This

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892

and

http://www.critical-hits.com/2009/05/18/the-contrary-opinion-jj-abrams-star-trek-with-spoilers/

Yep.
Read More...

Star Trek: The College Years

Watched it yesterday. Go see it, you'll probably like it.

(spoiler laden review below the fold)
(if you're viewing this on the Facebook feed, try checking in at my actual blog: http://tomhand.blogspot.com , where there are no formatting SNAFU's to overcome- like the lack of an actual fold)




Some Thoughts:
Jar Jar Binks cum Scotty (the cute little rock guy) is for merchandising purposes- look at JJ Abrams, he does/understands marketing very well.

The time travel alternate universes is old old hat. It goes something like: At every decision there are, at least, two choices. You pick one and that becomes your universe. A different version of you picks a different option and that becomes a different universe. Now, to add some Micheal Chricton from Timeline, you can't actually TIME TRAVEL, but you can move to other, slower, universes that are very similar to your own (most of the choices have been the same, or all have been the same, so far). But that may be nit picky. They may posit actual time travel, but that the act creates the new universe, or any act done outside your natural timeline creates a new Alternate Reality.

Star Trek has already shown the alternate Realities, where they meet their EvilTwins(tm)- they did this a couple times in DS9 and once or more in TNG, but I could be wrong about the latter.

What pissed me off was:
The Blatant use of Time Travel as easy to use plot point. Others have already commented on this, so I'm just agreeing. "Why make it good, when we can make it EASY?"

The Internal Inconsistency: Red Matter makes a black hole- everyone travels safely back in time, no problems. Lots of Red Matter makes a big black hole (maybe)- with a visible accretion disk that's about the same size as the original hole (and by "about" I mean, I didn't notice any difference), yet this one destroys your dumb ass. Stupid.

Scene first, someone gets sucked out into space and there's no sound. Not five minutes later a shuttle craft buzzes the camera and we hear it whistle-puttering past. Stupid. Then there was the blatant stealing of cinematography- on the free fall to the drill platform- from Firefly: silent, off kilter, shakily acquired, zoomed in on.

Summation: I succeeded a little too well at psyching myself down about this movie. But worse, I was right: they did it the easy, commercial way, rather than spending their massive budget on something other than pretty-ness. The reboot of Star Trek will be profitable; but it won't be satisfying. What make me think so? THEY MISSED THE DAMN POINT! Spock is talking about "faith" and they're all talking about "destiny". To start with, this is just weasel words to absolve the individual from responsibility for their own actions. To finish, the episode they seem to be referencing is from TOS. SPock is told by Kirk to fly the shuttle craft in a way that is not logical, because MAYBE- if their faith in their crewmates is justified- the Enterprise will be able to save them (if not, they die for sure). So Spock does it, and they get saved and everyone dies from the cute sugary plot-like thing they've just swallowed, right? WRONG. The point was Spock was an absolutist: logic was ALWAYS the answer. The point was that absolutism eventually fails, and is just as short-sighted as anything else, when done fanatically. But Mr's Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman don't want deeper meanings, or science, to get in the way of selling their fucking movie. So, expect horoscopes in the next one, or Feng Shoe-y , or goddamn chiropractors and homeopaths....
Read More...

I hate J J Abrams

Well, 9 times out of 10, anyway. I liked Transformers, but I hated Lost, Alias, and Fringe.

Remember my accurate predictions about Watchmen, right before I saw it? Star Trek gets the same treatment after the fold...



If you're interested in a no spoilers (so long as you've seen the trailers) story about the people who made Star Trek- which opens on May 8th- go read this NY Times.com article. (thanks Tom)

If not, I'm going to quote from it anyway, to illustrate my thoughts that the Star Trek movie isn't going to be nearly as good as so many people are saying/wanting/needing it is/to be.

First, it's J J Abrams, director of Mission Impossible: III (I will give him it was better than John Wu's; but that's like being less retarded than the most retarded retard) along with other shitty shit shitshit.

There's a LOT of qualifying in the article. They are desperately trying to ensure fans that their beloved show/series/movies/franchise isn't being ass-raped by drunken clowns:

For the “Trek” faithful there are plenty of nods to past television episodes and movies, familiar catchphrases and Kirk’s notorious solution to a supposedly unwinnable mission simulation. But there is also a conscious effort to inscribe this “Trek” in the storytelling traditions popularized by Joseph Campbell, in which heroes must suffer loss and abandonment before they rise to the occasion.

[...]

Though their revisions may be contentious, the filmmakers said they were necessary; the “Star Trek” empire entrusted to them has been in dire straits.

The one that swayed me the most was:

Mr. Abrams said that throughout the production process Mr. Orci and Mr. Lindelof, both acolytes of “Trek” history, were there to keep an eye on him. The filmmakers also received the blessing of Leonard Nimoy, who created the role of Spock and agreed to reprise the character in the film as a wizened old man.

“Any fan who would think that it’s not ‘Trek’ has to say that to Leonard Nimoy’s face,” Mr. Orci said. “Don’t talk to me, talk to Spock.”

But then I remembered Nimoy really hated being identified as Spock for years. Sure, he's accpeted it all now; but my impression of Nimoy is that he's a pompous jackass. Really, only Gene Roddenberry's opinion would sway me. Not his wife's, and certainly not Rick Berman's opinion. But Mr Roddenberry is dead, so: Fuck You, Abrams, no swaying for you!

That's not all, but it is a large portion, of the qualifying. However, that's as much as I care to share. (Read more qualification at the link already provided.) In general, that level of "But it won't suck because..." in an article sets off my Suck-o-Meter alarms, big time! If it didn't suck, would you really need to tell me it didn't suck that much? "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" {Hamlet, Act 3, scene 2; I looked it up to make sure I wrote it correctly.}

Now, here's why I think the movie is going to blow:

Mr. Abrams and his partners are guys with mainstream pop-culture aspirations; their forte is taking on genres with finite but dedicated fan bases — science fiction, fantasy and horror — and making them accessible to wider audiences. And what they had in mind for their “Star Trek” movie is a film that is consistent with 43 years of series history but not beholden to it.

Re-parse that into non-marketing-ese:

Mr. Abrams and his partners are people who want to make lots of money and have lots of people like them; thy are exceptional at taking sub-culture and bleaching it, dumbing it down, and scrubbing away it's filthy underground musk until it's stupid enough for any idiot to get moist over all the pretty people and colors/explosions. And what they had in mind for their "Star Trek" movie is a film that is not beholden to 43 years of series history, the intentions of Gene Rodenberry, or anything that won't increase their profits- principles, for instance.

A couple self-explanatory bits:
This:

there is also a conscious effort to inscribe this “Trek” in the storytelling traditions popularized by Joseph Campbell, in which heroes must suffer loss and abandonment before they rise to the occasion.

This:

Perhaps more audaciously, this “Star Trek” also has a time-travel story line that essentially gives those on its creative team license to amend internal “Trek” history as they need to, and they aren’t timid about exercising it. (For example the villains of the movie are Romulans, even though the Enterprise’s first encounter with this alien race occurs in a well-known original “Trek” episode.)

Though their revisions may be contentious, the filmmakers said they were necessary

And:

Despite their collective reverence for “Star Trek” — and “Star Wars,” and Indiana Jones, and X-Men, and other cultural artifacts of their awkward adolescence — none of them are total “Trek” completists (not even Mr. Orci, who once owned a telephone shaped like the Enterprise). They say that makes them the ideal candidates to upgrade Gene Roddenberry’s creation for 21st-century audiences.

Before having been associated with a movie he hopes will attract all the fans, plus the not-fans:

ENGAGE J. J. Abrams in conversation for even a few minutes and he will gladly confess the role that “Star Trek” played in his cultural coming of age. “I was not a fan,” he said recently.

And After:

“I now consider myself a Trekkie,” he declared, “which I literally could not have ever imagined saying to anyone.”

“which I literally could not have ever imagined saying to anyone."

Mr. Abrams said his responsibility was not to the “Trek” loyalists, but “to create a movie that would be for moviegoers who love an adventure, and movies that are funny and scary and exciting — not ‘Star Trek’ fans, necessarily, but not to exclude them either.”

I'm fucking glad we're not gonna get excluded! Especially since we're the after thought, and not the focus! Yay!

What remains to be seen is whether the patient, thoughtful and deeply philosophical tradition of “Star Trek” is compatible with a “Star Trek” movie that is variously flashy, frenetic, dirty, slapsticky and sufficiently steeped in popular culture to accommodate both the Beastie Boys song “Sabotage” and a cameo by Tyler Perry.

Look, there's an ass ton more of this crap over there, go read it. But I want to end with one more:

“We’ve become so familiar with the idea of space travel because of so many movies and TV shows that it’s lost its adventure and its possibility, its sense of wonder,” Mr. Abrams said. “Forty-three years ago it was not a boring idea.”

Let's take this out of marketing-ese again:

"The whole concept of Star Trek was how cool Space Travel was. It's not anymore, so we're gonna dump what I see as the main concept. Ha ha, fanboys, fuck me? FUCK YOU!"

Okay, so that last bit may not have actually been in there; but my translator assures me she doesn't want to be beaten with the rubber hose, and her work tends to be pretty damn accurate.

He doesn't get what Star Trek was about. It wasn't about Joseph Cambell and SPACE TRAVEL!; those were tricks to discuss things. That's when Star Trek is at it's best, when it's speculative fiction- when it's using these future star ships, technologies, and aliens to explore contemporary things (like race) in a way that people won't just close down and vigorously ignore. Putting it in the future with aliens makes it easier for people to think about. Instead of shutting down, they think; and Star Trek blossoms.

And we know Abrams is going to throw in some pandering god references. But look back at Star Trek: it was the most relevant and exciting in TOS (the Original Series) when Roddenberry made it rational and secular. It was worst in DS9 (Deep Space 9) and Voyager, where they were constantly dealing with god and their personal spiritualities. Except they weren't issues, except as things characters refused to give up.

So, no philosophy, no social commentary, no strict science-based rationality (even from Spock); but up the pretty visuals. Down on space travel, up on time travel; down on Trek canon, up on new, easy to grasp Campbell-ian backgrounds/plots.

It's going to be pretty and very very stupid- like Jenny McCarthy, but pretty.
Read More...

I Watched the Watchmen.

Remember when you read Watchmen, and you sat it down, and you had that feeling? That weirdly warm belly feeling like "I just learned something" mixed with "Now, THAT was an adventure!"? The movie has lots of stuff in it, and it's missing some stuff; but the thing it's missing the most is that. It's like watching cynical, worn-out, world-weary, professionals in a play they hate, but once loved.

Read the book; forget about the movie.
Read More...

Watch More Men?

The more I read about the WATCHMEN movie, the more I'm not interested in actually seeing it. Don't get me wrong, I will because I'm that kinda guy; but if I really had a choice, I doubt I'd go of my own volition.

Wired has two reviews up, one by a newcomer to Watchmen the other by a hardcore fanboy. The Newcomer gives it 6/10, the fanboy 7/10.

Both reviews mention the plots and the differences between the movie and the comic; though the fanboy's goes further into detail. And that detail reveals why I'm sure I won't like the movie. Ignoring the changed ending, they fucked with Rorschach, Ozymandias, and the whole principle of the book.

So it's a different medium, yeah? And there should be changes, yeah? And why did they get the funding to make this movie, huh? The source material was badass. So if you've taken the idea of the original, fucked it in the asshole, and then barely laid the original framework over the retard baby that's ass birthed as a result; have you made a new thing, or something based on something else?

Fight Club was an awesome movie. Even Chuck P, supposedly, said it was better than the book- in fact, I think, he said it was just as good, and that if you'd seen the movie first the book didn't compare. It took the original ideas, kept them, and then changed the ending almost completely. Yet it was a perfect adaptation- the same and not quite the same.

Watchmen, The Movie... They should've just changed the name and called it "inspired by".
Read More...

Fucking better be...

I have predicted that Watchmen will suck because it's title is not Alan Moore's Watchmen. If you can trust Kevin Smith, you might beg to differ:

I saw “Watchmen.” It’s fucking astounding. The Non-Disclosure Agreement I signed prevents me from saying much, but I can spout the following with complete joygasmic enthusiasm: Snyder and Co. have pulled it off.

Remember that feeling of watching “Sin City” on the big screen and being blown away by what a faithful translation of the source material it was, in terms of both content and visuals? Triple that, and you’ll come close to watching “Watchmen.” Even Alan Moore might be surprised at how close the movie is to the book. March can’t come soon enough.

Found, via WWdN:IE Read More...

Never Back Down (movie)

The Premise: MMA update of Karate Kid.

The Result: Ehh... 51.9 of 100

The Review:
First, the good bits... Djimon Hounsou- always awesome. Pretty scenery, pretty boys, pretty girls, pretty special effects. Good music. Some correct terms, and accurate training depictions, from MMA.

The bad... I'll give it to you as an anecdote, before discussing the part that really irked me. The Anecdote: I was bored with the movie pretty quick, so while my sister watched it On Demand, I nipped out for a smoke. Then, a new glass of tea. Then, another smoke. You get the idea. At one point, I came back into the living room and said I just wanted to see the main character's best buddy get beaten up. When it happened, she asked if I'd seen it in the preview. I said "No." She asked how I knew it was going to happen. The movie was predictable as all hell, that's how I knew.

The problem was even when they looked like they might be doing something new, it was just a new style of transition into the same-old-same-old. Which was annoying. Though, I did give them the 0.9 for, at least, trying... a little.... about 0.9 out of 100, worth.

Then, skip to the final fight, and its build-up. There's a problem with the MMA stuff that the writer's weren't aware of, I think. The final tournament had, basically, the same rules as the original UFC tournament. No eye-gouging, no biting. (The movie adds "no crotch shots"). Yet, none of these amateur fighters apparently studied Royce Gracie. The Gracies who were mentioned as part of the credentials for Mr. Miyagi... err... Jean Roqua. Royce Gracie DOMINATED the UFC, back then. Look at his wikipedia page, notice how it mentions his opponents were bigger than him? Yet in the movie, no one even attempts to emulate his style. They have a capoeira jackass they make fun of- he gets knocked out easily; but no Gracie emulators, not even anyone wearing a gi.

Could this be that Gracie sucks in the modern rules of the UFC? I'd say it's doubtful. Gracie could win if he was allowed to have 45 minute bouts lying on the ground, him and his opponent barely moving. The UFC changed its rules, in part, to keep that from happening- it's not exactly fun for the average person; it is for MMA geeks, but what aspect of MMA isn't? No, I think the reason is obvious: Royce Gracie's style isn't action-packed. That's fair; but add some fucking rules, then! Don't forget about the most influential fighter from the UFC- the only real MMA organization mentioned in the movie- especially when he was dominate in the era of the UFC with, almost, the EXACT same rules!

The characters were all basic, flat, and as expected. If you're an MMA geek, the movie will disappoint. If you're not an MMA geek, you love action movies, and you never figure out what's going to happen next; you'll love it. Otherwise, give it a pass until you're bored and it's on a channel you're already paying for... Read More...