Stag Lord said:
I never heard of half those actors, but they were spot on.
agreed. I think having a bunch of people who aren't easily reconizable was a briliant move (i didn't know spock was sylar, so that worked in my favor) as you could look at the actors and see the 'new' charcaters as oppossed to some other role they did. (all though i did have trouble with zoe saladana, who was in drum line and some other iffy movies which i've unfortunatly seen...)
Stag Lord said:
I can't beleive how good this movie was. On every level. Easily the best blockbuster film I have seen in a Theater since Return of the King.
err......... umm............
I know.
Its not really fair to compare any film to the masterpiece that is the trilogy, Just like its unfair to compare speculative fiction to the great texts. But I couldn't come up with another example of how great i thought Star Trek was. I can't think of higher praise than to mention the two in the same breath.
Well, noo....... that wasn't quite what I meant, though your thought there works as well. I was looking at the word "since" which really means that you're comparing it to all the movies in the interem....
Yes - I am doing that. I think this is the best movie I have seen in six years.
*cricket noises*
~You don't get out much, do you?
I'm with Stag Lord on this one. In the last six years I've seen a fair number of movies that I enjoyed, but I can't think of a single one where I walked out of the theater and said, "You know, I wouldn't mind plonking down another $10 to go see that again," like I did after Star Trek.
and its not like tis one or two people saying this either. everyone i know that has seen the movie has really enjoyed it and only like 3 of them were trekkies.
Weird. I doubt I would go back to spend money on a ticket to see it again. The movies that I would do that with are awfully rare, though I'd admit that The Dark Knight and likely Iron Man would have been. Hard to tell as I didn't have a need to pay at the time.
Its funny you mention Dark Knight, will. I know we all loved it last summer - but even at the tiem i felt it was about a half an hour too long. I knwo I was getting fidgety right aorund the ferry scene, and I am starting to think they may have wanted to save some of the Two Face stuff for a later film. Its running on cable a lot these past weeks and I have seen ti twice more - and my feelings are starting to set: I feel they should have wrapped it up with Joker's capture.
i guess my point being: even at the height of my enthusiasm for DK, i thought nolan needed to edit it a bit. And I am nto teh comics fan you are, so although iron man was great - I thought ST accomplished more in reconciling 4-0 years fo histroy and still opening up whole new story lines. Iron Man was fun - but its just teh kick off to another comics franchise.
It's strange, even being the comics fan that I am, I just found Iron Man to be a fun movie. I suppose with comic book movies, I'm more apt to be forgiving of the details of the film if they can remain true to the spirit of the series (much like the newer Batman movies have done, though I will agree that DK should probably have been trimmed a little). For some reason though, I'm less forgiving with Star Trek. Maybe because I didn't get the feel that it remained true to the spirit.
its was trekkie enough for me. They replaced campy with actual jokes so thats an upgraded diference i'll take. They explored humanity through aliens and the sience was a little less featured (but that made it more approachable to more casual fans).
And while i could have done without time travel (all sci-fi should stay away from time travel, its just to messy. Oh that and travel between parralle universes...) it brought trek back, so i'm happy.