April 20, 2024
BYOB
Triple Option on: BYO Oscar
Sideshow Bill on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Pete B on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Hcat on: BYO Oscar
brack on: BYO Oscar
iothereturned on: BYO Oscar
BYOB: 235 Years Of Relative independence
BYOB Weekend: Hop, An April Fool’s Gag?
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
It’s a Terminator reference, but my (limited) Deutsch ist sehr rostig.
Since the Trek spoiler thread has degenerated into a pissing match about who called whom what name, and if that name was an insult or not, I thought I would share here an interesting analysis of the movie brought to my attention by a friend.
http://us-intellectual-history.blogspot.com/2009/05/23rd-century-is-not-what-it-used-to-be.html
Very good article, and I agree with your contention that the movie raises issues and then doesn’t bother to explore them – Abrams is clearly more interested in using genocide and revenge to build narrative hooks (i.e. exploitation) than to ask or ponder questions (i.e. art).
Indeed, Jeff. That’s why I wasn’t persuaded by the analysis of the movie’s politics. It’s not that such an analysis is implausible; it’s not. But in this instance, it reads more into the movie than is actually present, since Abrams et al. don’t take those issues seriously at all, except insofar as they can be turned into plot devices to move the action forward. Why does Nero blow up a planet? Because he has to do something big and villainous. That’s not a moral imperative, it’s a gimmick, a reverse McGuffin. It’s quite a shallow film, and shallow in ways that the best Trek could not have fathomed on its worst days.
Right, I guess I’d add though that the movie’s lack of a conscious political/moral agenda is itself a sort of subconscious agenda of its own. For example, the movie destroying the planet Vulcan – for the sake of a plot point – is kind of breathtakingly callous and insincere. Genocide as the narrative equivalent of a villain kicking a dog.
Jeff, I can see that. But in that case, blame attaches to Abrams and crew, not Nero, since they’re the ones who made genocide the equivalent of kicking a dog. Although sometines kicking a dog (or the like) can be more effective in showing a character’s character. At any rate, this cinematic planetary destruction pales in comparison to the model of them all, that of Alderaan in Star Wars. That actually meant something.
the problem with the destruction of the planet was that you saw none of it. only from the length of space where it had no bearing. Showing cities crumbling, people dying, on both planets that were axed, would have given the movie some more emotional weight.
Oh, and, of course, it looks cool the way they blow it up. And the villain has to look cool when he’s being villainous. Hard to get any great FX out of kicking a dog (or the like).
Is that a bit of dry sarcasm there at the end?
(I mean, the end of 7:24 post)
This is the movie that has the guy with pointy ears in a space ship that can outrun a black hole, right?…
So?
I hate to be the one that pulls this out, but sorry, using genocide to move the plot forward is HARDLY a new element in sci fi film.
Any one remember the first Star Wars? Alderan gets blown up, Kenobi dishes out some nice dialogue about it, and then two scenes later…..forgetten.
And in X2, it’s pretty much treated as an afterthought when Magneto all of a sudden attempts to wipe out the non-mutant human race with the X chamber.
Now, these are among the two best films in their genre, so we forgive them these flaws…..
And for the best discussion of this, look no further than the Jedi discussion in Clerks: “What about all of those contractors on the incomplete Death Star?”
All the sane people are with Geoff. You’re overthinking this. Vulcan doesn’t really exist.
Geoff once again proving that unlike most of you around here. The guy actually pays attention to GENRE FILMS. If you think the destruction of Vulcan is just a plot point. Well, again, it’s called the FUCKING DESTRUCTION OF ALDERRAN. Pay fucking attention before you make ridiculous assertions.
Hell. The assertion that Nero just does it to do it. Misses the point of Nero. He’s clearly a disturbed man who lost everything, and handles it the way many villains in movies do. He decides to go out and make the man who failed him suffer. Wow. That’s so crazy. I have NEVER EVER SEEN THAT IN A MOVIE!
This article is clearly written from the perspective of someone trying too hard to fit his perspective onto this film. It’s ridiculous, but only on the hot blog would someone give something so slight so much weight.
Well, Indiana Jones is a fictional character, but people seem to like him anyway despite his lack of corporeality.
Just a smidge, Jeff. But in terms of the plots of Star Wars and this new Trek, I’d argue that there’s a purpose to the destruction of Alderaan that’s missing from the destruction of Vulcan. For one thing, it sets up the threat of the Death Star. You need to see it in action so you know what the heroes are up against. It also helps to establish the bonafides of the villains. They have a reason to threaten it, they have a reason to destroy it even after that reason has been satisfied. It’s personal in a way that the destruction of Vulcan isn’t, even though you have two Spocks to witness it, but only one Leia. I’m not saying that there’s any great moral significance to it, but on its own terms, it fits.
Blowing up Vulcan, on the other hand . . . The red matter and Nero’s ship aren’t “the threat” in the way the Death Star is. It’s almost the opposite, since it’s so small and imperceptible. The heroes don’t have to destroy the Narada. They just need to get the red matter. The destruction of Vulcan doesn’t feel personal, even though it’s meant to be. (That’s conveyed more via the death of Spock’s mother, but that doesn’t pack much more emotional punch.) I guess it’s that Nero doesn’t feel all that threatening.
Note, though, the narrative parallel: superweapon is introduced, destroys planet. Threat established, hereos spend remainder of film attempting to prevent superweapon from destroying second planet of even greater importance. I don’t think the parallel is coincidental.
One last point about the emotional weight of the respective planetary explosions. Star Wars has Obi-Wan: “I felt a a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.”
So a guy stating he has become a part of an endangered species does not move you? The fact that there are so few Vulcans left in the new Trek verse, that it requires two Spocks. Does not move you? Again: this argument demonstrates a total lack of not GETTING it. Thank you two for filling in this week on “NOT GETTING GENRE FILMS ON THE HOT BLOG.” Tune in next week when we our guest will be Adam Lambert, and he discusses how he will turn that twerp from Arkansas into an afterthought. GOOD NIGHT EVERYBODY!
Yeah, SW has a tad more significance and emotional impact than ST. It’s still kind of a cheesy trick that SW pulls, to blow up a planet that we never really see or care about except through Leia’s and Obi-Wan’s comments.
And let’s not forget that ST is just ripping off the SW story structure.
IOI, to answer your two questions:
Not really. Quinto does a good job with the material he’s given, but it’s still dramatically undernourished.
Jeff: not really, but you dislike the movie. So you will go out of your way to slam it. You also need to realize that 3 comes before 4, and in 3 we see how beautiful Alderran used to be. Before the empire. Before the dark times. Before the Death Star.
Again: if you are not moved. That’s you. The little I saw of Alderran left enough of an impression on me, that I immediately got rather pissed off. A peaceful planet destroyed to prove a point. The same going with Vulcan, but Vulcan is destroyed out of REVENGE. Note the difference.
Oh yeah Anghus: do you need to really see billions of people die on screen for it to make an impact? A planet full of life is being destroyed, and you need more?
Jeff: you dislike the film, you are trying to find flaws in it, and support ridiculously made assumptions in that article. Biased? You? Nah.
It is impossible to have a discussion with you.
Jeff: it’s impossible to have a discussion with someone putting forward an agenda. This is why you are such a horrible poster on this board. You lack the ability to think outside the four little walls of your head, and get pissy when someone points this out to you. Go read that other thread with Christian. Where the exact same thing is happening there as it is here.
I do believe that the problem has never ever been me, but it’s always been you. So you keep on being all upset we cannot have a discussion due in no small part to the entire of your fucking argument being as ridiculous as that one time Peter had lunch with Michael Bloomberg.
Also, the purpose of destroying Vulcan is not just to establish villainy on Nero’s part, but to establish that all bets are off regarding the new continuity — if something that radically different can happen, anything goes, and (in contradiction of something David said in his review) yes, characters can die even though we’ve ostensibly seen them grow old and survive before.
ARGGHH
Anyone watch Cavs-Magic? Great comeback by Orlando.
Should a movie make us feel something, or should we feel something because we know we should? I would answer A. The movie should do it’s own work, and not rely on the audience to do its work for it.
It’s counter-intuitive, but I think the fact that Alderaan is a cipher works to Star Wars advantage. There’s shock value in blowing up a planet. Whereas the shock value of blowing up Vulcan is that of “OMG, did they blow up Vulcan? Did they really just do that?!?!” and not that of seeing a planet destroyed. The intellectual response overwhelms the emotional one.
Hey IO, if you watched Star Wars in the order they were made you never saw a single leaf of Alderaan before it got introduced to be blown up, so no one cared about that planet. Sorry it made you cry though, I know movies can be hard.
“Also, the purpose of destroying Vulcan is not just to establish villainy on Nero’s part, but to establish that all bets are off regarding the new continuity.”
Doesn’t that make it even more gimmicky?
This is the movie that has the guy with pointy ears in a space ship that can outrun a black hole, right?…
Can someone at least tell me who Peter is and why he had lunch with Michael Bloomberg and why I’m supposed to understand that as a reference?
Hey mutiny, do you think horror movies aren’t deserving to be looked at seriously too? How about comedies, they’re just about people falling down, right?
Last time I checked, the pointy-eared guy’s ship did not outrun a black hole. It fell in just like the other pointy-eared guy’s much larger spaceship. If you are trying to score points, at least aim at the target and not your foot. Or mouth.
It’s not a question of genre.
It’s a matter of creative intent.
Well, the pointy eared guy has been around for about 40 years, so I think we can look at the new movie involving him seriously.
Prostitutes and ugly buildings…
Mutiny, what are you trying to get at re: ‘creative intent’? Are you saying that since Abrams’ only goal was to make a breezy popcorn movie that it’s pointless for us to analyze it in any way?
Cloud: I disagree.
LYT: Very good point.
Oh looky! Jeff’s brain just went kaput! Victory is always mine!
It was a goddamn Family Guy episode. I hate Family Guy.
IOI, you are deranged. I’ve tried as hard as possible to communicate with you, but it’s been one big bang of my head against your wall after another. It’s very, very, very frustrating.
Jeff: it’s called a cutaway. The fact that you get so flustered by a cutaway demonstrates why you are a horrible internet poster. Everything is all about you, what you want, and not about a discussion. Seriously, you a frustrated about my disagreeing with your agenda? Really? Aw too damn bad.
Okay, IOI. Please, set the agenda. Frame a discussion. Put forth an argument. Show me what I’m not doing right by leading by example. Please.
I liked Star Trek, but i think they could have restructured the first act to make Nero a little more sympathetic and give the plot a little more depth.
Nero should have watched Romulus die.
Vulcan should have had a grander, more personal death.
When Nero spouts that he wants to make Spock feel his pain, how can we care? We don’t know his pain. We only know his exposition.
It’s a very glaring problem with an otherwise entertaining movie.
I don’t know what movie you guys saw, but I heard Spock explain that Nero blamed him for the destruction of his planet. Since this takes place about 126 years before that, I’m guessing Nero figured he had time to get back to his planet after destroying Vulcan (where the ship with red matter came from) and Earth (the heart of the federation). Destroying the heart and soul of the Federation, as it were.
I got the impression that Nero originally thought destroying the Federation would mean that his planet would not be destroyed somehow. Then it degenerates into revenge for its own sake.
Sure, blowing up the planet was a short cut. It was a mining ship, probably meant to blow up planetoids and extract ore. It’s not just a 9/11 reference-it’s an environmental warning too. Just look at stuff like mountaintop mining and massive lagoons of pig shit and massive coal-fired plants- we already have the technology to do enormous damage to planets, especially ours.
Doug: very good.
Jeff: I do all the fucking time, but you do not get it. So… dude… YOU NEED TO DISCOVER DESTRUCITY! Seriously, some channel awesome would do you good.
I kinda saw the destruction of Vulcan more in parallel with the destruction of Krypton in “Superman” than Alderan in “Star Wars”. Especially with the emphasis on the preservation of the culture’s knowledge at the planet’s twilight, and Spock sort of being the Kal-El of his homeworld now.
I really liked Star Trek, but the obliteration of Vulcan left me colder than it should have. Part of it I’d attribute to the fact that at the point of its destruction, we’re out in the desert with a handful of mostly anonymous people who escape unharmed; save for Spock’s mother (which was genuinely saddening except for the distraction of Winona Ryder, who still doesn’t carry the maternal gravitas to seem like Spock’s mum. I thought she was way too youthful and they tried to do the trick with some spray gray in the hair but couldn’t quite pull it off).
And if we’re going to be setting this conversation on “genre”, another shortfall in the execution of Vulcan’s demise is the fact that civilizational genocide was taken to a completely new level with the first hours of the “Battlestar Galactica” mini-series. It’s probably unfair to compare a wipeout that ratcheted tension and tragedy over 2 1/2 hours to one that only had a few minutes of screen time, but hey, sorry, that’s the playing field you’re stepping out on when you go in this direction.
Look, I got pissed when Krzysztof Kie?lowski killed all those people on the ferry boat just to bring his central characters together at the end of Red So I can understand why someone might be a little peeved by intergalactic genocide.
Quick question: if a star going supernova was going to destroy Romulus, was there another star waiting in the wings to warm and nourish the planet after this one got nixed? Were they close enough to get hurt but not close enough to rely on it?
Hal: I think that star has to be a part of the sequel. The way it’s set-up. The way it just arrived in the alpha quadrant. It’s too damn suspicious not to be the work of a HIGHER POWER. BRING FORTH THE Q!
IOI, I don’t know what ‘destrucity’ or ‘channel awesome’ are, and I don’t care either.
I really want to get along with you, because dealing with you makes my head want to explode, so help me out here. Tell me what you want. Make a framework. You know very well what I want (for you to act like a non-crazy person who regularly insults everyone he comes in contact with, who turns every conversation into a fight, who can’t differentiate fantasy with reality). So I turn the chair over to you. What do you want and how can I provide it for you?
And there will be no Q or magic planet in the sequel. I will bet anyone a thousand dollars. (The term ‘alpha quadrant’ is obsolete too, but that’s a different story).
Jeff: if you go and read what you wrote in the ST: review thread. It’s absolutely futile to try and do anything for you. We are never going to get along because I find your framework ridiculous.
I make a solid point about you and Cloudy pushing an agenda, and you get flustered. If I do anything. You get flustered. There’s no point Jeff. There’s absolutely no point. Sorry if you get upset, but I am not here for you.
ARGH.
I wish you were smart enough to realize how massively stupid you are.
Jeff: a star just does not wander into a solar system. Seriously, it wandered into the system. If Damon were not involved in this film. I would have ignored that piece of dialogue, but he is involved in this film. So, really, the STAR has to be more relevant than they are letting on.
If not, you can take your 1000 dollars, turn it sideways, and you should know the rest. Hating Family Guy? Shameful.
“I don’t know what movie you guys saw, but I heard Spock explain that Nero blamed him for the destruction of his planet.”
That certainly points in the direction of Nero’s insanity since it’s not Spock’s fault Romulus’ star explodes, and it’s not even clear it’s his fault he failed to act opportunely to prevent said explosion. Nero certainly thinks so and acts on that delusion. But given all that, how exactly is blowing up Vulcan and Earth going to stop the supernova from happening? That’s a question Nero can’t answer because Abrams and co. can’t answer it.
IO, if my agenda is that Star Trek has a poorly conceived story, then yes, I am pushing an agenda. And as the comments here indicate, Jeff and I aren’t the only ones pushing it.
Family Guy sucks.
It didn’t ‘wander’ anywhere. It was NEARBY. Look on Memory Alpha. And even if it did wander, it wandered A Hundred Years Into The Future of where the bulk of the movie takes place.
AARARGGHHHHHHHHH
Jeff: I wish you had the wherewithal to realize how much you suck at posting on the internet. This is not your thing. You have over 10000 posts on this board and I could probably count the good ones on one hand. Seriously, give it the fuck up already Jeff. Go hang out with your friends, enjoy life, and stay away from the net. It’s not your thing.
What’s an example of a ‘good post’? Please.
Cloudy: you are pushing a rather lame agenda, that anyone who paid attention to the film can rip to shreds. It’s ridiculous, but you keep up the good fight.
Jeff: he says WANDERED. Excuse me if I got it wrong, but the set-up seemed as if the damn thing just showed up one day. If you are getting that upset. I am going to keep going. Who needs a midnight showing of Terminator when I have the destruction of Jeff McMahon at hand.
Blackcloud’s ‘agenda’ is to discuss his opinion of the movie. Which is exactly the same as your agenda, IOI: to push your interpretation of the movie. The difference is, his agenda expresses itself in arguments based on analysis, fine observation, and rational discussion. Your agenda is based on blanket statements of opinion posing as immutable facts peppered with threats and insults.
I only saw the movie once, but I don’t remember ‘wandered’ at all. According to Memory Alpha it was a star called Hobus that was near the Romulan system. And by any reading of the film, it was an irrelevant plot detail – I mean, it was tossed off in a flashback and a voiceover reading. You’re overinterpreting.
IOI, I really want you to school me on the finer points of internet conduct. What’s the key to success?
Someone remind me never to have children. I’m going to have a lot of conversations with them where I argue forcefully “It isn’t _rational_ for you to want me to check under the bed for monsters!”
Jeff: you spend more time trying to figure me out, then discussing movies. Seriously, it’s time you leave this place, and go to a place where everyone post on the net as poorly as you do.
Jeff: tossed off in a flashback? Hmmm… http://levelorange.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/lost-logo.jpg . Give this up, stop focusing on me, and realize the way I post is the way it works on the net. If you have a problem with this, then realize how wrong you are about the way I post. Seriously, you have never been a good poster on this blog. Why you remain here is beyond me.
IO: You really enjoy fucking with his head, don’t you? I have to ask: Is it because you’re so good, or he’s so easy?
Joe: the dude sucks at posting on the net. He gets upset when people do not post the way he wants them to, then he chastises them about it. He’s easily one of the wackiest fucking people on this net. So it’s not me working him up. It’s his own ineptitude at posting online, that works him up.
Destrucity, for what it’s worth, is the near-incomprehensible hybrid of philosophy and politics invented by pro-wrestler turned right-wing nutjob The Ultimate Warrior, as epitomized by an incoherent series of five comic books Warrior put out once, one of which featured him putting Santa Claus in bondage gear.
I’m impressed at the reference.
LYT: I’m not surprised by anything the dude references. I think he’s much smarter and better educated than he lets on. Sometimes I think this whole shtick of his is some sort of Dadaist performance art.
Also: he’s a pretty funny motherfucker.
I am actually Patrick Star… http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p188/johnnnyhgmail/grppic_2104324_PatrickStarFanclub.gif . I hurt my head.
As someone who had no knowledge whatsoever about anything in the Star Trek universe outside of the main characters and the word “Vulcan” I can confirm that the destruction of the Vulcan planet left no feelings at all. And I found it strange that Nero was so determined to make Spock witness the destruction of his home planet and yet it was purely by chance that he did see it implode since there were plenty of giant caves in which he hides and that he just happened to be looking at Vulcan when it imploded was lucky on Nero’s part.
Rebutting Kamel will be Leah under the 2008 “SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE ACCORD.” Paging Leah. Paging Leah.
LYT, thanks for the information.
Joe, it’s because I’m too easy (as you are yourself aware). Holding a wealth of pop-culture knowledge in your head does not equal ‘smart’. Believe me, I know.
I mean, I have no one to blame for myself for trying to herd this particular cat beyond sense. I’ve tried every possible strategy that I know, but the common flaw is that I always come around to the idea that IOI is a rational person acting in good faith, which I still sort of halfway believe. But the person who seems to understand how best to deal with him – and for this I owe him a drink – is Big Perm, who simply adopts a strategy of out-assholing him with similarly irrational comedic insults, except Perm’s actually make sense and are funny. I’m too attached to being a nice guy to go that route, though.
The very idea that there’s some ‘right way’ to post on the net is, on the face of it, insane self-aggrandizing bullshit.
Right? Or have I been wasting all this time by _not_ calling people fucksticks?
YES. I am very proud of my MOST PERSONAL EFFORT yet, which is very autobiographical and heartfelt and introspective while also paying homage to the Grand Master Stanley Kubrick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6aT1FEmq0c
I unfortunately must rescinder any praise I directed towards your initial effort lex. This latest paper-crapper fiasco is so deathly unfunny it made me wince in embarrassment and feel a profound sadness towards you. Maybe its a case of funny on 5 beers, embarrassing on 10.
Oh well fuck it, never mind I’ll take it down and delete it forever. Just one more thing I SUCK AT, along with writing columns, acting, doing standup, being sober, and living a happy life.
The stagnant, static dead air was kind of the point and not much of it was supposed to be funny, but rather SOUL EXPOSING of my CLUELESS mentality, plus I thought film geeks would enjoy the precise recreation of a certain aesthetic, but fuck it, I’ll delete it and all the other shitty fucking videos I did, I suck, I’ll never do fuck-all and I have no fucking talent, excuse me for trying to amuse myself.
Tomorrow night instead of having five beers and making a purposely awful YouTube video, I’ll just drink 17 beers and a bottle of vodka while doing jack and shit.
BOMBING IS THE MOST DEVASTATING THING EVER, especially when someone as blunt as JBD just calls you out on it within minutes.
SEE YOU LATER, YouTube, I’ll cancel my fucking account while I’m at it.
But no worries, I got a 120-hour holiday weekend of WORK to keep me preoccupied so I don’t have to be creative.
I’M OUT. I HATE MY LIFE. I AM A FAILURE AND JBD HAS HURT MY FEELINGS WORSE THAN I CAN EVEN POSSIBLY DESCRIBE, I’m literally like FLUSH and EMBARRASSED and DEPRESSED and near tears.
Not that that’s anything new.
SAD.
ALL GONE, prick.
THANKS FOR DASHING MY DREAMS.
Like I give a shit. Poland, thanks for encouraging me to try to be creative, but I don’t give a shit anymore. I’m gonna keep DUBBING TAPES and NOT HAVING SEX.
For the next SIXTY YEARS.
Lex’s DREAM (TM IRENE CARA) is over, thanks to JBD.
NO MORE COLUMNS, EITHER, while I’m at it. BACK TO WORK, though.
YOU DON’T SAY THAT SHIT TO A FUCKING COMIC, man.
Don’t you have long service leave, or something? Take it and go on a bloody holiday.
this is funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKOGnV2Iasc&NR=1
After hearing what Destrucity means and who invented it, I think the smarter person would NOT know what it is.
As has already been reported elsewhere, “Up” is another Pixar classic although the 3-D really does feel like an afterthought. Not sure why they even bothered. But a great, great film nonetheless.
Was enormously disappointed in “The Hangover.”
I found the lead characters so incredibly off-putting in their exaggerated sense of yuppie entitlement that I didn’t give a damn what happened to them; in Vegas or anywhere else for that matter. Even the stuff I laughed my ass off in the trailer left me completely cold within the context of the actual movie. Phillips (whose previous films I’ve liked) should have taken a page from the Judd Apatow comedy playbook: if you make your characters appealing/sympathetic/empathetic/likable, you can get away with just about anything. Of course, none of that explains why I love “Observe and Report,” but “The Hangover” just didn’t do it for me. I’m still predicting that it will be one of the key summer sleepers, though. The promo audience went apeshit and actually applauded at the end (not something you hear a lot of these days–except at “Star Trek” perhaps).
“Smithsonian” is what it is: pretty much the same movie as the first, except bigger, more expensive and a tad more cluttered.
I actually thought it improved as it went along, though, and didn’t have a bad time.
Was it just me, or is Hank Azaria doing a Boris Karloff imitation (British w/ speech impediment)? Either way, he’s damn funny. And was the climactic scene between Stiller and Adams borrowed from Elton John and Tim Rice’s “Aida,” or am I imagining things?
Thanks for the kind words, Jeff.
“After hearing what Destrucity means and who invented it, I think the smarter person would NOT know what it is.”
Well you obviously know nothing about pop culture then. Everyone who knows anything knows about the wit and wisdom of the Ultimate Warrior, the enormous effect Deadpool has had on the American culture in the past 15 years, and the instant career revival ability of the cable show Psyche.
By not recognizing any of these you are simply another mean old middle aged man on the Hot Blog.
Jeff: I still have no idea what your problem is, why I am so the devil, and why you write responses such as the above. The fact that you have no idea how to post on the net (this coming from your own wants and needs stated in the Star Trek Review Thread) is not insane self aggrandizement. It’s an honest acesssment of how you post online.
It has nothing to do with cursing anyone out, or being an asshole. It has everything to do with what you EXPECT. You expect things to go a certain way, and when they do not go a certain way. You get pissy.
Go read any forum on the net, and people like you do not exist. Everything that upsets you, does not exist. You suck as at doing this, and you always have. The fact that you have the most posts on this blog, and suck so hard at responding. Demonstrates why you fail.
I also find it funny that you think you are a good guy. You are not even close to being a nice and good guy. You are what you have always been, and you deserve what you get. You keep chugging along Jeff, but you suck at this. You suck hard.
To touch on that “Star Wars” v. “Star Trek” debate…
I think that once a movie of a given genre does something to heavily affect an audience (blows up a characters home planet, uses an Elton John song in a pivotal scene) repeating it either serves to:
1. remind you of the first time you saw this which was likely in a better movie
2. shows laziness
3. Become pastiche or homage
Although LYT’s comment about how destroying Vulcan shows how this reboot is open to change and rethinking is brilliant and spot-on, I think the planets destruction gets back to the fact that new blockbuster makers aren’t terribly creative.
I don’t mean to be dismissive or black and white, but c’mon….think up your own techniques to motivate an audience to care.
Hcat: how about those Cavs? King James? More like another heartless chump.
Sorry, Don’t follow that either. I only have the spare time to watch 3-4 movies a week so I concentrate on those and sports, reality TV, music all fall by the wayside.
“After hearing what Destrucity means and who invented it, I think the smarter person would NOT know what it is.”
Agreed.
IOI, you’re not in touch with reality.
Still utterly puzzled at your ‘you don’t know how to post on the internet’ theme. I see two types of discussions on the internet: the kind you like, where idiots scream at each other, and the kind I like, where adults have polite conversations. Is there a third type?
Christian: the smarter person would be enjoying A Top The Fourth Wall: where bad comics burn. You folks are really not in touch with some incredibly hilarious stuff.
Jeff: it’s you, it’s always been you, and you suck at posting. You have never had a polite conversation in your life on here, and you never respond like an adult. Go read your freakin responses in the previous threads, and realize you have always been the bad guy. It’s you, and now I am through with you. Respond to me all you want, but your not there. You dig? Probably not, but a troll like you never did. So bye bye chum.
IO, ever read A CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES? If not, then you are seriously out of touch with incredibly funny stuff. But it’s not a comic book.
Oh a comic book is bad? Really? Uh no. Thanks.
That’s not what he said, IOI. And you are missing out.
No IO, a comic book is not bad. Well, not all. My gentle point is that you can’t j’accuse folks of being seriously out of touch when you haven’t even read one of the greatest American satires.
Christian: yeah, it’s one book among millions, and I’d rather read a good Joker story. Different strokes, but I did not accuse him of shit. I am simply stating that there are references in my post that are attached to very entertaining people and their videos, that you may enjoy. Thus explain my point as to why that guy has and always will be such a total spaz. He’s too busy trying to get to the point, that he misses a grander sense of it all. If you get the drift… Zip.
“He’s too busy trying to get to the point, that he misses a grander sense of it all. If you get the drift… Zip.”
What does that mean?
SPEAK ENGLISH
“yeah, it’s one book among millions”
Its actually one book of among maybe fifty.
catching up this thread, a bit after the fact but re: the destruction of vulcan:
i don’t think anyone has mentioned that perhaps even more important than its use as a plot device to change the timeline/create an unknown future in the ‘trek’ universe, the destruction of vulcan – which even as a fan of the film i didn’t find particularly compelling – serves to fundamentally change spock’s character; he is, in the words of his old spock self, emotionally compromised by the destruction of his home and race in a way the ‘original’ spock never was, inevitably changed my witnessing the death of his mother and home planet, thus creating not only a new timeline/blank slate future, but, in a way, a new spock as well, psychologically damaged, one of the last of his race, a renegade. kirk says to spock regarding his offer to rescue the doomed nero – destroyer of everything spock loves – something along the lines of ‘it’s the logical thing to do, i thought you would approve’, and spock replies pensively, ‘not today, not this time.’ voila: a darker, more resentful, more badass spock going forward
Thank you leah. Thank you very much.
Nobody’s disputing what Leah is astutely saying above. Speaking for myself, we’re just talking about whether we like it or not and why.
I just saw the Atop the Fourth Wall about Warrior#1 from a link on the Spoony Experiment. Good God! The engine’s definitely running in Mr. Destrucity’s head, but whoever was behind the wheel blew their brains out a LONG time ago….
Maybe instead of trying to chance Spock they could’ve changed Uhura. Maybe give the only female Enterprise member something to actually do other than pine over her white lover. She apparently deciphers languages yet I don’t recall her actually doing any. Or how about “changing with the times” and not making the Russian character the comic relief (at least until Scotty shows up) or how about actually putting another women of power on the ship? Or another African America? Or a Hindu person? Hell, apparently 300 years in the future Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is still in operation. Lovely.
There weren’t even many aliens.
Hey, they could still make Sulu gay in the sequel. But yeah, every Star Trek TV series post-the original had a commitment to greater diversity in the cast makeup, even when it got silly to the point of just making characters into new arbitrary alien races. The new reboot, being more interested in plot twists than thematic progressivity, has no reason to rock the boat.
What they missed with Chekov, which David Gerrold nailed in the Tribbles ep, was his Russian pride, always trying to one up Starfleet…
wow, there were a lot of errors in my last post. Sorry ’bout that.
I’m hoping that Star Trek was merely testing the water and that in the sequel they’ll throw some character curve balls at us in regards to diversity. I certainly hope so, anyway.
I hope so too. And I strongly doubt it based on what we’ve seen. Abrams strikes me as someone with very little imagination and very little ‘vision’. Funny that there should be two such totally unvisionary visionaries this year.
Leah – “the destruction of vulcan – which even as a fan of the film i didn’t find particularly compelling – serves to fundamentally change spock’s character; he is, in the words of his old spock self, emotionally compromised by the destruction of his home and race in a way the ‘original’ spock never was, inevitably changed my witnessing the death of his mother and home planet, thus creating not only a new timeline/blank slate future, but, in a way, a new spock as well, psychologically damaged, one of the last of his race, a renegade.
It’s the story of Superman, tweaked the same way that turned Kirk into a Skywalker riff.
I’m sorry, but doesn’t anyone find the Abrams approach so annoyingly contrived? “Kirk lost his father, Spock his mother, together they trek the stars while learning to accept and find their destinies”.
ugghhh…
Martin, yes. That’s what we’re complaining about. At least, a good part of it.
well, i added in my 2 cents to further refute the notion that the destruction of vulcan was merely a shallow gimmick or callous plot point, having been pivotal not just to the story but to spock’s character development/arc.
i guess i can see the superman analogy but its relevance in this case to this story seems nil. and further, i don’t agree with the ‘kirk is luke’ crusade in the slightest, quite the opposite: like i said in another thread, the kirk of the original series was a small-town boy of rural upbringing who wanted to follow in his father’s footsteps and become a starfleet captain LONG before luke ever dreamed of following in his dad’s footsteps and joining the rebellion – if anything luke is a nod to the original kirk; and the ‘kirk is luke’ theory seriously falls over with the new trek retcon, as it’s quite clear that pine’s kirk has no desire to be like the father he never knew, he’s not pining to leave iowa and join starfleet, never having even considered it, instead content to be a drunken yahoo womaniser. i don’t see how pine’s cocky, annoying-yet-lovable kirk is like the hapless luke in any respect, and the fact he has to be persuaded by pike to join starfleet as a comparison to obi-wan trying to persuade luke to take him to alderon and train to be a jedi is thin at best. if comparisons must be made, i’d look at han solo before luke any day.
“if anything luke is a nod to the original kirk”
In other words, then, Leah, what you’re saying is that (original) Kirk is as much the archetypal hero as Luke is. That doesn’t say much for Luke being like Kirk, since Luke fits a prototype that stretches back, well, I can’t count that high. Kirk fits it, too, according to your argument. So they can both fit it without either having anything to do with the other.
Mr. S, you need a hug man? Sheesh.
blackc, i didn’t want you to think i was being rude if i didn’t respond and i’m sure what you said there makes perfect sense but that all went over my head. i was just trying to say i didn’t buy into martin s’ theory that (new) kirk is a riff on luke
Leah, I was referring to the Joseph Campbell stuff. “Hero with a Thousand Faces,” that sort of thing. The hero fits a certain pattern/template. Missing/absent parents, stuck in an out of the way place, longs for a greater destiny, by happenstance/fate he is pushed into the wider world etc. There’s an older mentor, etc. Luke fits this much more than new or old Kirk. So if it looks like new Kirk is a riff on Luke, it’s because they both resemble the archetype. That, and the fact that Abrams et al. said they had Star Wars in mind for some of what they wanted to do. It’s an easy comparison to make, therefore, but I’d say the similarity is more generic than specific. And if it is an imitation, it’s a pale one at best.
Roddenberry-Kirk was never a heroic archetype, he was a very specifically 20th century creation: The Kennedy-esque professional, idealistic but also willing to swing a little (re: the ladies). He never had a backstory per se because he never needed one because he was ultimately just a guy with a job that happened to be in outer space, not a literary ‘hero’ per se whose entire life we were tracking.
a clip that speaks to the notion currently being bandied about that the old kirk never acted out of revenge or killed his enemies in anger, and that somehow the act of (new) kirk killing nero – the murderer of his father and spock’s entire planet – after first offering help is unprecedented:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b1a-hqvGNI&feature=related
(thanks to my hard-core trekkie mate who emailed me this)
Leah, good call on Trek 3 showing Kirk being motivated by revenge. But I’m not sure that clip is dispositive. There you could argue he’s trying to save himself. But his conduct in general in that movie after David is killed (blowing up the Enterprise, etc.) definitely buttresses the argument. But you can’t distill the last part of the movie into one clip. Regardless, good catch by you (and your friend) on Trek 3. I think people are forgetting the movies in this case, and relying only on the TV show. The author of the article I linked to up top which got this thread going, certainly appears to have overlooked it.
blackc, i wish i could take some credit and bask in a brief moment of glory but it really was down to my peeps (he’s the most die-hard trekkie i’ve ever known, in his late 40’s and an absolute fool for the retcon, he’s now seen it 5 times! yikes. i just hope he doesn’t go in his spock get-up)
Leahnz – i guess i can see the superman analogy but its relevance in this case to this story seems nil.
The isolated alien with magical abilities not possessed by the humans he now lives among? Or how about the villain who wishes to kill the lone alien for the actions of his forfather? Is that Spock-Prime and Nero or Jor-el and Zod? Maybe when NuTrek 2 shows Spock’s Vulcan Fortress of Logical Solitude, the relevance will be superficial enough.
the kirk of the original series was a small-town boy of rural upbringing who wanted to follow in his father’s footsteps and become a starfleet captain LONG before luke ever dreamed of following in his dad’s footsteps and joining the rebellion – if anything luke is a nod to the original kirk;
Kirk’s Father, brother and birth-year were established in TOS, but Iowa is not brought up until STIV. The only mention of young Kirk’s upbringing in TOS had to do with surviving Kodos at thirteen on an alien planet, making his family closer to Starfleet careerists. Kirk was retconned into being small-town about a decade after Luke, and even then, he would have been gone before his teens.
it’s quite clear that pine’s kirk has no desire to be like the father he never knew, he’s not pining to leave iowa and join starfleet, never having even considered it, instead content to be a drunken yahoo womaniser.
While I don’t know what you wrote and when, I hashed this out with BCloud and IO in the Trek thread, IIRC. I agree about the differences, but that’s why I said a Skywalker “riff”. They couldn’t make the character identical because it wouldn’t play into their characterization of Kirk who is now 1/3 Luke and 2/3 Top Gun’s Maverick. The Luke elements are what BCloud described and thematically, his Destiny as The One In Space.
Jeff’s characterization of Kirk-Prime is spot-on.
IO – I realized one of the issues you run into with your posts. Use the following to emphasize certain points and it should help clarify sarcasm and whatnot.
Put the following before and after a word, sentence or paragraph…
bold
Start with a lowercase “b” between a pair of
left brackets and right brackets >
End with a backslash and lowercase b “/b” in between another pair of left-right brackets “”
italics
Start with a lowercase “i” between a pair of
left brackets and right brackets >
End with a backslash and lowercase i “/i” in between another pair of left-right brackets “”
leave no space between the first word near the bracket and the last word near the end bracket.
Mr. S: there are people on this blog I simply do not respond to anymore. They can be flustered all they wanted, but the guys who are an asshole and a spaz do not exist on my hot blog. You dig?
Hooray!
Hey, I just got back from seeing J.J. Abrams’ Abortion in Space, and I have a GIANT MIDDLE FINGER right here for any supposed Star Trek fan who’s somehow convinced themselves that they liked it. Suck it, bitches. And when I say “it” I mean “my dick.”
Oh jesus! An asshole wants us to suck his dick! The madness of it all! THE MADNESS OF IT ALL!
Only if you’re a deluded fan. If not, piss off. I’m not in the mood.
IO – ha…ha
http://www.overlordproject.com/costuming/stargate/indeed.jpg
Asshole, you are an asshole, and assholes have a tendency to respond the way you do. Star Trek rules. Deal with it, or remember you named yourself after an asshole. Asshole.
So I wonder if David will continue to be happy about the “adult conversation” proceeding apace while he’s off at some unimportant film festival?
When the most annoying prick on the internet calls you an asshole…it’s time to celebrate!
*booty shake* *high fives* *hugs, kisses, tongue*
I’m usually not one for schadenfreude, but after reading the LAT piece on how those two ass-clowns got the Terimnator rights, I’m glad it bombed.
I remember when Vajna/Kassar were parting ways, but assumed apparently like a lot of people, that the T-rights stayed with Kassar and Halcyon was just another one of his companies.
No matter how successful Cameron is, the guy got royally shafted on trying to regain ownership back after Carolco crumbled. IIRC, the rights went up for auction with the stipulation that however much Kassar/Vajna could put down liquid, which was 8 million, they could match any other bid plus the money down. So even though these fuckers had nothing else but 8 million, for some reason the arbitration allowed them the leniency. Once that rule was established, Cameron and Hurd bailed from auction because they could have put 25M on the table, in cash, and Kassar/Vajna could match and raise it by 8M without fronting another a dollar. The rumor was Kassar/Vajna were going to bleed Cameron and Hurd to get the rights.
I was never clear why Hurd sold her ownership to them and not Jim since they were working together to get full ownership. Now, two know-nothings have killed it and will more than likely rape its corpse over the next few years. Someone needs to ask Cameron what he knew, because IIRC, a lot of what he’s doing with Avatar was originally conceived for a Terminator film and started with the T3 Experience ride.
Maybe…just maybe…no future Terminator films would be good. Just maybe…maybe…the story has been told and it’s time to create something new;]
Oh asshole, you must forget where you are posting, and who you post with almost everyday. If you think I am the most annoying person on the net. You must live really close to that guy whose a spaz. Seriously dipshit; go troll elsewhere, and have a very pleasant day.
Christian: Uh no. The story can still be told, but it has to be told. It’s yet really been shown why Skynet does what it does, and how JC becomes JC.
If you get someone whose interested in telling that story, and not making another Transformers film. You might have something. If not; leave the Terminator franchise alone. LEAVE IT ALONE!
Christian – I lean towards IO’s position, but I see your point . It really goes to show how ignorant these Halcyon goofs must be to run with McG when they had final say on all creative decisions.
How did they not first approach Cameron with an irresistible offer, like 50% ownership, no money in, full creative control with an exclusive buyout option after a certain period. He would have taken that, and they go from being nobodies to working with Cameron overnight. To have total control and go with McG…
I guess the question is how long before they put the rights up for a bidding war, because Bale ain’t coming back for a sequel, Worthington is going to be busy and no one with any credibility is going to trust their judgment. Plus, since the money was fronted by a hedge, they own the property and the last value is in the rights.
If Aris reads this, maybe he can shed a little light from the TV show end.