The Hot Blog

I disagree. Respectfully, and not condescendingly, of course.

Let's face it, Star Trek does have a huge fan-base, but all the same, the movie HAS to appeal to non-Trekkies (such as me, for instance). It boosts the film's chances of making much more money at the box office. I am glad to hear that this is not a "spiritual Star Trek" film, or otherwise I would have no interest in seeing it.

This has nothing to do with my seeing the film or not, but it has to do with two common facts of Poland.

FACT of POLAND #569: WHEN EVERYONE ELSE SEES SOMETHING IN A MOVIE NATURALLY ASSUME THAT DAVID POLAND WILL NOT SEE IT!

FACT of POLAND #698: WHEN THE CRITICS LOVE IT. DAVID WILL MOST LIKELY NOT.

"Let's face it, Star Trek does have a huge fan-base...."

No, it has an increasingly small, insular and old fanbase.

You may be right, but you also may be wrong, Wrecktum. I was very surprised tonight -- shocked, actually -- when my son asked me about Star Trek. Evidently, he and his buddies actually have watched episodes of the old TV show....

I'm not saying the show is unknown to younger audiences. Obviously it's a known brand, otherwide Paramount wouldn't be risking this reimagining.

But just because kids know about it doesn't mean they're part of the fanbase.

Wrecktum: Well, for what it's worth -- he and his buddies had no earthly idea what Bewitched was when that movie spin-off was released.

It's Star Trek. It's a part of the fabric. Even if you have never seen an episode of any series. You know it's out there because it's been out there for close to 50 years.

Star Trek will make more than Bewitched...I'll stake my reputation on it!

You have a reputation? I had no idea David Poland had turn the hot blog in a shakejoint.

"Mr. Pine, aka This Year’s Paul Walker, is a beautiful thick headed A&F model with some charm, but if he is an actor, we will have to see some other work to find out that it’s the case."

No. Hell no.

Pine incorporates classic Shatnerisms and makes them his own, without ever doing a direct impersonation. That's damn difficult. Paul Walker could probably not do that.

"But in the end, what made Iron Man go was, indeed, a cool effect… but much more so it was Downey… and how much the audience loved his sense of irony in the midst of all of that silly go-go. Incredible Hulk was… a lot of stuff that looked cool and fit our ideas of what that meant... never as fun as Star Trek… but never as smart as Downey’s self-awareness."

Do we forget, David, that you were extremely disappointed in Iron Man when it came out? I'm not trying to brand you a hater of it, because that's an oversimplification...but you were as lukewarm on it then as you seem to be on Star Trek now. No?

What Joe said at the top.

Lou, Paul Walker is God. GOD. There is nothing the man cannot do.

You know, WRATH OF KHAN was on one of the HBO/Cinemax channels the other night, and not having seen it in many, many years, I was struck by how leisurely it all was.

The great aforementioned scene with Khan on Ceti Alpha V (or was it VI?) and the bugs and Paul Winfield: That must literally take 10 full minutes of screen time, with only a handful of basic-coverage shots and that TOTALLY 1982 Paramount film grain and strangely "quiet" vibe that still reminds one of watching it on clunky VHS or Beta with the white cassette case and cheesy artwork. While it still TOTALLY held up and Montalban/Koenig/Winfield are all brilliant there, I was really struck by how pedestrian the framing and pacing were, down to Khan's extras sporting 1982 feathered hair; All that was missing were some Alligator polo shirts.

Point being, we remember that entry through such rose-colored glasses, but it's not remotely something we'd stand for in this day and age, where even something as "busy" as Watchmen seems a little low energy. I welcome the Abrams shot in the arm, but Poland's take on his TV-esque stylings would seem to confirm my fears.

In MI:3, you could literally feel the "TV commercial break" cues if you'd watched enough of the man's shows or had heard enough of Michael Giacchino's scores.

Um....let's see...David loved The Phantom of the Opera, Matrix Revolutions and Speed Racer and doesn't care for Star Trek. On the other hand, Star Trek is at 94% at MetaCritic and 100% at Rotten Tomatoes. Ah, the heck with it: I'm gonna throw caution to the wind and see Trek.

Hunter - David didn't love Matrix Revolutions. He loved Matrix Reloaded. Big difference. I'm with him on both.

I love Speed Racer, Phantom of the Opera, and actually understand Revolutions unlike most people. So there's not accounting for this FACT of DAVID!

FACT of DAVID #6869: DAVID POLAND CAN RETCON HIMSELF AT ANY MOMENT. BE ON CONSTANT GUARD FOR THESE HEATED SHENANIGANS.

Not only did David hate Iron Man. He really did not even get freakin Iron Man. His third thread about Iron Man easily stands out as the moment David Poland took a turn down the wrong street.

I think everyone understood Revolutions. It was just lame.

LexG: You raise an interesting point. I think I may have posted this years ago, but: Way back when Goldeneye was a big hit, my son -- barely 8 at the time -- thoroughly enjoyed it. So I thought he might want to take a look at some of the earlier Bond films. I slipped You Only Live Twice into the VCR -- and within 15 minutes, he was asleep. Within 30 minutes -- I was asleep. Ever since then, I've been afraid to look at other Connery-era 007 films, because I'd rather remember them as being great than risk finding out they have dated.

Perm: you pretty much represent the Revolutions hater to a fucking "T". Put yourself on the back, eat a pop tart, and give props to your lord Danza.

Dave, in regards to you note about 7 cast members / 7 Samurai.... Checkov wasn't introduced untill the second season of the series.

Tony Danza?

Who doesn't idolize The Danza?

Joe: I think you'd be fine re-watching Goldfinger or From Russia With Love. Seen both of those within the past decade, and they hold up fine. Maybe Dr. No, too.

And on a non-Connery side note, apart from a few Lazenby moments, On Her Majesty's Secret Service is pretty amazing. L.A.'s New Beverly ran it on a double bill in 2007, and I was blown away by how well that movie works.

Not so much with the second feature, the triple-nipple Man With the Golden Gun. I might have lasted an hour, but I did fall asleep in that one.

Yeah, I always thought You Only Live Twice was pretty dull. Go with Brandon's suggestions, or you can't go wrong with Live and Let Die.

IO, does it make me a hater if I loved the first Matrix and liked the second AS LONG AS the third wasn't terrible...which it was? If they really wanted to make such a reality vs fantasy life, then why is Neo God? They seemed to set that up great in the second movie, to ignore it.

Re: the Matrix sequels, David's position on Matrix Revolutions remains one of the great mysteries of the last six years here. His fullest comment on it was 'it is what it is' which has zero semantic content.

Joe: I just rewatched all the Bonds in the last two years after enjoying Casino. I hadn't seen them all since I was six and while some of the Connery one's are creaky (You Only Live Twice) or downright ugly (Diamonds are Forever), Russia and Thunderball hold up just fine and Majesty is probably the best Bond film after Royale.

I wouldn't see that as a mystery...to me it seems because he hated the fuck out of it but didn't want to say so because of his love and in-depth analysis of the second. Then the third came over and said "Hey David, may I piss on your face?"

And David was like "No, I'd rather you...bleeeergh!"

They had a chance in the second movie to really make an awesome series, but instead they not only didn't fulfill the potential of the second, they seemed to ignore the fact that there was any second movie at all.

Most insulting lines ever from the third movie basically proving that the second movie was completely pointless was when Neo asked the Oracle all about the events suggested in Reloaded, and she just answers "because you're the One."

And that's it. Nothing else. What a slap to the face. I'm glad Speed Racer bombed just because of that line.

I wouldn't see that as a mystery...to me it seems because he hated the fuck out of it but didn't want to say so because of his love and in-depth analysis of the second. Then the third came over and said "Hey David, may I piss on your face?"

And David was like "No, I'd rather you...bleeeergh!"

They had a chance in the second movie to really make an awesome series, but instead they not only didn't fulfill the potential of the second, they seemed to ignore the fact that there was any second movie at all.
ENGAGE... CHRIS PINE STYLE!

"Most insulting lines ever from the third movie basically proving that the second movie was completely pointless was when Neo asked the Oracle all about the events suggested in Reloaded, and she just answers 'because you're the One.'"

This drives me crazy. You really think that's what she's implying? Do you really think that? If so... you missed the entire fucking point of that speech to Neo. The point being of course: "YOU HAVE TO LIVE, FIGURE IT OUT FOR YOURSELF, THEN WE WILL PROCEED."

Birth, Life, and Death. Neo had to live a little bit, but he could not deny the inevitable. Trinity was going to die, Smith would take over his body, and he would essentially have to give into to save the day. This is what makes you hater, and this is why I am harder on Matrix haters than anyone else because most of them lack the ability to put a thought together, and jump to such ridiculous conclusion as you Perm.

"And that's it. Nothing else. What a slap to the face. I'm glad Speed Racer bombed just because of that line."

People who do not understand something. Sure get real mad. Real easy.

Yeah I screwed up Chris Pine style up there. These things happen. RE-ENGAGE PINE STYLE!

ENGAGE... CHRIS PINE STYLE!

"Most insulting lines ever from the third movie basically proving that the second movie was completely pointless was when Neo asked the Oracle all about the events suggested in Reloaded, and she just answers 'because you're the One.'"

This drives me crazy. You really think that's what she's implying? Do you really think that? If so... you missed the entire fucking point of that speech to Neo. The point being of course: "YOU HAVE TO LIVE, FIGURE IT OUT FOR YOURSELF, THEN WE WILL PROCEED."

Birth, Life, and Death. Neo had to live a little bit, but he could not deny the inevitable. Trinity was going to die, Smith would take over his body, and he would essentially have to give into to save the day. This is what makes you hater, and this is why I am harder on Matrix haters than anyone else because most of them lack the ability to put a thought together, and jump to such ridiculous conclusion as you Perm.

"And that's it. Nothing else. What a slap to the face. I'm glad Speed Racer bombed just because of that line."

People who do not understand something. Sure get real mad. Real easy.

Funny, seeing as you're the easiest to get mad on this blog out of anyone.

The stupid, stupid, idiotic thing about that IO...is this. If we are to accept the reality that computers took over the world and humans live in pods...which I can go with. No problem. They have still set up a generally "realistic" scenario that only gets into fantasy elements while inside the Matrix, like flying or kung fu fighting fifty guys.

Takign that into account, that they have made a dividing line between fantasy, such as inside the Matrix, and reality, such as the real world...how can you do such things as tell the future or become God? That should be "inside the Matrix" material, which is seemed like the movie was brilliantly setting up in the second movie. It was alluded to, then Neo blasted the robots with his super mind powers and I was like oh shit, there really IS another Matrix and Neo really is just another program!

Then in the third they just had two lines that said all of that was false and he's in the real world. So glad I watched two hours of bullshit, thanks Matrix.

Actually, in the wake of the Daniel Craig movies, I would be interested in taking another look at the Timothy Dalton pair, just to see if Dalton is as big a badass as I recall.

I think Dalton himself was good, but the movies were just too bland. Bond vs a drug dealer? What is that, every episode of every 80s cop tv show ever?

Connery's early Bonds rule, but the success of Goldfinger added too much money, running time, and pretention to the projects. Thunderball and YOLT drag like hell.
On the complete oppostite end of the spectrum is "...Golden Gun" which feels like the movie version of a Bond short story. It zips by and is completely unmemorable. Except for the confusion of audience sympathy. James Bond is short-tempered, obnoxious, surrounded by idiots, and really rough with the ladies in that film. Christopher Lee's Scaramanga, on the other hand is charming, hospitable, loves animals, and his evil master-plan is...gasp..to bring solar power to the world! Bastard!

Seven Samurai? Um, Walter Koenig was not hired to play Chekhov until the second season, and he was brought in as a himbo to attract more female viewers.

Perm: It's not anger as much as it's a response to what I find... lacking. You do make a good point about the Matrix, but you miss the point of Neo's destruction of the squids in Reloaded. He's different. He's the anomaly of all anomalies. The architect pretty much tells them this. Before Neo does something that he should not have been able to do: escape that building.

Once he left that room, he fucked up his mind, and it led to those after effects. His mind had no idea where he was, and he could do what he could do in the Matrix in real life. Why? If your mind believes it's real. It's real.

So you once again hate on the Matrix trilogy for doing something, that you obviously either ignored or do not understand. It's your prerogative, but it's not a factually accurate one.

Yeah but dude, get a grip...what you find lacking is people not caring about the same shit you do. I'm friends with lots of people who don't give two craps about what I'm passionate about, but I wouldn't think of them as lacking. They're just not into it. Like that thread where you basically call people out for not knowing who Deadpool is...well...who cares? If you're into it, awesome. If not, what difference does it make?

Also, your take on The Matrix. No, can't buy it. Because again, THEY choose to point out REAL LIFE vs MATRIX LIFE. I don't care how fucked up your mind may be in the Matrix or where you think you are, that doesn't give you superpowers in the real world.

In real life, you could be some schizo who thinks you can fly, but jump off a building and see what happens.

Not to mention the whole bullshit of the Oracle telling the future. That was the main stuff I didn't like about the first movie, because again it betrayed the line of real and fake, since that's all they talk about for two hours. BUT, then the second movie seemed to make it work...because it seemed like they were in another Matrix and if they're in another Matrix, then you CAN tell the future and you CAN bring someone back to life with a kiss. Because it's still fantasy land. They were on the verge of making something brilliant.

Until the third came along and came down to "punch the bad guy a lot." and shit screenwriting.

Perm: the thread about Deadpool is just silly because THE DEADPOOL MOVIE HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR YEARS! If they have no idea who he is, then that's on them. Their responses are the typical douchey hot blog style, that involves a bunch of guys joining in on a manpile against me. Wow. How fucking quaint. Excuse me for pointing out they know shit about GNR, and have missed a great character in Deadpool. Who Marvel and Fox obviously know is worth some sheckles, but god forbid I point this out to them.

That aside, you Matrix assumptions are horrible. They are horrible, and I beg you to listen to the commentaries on the Ultimate Edition. If you want to feel that way, then you go right ahead. Asking me to accept it, and not find it lacking. Well, Perm, that dog does not hunt.

Why are they horrible? Were they not taken directly from the movies? I don't want to listen to the commentaries, if the Wachoskis couldn't put their ideas forth clearly in their movie, they shouldn't expect me to listen to them explain it to me.

So why don't you sum up and tell me why all of that is wrong? In detail, not that I just don't get it or I don't want to understand or I'm a hater. How, in the world that they set up and talk and talk and talk about (real world vs fake) can you bring someone back to life with a kiss in the real world?

Also, I first heard of GNR through the Dead Pool movie too.

Perm: if you only heard of them through the Dead Pool. You really were behind the time. GNR were huge. They had a huge freakin CONTROVERSY in 2007 with the cover of their album, and this brought them to notoriety along with the fact they are one of the greatest rock bands ever, and Axl is a fucking genius.

That aside, the commentaries will maybe help you fill out the blanks, and the ones with Cornell West and Brother Tom are bloody wonderful. If you want to take the time to actually understand something instead of ripping it apart.

I will simply state that you missed the boat. You are like a LOST fan that wants to know what's going on with Libby, and care very little about Jacob or Richard Alpert. This is where you are. If you want to change, that's on you. I refuse to take the time to explain something, and have you ignore it out of sheer ignorance.

1987... not 2007... but keep readin!

What a shock that as usual you said much to say nothing.

"You really were behind the time. GNR were huge. They had a huge freakin CONTROVERSY in 1987* with the cover of their album, and this brought them to notoriety..."

Dude, weren't you, like, two years old? Again, you're lecturing people who ACTUALLY LIVED THROUGH THE ERA AS FANS; This is like me perusing Wikipedia and then schooling some Boomer blues-rock dude who went to every concert about what Zeppelin singles dropped when.

Again... if you have no idea when shit happened. Stop acting like you do ass. Go write another column Lex, and this time objectify more women. Objectify every woman David might have a DP/30 with, and pray to god those people do not follow his website. So they have no idea that he gives space on his 1993 prodigy style page to you... G.

Perm: you cannot even figure out the Matrix, and it makes your head hurt. Awww. How cute.

IO, I think you can't figure out the Matrix which is why it seems brilliant to you.

Or that it's just another comic book piece of wankery, you choose.

The controversial cover of Appetite was pulled from stores in '87 but only 30,000 copies shipped and it wasn't really that notable.

The Appetite painting didn't really become controversial until 1988 when the band finally hit and people discovered the painting on the inside of the LP. That was a huge controversy, well into '88 and after the Dead Pool trailer helped give the band huge exposure.

The first Dalton Bond is great. The second is very mediocre.

Licence to Kill OWNS Living Daylights:

DAVI. DEL TORO. "We'll give her niiice honeymooooooon." The Kamen score giving it some Joel Silver vibe and the Miami setting giving it some ineffable '80s coked-up action movie vibe. Plus Dalton's SIDEBURNS fucking rule in LTK.

Daylights has great John Barry music, but it's one of those BORING DESERT BONDS, where he rides around on camels for nine hours; LEXRULE of film: URBAN/BIG CITY/CITYSCAPE GANGLAND action is inherently more exciting than DESERT ACTION.

Back ON topic: Only in the last week have I heard that Eric Bana is in the new Star Trek; Considering how "star"-deprived that cast is, shouldn't they have played up the fact that Eric Bana is in it? I know he's not a huge draw, but he's fucking Bruce Willis compared to Pine and Quinto. Is he even in the trailer? I've never seen ONE FRAME of Eric Bana being in it, nor have I seen his name once mentioned in ANY of the voluminous press.

bana is the villain of the piece, bald with tats, he's been in all the trailers you probably just didn't recognise him, he's very unbana looking in it

I'd assumed that Neo taking out the squids in Reloaded was a giveaway that "The Real World" was yet another level of the Matrix. Yet when Revolutions tried to claim, instead, that Neo had godlike powers in actual honest-to-goodness real life, I gave up on the movie long before the rest of the idiocy sprayed itself all over the screen in the second half.

(And why replace one Oracle with another fiftyish black woman, which merely highlighted the death of Gloria Foster in bright day-glo colors, when they could have replaced her with, say, the girl in the subway tunnel?)

(And why require people to be behind the guns, manually shooting down the invading squids when machine-guided guns would have been so much more accurate while wasting so little ammo? Because it's kewler, that's why, and kewlness--rather than logic--seemed to be the guiding force throughout that movie, and probably Reloaded as well.)

Quick Impressions from ST...

Without the deep theater background, Pine lacks the natural bass Shatner brought to Kirk so he ends up channeling Kurt Russell. While different for the character, it's a fine choice.

The opening is the best several minutes in ST or current sci-fi in sometime. Though the "all score" take is a Lost staple, placing it in space made it feel like BSG.

The nudge-nudge wink-winks to past ST scenes gets tired because some are so overt. The subtle ones - shooting the Romulan craft as the alien vessel from STIV, the ship/space sounds from Khan, etc - are nice.

Young Kirk and Sabotage was terrible. Vulcan looked great, but using only Brit's for Vulcans unintentionally changes the Greek/Roman parallel.

The most glaring TV carry over from Abrams was his attempt to build another tired love triangle. While the woman playing Uhura is good, the role is so forced into action that it screams formula.

My biggest dislike was the story cheat of bringing Starfleet to Kirk. It changes Kirk's place in the grand scheme by making him bigger than the world he resides in. It's the difference between Luke yearning to join the Rebellion and through a series of events finally getting there, to Anakin not having to do squat except wait for Qui-Gon and the rest of the galaxy to stumble upon him. Luke's sequence is human, Anakin's is that of a demi-god. Kirk was moved closer to the latter, and that totally flies in the face of the TOS precepts.

Maybe this'll help kill off all the Trek fanfic. How? Because the thematic difference between Star Trek and Star Wars had always been that anyone could be a hero in Starfleet, but the heroes in the Rebellion were Born To Greatness.

Thanks for reminding me that I kind of hate mythic destiny narratives. They're un-American.

"Thanks for reminding me that I kind of hate mythic destiny narratives. They're un-American."

Jeff, you realize that's a paradox, right?

Martin, Luke yearns to join the Rebellion, but it comes to him, same as happened/would happen with his father. Luke and Anakin's trajectories are remarkably similar. Yet they end quite differently.

Moreover, the galaxy stumbles upon Luke when his sister steals a set of secret blueprints from their father so that she can give them to the man who was their father's mentor and who their father betrayed, lost a duel with, and wound up in that black suit. And when Luke's father catches up with his sister, she entrusts the blueprints to an R2 unit which used to serve on their mother's royal starship, and whose robot companion is a protocol droid reconstructed by their father when he, like Luke, was a lonely boy stuck on Tatooine longing for a better out among the stars. So off the droids go in their escape pod, and the rest is pop cultural history.

The prequels, of course, alter drastically the arc of the original three movies. But in this case I think it's a misnomer to say that there was that great a differnce between how Luke and Anakin got started on their journeys. They both needed some help getting away from that planet farthest from the bright center of the universe.

Blackcloud, how so? Are you referring to Manifest Destiny? I never was a big fan of that, either.

Manifest Destiny is one part of it. My point is that America can be conceived as a mythic destiny narrative in and of itself. So for such things to be un-American is contradictory. Since you don't accept either premise, you evade that irony. But I don't think you can say they are un-American, since in a real sense such narratives are what many people throughout American history have believed America to be all about.

To be clear, I found your statement amusingly ironic, and am reading no more or less into it than that.

I'm wiping your intellectual jizz up with a mop.

I was going to go further and add that Trek = democracy while Wars = feudalism, but then I read "FBI Considered 'It's A Wonderful Life' Communist Propaganda" ( http://www.wisebread.com/fbi-considered-its-a-wonderful-life-communist-propaganda ), where a 1947 FBI report about the movie stated that, among other things, "the triumph of the common man" represented "anti-American values".

So, Gene Roddenberry was a commie, and we needed Abrams to clear that pinko stench from the room.

"Trek = democracy while Wars = feudalism"

There's very little in Star Wars that can be construed as feudal, so that I don't see. Care to explain?

Oh, perhaps the whole power comes from what's in your blood thing, which passes down through the family. But even before midichlorians, it was abundantly clear that if you weren't connected to the powerful family at the center of the story then you were a nobody.

It's the story of that family, so it's going to give short shrift to people who don't come into contact with it, no? Anyway, the blood thing still wouldn't make it feudal, since feudalism isn't about blood.

Star Wars is about redemption more than anything else.

Rudy: oh behalf of Nien Numb; "SCREW YOU PAL! I'M SPECIAL AND IMPORTANT!" Also, the midichlorians were more about Qui-Gon's belief in science over faith, and how science would guarantee Anakin as a the one. How this is ignored time and time again with the worst arguments, constantly annoys me.

Lex's review:

STAR TREK '09 IS FUCKING AWESOME.

FIN.

Poland wins.

Um... do they not assign first officers to their ships in the alternate reality? And if they do, who kept getting demoted?

Rudy - Good point. I'm sure we'll see a Ret-Trek like Steampunk that ignore Abrams.

BCloud - I'd agree, but I'm sure we have a fundamentally different perspective on SW. I consider the first '76 release as an isolated movie as only parts of ROTSith were ever conceived before Star Wars release. Everything else started pre-'76, mainly when Campbell's Heroquest became synonymous with Lucas. You can watch the first, original release and have the total intended experience. My fault for not clarifying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_IV

Lucas has often alleged that the entire original trilogy was written as one film; that the Star Wars script was too long, so he split it into three films.[5][33][34] However, none of Lucas' drafts had more pages or scenes than his final draft. Lucas' second draft is usually cited as the script he is referring to with these comments.[35] Michael Kaminski argues in his work The Secret History of Star Wars that this draft is structurally very similar to the final film in plot arrangement, and that the only elements from it that were saved for the sequels were an asteroid field space chase (moved to The Empire Strikes Back) and a forest battle involving Wookiees (moved to Return of the Jedi, with Ewoks in place of Wookiees), and that none of the major plot of the sequels are present.[35] Lucas himself has actually occasionally admitted this.[36

Martin, even leaving all the other movies aside, in Star Wars the galaxy still winds up coming to Luke. He longs to get off the rock, but can't until he gets a helping hand.

Also, I'm not sure why my perspective on Star Wars would be "fundamentally different" from yours. I saw it in 1977 like many people here, so I did see it with a tabula rasa, and when it was still a tabula rasa, with regard to what came after. As for the story as a whole, I've always contended that it's really a duology and a tetralogy, and that the big revelation completely changes the meaning of the story.

--the most obvious giveaway being how Lucas & Co. retconned Leia into Luke's sister deep into the writing of Jedi, only because they needed a reason to make Luke snap and suddenly turn into an ass-kicker. The romance between them was conveniently ignored, and if you think there was anything wrong with all the innocent smooching between them then you, sir, are some kind of deviated prevert.

(my last comment was actually addressing Martin's, but since I was once told that this blog wasn't a typing contest...eh. Needed to get my Strangelove quote properly straightened out and all.)

Starkiller was a chick. So he took the main chick, and broke her up into two characters. If you think Return is retconned. Go pay attention to what Yoda said at the end of Empire. It's not like this came straight out of Wichita, Kansas!

"There is another" is incredibly ambiguous (I even thought it was Wedge at one point).

It was on a PBS "Making of" show presented just after Jedi came out that one of the insiders revealed that they didn't even consider making Leia Luke's sister until they got stuck writing the Throne Room scene.

BCloud - I said fundamentally different because whenever I mention SW, I'm instinctively referring to just the first one. The difference resides with my outlook. Your reply, while accurate, mentioned things I wasn't even considering.

In the context of just SW '76, Luke wants adventure but is held back by numerous obstacles. He's forward momentum, but that drive has consequences. Small decisions, like picking R2, gets his uncle and aunt killed. Large ones, like rushing to free Leia, costs Kenobi his life. In the end, his drive even kills his best friend Biggs, but it allows him to save the Rebellion. Brazen young man becomes responsible adult man. Luke is Spider-Man.

With Abrams Trek, Kirk is a gambler. He's guilted into Starfleet, forced onto the Enterprise, instantly made First Officer and tricks his way into being Captain. Kirk's actions are story momentum, not character. More people put him in the right situation than he does by his own hand. Brazen young man with father issues become heralded brazen adult man. Kirk is Maverick from Top Gun.

Martin, I suppose it depends on how you look at it. From Luke's perspective, everything is set in motion by his picking R2. But he can't pick R2 unless R2 is there to be picked. (There's a reason the movie doesn't start with him.) Sometimes I wonder if the Force isn't just Hegel's cunning of reason in a different guise. Oh, and SW came out in 1977. Given how fetishized that date has become, it's hard to forget it. Apologies for the nitpick.

BCloud - I always think '76. Not sure why.

Re: R2 or no R2, I agree and I think that's how Lucas eventually began to see the first film. I haven't read the earlier drafts in some time, but I tend to believe the final story sequence came about from plot mechanics - how to introduce the threat, the female, the macguffin earlier - and post-release it turned into a study by Lucas on the galaxies hand of fate in Luke's life.

Martin, whatever the true interpretation is, Lucas wins regardless, since here it is 30+ years later and we're still talking about it in a way that few movies get talked about after that long. There were a couple of articles recently (one in Slate, one in the SF Chronicle) by moms descrbing what happened when they did (or didn't) let their young children watch Star Wars (the one and only). How many other movies would such articles be written about? I tend to think, not many. And I'm not just saying that because it's my favorite movie.

"With Abrams Trek, Kirk is a gambler."

The no-win scenario thing seems to be something he inherited from his father.

"He's guilted into Starfleet,"

Not really. Pike simply did for him what his father did for him in regular continuity. He motivated him to join Starfleet.

"forced onto the Enterprise,"

His friend feels sorry for him, and it's HIS ship after all. He is supposed to be there.

"instantly made First Officer"

Not really. His father-figure believes in him.

"and tricks his way into being Captain."

Spock looks stun at the thought of Kirk not being the Captain. He's told what to do by Spock in order to RIGHT EVERYTHING. Which is why Kirk refers to time-traveling and changing things in the process cheating.

"Kirk's actions are story momentum, not character."

Every action that happens in this movie is based around his character. It all comes back to Jim Kirk being a GREAT MAN, and Pike seeing this in him. Much in the same way Spock and others eventually see it as well.

"More people put him in the right situation than he does by his own hand."

Again, not really, but this is where FATE comes into play with this movie. Where Farci sees a plot-hole. I see FATE. It's all about FATE.

"Brazen young man with father issues become heralded brazen adult man. Kirk is Maverick from Top Gun."

It's not daddy issues as much as it's daddy got blown up when he should not have been blown up, and in turned eliminated his motivations to do more with his life issue. Maverick wanted to succeed because of his father. Kirk needs Pike to be a replace father in order to get him to live up to his potential. They are very different things.

People love this movie for the same reason they love LOST. The character work. Outside of that, it's a terribly banal, illogical (v. clever on the writers part...not), over-directed (Abrams has progressed from MI3, but gyroscopic camerawork and BSG rip-offs is hardly anything to crow about), lazy (LOST sound cues??? Really??) and stupid (so much shoddy comedy in this, whether it's the squat alien or the jarring cuts from create an uneven tone). If it wasn't for the characters, people would think Lucas had rebooted the franchise. In fact never before has Star Trek and Kirk felt so like Skywalker and Star Wars, which is a bit sad.

IO - we agree on the larger theme they were getting at, but it doesn't change the plot mechanics.

The problem I have with your argument is that, just like the movie, it chooses bits from each universe to make it fit in service of the greater theme.

Kirk's father was never fashioned as a gambler in the TOS, but because they needed to foreshadow, he suddenly is. OK, that's fine because we only know so much about his father and the excuse to show another side is time disruption. But how would his death not be motivation for Kirk to join Starfleet if the point of the fleet is what Pike said? Also, Kirk's mother was not just a part of Starfleet when he was born - she was still actively involved while a kid.

The one scene with Young Kirk is supposed to set up a "bad home" situation - the mother absent, the stepfather a jerk. But how would Young Kirk not look at Starfleet as the quickest way to get out of that situation since it's what his mother does? The argument can't be that SFleet isn't in reach since they're building a damn ship just a few miles away - and his mother was still serving just a few years earlier.The Young Kirk scene was a mistake because it raises more questions than creates truths, but it was needed to balance the Young Spock scene and blow a Spock trait from subtle to massive proportions.

Everything they wanted to establish could have been accomplished without the kids scenes. You could have had the exact same bar scene except Kirk was already a cadet and the bar was near the Academy. You could have shown Spock encounter the same hostilities from other Vulcans while at the Science Academy and his only way to control his anger is by leaving for Starfleet. This is the same proposition but with forward momentum and makes Kirk a proactive character. The Fate theme stays because that's apart of the larger storyline with Spock and Nero. What it changes is motivations; Spock would not be this bubbling cauldron of mommy issues and Kirk would not be Maverick.

...and he is Maverick. Both have dead fathers. Both are egged on by surrogates who knew their dad and to reach that same potential. The difference is Kirk already knew how his father died and Maverick didn't. I'm sure the writers were aware that if they gave Pike this secret knowledge, it would be Top Trek.

Owlser's right because it's the Abrams style that trumps all. They developed a larger theme and character preconceptions first, then made a story fit around it. The issues of time-space in the movie and TV show aren't mutually exclusive.

Was the red matter exploding more synthesesia or more phantasmorgic?

Martin: I am just not down with the Top Gun reference. It's not apt, but we can agree to disagree. That aside; as the foremost SW expert on this blog. I disagree with the inference that Star Trek and Star Wars have a lot of in common all of a sudden. Kirk is still Kirk. Luke is still Luke. They are very different worlds with very different attitudes. Thus explaining why I love Trek. It's TREK. It still has TREK in there, and I love the film because of it.

IO - I agree that it is still Trek because the sci-fi is front and center. If the Fate aspect took precedent over technology, we'd be at SW.

Spock comes from Alderaan. Who knew?????

What I've never been able to understand: If Spock is a Vulcan, shouldn't he be from Vulca?

Or Vulcany.

Saw it tonight. Didn't like it. Didn't expect to either, so not too big of a deal.

"Saw it tonight. Didn't like it. Didn't expect to either...."

SERIOUSLY? SERIOUSLY? I don't want to inch into IO territory, and I realize Poland was a little so-so on it too, but I'm not even trying to needle when I say, even as a NON-TREKKER, it was the most perfect summer popcorn movie in YEARS, and at least the first 75 minutes is a MASTERPIECE on par with the original STAR WARS or STARSHIP TROOPERS.

Like, it's literally as NEAR-PERFECT as a summer mass-audience picture can be.

I can understand why other people, maybe even most people (and everybody I know who's seen it) would like it. Not for me.

One theory I have is that the less of a Trekkie you are, the more likely you are to enjoy it, which would have been the goal. But IOI probably throws that theory out the window...

I was going in kind of expecting to not like it based on the trailers. So maybe it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whatever, I don't expect or want to convince anyone.

Mr. S: if Orci and Kurtzman are smart. They will figure out a way to get Q involved in this next film. There's just too much destiny and fate in this film for it to be ignored in the next one.

Jefferson, expectations are and always be the providence of the foolish. While I understand being excited about a film, or not being all that excited. If you bring expectations into the equation. It usually goes to shit.

That aside; Lex makes the best point. It's a very good Summer film. Hell. It's a very good film. It's also still Star Trek.

Few scenes in any films fill me with more out and out joy, then the end of this film. It's like I lost these people years ago, never thought they would return, and now they are back. It's a very cool feeling to get from a movie.

Sorry you did not like it.

I disagree with everything that you said above, IOI (right?). Especially with Q - the whole point of this new franchise is to start from scratch. Bringing specific characters back would be moving backwards, not forwards (if you call this moving forwards).

The Klingons will more than likely be next.

If they decide to continue with time-space manipulation, then it's the mirrorverse or Edith Keeler. It depends on if they look at time-space as a launch point or integral to their Trek. It should be integral, but who the hell knows.

Jeff - I think the whole point is to use the original series and aspects of TNG for material to rehash. A Hit Parade of Trek Pop.

I think that you're right, Martin, in a general sense (time travel, Klingons, tribbles, Borg) but not in a specific sense (no John DeLancie, no Edith Keeler). They want to harvest the pop culture name recognition, but without exact repetition. I mean, Enterprise (the TV show) ran on the fumes of original Star Trek by tying in to Andorians and Tellarites and Data's grandfather and that kind of overly-internal in-universe stuff got the show cancelled early.

Of course, it remains to be seen how imaginative Abrams wants to be.

"at least the first 75 minutes is a MASTERPIECE on par with the original STAR WARS"

It's not within half a galaxy of Star Wars. It has some good moments, but the plot is a series of contrivances which feel gratuitious. A lot will depend on how serious they are about continuing with the structural changes to the Trek universe they've introduced. Of course, the whole "alternate universe" angle makes everything inconsequential and gives then a tremendous cop out, since any changes they do introduce won't affect what everyone has already seen.

The time differential with the ships falling through the black hole reminded me of the Planet of the Apes remake. Took me a while to figure that out. I knew it reminded me of something.

I'm surprised that even my mom mentioned to me that she wants to see Star Trek. She's never cared about that before. This movie may well have some legs.

Also, I don't like Star Trek that much. And Enterprise looked interesting to me because it looked like they could take the show in a new, gritty way. Then I watched and episode and it was the same old shit as the old Trek. I like that it looks like they really rebooted the series SERIOUSLY this time. Keep Q and that nerdly stuff out, please. Of course I say this without having seen the movie yet, if I get a chance I gotta check it out.

As I think I mentioned elsewhere, I usually enjoy the Star Trek films despite having next to no familiarity with the various TV incarnations. I skipped Nemesis, but I'll definitely see this one.

John De Lancie had a small role on this week's Breaking Bad (which is just about the best thing on TV these days).

Sorry to come into this late, but I finally saw the film.

IO,

Abrams has stated outright in numerous places that he was using Star Wars for Star Trek. He said, he was never a fan of the original, until he made this movie (why does that always feel like BS when the director says that?)

For him, the experiment was to do Star Wars in the Star Trek universe.

And it's all there:

The farmboy yearning for something bigger (but with a Han Solo disposition!)
A planet destroying space vessel
A crazy from losing his family tyrant
A planet getting destroyed.
The lobster bit was right out of Phantom Menace

It is so blatent, he was smart to admit it. Which he did several times.

So, for you to disagree about there being no Star Wars in Star Trek - is completely disagreeing with the filmmakers specific intentions (which is fine, but that does not make you right and him wrong)

I saw the movie late, because I had my girlfriend watch the TOS and Khan because I wanted a fresh opinion on which cast had better chemistry, performance, etc.

She said the original hands down.

After seeing this, one of my friends noticed two amazing Abrams plot holes - 1 from Star Trek, 1 from Lost: The Incident (I am going to put this notion forth in the next BYOB since this thread is way off the radar. Apologies to any that read it 2x)

1. STAR TREK:

Why didn't Nero just go to Romulus and warn the Romulans when he went back into the past? They couldn't take a DNA test? Hell, they probably could've used the future technology to have taken over the galaxy! (And I've read the 4 issue prequel comic to the film, and this question still has merit)

2. If Miles was so worried that Farady might be wrong about his theory, why didn't he just ask Faraday's Ghost/Spirit since he can talk to the Dead?

Oh, and IO, just because some of us don't flash it - does not make you the foremost SW expert on this forum (reading every expanded Universe novel and comic doesn't count. I've heard Lucas say in person that none of that is true canon in his eyes)

I'd wager there are a lot of super SW experts on this forum. To the point that I'm sure a contest to determine your claim would be virtually unable for anyone to win.

But, if you need that title for some kind of unnecessary validation, be my guest.

Now, the question is, can you contend that these are plot holes and you just have to suspend disbelief and go with them?

Or

Are you going to go into some kind of convoluted reasoning of why this works?

Okay, that reads like a sarcastic dick, but I mean it in a sincere, non-offensive way.

Sometimes when you explain things, you remember an obscure story element that sheds new light, or you just have a critical read on it that often causes me to have to consider the piece in a different light.

(Something I wish others could admit more around here, instead of ego wank off debates on trying to prove why they're right and in tandem the world's best expert on cinema)

1) JJ did not write it. Orci and Kurtzman did with assistance from Damon Lindelof. Do you know Damon? No? Well he knows Trek. So do Orci and Kurtzman. So JJ did what he did, but it does not make it Star Wars. Even if JJ used Star Wars for the template, anyone with half a brain would know why Star Wars is what it is, and realize Joseph Campbell had a point.

2) You apparently do not know Damon that well because JJ has nothing to do with LOST. If you want to point out a plot hole in LOST... please try.

3) To answer your question: Miles did not go with Jack, Kate, and Dan to the Others' camp. He was busy trying not to get killed from Radzinsky and his crazies. So this is not a plot hole because this situation never ever happened. Again, tried, you failed, but it's an interesting question at least.

4) Spock answers your Nero question himself, when he said; "A particularly disturbed Romulan named Nero." Do you understand the level of disturbed Nero is? Do you get that? He's focused on one thing: revenge. He's focused on nothing else. He wants revenge, and nothing else.

If he alerts Romulus. Do you really think the Romulans are going to greet him with open arms? He's a miner, with a mining vessel, and he has a crazy future story. If anything; the Romulans would have killed him before listen to his crazy story about a Vulcan helping them stop a crazy wandering start that enters the Alpha quadrant.

5) THX: you are not even on my level of Star Wars understanding. I am the foremost expert. Just because you use THX, that does not mean you know jack nor shit.

I do find it funny you bring up a PREQUEL comic as a part of the new Trek verse, then totally disregard the Expanded Universe in Star Wars. Remember where Coruscant comes from, and fuck the EU. I DO NOT STAND FOR WOOKIE KILLIN!

6) Validation on this blog? Really? That's a dealbreaker ladies!

7) There's your answers. What have we learned? You can only talk to the dead. If you are around the dead. You also can be a future Romulan with future technology, but that does not mean the Romulans' will not shove things in your cornhole! GOOD NIGHT EVERYBODY!

the problem with all that, thx, is that abrams did not write 'strek', orci and kurtzman did, and orci in particular is a huge original 'trek' series geek, not a 'star wars' fan at all.

did it ever occur to anyone that at least some elements of 'star wars', which post-dates the original 'trek' series by quite a bit, were in fact stolen from the 'trek' universe?

in the original trek:
- kirk was a small-town boy from iowa (was he specifically a farm boy? that escapes me) who followed in his father's footsteps as a starfleet captain long before luke ever yearned to follow in his father's footsteps as a jedi

- the cast in the original 'trek' was always getting abandoned on weird planets for one obscure/bizarre reason or another and attacked by weird aliens

- 'a crazy from losing his family tyrant' is a stretch; the original 'trek' was full of cheesy nutjob villains pissed-off at humans for a variety of bizarre reasons, 'star wars' doesn't have the monopoly on that one.

- likewise, planets were threatened/destroyed in 'trek', no 'wars' monopoly on that one either

i suggest that it is in fact 'star wars' that has pilfered from 'trek' lore and jj's movie isn't copying 'wars' at all but the original 'trek' in most respects, with the elements stolen from trek now being incorrectly identified as 'wars' lore (having said that, there are production design similarities with 'start wars' and the new 'strek')

further, i've not seen a single article/interview where abrams claims to want to do 'star wars' in the 'star trek' universe; i've heard him admit to being a 'star wars' rather than 'trek' kid and how glad he was to have orci there as his go-to 'trek' dude to keep it grounded in 'trek' lore; admitting being influenced by 'star wars' - what film-maker isn't? - is a lot different from jj saying his intention was to reenact 'star wars', i'd like to read where he's said that.

'I saw the movie late, because I had my girlfriend watch the TOS and Khan because I wanted a fresh opinion on which cast had better chemistry, performance, etc.

She said the original hands down.'

no way, thx, your little g-friend agreed with YOU? HUGE SHOCKER

Leah, you are doing that oh so typical (but awesome) job of twisting the nature of the conversation to another subject rather than acknowledge the topic at hand, or really, provide a valid counter point.

The Republicans in America are masters of this.

Who the fuck said that Lucas never used Star Trek as an inspiration? I didn't. In fact, I don't think that has ever been in contention. I do believe I can go back to my notes on my Lucas class and tell you where Lucas said himself how Star Trek was an influence. But I don't have time nor is that the topic at hand.

The topic at hand was, did Abrams try to make Star Wars in the Star Trek universe.

Of course, leave it to you, to get into an argument of semantics. Leah, sweetie, you're just proving me right. What you're quoting Abrams as saying is Hollywood/Politico speak for stating that he wanted to make Star Wars in the Star Trek universe.

As one of the many who considers seeing the original Star Wars in the theater as the holy experience that drove them to play the film game (I was a very geriatric 4 years old that day) -

AND as someone who DOES love Trek and puts it right under that Galaxy far, far away -

I think it's a brilliant move. As a fan, it's not what I necessarily wanted to see. But as a filmmaker understanding that you're trying to re-launch a stereotyped franchise to a 4 quadrant audience - it's brilliant.

I see I wasn't very clear - I actually happened to like the film very much on first viewing and plan on seeing it again.

I thought Karl Urban was the best, and am wondering if it almost would've been wiser to have more of the actors be more imitative rather than interpretive.

Pine was much better than I expected. It is an insult to him to compare him to Paul Walker.

However, and I haven't decided yet, if it's really that Shatner IS Kirk the same way Harrison IS Indy and that no one is going to ever match or excel with those characters. Because the actors created the character almost as much as the filmmakers.

I didn't like the Uhura love triangle. And felt that screamed either "Studio Note" or if not, it was where you could see the most that Abrams wasn't a real fan, and was smartly, hired by Paramount to make a Star Trek film for non-Star Trek fans.

I felt that unless you read the prequel comic, Nero wasn't as interesting or threatening as presented.

The Romulans as villain's didn't seem Alien, they seemed like they were some hard ass Latino Thug gang with their horrible hoodie costumes.

(They didn't even get into that his ship from the future was made off of Borg technology, which would have raised the stakes in the story for the fans, showing what classic era Kirk was up against. But then again, those fans would have read the comic. But there is a whole demographic of casual fans, that won't read the comic but will appreciate it if it's that story element was mentioned)

I guess what I keep saying to myself is

"I wish I could see the Star Trek film Abrams would make if he was as big a fan as Orci"

I wish the guy that played Kirk's father played Kirk. But I guess that's the point with the casting and story design.

I wish they had glued down the sideburns of Quinto's wig better.

I was bummed on the musical score. No memorable theme or fanfare to identify with the story. It didn't have to be based on the TV show theme, but...it just felt...like mood music.

(FTW - I feel Wrath of Khan's score by James Horner is one of the best scores in all of cinema history. Just my opinion)

The renewed look of the Enterprise, costumes, production design I liked. Except the phasers. Cool body, but I wish they looked a little more tricked out.

I actually really liked the narrative of the piece. I liked the idea of the alternate reality.

I really loved the idea that original Spock had come full circle and recognized the importance of emotions.

As a never working, always in class, actor I had a great lesson while watching the film too:

The scene with old and new Spock. As they share the scene, Quinto is holding his own and doing the character justice. But Nimoy is just commanding the scene so much that it takes you out of it with Quinto and almost makes you feel like you've just watched the best Star Trek fan fim ever.

It was a perfect demonstration of that undefinable quality that separates the great actors from the rest - Presence.

And more than anything, I was a little bummed. Bummed, because my favorite character has always been Kirk. And I've always been super bummed at how they killed off and ended his character. Such a diss to one of the main components that made the original work. One of the main reasons?

They never gave Kirk and Spock a proper good-bye at Kirk's death.

I was really hoping they could somehow get Shatner back for that kind of resolution. They did something like it, he turned it down and then dissed Abrams in the press and pissed him off - and now that the new cast is established - it will probably never happen.

Plus, it's hard to argue that for the old and bloated present day Shatner to put on the uniform would really tarnish his legacy with the character.

As for my "little g-friend agreeing with ME, and that's a HUGE SHOCKER"

So, what you're saying is - is that all women automatically like what their boyfriend likes simply because he's their boyfriend?

And you call me the misogynist?? Maybe you should take a long look in the mirror.

Damn, Leah. Why are you such a hater. Did I get under your skin that bad for sticking up for men against a certain kind of woman?

So, I'm a misogynist because there's no way I could be right because all men are pigs and scumbags and you would know because you got ruined by one right?

Just like you're not surprised that my girlfriend agrees with me because all women automatically like what their partners like. Right?

Maybe you need to put down the pints, sober up and take a long look in the mirror and consider that we're all individual souls with different paths - rather than stereotyping a person based on their gender.

(And before you go accusing me of the same, you're wrong. The women I wrote about as being the same kind of predator as those men you hate, I said were all under 40 and pretty much localized to Hollywood. As they're more concerned with fame than money, and that's why they're only here - In other words, NOT ALL WOMEN)

It's too bad you have a problem with me, when I've said I think you're way cool, and you can't bury the hatchet. That's fine.

But anytime you take a shot at my girlfriend? I don't care if you're a woman or not, I'll take you down.

Not that she would have any problem doing that her self, but she has better things to do with her time than argue with an angry alcoholic Kiwi.

And if you were a man, I'd say what I'd say to any other men that have talked shit about her liking Trek. Which is:

Do you know how rare and hard it is to find a super pretty girl that LIKES Star Trek, BSG, Firefly, Dollhouse, and Batman?

Do you know how many times I've been forced to watch crappy HGTV and soul ruining reality TV just to please my girl at the time?

You don't find many models that are Trekkers. So stop hating and appreciate that one does, because it may mean there's others, for the guys that deserve them.

Wow, you must be really pissed on the pints to be taking a shot at my girl like that.

Brave.

And misogynistic.

Congratulations.

I'm sure you're the first woman to ever EARN that title.

man, you are easy to wind up, thx.

plus you are monumentally off base, to put it kindly. each new bogus diatribe, such as the bit concerning me above in which you pretend to know what or how i think yet again - and in which you couldn't be further off the mark if you'd actually tried - only confirms it

(for the record, i don't buy the girlfriend; french canadians actually do know how to write properly, meaning they put spaces after their periods and before the the first word of a new sentence, just like everyone else. not doing so doesn't make the author appear 'french canadian', it makes the author appear as if they're trying way too hard not to be...you)

Leah. This is awesome. This is where you're proving your self to be a real ass.

Go back to the original thread where my girlfriend posted.

You will clearly see on there "Lota", who happens to know both myself and my girlfriend personally, vouch to JeffMCM that she is real.

And I think Lota would know considering she helped my girlfriend with some professional stuff, but out of respect for Lota's privacy, I will not get into the details here.

It's right there in the thread. Feel free to check it:

http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2009/05/a_rant_about_ho.html#comments

I'm sure Lota will be happy to confirm it again if asked.

So, you do realize that you're calling her a Liar as much as you are me, right?

Wow. Of all the people to pull the "I don't believe your girlfriend is real" move and make a real ass of themselves...

Also, let this be a reminder people, crazy does not equal stupid. In fact, most crazy people are really smart and brilliant.

Leah here is giving us a prime example with her first paragraph which makes absolutely no sense.

Because what she is saying is "You have no idea what I mean or am thinking" Which is a classic crazy person's tactic.

Because every time you hit the mark, they go left and change their story and go "No! You don't know what I'm thinking, you couldn't be farther from the truth!"

But how can you get to the truth when they always change what they're thinking as soon as someone hits the mark?

It's like the people who keep thinking that because the crazy person is smart and highly functional that the rational person can get through to the irrational and "win" if they tried hard enough.

But they try and try, and just as soon as you think you've gotten through to them, they go left again! Why? Because they are CA-RAZY!!!

Just witness the above posts from Leah and IO for perfect examples and realize that it's not even worth engaging because it can never turn into a real conversation with the manipulative spin.

Leah, I'm done with you, until you can stop with your passive aggressive bitch fest and try some compassion and forgiveness for whatever it is that I did that got a hair up your ass. If that's forever, then that's on you.

But you should really make sure you know your facts before you go around calling people liars on such things.

Hopefully you get your shit together for your kid's sake.

$10 says you won't even go back and check the thread and see where Lota validates and admits to knowing my girlfriend -

Because I wager you would rather be angry and delusional rather than admit you were wrong and try and make a new friend.

Sad.

But, since I don't know what you're thinking, why don't you bury the hatchet and prove me wrong?

FTR - Leah, I'm not saying you ARE crazy. Just that you're ACTING crazy with that kind of manipulative responses. Spinning every answer around and being unable to consider another perspective.

IO, it's hard to be mad at you, when we agree on just about everything taste wise (amen on the wookie killing and FU to the expanded universe. But if you think Coruscant came from Zahn. Keep reading starlog buddy. A planet that was all city and the center of everything was in Lucas' rough prequel notes that he was kicking around since before '94. In other words, Zahn had permission to explore that concept from Lucas before writing. And if you think Lucas didn't have a hand in naming it and that he didn't sign off on it first is delusional)

What does your #2 point have to do with anything? You think I don't know that's Damon's show? God, man. I work in this town, what kind of an idiot would I be to not know who the players are? I guess the same guy that thinks he would fake a girlfriend on a blog read by that same industry that he works in. Where some that read the blog know his real identity and would know if he was lying?

And if you don't think Abrams didn't take a pass on that Star Trek script, you're naive. Every director takes a pass on the script no matter the project, no matter the writer. You never know it, because it's almost always uncredited. But it happens every time and I'm sure it did here also.

And you're high on crack if you think Abrams didn't read the script for the Lost finale and give his notes and that they had to be incorporated somehow before he signed off on them?

You do understand that even though that there is only 1 or 2 credited writers on an episode, that every episode is really written by the whole staff right? You really think Abrams has no input on Lost? You think he's going to have his name on a show like that and never stay on top of it? That he never checks the scripts and gives notes before shooting? Just let Damon do whatever he wants? Are you daffy?
Wow.

As for you being the foremost Star Wars expert IO, I'm sorry buddy, but there is no fucking way that is true unless you've taken USC cinema's class on George Lucas where he himself comes to speak at the final lecture. I know for a fact that the Professor (Casper, for those in the know) was not a fan of Lucas or Star Wars and only agreed to teach the class after being pleaded with by the dean on the condition that he has unfiltered access to everything, including information and materials never before known or published. Lucas agreed and Casper had direct access to him at all times while composing the and teaching the class. It was interesting, because after studying Lucas, Casper did a complete 180 and grew to really, really admire him and claims now that Lucas is misunderstood when people pour on Lucas hate.

So unless, you have taken or sat in on that class, you can't rightfully claim that title. You wanna come here to LA for 12 weeks the next time it's taught, I'm happy to put you up and sneak you into the class. And upon completetion, I will happily give you that title.

Until then, sorry. But if you wanna keep believing you are so you can get through the day, the rest of us are happybto blow smoke up your ass

1) "I was bummed on the musical score. No memorable theme or fanfare to identify with the story. It didn't have to be based on the TV show theme, but...it just felt...like mood music."

BULLSHIT. Michael Giacchino is the best in the business today. This is another memorable score from a man, who can seemingly pull them easier than anyone else these days. His music is amazing in this film. Seriously, you obviously are a Poison.

2) Abrams taking a pass over the script is all fine and good. If it were not for Damon's involvement, and the involvement of two guys he started a TV show with called FRINGE. It's Orci, Kurtzman, then Damon and two out the three are huge Star Trek fans. This cannot be ignored.

3) Bullshit on your Coruscant story. That's Zahn's name. It existed, but Zahn gave it a name. There's even a story in the Star Wars INSIDER about it back in 97-98. Lucas decided to use it because it had became popular from Zahn's novels.

4) Abrams does next to nothing on LOST. If anything, he does a lot on Fringe, and that's Jeff Pinker's problem. Darlton run LOST. It's their show, and it has been their show from the beginning. Hell, JJ stopped working on Alias after the Super Bowl reboot. So, dude, this is TV, and I know my TV.

5) Again: I know TV. I know what the word SHOWRUNNER is, and Darlton are the SHOWRUNNERS. Abrams has admitted several times he has had very little to do with the show since season 1. If he gets a script or not is irrelevant because he's not Brian K. Vaughn, Adam Horowitz, or any other writer on LOST. He's just a guy who launched the show. He's like Sam Simon with the Simpsons.

6) Again though: he has been more involved with Fringe in it's first season, but that involvement will probably be more limited here on out. The last show JJ spent all his time with as a Showrunner was Felicity. It's TV dude. You just need to stop.

7) You cannot step to me with Star Wars. You think a class makes you know more than anyone else? Really? Well you go and be happy you know about Starkiller, and enjoy your French Canadian girlfriend's company.

A Poison fan not a poison. KEEP RIDIN!

While I love Michael Giacchino, I think this may be his weakest score yet after Incredibles, Ratatouille, Speed Racer, MI3.

But I mean, why do these discussions have to inevitably boil into "Everything about this movie is perfect and part of a perfect design superbly executed by a master filmmaker" when that never actually is the case in the real world? Can't we describe these things in accurate, shades-of-gray terms? Once in a while?

thx, i wouldn't even dignify that latest nasty, very personal, irrational tirade with a response (and i'm the 'crazy' one? right), except for lota's sake i should say that i didn't get the impression from the 'girlfriend' thread that lota actually knew the 'duchess' in real life (and i read french passably), it seemed like she was basing her belief on the exchange in the comments, but the conversation is a little confusing so i could be mistaken, and if lota tells me she knows the duchess in real life and it's the same person who posted here as your girlfriend, i believe her unquestioningly. and if so, i owe you, thx, an apology, as much as it may stick in my craw because after your latest diatribe above you have gone from being merely full of shit to full-blown asshole in my book.

jeff, just to say i agree with you about giacchino's 'trek' score, i don't think it's that special, i has a few dramatic moments but overall it's a bit of a fizzer

Jeff wrote; "But I mean, why do these discussions have to inevitably boil into 'Everything about this movie is perfect and part of a perfect design superbly executed by a master filmmaker' when that never actually is the case in the real world? Can't we describe these things in accurate, shades-of-gray terms? Once in a while?"

Whose accurate terms? Whose shades of gray? I do not see the world like you. If you cannot get totally excited by something, if you cannot get lost in something's awesomeness, and if you cannot feel a sense of awe. Well buddy, that explains the differences between you and I. I got a sense of a whimsy. You've just a got a sense.

IOI, this is what drives me crazy about you. I don't get the sense that you're even trying to pay attention to what I'm saying, you just produced a knee-jerk reaction against what I was saying. Your phrase "Whose accurate terms/Whose shades of gray" is meaningless - it's possible to disagree about the quality of the movie or what we all got out of it, because those are subjective, but there are also things that are objectively discussable, like 'Star Trek is a reboot' or 'it looks different from every prior Star Trek movie' and when I say shades of gray, I mean parsing out the areas where it succeeds or doesn't succeed, and give credit to different areas where credit is due. And in all your posts, I never get the sense that you're actually engaging in a conversation, a give and take - just a long series of neverending monologues.

Star Trek is pretty good, the score's intermittantly good AND intermittantly bad (I still think Giacchino's work on "Lost" is the best scoring television has ever seen); Bones starts out strong then fades into the catchphrase background when the Kirk/Spock relationship gets pushed forward; and the two-dimensional villains are the biggest weakness that keeps the movie from reaching greatness (they belong in a Next Generation film, not a reboot).

Wow. Leah. What another amazing about of denail and spin. It's all right there, and you still infer Lota must be mistaken or is lying?

Trust me, you owe her and myself and my girlfriend (who can't believe you're behaivor btw) a real apology.

And again awesome denial and spin calling me the full blwn asshole when you've pulled the equivalent if not more. Ever since you've decided you didn't like me, you've tried to bait me with passive aggressive statements for months when I've tried to be cool.

So you're the one being passive aggressive and calling others liars when on a blog with professionals in my proffession, when you are on the other side of the world and have no clue what you're talking about, I call you out on it while sticking up for my girlfriend and I am now the full blown asshole? Why? Because I hit too close to home with my reponse?

How is "Lota knows my girlfriend in person and can refute your libel accusation that I would lie about my love life"

How is that nasty? You are such a hater. You don't even know what I look like, but you automatically assume that because I come on here all the time and like Star Trek and Star Wars and bitch about predatory women, there's no way I can have a girlfriend, right?

Wow. That's three posts in this this thread alone where you just make blanket judgements based on supposition without facts. Who are you? George Bush?

God, you should have just said: "THX, I saw what Lota said. You were right, I was wrong. But I still think you're full of shit about everything else and you're an asshole."

At least then you would just look mean, instead of mean, libel, and a jackass.

Lota says in the thread "I know THX's girlfriend, she is real."

And then she starts talkin' to my girl in French. How is that hard to misunderstand?

Hmmm...looks like you didn't go back and check, but went off memory. Again, proving your self wrong and me right.

You can keep the $10, Leah. Use it on a class that can improve your judgement, social and deductive skills, you obviously need it.

Next time I talk with Lota, I will make sure she spells it out to you. I hope I'm as wrong in my assumption that you're not woman enough to apologize to me for be slanderous and libel and accusing me of such a stupid move in front of professionals.

But you will apologize to Lota and especially my girl the dutchess, for calling them both liars (which you still are btw, with that non-commital, I didn't understand Lota BS)

I call you out on the truth, and instead if being an adult, you try to spin it around and make me seem like even more of a liar and bad guy.

Oh man, I pray and pray and pray you don't so this to your kid when the time comes in life (and it will come) where you are wrong and your kid is right. You don't Make him feel even worse and accuse him of being wrong when you both know he's right (just like here)

Because that is an excellent way to create trust and dependency issue for him later, when he begins to form intimate relationships later.

For his sake, keep an open mind as to when you're being absolutely upside down wrong about something and don't let your pride get in the way of acknowledging it and being adult enough about it to admit when you're wrong.

Otherwise you're just transferring all the same damage you've got and putting it on him.

But, that just makes me so nasty right? To call you out on your shit?

Again, I'm done with you until you're ready to admit you are behaving like an ass and apologize to Lota and my girl.

And you call me the asshole? Do you always pull childish moves like that? Instead of being adult and admitting you're wrong and apologizing, it's just easier to make me look like a bad guy and just dig your self deeper into the hole huh?

Leah, you can hate me forever. The feeling is not mutual. When you're ready to apologize to Lota and my girl, the olive branch to friendship is extended. If you'd rather swing punches and falsely accuse people of lying, then that's on you.

You know, fuck it. I'll throw it down right now, just for you Leah:

If you wanna doubt and hate, and need irrefutible pr

The girl and I would be happy to have a Los Angeles THB in person get together at Molly Malone's.

Poland, Lex, Jeff, Martin S, T. Holly and any other LA local THB regular can come have drinks, meet my girl, and we can all have a good laugh.

And when they all jump on, and say they have met her and she's cool, will you call them liars as well?

It would be fun to put some faces and voices with the words here.

The gauntlet is thrown down. We are open to meeting any LA THB regulars that want to gran a drink.

(Preferrebly Lex. Mainly because I'm pretty chubbed out right now from steamrolling through my script and not excercising. And him seeing an out of shape guy with a hot girl might show him he's not as hopeless as he believes. Which is how this whole thing got started. Oh wait, I'm supposed to be a master bullshitter! I'm not chubby at all, I'm built better than Brad Pitt!)

Well, there it is. We're willing to meet anyone here in person (for fun as much as anything)

So if I am still lying, then I must be straight jacket crazy because then I am painting myself in a corner.

There it is. Name the time and date people. THX and his girl will be there, so Leah can stop embarrasing her self. (I think anyone would see that we are not what they expect)

Who's down?

guys guys...I am trying to get 6 plane tickets to coordinate and get out of town for work for a number of weeks like days...then i saw this yipes no need to fight, among friends.

THX's gfriend is French Canuck very tall, model/actress and seems like a genuinely nice person and that is her real self on her moniker-typepad thingy, (whereas I would only ever do the artist rendition for fear of kooks so she is more brave than I). So she IS real...but at the same time Leah doesn;t need parenting tips, she seems sensible enough to have gotten as far as she has.

Both girlfriends/personal family life should be off-blog entities...movies are the better discussion forum for this place.

and somewhere over the rainbow:

let's hope no more Lex self-hate and IO and Jeff call a truce...and peace in Afghanistan.

Well maybe the latter is more likely than IO and Jeff coming to an understanding : )

We need a UN resolution for Jeff and IO.

That works for me.

Thanks Lota.

You're right about the pic. That was temporary in an attempt to avoid the exact accusations that ended up getting thrown. I'm sure she will follow your lead. She actually did just go through something like that. Remind me to tell you about it sometime when we're not conversing in a public forum.

And Leah, for what it's worth. Whatever, it is that got me deep down on your shit list, I sincerely apologize for my part.

I'd like to believe that at some point we can wipe the slate and hit the reset button.

I freely admit to being a sensitive artsy fartsy type. The kind that reads something here (or anywhere); get emotionally flared up, type something and post it. And then after some time or a good nights sleep, realize that I don't feel the same way about what I posted at all, and sometime regret it. And I'm sure if there was an a re-adjust and edit feature after posting, half the shit that ends up here from me would be deleted and never seen. Which I'm sure would make many that come here happier :p

Lota: I am going to try once again to get through to the guy, and here's hoping it works.

Jeff wrote; "IOI, this is what drives me crazy about you. I don't get the sense that you're even trying to pay attention to what I'm saying, you just produced a knee-jerk reaction against what I was saying. Your phrase 'Whose accurate terms/Whose shades of gray' is meaningless - it's possible to disagree about the quality of the movie or what we all got out of it, because those are subjective, but there are also things that are objectively discussable, like 'Star Trek is a reboot' or 'it looks different from every prior Star Trek movie' and when I say shades of gray, I mean parsing out the areas where it succeeds or doesn't succeed, and give credit to different areas where credit is due. And in all your posts, I never get the sense that you're actually engaging in a conversation, a give and take - just a long series of neverending monologues."

Jeff, did you just read THX's posts? Those are monologues. Please not the difference.

You also miss the point. Whose level are we going to grade things? What's the point in even comparing this film to previous Star Trek films? You seemingly want to have discussions about things no one else is bring up. So why don't you bring it up Jeff? Set the discussion. You are capable of doing so, but you seemingly want everyone else to do the work! YOU DO THE WORK! PLEASE!

This right here though, is really weird; "and when I say shades of gray, I mean parsing out the areas where it succeeds or doesn't succeed, and give credit to different areas where credit is due."

I do not function this way. I can do it, but I do not spend my time on something that works half and half. What's the point? Wow. This film had a really great score, but it sucked! Who gives a shit about that type of discussion? Obviously you do Jeff, but I AM NOT LIKE YOU! If you want to discuss films in such a way, then why don't you get the conversation started?

You seem to be mad at me for not thinking like you, or wanting to have discussions like you. I am sorry, but these are your problems. They are not mine.

So to sum up: Jeff wants me to be like him, or he wants me to discuss things like he does. The fact that I do not. Upsets the man greatly, but that's his problem.

I cannot really hate on him anymore. Poland's hatred for him is too much, and he deserve better than what he's been receiving around here. Even if he does not like the way I post or respond to his questions.

THX: Have you ever seriously considered how much you might reduce your stress if you simply told anyone who doubts anything you say about anything to go fuck themselves?

IO,

So because they're showrunners, they don't have to go through standards and practices and J.J. never reads the scripts and gives notes? Everything you're stating is just info you pull from Press. Until you are on set and get me on there and walk me right up to Damon and J.J. And they say IO/Curtis/LaFleur is right, you're just regurgitating web stuff.

Good God, Man. Stop putting words into my mouth. I never said I didn't like the Lost composer. I think he and his score on that show rocks. But his Star Trek score was a disappointment.

And are you saying this Trek score is better than Wrath of Khan's score? Or that it isn't, but still very good?

Jeff, you can't get anywhere with IO, because he can't understand the difference between opinion and fact. Meaning, no matter what conclusive evidence you present, you will never get through because IO is convinced his "opinion's" are facts. And it's from this viewpoint he attacks others.

As for your 97-98 Insider refrence, yeah, that's not coming from a publication that wasn't even part of Lucasfilm but had the license from them until it was up and Lucasfilm gave it to another publication to handle.

Unless your real name is Pablo Hildago or Steve Sansweet, you're just not that guy. And I'm not claiming to be that guy either, but it's not you.

IO should be called George Reeves for the Superman urban legend.

IO, like Reeves in the legend, is the guy standing on the roof and no matter how much you tell him that gravity is real and he cannot fly and is going to fall to the ground and die, he steamrolls you. Tells you you're wrong, only he knows how or why he can fly and then insults you and proceeds to jump out the window anyways.

Then he falls straight to the ground, almost dies, and then gets right up and does it again telling you that you don't know what you're talking about, and only he understands how to fly, as he heads up to jump off the roof again, only to fall ad infitum.

This is what its like to discuss movies and tv with IO. Unless you bow down and agree with every part of his delusional ego, you're wrong. Even if you agree in general.

I guess others are right. It is just best to put the safety helmet on you, and just ignore you while you proceed to keep ramming your self into the wall, over and over again.

Bummer. Because you have some really smart insights. Too bad your tremendously fragile ego has to be appeased all the time, getting in the way of a real conversation.

Instead we are forced to just bow down to your self perceived expertise or just fuck off. How limiting

I hate to unleash it, but it must be unleashed. NATIONAL MIDNIGHT STAR STYLE!

"IO, so because they're showrunners, they don't have to go through standards and practices and J.J. never reads the scripts and gives notes? Everything you're stating is just info you pull from Press. Until you are on set and get me on there and walk me right up to Damon and J.J. And they say IO/Curtis/LaFleur is right, you're just regurgitating web stuff."

JJ said this himself the first time he was on Stern. He has stated as much several times. You are simply not accepting what it is: JJ has very little input on LOST. He had very little input on Alias as well. He had more input on FRINGE this year than he has had on any show since season 3 of Alias. So, yeah, it's TV, and I know TV. Stop being a dick about something you can go find on google. Hell, do you own season one of LOST? Isnt he on the pilot commentary stating it was Damon's idea, and he just helped sell it to ABC? Jesus man. Get a fucking grip.

"Good God, Man. Stop putting words into my mouth. I never said I didn't like the Lost composer. I think he and his score on that show rocks. But his Star Trek score was a disappointment."

Disagree.

"And are you saying this Trek score is better than Wrath of Khan's score? Or that it isn't, but still very good?"

Not that big a fan of Wrath of Khan. I like TMP better, and I like that score more as well.

"Jeff, you can't get anywhere with IO, because he can't understand the difference between opinion and fact. Meaning, no matter what conclusive evidence you present, you will never get through because IO is convinced his 'opinion's' are facts. And it's from this viewpoint he attacks others."

Uh I read a lot, and I know a lot of stuff. Excuse me for knowing more than you. You are coming at me with an opinion as to how LOST works. While three of the guys responsible for the show have stated how it works. Excuse yourself for not understanding how to perceive information.

"As for your 97-98 Insider refrence, yeah, that's not coming from a publication that wasn't even part of Lucasfilm but had the license from them until it was up and Lucasfilm gave it to another publication to handle."

Yeah Lucasfilm bought over the Insider in the early to mid-90s. It was an officially licensed LUCASFILM MAG from that point forward. Again, you are getting mad at me for not know as much as me. Wow. Shocker.

"Unless your real name is Pablo Hildago or Steve Sansweet, you're just not that guy. And I'm not claiming to be that guy either, but it's not you."

Well I would have had an awesome SW collection. If most of it did not get stolen. Tear.

"IO should be called George Reeves for the Superman urban legend."

Uh oh. He's getting worked up.

"IO, like Reeves in the legend, is the guy standing on the roof and no matter how much you tell him that gravity is real and he cannot fly and is going to fall to the ground and die, he steamrolls you. Tells you you're wrong, only he knows how or why he can fly and then insults you and proceeds to jump out the window anyways."

You suck at analogies. Please stop it. I would also do one or two things if you were acting that way. 1) I would jump off the roof with you all Lethal Weapon style into the await airbag. 2) I would yank you off the roof the best I could.

"Then he falls straight to the ground, almost dies, and then gets right up and does it again telling you that you don't know what you're talking about, and only he understands how to fly, as he heads up to jump off the roof again, only to fall ad infitum."

You really are the artsy fartsy type of guy who cannot sum shit up properly. Fucking hell.

"This is what its like to discuss movies and tv with IO. Unless you bow down and agree with every part of his delusional ego, you're wrong. Even if you agree in general.

I guess others are right. It is just best to put the safety helmet on you, and just ignore you while you proceed to keep ramming your self into the wall, over and over again.

Bummer. Because you have some really smart insights. Too bad your tremendously fragile ego has to be appeased all the time, getting in the way of a real conversation.

Instead we are forced to just bow down to your self perceived expertise or just fuck off. How limiting."

I love how this always comes down to the type of person I am. What about the type of person you are? You drag your lady into a disagreement on THE INTERNET! You write these long and rambling post that seemingly have no end. You insult my ego because your own ego is seemingly getting stomped upon.

I share with you common knowledge stuff, and you get all pissy about it. Sorry. Go use the google or Wolfram Alpha, and figure out why you are wrong about LOST.

Why I am personally attacked by countless people on this blog is a mystery to me. Stop trying to figure me out. You have no idea where I am coming from, and why I am coming from there. So stop trying to connect the dots to a connect-the-dots puzzle you seeming do not want to understand.

Totally Joe. And that would be the norm.

But when there's people that read this blog, that I'm doing business with that know my real identity, but have not met or know of my girlfriend, it's not a good idea to let them falsely believe that I might not only be a liar, but be so stupid about it.

It really is a small town, you know that.

So therein lies the rationale for the defensiveness.

Cheers.

IO,

You are a funny mofo. Okay. You win. You are the king. We all bow dow to you. You are the Jacob of all things cinema/TV.

None of us can play. You are the best and the rest of us don't deserve to be in the same room with you.

(Bowing)

Okay, it's been fun. Have to go to work now. Later.

You are the master IO, you are the master, you are the master...

(keeps repeating it, as he backs out of the room. Never taking his eye off of IO, afraid for his life and when he gets clear, runs for it)

You are a fucking mixed-up dude THX. Why you motherfuckers think you can be so rude to me and condescending is a fucking mystery to me. You know shit about me. If people you work with are coming here and reading your responses to me. They have to fuck you know you are really out there, or a very sensitive soul. Who... tear... has such a big heart, that everything gets to him. Whateverthecase, you are fucking weird. Really fucking weird.

It would be awesome if IO had a stroke from all the constant excitement he experiences.

lota: thanks for clearing that up. and for the record, regardless what thx says i misinterpreted the comments on the girlfriend thread - completely my bad - and i never thought you were being deceptive at any time in any way.

thx: for thinking your girlfriend was a desperate ruse and telling you so, i apologise unreservedly and accept that i was at fault.

IO,

You can think what you want about me, but I am a fan of you and on your side. What I don't understand is how you can get so defensive and upset about that last post and use the words rude and condescending and not comprehend how you do the same. I was just being a mirror to you.

Oh, and you've proven what I already knew. I'm not the only sensitive one in here. I'm just man enough to admit it

Seriously dude, you make it so much harder then it has to be. If you absolutely refuse to consider anyone else's opinion or view, and just intend to keep steamrolling over everyone, never taking their knowledge and adding it to your own. But rather, shout them down everytime and tell them they are wrong and demean them for it and only you are right?

When you restrict the conversation to those limits, what other recourse do we have, then to just tell you want you want to hear? That you're the best, and nobody is as smart or insightful as you.

That's the only choice you're giving the rest of us, so I am just giving you your wish so we can keep it moving. And that's still not good enough.

Sorry to hurt your feelings dude. Wasn't my intention. I was trying lighten up the tone since Joe made me aware I was coming across like Anne Heche in menopause.

Okay, now I'm really going to work. I hope this thread provided some good Entertainment to the lurkers that are reading, no doubt shaking thier heads and thinking "Freaks"

And for all of my part, I don't blame them.

Late.

Leah,

You fucking rock.

Apology more than accepted.

Again, I apologize on my end as well for anything and everything, and will do my best to have some better manners and not come off like an abrasive shit talker in general.

Late

Perm: you remain the biggest piece of shit on this blog. You should be getting a column anyday now. Congratulations.

THX: yeah, still, what the fuck ever. That's not what happens, but if you think that's what happens. Whatever happened, happened. Although what happened happened because it could not have happened any other way. Unless you have the power to prevent it from happening that way, and making time or whatever. I still do not get how cheating on Monica Belucci is a good move, but apparently it is a good move. Once you have the power to make time.

Nevertheless, that's not how it happens THX. If you are going to go down that road with me, then you better be ready to go down that road. If not, you are jeff, and Perm loves jeff. Do not be an ECD. You are better than that sir. I think. I am not sure. Excuse me. I must eat my fish before Jeff comes walking up to me, reassures me he's going to kill me via a loophole, and states my absolute foolishness in believing humanity can progress in anyway what so ever.

IOI, what I'm asking for in my comments up above was to have an adult conversation. The kind where educated people enlighten each other and bounce ideas around, instead of screaming and demanding absolutism.

IOI wrote: "Why I am personally attacked by countless people on this blog is a mystery to me. Stop trying to figure me out. You have no idea where I am coming from, and why I am coming from there. So stop trying to connect the dots to a connect-the-dots puzzle you seeming do not want to understand."

I want very much to understand you and figure you out to be able to know where you're coming from. You're right, nobody here knows anything about you. What we know is based solely on what you write and how you present yourself. And based on that information, you appear to be an out-of-control crazy person. Maybe that's not how you are in real life - but to the best of our knowledge, based on the available evidence, that's the reasonable conclusion.

I just got back into this entry, having not looked at it since Saturday afternoon...

GEEZ!

I can't complain about the rather personal battles given that I engaged them intentionally just a week or so ago... but I will remind, personal leads to more personal and there is no good answer. It's very difficult to be "the bigger person" and to let what feels personal slide.

To quote IO, "Why you motherfuckers think you can be so rude... and condescending is a fucking mystery to me."

This can be said TO IO as well.

Thing is, some of us are in the muck... some of us are sideline dwellers. We all know who we are, but we don't always know who the other people are... and that doesn't matter because of status, but because of the experiences one brings to each discussion. Often the people who have the least real knowledge scream the loudest... but not always.

Then you get the occasional drive-by by someone like Grady Stiles (I think I have that right) to tell people they are not right about tracking, but never offering what is right, which can be infuriating... which makes him/her not helpful, but not ignorant.

Of course, it's weird that this has become a community, more than a place to have easy, open conversation. So like any high school, personalities, instead of ideas, clash when they hang out as much as many of you do.

Point... I appreciate the contributions all of you make (even those who piss me off for various reasons) and wish we could all avoid the cheap shots that lead to ongoing feuds, distracting from the real issues I am hoping to provoke discussion about.

If I may be so bold as to make this observation: It appears to me that there are a couple people (maybe more) who enter this arena with the idea in mind that THEY will set the agenda, and THEY will control the rules of debate, and THEY will decide what's relevant and what's not, and THEY will admonish those who aren't behaving themselves. They are, to put it charitably, presumptuous. (As opposed to me, who's merely condescending.) As a result, not only do they get flamed -- the flamers take unseemly delight in doing the flaming. The spectacle can be amusing... periodically. But I can understand if David worries that this place may turn into a freak show visited only by those with a taste for steel cage matches. Folks, as david often reminds us: This is his living room. And I don't recall him asking anyone (me, least of all) to serve as hall monitor when he's not around.

There are plenty of living rooms where this spectacle doesn't happen.

And Joe, you are a meta-monitor.

Neither Joe or David points out that Jeff refers to me an out of control crazy person. This is the type of shit that pisses me off. The same goes with Perm wishing a stroke on me, death on me, and everything else on me.

It's obvious that Jeff and I have different ideas of what an adult conversation is and how to have one. The way he wants to discuss things is boring and lame to me. I do not pick things apart Jeff. I am not a scavenger. The way you want to discuss things is ridiculous to me. If you do not understand that, then fuck you. You have earned that fuck you. You have earned it. So wear it proudly.

What I do not get is this: David is always obtuse about his response to these situations. When the guy should be firm. People have wished fucking ill on me. If you think referring to these people as douchebags is as bad as wishing a malady on them, or referring to them as having mental problems. Well, I still disagree, and I want you to get my back fucking once. Just fucking once you can straight out tell these people that they are being assholes. You can tell me this all the day. You blame me -- THE VICTIM -- again in your response to me. So I am getting of this shit and it needs to be settled. Thanks in no small part to the parties involved that are not me, being some grandiose jackasses.

Related story: last night around 11pm I was at In-n-Out on Sunset Blvd, and there was some dude in the middle of the parking lot who decided to take a piss. Not on the fringe of the parking lot, where he could have subtly avoided being noticed, but right in the middle. So I saw him, and I yelled at him "You're in public!" and if I had pressed the issue, the guy probably would have punched me.

Seriously, what the fuck is that all about? If this were any respectable board. You would be gone, and everyone else whose gone PERSONAL would be gone. I would probably be told not to curse, and would oblige the person. The fact that David lets you and others get away with some mean and vicious shit, has to be reason NUMBER 1 as to why we have very few new members on this board. It's time to crack the fuck down, but the dude lacks the ability to crack down. Which leads to Jeff referring to me a dude pissing in public. Thanks David. Thanks a lot.

I didn't refer to you in that way at all, IOI. I was referring to myself.

Obviously we have issues with each other and I'd be happy to find a way to resolve them without bogging down David's blog and I'd be happy to make amends with you in a manner of your choosing.

Dude, have you seen how kind I have been to you lately? I am nice to you, go out of my way to get your back, and you still piss on me. Seriously man; you cannot even be nice to me when I am being nice to you. So I have no idea what the fuck to do, because obviously there's no winning in this situation for me.

I appreciate your semi-respectful words from a few days ago. I didn't say anything because I didn't think it was necessary.

Meanwhile, if you wanted to explain how I have victimized you, that would give me the information necessary for me to either apologize, or explain why my behavior was justified.

For example, I understand that your feelings may have been hurt when I said the above line about being crazy. But read it again. I didn't say you were a crazy person, I said you acted like a crazy person. There's a difference. And my perception that you act like a crazy person is immmutable - the only way around it is if you can rationalize it for me in some way (and there are several ways, the easiest of which is if you believe you have been simply misunderstood).

Jeff, this is why you fail; "And my perception that you act like a crazy person is immmutable - the only way around it is if you can rationalize it for me in some way (and there are several ways, the easiest of which is if you believe you have been simply misunderstood)."

This right here demonstrates how very little you use the internet. We had this discussion back in 06 when I left for Fan Forum. You simply have no clue as to what makes a crazy person online, and if you think I act like one. You once again live a very sheltered internet life.

There is no way in hell you or anyone else could perceive me as crazy. Unless you really have no idea how the net works. I do get excited, I do throw down when I have to, but I am not a shipper. Shippers work on a level of crazy that's pretty good damn odd and funny at the same time. So comparing me to a shipper proves how ridiculous your thoughts of me acting like a crazy man really are Jeffy Poo.

So again... you have no idea what crazy on the net is, and you always misconceive everything I do. Due in large part to your very sheltered net existance, and your lack of knowing any better. Seriously, go back to 2006, and realize we have had this conversation before. You simply refuse to GET IT.

dp, point taken.

my bad on this one; i realise i instigated it with my impulsive rebuke to thx's (what i found) annoying comment about his seemingly sycophantic (and non-existent, oops) girlfriend, which i didn't realise at the time was fueled by my lingering disgust with him over the whole 'playboy pimp/prostitution site link' episode on this blog from a while back, which i personally found deeply offensive, out of line, very difficult to let slide as a reader/commenter on this blog and obviously difficult to forget. my issue.

(thx, please don't write a lengthy rebuttal, i think we've both said enough)

and joe, if that remark above is aimed at me, which it sounds like it is, ftr i don't fancy myself a cop or a moderator or arbiter of anything here in the slightest, i comment only when i feel compelled to share an opinion for whatever reason, and i do so honestly and from the heart, i'm an open person and i wear my heart on my sleeve. if i take serious umbrage or offence at something and feel the need to tell somebody off, i speak for me, myself and i only - just the three of us - i don't fancy my opinion has any more or less merit around here than any one else's, i just express myself because that's my nature. if i think someone is really acting like a fuckwit - such as the io/iheart/lafleur deception - i'll say so, not as a hot blog cop but as a hot blog participant. i try not to make things personal because i know from experience personal attacks can hurt, but i'm human and i fuck up, and sometimes it is difficult to separate comments from the personality behind them.

i can say with a clear conscience that i make a concerted effort to read and understand what other people have to say and consider opposing viewpoints and not shoot from the hip, but if i vehemently disagree i'll go down all guns blazing. so i'm sorry if you don't approve of my methods, if indeed you don't. if i got your drift wrong, then just disregard the former.

I don't consider myself a hall monitor either, I just like calling IO a douchebag.

AND TO CLARIFY I am not insulting him here...IO stated that calling people a doucebag is not an insult. So, IO is simply the biggest fucking doucebag on the internet.

NOT AN INSULT.

Leah and Perm: Actually, no. To paraphrase T.S. Elliott, you are not what I meant. You are not what I meant at all.

Perm: people curse at one another all the fucking time. If you do not get how there's a difference between cursing at one another and wishing a stroke on someone. Well, really, you are a daft bugger from Pennsylvania: the Alabama of the North.

IOI, we did have this conversation in 2006, and you didn't make any more sense then than you do now (although your writing is much more intelligible).

So just in closing, I finally did just walk away from the guy peeing in the In-n-Out parking lot. But I at least gave it some effort.

Oh, and Joe - I'd say that you're adorable when you're being all coy and passive-aggressive, but you're not. You're obnoxious and self-serving.

What on earth is so fucking confusing Jeff? What do you not get? Make some damn sense man.

ALl I seem to get from you is this: "Why don't you talk about the stuff I want to talk about?" I follow with this; "The way I discuss things is fine. I have tens of thousands of post on the net, and no one has ever responded to me the way that you have." You follow with this; "That doesn't mean anything. I want you to discuss things my way." I follow with this; "Sorry, not interested." You follow and conclude with this; "I think you are stupid. Fuck off."

Seriously Jeff, you are one hell of a pisser Your inability to understand my writing is your problem. It's your fault that you lack the ability to start a topic on this forum, that you find interesting.

You see the change that you want in the world. Do not give me shit for not doing what you want me to do. The fact that you dare imply I am hard to understand. Pretty much emphatically states how much of a lost cause you are. No wonder Poland hates you. You lack the ability to think outside of your own perceptions, and this makes you about as interesting as beefy jerky.

IO: That's a terrible thing to say. Some beef jerky is delicious. And nutritious.

http://www.goldenvalleynatural.com/?page=prod&ID=23

Oh God, Leah, you're coming across like a grudge holder.

As for that link, Wow, have you never been more wrong about that.

And you do sit on a high horse. A very high, angry horse.

You judge everybody.

Jesus didn't judge anyone and used to hang with prostitutes, so what gives you the right to think you're better than God and allowed to cast judgment on fellow souls?

I offered a sincere apology, and you're still holding a grudge.

You've got some deep, deep issues.

Hopefully one day the grudge holders of the world will learn that holding on to all that anger and pain - the only person you're hurting is your self.

FTR - I NEVER dragged my lady into this. She jumped on here her self because she saw a bunch of people being dicks (Leah included) to her boyfriend, plain and simple. I have nothing to prove to anyone here.

But she has been reading Leah's posts and is just laughing at her stupidity and feels sad that she's so angry. And sad for whatever happened that makes her hate men so much.

DP - Sincere apologies for my part in everything over the years.

Since you don't believe in banning; I'm going to go ahead and just ban myself from here on out for an indefinite amount of time.

This place is too much of a distraction now.

As my favorite Jedi says:
"Your focus determines your reality"

And I want to make films, rather than BS here about them and whatever else.

Peace and prosperity to everyone, even the grudge holders.

I'm out. It's been fun.

sheesh, thx, i honestly don't know what you're on about, i'm a fan of man, ask anybody. not so much a fan of you, though, at the moment

and i'm a bit of an easily amused weirdo who usually goes through the day laughing at stupid shit, so i'm really not the david banner type, though stuff does piss me off from time to time like any normal person. and i gotta admit, you do kinda piss me off. so i wish you'd just leave me alone now because you're freaking me out and making me paranoid. feel free to have the last word, i've said my piece and like jim carrey at the bar in his cowboy hat in 'dumb and dumber', 'i don't caaaaaaaaaaaaare!'

I would like to take the time to curse at IO and call him a motherfucking piece of shit. Yay, by IO's terms, this isn't an insult! I think I'll call the guy at the bank a fuckface today! He won't be insulted at all!

And then I'll call my mom! I'll say "How's it going, you fucking slimy cunt," and she'll say "Hi honey, you want to come over, I'm making meatloaf?"

Good lord you are stupid. You once again contribute NOTHING to this forum. You should be banned.

The fact that you do not get how there's a difference between referring to someone as a DOUCHE or calling them a motherfucking piece of shit. Well, really, it's you. You have absolutely shown ZERO ability to being anything more than a nuance in this blog. If I tell Jeff to FUCK OFF, that's not an insult. If you I call you a DOUCHE or refer to as a FUCKWAD, that's no different than telling you to fuck off.

Now... dumb dumb... referring to me as an motherfucking piece of shit is insulting. Insulting my mom is you once again demonstrating your very limited East Coast mental stamina.

You should be banned. If you are allowed to post anymore on this blog. David Poland is being even sillier than he has been as of late.

East Coast? Still don't get it.

'piece of shit' = insult
'Fuckwad' = not insult.

Whuh?

"If I tell Jeff to FUCK OFF, that's not an insult. If you I call you a DOUCHE or refer to as a FUCKWAD, that's no different than telling you to fuck off."

IOIOIOI, are you seriously this far out of touch with reality? That second sentence alone is absolute nonsense in the real world. I can see how you can get a persecution complex here when people sling something back your way since you've demonstrated that you can't even recognize your own putdowns for what they are. Maybe you're hanging out in circles where calling people "douche" and "fuckwad" is the same as calling them "pal" or "bud", but I promise you, if that's the fact, those circles are anomalies, and you would get your ass kicked by any number of people in real life if you started saying those words with the attitude you usually say them here.

Hal: I do run in those circles. We curse one another out all the time, take no offense by it, and laugh about it. You folks seem to lack to same joviality, and it may be my mistake to assume you could hang. My bad. Nevertheless Hal, if you want to fight me. I will be more than accommodating. Bring Jeff and Perm with you in order to make a fair fight.

"I do run in those circles. We curse one another out all the time, take no offense by it, and laugh about it."

I know you've said that before, and I completely understand what you're talking about in that sense, I've been in those circles too. But I'm just trying to get you to recognize that outside of a given circle, especially online in text where a jovial tone is easy to get lost in the translation, the exact same words come off as hostile and offensive instead of jocular and semi-affectionate.

There's also a difference between what you and your friends are allowed to say to each other versus what a passer-by or an outsider might say to you. Since you know you're just taking the piss out of your friends and vice versa, it doesn't mean the same thing as a stranger calling you a "fuckwad" or a "douchebag". It's all about the context and who's saying it and how they say it.

So what I was trying to point out is that you're way out of your context when you try writing words like that here. People take it personally as an insult because you're not their close friend nor are you somebody they've been around long enough to know where they're coming from. You're just a guy on the internet. And whether you realize it or not, the way you've been throwing those words at some of the people here is highly insulting.

I don't have any intention of fighting you over this. If you think you're just rough-housing with your choice of words, okay, I get it. It just isn't coming off at all the way you think it is.

IO: Put it another way -- I'm sure you and your buddies might drop the N-bomb on each other. But if, say, I were to do something that on line while referring to you, you would not take it kindly.

Wow, Leah, you made THX ban himself. You're MEAN.

Now we don't get to hear his philosophy on women, or about his girlfriend. (Are we clear on this, everyone? THX HAS A GIRLFRIEND!!!)

Plus we'll never find out whether he or IO knows more about Star Wars. Fuck.

Does Lex at least have a boner? Please tell me something is right with this world.

Joe: Nigger, niggah, or dipship Shirley of the dipshit Shirley Society of North America makes no difference. Hold on for a minute, and let me respond to Hal.

Hal; "So what I was trying to point out is that you're way out of your context when you try writing words like that here. People take it personally as an insult because you're not their close friend nor are you somebody they've been around long enough to know where they're coming from. You're just a guy on the internet. And whether you realize it or not, the way you've been throwing those words at some of the people here is highly insulting."

BULLSHIT. Hal, how long have we been posting her together? It's been a good long while. The same goes with Jeff, Joe, and a few others. If I have to act formal around people who I have SHARED A BLOG WITH FOR CLOSE TO FOUR YEARS! Well, buddy, that's fucking bullshit. It's epic bullshit.

We are a small little group here. There's maybe 10 of us, and you really want me to be that I am just some random dude on the street? Shit. You are Hal, he's Jeff, and I think we should know enough about each other already to not take everything so damn seriously.

I also want you to be honest: do you find me referring to some as a douche worse than that person stating I should have a stroke? Or do you find them equally as bad? Whateverthecase, I have a line, we should all know one another by now, and I find your whole response to me totally and utter ridiculous. WE ARE A COMMUNITY! WE SHOULD KNOW EACH OTHER, BUT YOU ARE STATING THAT WE SHOULD NOT? God damn it.

Hey IHeart, just between us...don't you think IO is crazy? Before he said calling someone a douche wasn't an insult, and now he says it is. Doesn't IO seem like a lunatic? You can be honest with me, you know he is.

I like you IHeart, do you live on the East Coast? Apparently that's where IO thinks stupid people live there. Like Barack Obama! If you live on the East Coast you'd better move, because you don't want to me a dumbfuck like Obama, do you?

But hey, if you DO live out here on the East Coast we shoukd meet up! We can go to West Virginia, and I'll treat you to some corn squeezin's!

Perm: you should be banned. You contribute nothing to this blog, you never have, and Poland lets you do what you do. The sooner you go. The better off this blog will be.

No, IO. It would make a difference. For openers, both my father and mother would rise from the grave, and kick my ass for turning into some kind of redneck trash. I'm sorry, I do not wish to be presumptuous, and try to tell you that an ofay like myself knows more about racism than you do. But, I must admit, whenever I hear that word.. I think of little girls in a bombed-out church, and three young men in shallow graves. Sorry, I am sensitive about that stuff. It's like when you and David thought it was cool to use an image of an atrocity from the Vietnam War as a kind of joke to remark on the critical reponse to Speed Racer. I didn't think that was funny, either.

"BULLSHIT. Hal, how long have we been posting her together? It's been a good long while. The same goes with Jeff, Joe, and a few others. If I have to act formal around people who I have SHARED A BLOG WITH FOR CLOSE TO FOUR YEARS! Well, buddy, that's fucking bullshit. It's epic bullshit."

Not if we've never met and the only sense I have of you is from your writing style, which comes off literal. On paper (or pixels, whatever), you're pretty much severe.

"I also want you to be honest: do you find me referring to some as a douche worse than that person stating I should have a stroke? Or do you find them equally as bad?"

I don't find the word "douche" worse or equal. But if somebody came up and put a cigarette out on my arm and then somebody else came along and necklaced me with a gasoline-soaked tire, yeah, the second guy's a hell of a lot worse, but I still don't feel great about being the first guy's ashtray.

Here IO, I'll contribute something now. Don't say I never gave to the blog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMWi7CLoZ2Q&feature=channel_page

I just ran into Obama. I called him a fuckface. He just laughed. We're going cow tipping.

That video was the last straw, Perm - I BAN YOU!!!

IOI, just the other day weren't you saying that I don't know anything about you and have no right to make assumptions or guesses about what you're like in person? And today we know each other well enough to be chummy enough for you to think that I'll take the offhand 'fuckwad' as a good-natured ribbing?

ARGH. Crazy people are crazy.

Hal: how does it come across as severe? I never wish death on anyone, I never have ever stated anything close to the vile shit Perm has posted, and the worst I ever get to is FUCK YOU. Yet, it's severe, and you cannot determine a difference? God damn it, Kevin. God damn it.

Jeff: THAT'S THE POINT JEFF! You have no idea if I am crazy. You have no idea about my mental well-being. Neither do I have any idea about your's. That's personal.

When we have posted on a blog for close to five years on an almost daily basis. People on other blogs and forums where they do not have posters like Hal. Those blogs and forums get a sense of rhythm with one another. They get to know how one another work. They get to know when a person is JOKING and when a PERSON IS SERIOUS. THIS IS HOW ALMOST THE ENTIRE FUCKING COMMUNITY ASPECT OF THE INTERNET WORK EXCEPT HERE WITH YOU DEMENTED FUCKING PEOPLE! WHO LACK THE ABILITY TO NOT BE HARSH FOR ONE GOD DAMN MINUTE!

Seriously, how fucking hard is it for you to understand that there is a SEVERE DIFFERENCE between getting personal and wishing a stroke on someone? Seriously? Is it that confusing Jeff?

You should get by now what's personal and what's not. Referring to me as crazy is personal Jeff. Referring to someone that I have been bantering back and forth with for over 5 years as a fuckwad from time to time, when that person is acting like one. Well, again, every other COMMUNITY on the net works this way, but the people of the hot blog are SO HARD. THEY ARE SUCH BAD ASSES. THEY FUCKING CANNOT HANDLE BEING CALLED "ASSHOLES" WHEN THEY ACT LIKE ONE!

Fuck this place. Poland should turn off the comments, and save himself the trouble. Fuck you jeff, fuck you Perm, and fuck you Hal.

Or was I kidding? Huh? Huh? You see. If we were a better blog and a better community. Everything would not come down to this shit, but some of you act as if we have been posting here for a week. WHEN IT'S BEEN YEARS! YEARS! Any other blog or forum with the same regular posters on a daily basis do not act like you do.

The fact that Hal thinks I post too severe, and Jeff thinks I am crazy. Pretty much demonstrates a fundamental flaw in this blogs's posters. You should get it by now. We should get each other by now. The fact that you do not. Well, really, where's the fucking sense of community then? This is essentially high school, and the students have bad memories. Where's the fun in that?

Hey IO, guess if I'm kidding:

Fuck you. Get shot.

I personnaly liked the movie.We still talking about star trek,right?

Jesus, IO really went off the deep end into the crazies here, didn't he. Crazy fucker, he is....

"I personnaly liked the movie.We still talking about star trek,right?"

Oh yeah. All of this stuff about strokes and douches is in the deleted scenes. Once you get the DVD it'll all make perfect sense. We're just getting into some really obscure post-film analysis, that's all.

Isn't it weird for a Quebecoise to see people calling each other "shower"?

"Hey IO, guess if I'm kidding:

Fuck you. Get shot."

Careful Perm. That might be a marriage proposal in some circles. And wouldn't "Fuck you. Get a flu shot" be a lovelier thing to say?

Hal... you so funny.

Well, I finally saw it. Anybody still care?

I liked it. The casting worked, the effects were nice, it had that old-Trek feel with the miniskirts and V-neck shirts and phasers and crew members who are not boring stiffs in burgundy jumpsuits. No nice Klingons.

And now, in the tradition of internet posters everywhere, I'm gonna nitpick and make fun of stuff. Here are some things I observed while watching:

Lens flares will be a big problem in the future. We should invest NOW in R & D so that our children may be lens flare-free. Some kind of anti-reflective coating, maybe. We could have it in 500 years.

(Has it occurred to anyone that this shaky/flarey aesthetic is going to look extremely dated a decade or two from now? Because all trends do, yes (fast zooms, dry ice and backlighting, Steve Guttenberg) but also for a more specific reason: video cameras will one day have built-in image stabilization. Even your cell phone will be a mini-steadicam. Which means news and documentary footage will be smooth, which means the palsied cameraman effect will no longer convey urgency; it will just look like bad camerawork. It will look like the blocky green letters on the computer displays in Alien. Don't forget, you heard it here first.)

Kids will have the same haircuts and listen to The Beastie Boys in 300 years.

Eric Bana is pissed off. Again. But how did Spock cause the destruction of his world? Didn't the supernova cause it? Couldn't Spock, like, EXPLAIN this? "Did you destroy my planet?" "Dude, no, I was just passing by." "Really?" "Yeah, totally. It was one of those things." "Yeah, but -- REALLY?" "REALLY." "Well, okay. Guess we'll just give up our quest for vengeance and go ho--ah, shit. Got a couple hundred sofa beds?"

And what the hell are Romulans, exactly? A cross between Vulcans and Klingons? All I know is they're big and mean and speak English with California accents, like some kind of space Hell's Angels.

Why does their ship look all crazy and uncomfortable, like something out of Time Bandits designed by H.R. Giger? They're humanoid. They have arms and legs. Wouldn't they at least make floors you can walk on? Do they think it's funny when one of them takes a wrong step and plunges 500 feet? That should have happened in the movie, it would have been great. Maybe they KNOW they're bad guys, and build their ships and dress accordingly.

Vulcans speak English with British accents. Didn't these races use to have their own languages, with subtitles?

Spock's ears look like blobs of putty, like '50s TV bad. I expect better ears in 2009. And why cast Winona Ryder if she's not gonna be a Vulcan? If anyone looks like one already, it's her.

Chris Pine was great choice. If this role had been miscast, that would have been it: reboot DOA, Avenger's-style. He's funny, likable (and I generally HATE guys like this, smug jock Alpha dicks) and incorporated Shatnerisms in very subtle way. (I noticed it the most during the test named after one of my favorite Japanese directors and, um, an overweight cat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_AbfPXTKms .) He's fully engaged and present in way your typical hunk of beefcake is not, and I believe he's smart, regardless of whether he really is. But did he remind anyone else of Ray Liotta? No, really. Right down to the pockmarks.

Spock guy was fine. Looked just like Nimoy, lacked the deep voice. Uhura was very fine, especially in her underwear. I'm also relieved that lingerie will not change, and I'll still be able to work the bra hooks if I live a couple hundred more years. John Cho, fine. (How many of you can tell Korean from Japanese? C'mon, seriously. Chinese or Filipino, sure. But if you can tell a Korean from a Japanese just by looking, you'll also tell me you can tell a Swede from a Norwegian.) I liked Karl Urban (though I'd say I did even if I didn't, because I'm afraid of Leah, but I really did) and I hope he gets to do more than be cranky comic relief next time. Nice to know he has a sense of humor -- he was a bore in LOTR, and barely spoke in MattDamonRunsALot 2. Teenaged Chekov was good as Kyle Reese, or so I hear. When did Simon Pegg begin to look EXACTLY like Eric Idle?

I did not like seeing old Nimoy. It didn't give me a warm feeling of nostalgia, it freaked me out. Christ, he's decrepit. Thanks for the reminder of mortality, guys.

The only time I was bored was when Kirk was on the ice planet running away from CGI monsters. And then Spock just happens to be in the cave he runs into, and he scares the gigantic Cloverfield Host with an itty-bitty torch...how long was he in there, anyway? Did he have some graham crackers and marshmallows? Why didn't Eric Bana keep him on the ship to watch the destruction of Vulcan, so he could watch him react? (Or not react, since he's a Vulcan?) What if he'd been making a s'more or using the ice-toilet when it happened?

Spock's dad should have run through the hallways of the Enterprise in slow-motion. Somebody make a Chariots of Spock video, please.

Score was okay, but I wish they'd used the Goldsmith theme. (I know, people LOVE this Giacchino guy. I think he's fine, but I don't get the adoration.) It was cool at the end, with the series voice-over and theme. But if they had really wanted to get Shatner in there, why didn't they let him do the end narration? The audience would have gone nuts. Maybe that's why -- it would have been a Trekkie riot.

So, pretty good. It's Trek Begins, Trek Royale, whatever you wanna call it. Reboot accomplished. Let's hope the next one is Trek Knight and not Quantum of Star.

boo, mutherfucker!

nah, kisses. amusing review

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)