New Star Trek

Originally posted by Palynka
Did you like Martyrs? Maybe it was the because it was so hyped, but I was actually disappointed by it...

Well, to be honest, I didn´t think it lived up to the hype but Scriabin wanted to see a movie that went where people hadn´t gone before and I thought Martyrs might fit that description. I´ll wonder if he´ll see it.

Originally posted by Palynka
uzless thinks he can determine what people should laugh about.

you beat me to it. Thanks. (even if you put the italics around the wrong word.....fixed now)

Originally posted by Wheely
Well, to be honest, I didn´t think it lived up to the hype but Scriabin wanted to see a movie that went where people hadn´t gone before and I thought Martyrs might fit that description. I´ll wonder if he´ll see it.

Yes, I agree with that, I just wanted to see if you liked it.

I actually think Martyrs didn't do much beyond what Audition already did, and for blunt shock value, I haven't seen anything that went as far as Irreversible.

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes, I agree with that, I just wanted to see if you liked it.

I actually think Martyrs didn't do much beyond what Audition already did, and for blunt shock value, I haven't seen anything that went as far as Irreversible.

Well I was introduced to the genre (I feel these movies are beyond the genre they would normally be in and should have a genre all to themselves) was Martyrs. I´m not sure I liked it as such but I can´t deny that it does shake your moral convictions.

I have not seen the other movies you mention nor have I seen "Inside" but have heard and read much of them. I have yet to decide if I will see them :/

Originally posted by Wheely
Well I was introduced to the genre (I feel these movies are beyond the genre they would normally be in and should have a genre all to themselves) was Martyrs. I´m not sure I liked it as such but I can´t deny that it does shake your moral convictions.

I have not seen the other movies you mention nor have I seen "Inside" but have heard and read much of them. I have yet to decide if I will see them :/

If you feel that way, I guess Audition is in the same vein, so probably not worth it. Irreversible is a bit different. The violence in it was less gratuitous, but paradoxically harder to stomach. I felt that with Audition and Martyrs it was so relentless (and pointless) that at some point you're a bit desensitized.

Originally posted by uzless
your comments would fit well in the movie. Nothing as exhilerating as watching one character call the other one names.

Thanks for providing another example of what the modern movie goer wants to see.

No problem old man, have fun being bitter the rest of your life!

I saw the movie tonight, and i thought it was one of the best movies i've seen in a while. A+

Originally posted by Palynka
If's funny how you were on the brink of understanding the motives of the director, but then you fail miserably by labelling it as a monster flick.

Fascism and militarism are all over Heinlein's book. Even if you failed to notice it when you were a kid, you sure as hell should have noticed it by now.

The film, in my opinion, portrays this excellently. T ...[text shortened]... erally recommend reading in sequence. The contrast between them makes them great complements.

wow, what a deep literary mind for a product of the shallow end of the gene pool.

why would I now, as an adult, read anything by Heinlein, let alone something that I read as a child? He was a terrible writer, a really poor man's Hemingway, and Hemingway was no walk in the park, either.

you can read all sorts of artistic crap you like into that film, but it won't wash. It was a movie and a book for children.

no amount of posturing on your part will endow this commercial pap with any serious aesthetic value -- it was both in book and movie form the equivalent of a toy ray gun.

it was a B movie -- and a bad one. as film, it bore more similarity to the old giant bug movies of the 1950s than it did to any adult satire on fascism. Even Bob Hope did a better job, and that, of course, is not setting the bar particularly high.

Originally posted by StTito
The bad artist copies the good artist steals
I said pop culture, so take that and stuff it up your high brow nerdom.
Yeah I grew up with Asimov and Hienlein too, they were great when I was in highschool. Now their version of the future is quite laughable. And not because their tech ideas are outdated(by the '80's), but because their universe was so nice, ne ...[text shortened]... it was better in "his/her" day. Expand and grow or shut up and go to your rocking chair.

typical knee-jerk adolescent spit back -- what, you're about 15? your reading comprehension level is more like 10.

you either need glasses or half price at the mind reader.

Originally posted by Scriabin
typical knee-jerk adolescent spit back -- what, you're about 15? your reading comprehension level is more like 10. you either need glasses or half price at the mind reader.

Actually, Scriabin, he landed a genuine blow with...

Purists suck. If you don't like the remaid or morphed version of your favorite artwork fine, art is opinion. But there is nothing more boring and tedious to hear than some older person saying it was better in "his/her" day. Expand and grow or shut up and go to your rocking chair.

It made me go back and re-read the post he was responding to, and - indeed - you came across as a pompous fogey. You've written better stuff than that - and you've had more incisive ideas.

St.Tito's response was something you probably needed to answer properly rather than with your trademark, tedious personal abuse.

Originally posted by Scriabin
wow, what a deep literary mind for a product of the shallow end of the gene pool.

why would I now, as an adult, read anything by Heinlein, let alone something that I read as a child? He was a terrible writer, a really poor man's Hemingway, and Hemingway was no walk in the park, either.

you can read all sorts of artistic crap you like into that film, b ...[text shortened]... Even Bob Hope did a better job, and that, of course, is not setting the bar particularly high.

Squeezing your subjective film reviews into the framework of long winded dollops of personal abuse reflects poorly on you, Scriabin.

Originally posted by Scriabin
wow, what a deep literary mind for a product of the shallow end of the gene pool.

why would I now, as an adult, read anything by Heinlein, let alone something that I read as a child? He was a terrible writer, a really poor man's Hemingway, and Hemingway was no walk in the park, either.

you can read all sorts of artistic crap you like into that film, b Even Bob Hope did a better job, and that, of course, is not setting the bar particularly high.

Reading your posts here makes me wonder why you went to see a film called STAR TREK in the first place; perhaps you were conducting research into plebiscite entertainment or just slumming?

Have you never watched any of the series or seen the trailer or read a review, or indeed just thought to yourself “this looks like a load of guano, I don't think I'll bother wasting some of my money; I'll go to the library instead"?

Originally posted by FMF
Actually, Scriabin, he landed a genuine blow with...

Purists suck. If you don't like the remaid or morphed version of your favorite artwork fine, art is opinion. But there is nothing more boring and tedious to hear than some older person saying it was better in "his/her" day. Expand and grow or shut up and go to your rocking chair.

It made m ...[text shortened]... robably needed to answer properly rather than with your trademark, tedious personal abuse.

once again the hide in the bushes critic with your sniping -- it is all personal with you. you've nothing to say regarding star trek, its origins, let alone the evolution of the sci fi genre in US pop culture.

nothing I said should be taken by any intelligent observer with a modicum of knowledge of the subject matter at issue as advocacy for a purist point of view -- I am not a fan of the genre, of the authors, of the films or the books.

I outgrew all of it long ago.

my commentary was realism.

I've a cousin who is the executive, supervising producer of several TV shows for Paramount. He and I have discussed the nuts and bolts of what makes these various pop culture genre tick -- he makes a living out of it. And, as an oscar winning producer, I take his view rather more seriously than yours, particularly as you cannot demonstrate the least knowledge of the subject of star trek (at least nothing you cannot cut and past from the net).

so your motive in weighing in appears mere malice, which is what I've come to expect from you.

for someone who purports to be such an intellect, you really are a small minded person, did you know that?

Originally posted by FMF
Squeezing your subjective film reviews into the framework of long winded dollops of personal abuse reflects poorly on you, Scriabin.

weighing in on things of which you have nothing substantive to add -- merely commenting on what others choose to say, reveals your deep psychological need to appear as a superior intellect.

why are you so insecure?

why have you nothing to say about sci fi or star trek or Heinlein?

I think it is because you use this medium to substitute for the social position you cannot achieve any other way. How sad.

why else would you follow me around from forum to forum and merely comment on what I say without joining in the discussion?

a sick pattern and one clearly unworthy of anyone so pretentious about his intellectual powers as you are.