extra-length films also would break into intermission about midway to allow the audiences to hit the bathroom, get snacks, or take a smoking break You'd have music for it and music for the entr'acte as the film was about to roll again with part two, so audiences could resume their seats.

Of course, that doesn't explain the rest of the movie's dullness.

Exactly. Putting an overture on this movie is like putting a heating pad on a burn victim.

Now I've seen Ben-Hur, Sparticus and The Bridge over the River Kwai and I never noticed that...which I guess is a sign of either better directing or editing for TV.

How, exactly, would it be a sign of better directing, since those were the exact same movies shown in theatres?

Patrick Degan wrote:It's an Overture. It's fallen out of practise in Hollywood in recent years, but quite a few epic movies made in the classic era were prefaced with two to three minutes of the main title theme or a medley of the film's score as the audience filed into the theatre and settled into their seats before the fade-in to opening credits. You see these in Turner Classic Movies' broadcasts of movies like Dr. Zhivago, Gone With The Wind, The Bridge Over The River Kwai, It's A Mad Mad Mad World, 2001: A Space Oddyssey, Lawrence Of Arabia, Ben-Hur, Spartacus, The Agony And The Ecstasy, and The Fall Of The Roman Empire. Extra-length films also would break into intermission about midway to allow the audiences to hit the bathroom, get snacks, or take a smoking break You'd have music for it and music for the entr'acte as the film was about to roll again with part two, so audiences could resume their seats.

The Black Hole is another science fiction film that has an overture. It's intact on the Anchor Bay DVD. 2001 has an intermission on the disc as well.

Batman wrote:How, exactly, would it be a sign of better directing, since those were the exact same movies shown in theatres?

He's talking about better directing vis a vis TMP, not specifically for TV. This is why commas are important.