Watch Last Eight Star Trek Movie Reviews From ‘At The Movies’ | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Watch Last Eight Star Trek Movie Reviews From ‘At The Movies’ March 25, 2010

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Feature Films (TMP-NEM),Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

The balcony is going to close for the final for At the Movies, the long-running syndicated film review show has been cancelled. At the Movies made Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert household names and the show is still on the air now hosted by AO Scott and Michael Phillips, but it will end its run on syndication this year. In honor of this show, TrekMovie looks back at the Siskel & Ebert (and guest host) video reviews of eight Star Trek movies.

 

Three decades of At the Movies & Star Trek

Originally Siskel and Ebert at the Movies the ‘At the Movies’ show was launched in the Fall of 1986, just in time to review Star Trek IV. Siskel and Ebert went on to review five more Star Trek films together up through Insurrection in 1998, with Ebert and Roeper reviewing Nemesis and guest reviewers reviewing the Star Trek film in 2009. Below is a summary of each review plus a link to the video review for each on the At The Movies Website.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

Ebert: Thumbs Up
"Only in Star Trek do you have a scene that starts out in outer space and winds up in San Francisco and saving a whale."

Siskel: Thumbs Up
"One of those rarest of birds, a sequel better than the original."


CLICK to watch "Voyage Home" review at AtTheMovies


Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

Ebert: Thumbs Down
"Only going to be of interest mainly to Trekkies, and only so they can analyze what is wrong with it."

Siskel: Thumbs Down
"There is no energy in this picture whatsoever."


CLICK to watch "Final Frontier" review at AtTheMovies


Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)

Ebert: Thumbs Up
"When the film works best is when we simply see this familiar group of characters together in a series of close-ups. You know what? They like each-other and we like them for that, and you can’t fake that."

Siskel: Thumbs Up
"It’s a strange thing with these movies. One, Three and Five were bad and Two, Four and Six were good."


CLICK to watch "Undiscovered Country" review at AtTheMovies


Star Trek: Generations (1994)

Ebert: Thumbs Down
"The premise is silly, but even sillier is the ending which boils down to an old-fashioned fist fight."

Siskel: Thumbs Up
"I enjoyed the camaraderie."


CLICK to watch "Generations" review at AtTheMovies


Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

Ebert: Thumbs Up
"One of the best and brightest of the series, combining improved special effects with the continuing twin obsessions of Star Trek: the line between past and future and the line between human and non-human."

Siskel: Thumbs Up
"I think it is the best of the series, everything seems sharper than ever before."


CLICK to watch "First Contact" review at AtTheMovies


Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

Ebert: Thumbs Down
"The whole movie is less than compelling. It feels creaky as it grinds through a fairly standard plot."

Siskel: Thumbs Up
"I wanted to move into that planet and I think that is the drive here."


CLICK to watch "Insurrection" review at AtTheMovies

NOTE: Insurrection was one of Siskel’s last film reviews before passing away in early 1999. Siskel was later replaced by Richard Roeper.


Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

Ebert: Thumbs Down
"I have seen these movies since forever and I think it is time for a retread."

Roeper: Thumbs Up
"Nemesis is a worthy edition to the Star Trek Federation of movies."


CLICK to watch "Nemesis" review at AtTheMovies

NOTE: After undergoing operations in 2006 to remove cancer from his throat, Roger Ebert left the show and Richard Roeper continued on with guest reviewers until the 2008-2009 season when Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz took over. Later AO Scott and Michael Phillips became hosts for the current season.


Star Trek (2009)

Ben Lyons (E!): Thumbs Up
"Casting and story are really the keys to this movie’s success."

Ben Mankiewicz (TCM): Thumbs Up
"It will appeal to both die-hard Trekkies and movie fans in general."


CLICK to watch "Star Trek" review at AtTheMovies

NOTE: Roger Ebert did review "Star Trek" for the Sun Times, giving it 2.5 stars. Roger Ebert has such a long career that he has written reviews for all eleven Star Trek films, all of which can be found on his website.

 

Comments

1. Harry Ballz - March 25, 2010

These guys……………”have you ever seen the like?”

2. ryanhuyton - March 25, 2010

Oh well. The show hasn’t been very good since Roger Ebert had to leave because of cancer and Richard Roeper couldn’t hammer out a new contract.

3. Jim Nightshade - March 25, 2010

Amazing they lasted 3 decades-still the original siskel/ebert were the best because they often dis-agreed n they also knew each other so well–so sad to lose siskel n ebert has been thru so much he can no longer talk or eat poor man he does have the love of a wonderful wife tho-bless him n his wife–n rip siskel-they were the absolute best of the movie critics-

4. Buzz Cagney - March 26, 2010

You can say many things about TFF, but lacking in energy it wasn’t!

And isn’t it funny how people raved about how FC was ‘the best’ back in the day, but the film has now settled into a far more realistic 4th or so position now.

5. Gorn Captain - March 26, 2010

Siskel and Ebert were already well known from “Sneak Previews” which ran on PBS beginning in the ’70’s.

Ebert was on Oprah recently, he now uses a computer to speak with digital samples of his own voice!

6. thebiggfrogg - March 26, 2010

Man, I am OLD I remember Sneak Previews from when I was kid. I think they weren’t too positive about ST:TMP, but raved about Kramer v. Kramer. As an 11 year old Trekkie I was incensed and hated on K v. K. My ire has long since past, but I have yet to see the film.

7. Balok - March 26, 2010

Those guys were great… reminds me of just how many years have gone by. Also reminds me again about how great ST4 was, and what a huge let down ST5 turned out to be…

8. T2 - March 26, 2010

That was a blast from the past. I didn’t see the latest movie review, but I do remember catching the reviews of Insurrection and Nemesis…which kind of led to my own criticism of critics. Nevertheless, it’s always great to dip back into the ’80s Star Trek.

9. Clinton - March 26, 2010

#6 Somewhere I have Siskel and Ebert’s review of ST:TMP on VHS tape. If I recall correctly, Ebert was a bit more positive than Siskel,

10. Pensive's Wetness - March 26, 2010

About time it ended. It didn’t need to continue with the reasons (The two gentlement themselves) having bowed out… from life. You simply can’t replace the magic you had with S&E.

Well, there’s another reason to remind myself of my age…

11. BiggestTOSfanever - March 26, 2010

The best Star Trek movie is STAR TREK!
I do like the prime universe better (so best series is TOS), but this universe is going to be fun!

12. Damian - March 26, 2010

When Star Trek: First Contact came out, Star Trek was at the top of it’s game. Deep Space Nine was coming into it’s own, Voyager was still drawing viewers, and they had a hit movie. Like today, it was cool to be a fan.

13. Robert H. - March 26, 2010

I wonder is Siskel was the one who brought forth that myth about the odd ones being bad and the even ones being good? Especially since #3 was odd and good.

14. alexofborg - March 26, 2010

To Damian,

Actually, i remember that when FC came out, the first signs of franchise fatigue had come up.

It was actually before the premiere of Generations that Trek last had a high point with general audiences (before ST 2009’s success). TNG had been a huge success, DS9 was still pulling in good ratings, Voyager was about to premiere, and there was a lot of buzz about a revived, young film franchise with the TNG group. Was it around that time that Trek made the Time Magazine cover? I was in college at the time, and I remember Trek being so mainstream. My roommate, a college quarterback, wouldn’t miss TNG, a huge party was thrown for the last episode, I remember overhearing people at the gym talking about “that doctor” from DS9. It was everywhere.

But Generations disappointed many people, Voyager and DS9 started to dip in ratings, and Trek retreated into being seen as a geeky thing, back to being cultish. I remember an article about how the FC trailer had been booed in some Science Fiction convention. So FC’s success was seen as a comeback of sorts (its original title was “Resurrection,” perhaps a not so subtle hint of their intentions and hope for the film).

15. alexofborg - March 26, 2010

Actually (and more to the point), “Star Trek Resurrection”

They only changed it because of Alien Resurrection, giving the TNG film franchise it’s only two-word subtitle ;-)

16. philpot - March 26, 2010

Star Trek III is the second best of the films IMO. i dont understand how anyone – Trekkie or not can dislike it. theres also sort of a Star Wars/Indy feel to it – obviously influenced by those big Spielberg/Lucas movies coming out in the early 80s (Raiders, Doom, Empire, Jedi etc)

e.g. – the end fight on Genesis feels like something out of Temple of Doom with all the lava etc…i know it was more of a homage to Kirks fistfights in TOS but it had that Indy feel to it too. plus the cantina scene was very Star Warsy and the gag of the USS Excelsior’s failed transwarp = Millenium Falcons hyperspace troubles

There is no odd = bad/even = good rule imo

best to worst = II, III, XI, VIII, VI, IV, I, VII, V, X, IX

17. philpot - March 26, 2010

#14/15 – one review of FC at the time said it wouldve gone down alot better had there not been upmteen different spin offs on tv at the time. it was a great film no doubt but the spin offs took some of the sheen off a new film and made it seem less of an event…(an imporant lesson for the new film series – dont flood the market with tv spin offs)

really they shouldve just focused on the movie series when TNG ended and not bothered with VOY as DS9 was already there (and they shouldnt really have bothered with that either) …

e.g TNG movie 1 out in 1996 (so to give everyone abit of a breather and come up with a great cross over film for the 30th anniversary – something like Yesterdays Ent – directed by N Meyer or Nimoy)…then TNG 2 in 98 etc…if it had happened like that maybe TNG 6 would been out last summer…

18. Oliver - March 26, 2010

#6 and #9

Are you sure Siskel and Ebert reviewed TMP? At the Movies began only in 1982. Or was it a different show?

19. jas_montreal - March 26, 2010

RIP Siskel.

But those were good times !

20. VOODOO - March 26, 2010

Siskel and Ebert were the best.

21. Dave in RI - March 26, 2010

#18
As was mentioned up-thread, Siskel and Ebert had a show on PBS called “Sneak Previews” years before “At the Moves”.

I can still remember the opening wimsical music for Sneak Previews and the images of popcorn being made…and that soda machine jamming up only to have the cup dispense upside down and the soda spilling all over! Great opening!

22. freezejeans - March 26, 2010

#5 & #21

I hear ya. Used to watch “Sneak Previews” as a kid as well (agreed, the show opening was great!) and I remember how much they HATED horror movies and would often give away the endings…particularly the original “Friday the 13th.” They’d get into spats with Fangoria magazine, too. Good times…today it would all be dumbed down to a Twitter flamewar I suppose.

23. Andy Patterson - March 26, 2010

Always loved their show. Have good memories of watching it on WFFA Channel 8. Ebert personally deserves a better ending than he and the show are getting.

And Happy Birthday Leonard Nimoy. I know I’m stealing your thunder, Anthony.

24. Grover Sald - March 26, 2010

Too bad the first three movies, which were reviewed by S&E on their earlier show, don’t seem to be available online (e.g. Youtube). But I remember:

ST1: Ebert thumbs up, Siskel thumbs down

ST2: Both big thumbs up (Siskel particularly surprised, given he called the first film a ‘worthless bore’)

ST3: Both thumbs up, saying ‘good but not great’

25. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - March 26, 2010

never watched it but i liked the reviews of ST

26. Joe_Yo_Mama - March 26, 2010

Ebert is a moron. Their review of ST-TMP in 1979 used footage that was a crude outtake and didn’t even have the proper sound effects added. Both of these guys were clowns who really didn’t know much about movies. Siskel is dead and Ebert can’t talk. I don’t miss either of them.

27. Balok - March 26, 2010

ST3 was okay, Leonard did good directing, some good character moments, but the story felt too lightweight and low budget…

28. Jim Cude - March 26, 2010

OMG the STIV review has major spoilers- gah.

29. Clinton - March 26, 2010

#26. I’ll respectfully disagree. Gene Siskel was, and Roger Ebert is well versed in the art of film. With regards to the footage used in their review of ST:TMP, I’m sure the production company simply ran whatever Paramount had provided to them.

30. bill hiro - March 26, 2010

The reviewer in the last clip with Ben Mankiewicz is Ben Lyons, the son of Jeffrey Lyons.

31. dwnicolo - March 26, 2010

Siskel and Ebert reminded me of Kirk and Mcoy on TOS, the fact that they could disagree and still be friends. Interesting dynamic.

32. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - March 26, 2010

Before I would see a movie I would watch Siskel and ebert and see what they thought about it. Uausaly they were right which to me was about 95% of the time. At least now though i can get most of that and other things here on Trek Movie at least for anything Scifi. They were the best at what they did and i will miss them.

33. S. John Ross - March 26, 2010

The Star Trek IV review is so dead-on, and the last few seconds very interesting in retrospect.

34. VOODOO - March 26, 2010

It seems Roger Ebert already has plans to replace the show he left several years ago.

He announced today that he will be producing a new tv show titled “Roger Ebert Presents At the Movies”. The really good news is that he may appear on some episodes.

I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Ebert for battling his illness with the dignity and strength that he has. It would have been easy for him to just stop living and feel bad for himself.

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Roger-Ebert-Produce-1016679.aspx?rss=breakingnews

35. Will_H - March 26, 2010

I still think that FC is the best personally. TWOK has a lot, its a piece of classic sifi that no other Trek movie is, but rating them as just movies, I think that FC is the best because of its combination of solid acting, directing, and score. But that’s just my opinion. I do think Ebert was right to say that after Nemesis they need to go to another Generation (though 1000 years is wayyy too much, lets say maybe 50 years?). Seems like that would be a good way to bring Trek back to TV. I hope once this current run of movies is done that whoever has the reigns of Trek will quit with this whole going back thing. Time to move forward. But that was a cool look at some Trek Movie history, thanks.

36. VOODOO - March 26, 2010

26. Joe_Yo_Mama

“Ebert is a moron. Their review of ST-TMP in 1979 used footage that was a crude outtake and didn’t even have the proper sound effects added. Both of these guys were clowns who really didn’t know much about movies. Siskel is dead and Ebert can’t talk. I don’t miss either of them.”

You sound like a truly enlightened individual with statements like “Siskel is dead and Ebert can’t talk”

Roger Ebert can’t speak because he is fighting for his life due to a devastating illness. He is suffering from thyroid cancer. By the way even with his illness he contributes more than most people who are 100% healthy.

In late 2007, Forbes Magazine named Ebert “the most powerful pundit in America,” edging out Bill O’Reilly, Lou Dobbs and Geraldo Rivera. He has won a Pulitzer Prize is a film historian and is generally considerded the most influential living film critic.

The late Gene Siskel won numerous awards for his print and broadcast journalism, including five national Emmy Award nominations for the Siskel and Ebert show and is also considered a film historian.

You may not like their opinions on film, but to diminish them in the manner you did “Ebert can’t talk” is childish. They are without a doubt the two most influential film critics of the last 35 years.

Despite your comment that “Both of these guys were clowns who really didn’t know much about movies.” it is safe to say that the exact opposite is true… It is also safe to say that they have forgotten more about film than you will ever know.

37. boborci - March 26, 2010

Siskel would’ve liked trek 09

38. MORN SPEAKS - March 26, 2010

I’m so upset about this show ending!! It’s hard to find educated and informed critiques on film!!!

39. Commodore Lurker - March 26, 2010

Decloaking . . .
No offense intended Mr. Orci, but I think you’re engaged in wishful thinking (as per # 37). }:-D>
Recloaking.

40. boborci - March 26, 2010

39. True. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

41. Commodore Lurker - March 26, 2010

True. }:-D>

42. Tribblemaker - March 26, 2010

both guys sucked and that’s all I’m gonna say about that.

43. Kirk's Girdle - March 26, 2010

I miss Gene. If those two had a split decision, I’d always follow his advice.

44. captain_neill - March 26, 2010

40

Bit presumpscious to think that

45. Anthony Pascale - March 26, 2010

If anyone has the Sneak Previews ST reviews for TMP, TWOK and TSFS, you should put those online

46. miraclefan - March 26, 2010

Man, how hard is it to find some great movie critics for a show? They need Roeper back.

47. miraclefan - March 26, 2010

Any idea what Ebert thought of ST (2009)?

48. Jim Nightshade - March 26, 2010

Ebert also wrote a movie screenplay,i think it was beyond the valley of the dolls-it was one of those legendary bad bad movies-but i am sure it taught him a lot about film making-hey mr orci,i think ebert got reviews that were way worse than say, transformers 1 or2–if i remember correctly-one of the turkies of all time-so u guys have to try harder next time-haha

49. boborci - March 26, 2010

44. captain_neill – March 26, 2010

True. However, my pressumpuotousness equals box office, empirically.

50. Sneak Previews - March 26, 2010

I remember Siskel & Ebert’s PBS movie review program. I wish their review of TMP could be posted on YouTube as well as the other missing reviews. Ebert’s review of TMP is posted on his review site and from the way I read it, it is a positive review. He mentions the cinematic aspect of it and taking in the sights and sounds and having a good time experiencing it.

51. boborci - March 26, 2010

or however you spell pressumptuosness?

52. Kent Butabi - March 26, 2010

I haven’t based my movie watching decisions on critics reviews for years.

53. Buddy Gripple - March 26, 2010

@#48: Roger Ebert is a real writer with a real passion for movies and there is more love for cinema to be found in a single frame of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls than in all four hours of the Transformers franchise.

54. bill hiro - March 26, 2010

Its my happening and it freaks me out.

55. Jim Nightshade - March 26, 2010

Well Buddy i dont believe i ever saw beyond valley of the dolls so i couldnt say–but the transformers movies certainly made tons more money…

56. rj - March 26, 2010

of course they did, they were feature length toy commercials.

57. Michael - March 26, 2010

I love that Ebert hates all the “shields at whatever percent” crap too.

I also think it’s interesting that he calls the new Trek out on it’s channelling of the Star Wars style Space Opera, as many have, if only because that was the intention of the writers and creators from the very beginning. It would be nice if they found a way to squeeze in some more of truly the great parts of Trek, where the philosophical, intellectual and moral weightiness of the issues are explored, in the vehicle of their (thankfully) updated visual stylings, but then again, even the people who created Trek couldn’t really figure out how to do that to his, or many others satisfaction, at least half of the time, as the reviews so plainly show.

58. MDSHiPMN - March 26, 2010

I miss Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert’s “At The Movies”.

59. Pro-Khan-Sel - March 26, 2010

Here is the classic opening of sneak previews!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGIQ31AVLNk

60. MC1 Doug - March 26, 2010

#36: Well said!

61. JohnWA - March 27, 2010

Despite his protestations to the contrary, Siskel was definitely a fan.

Ebert’s picks are more representative of a mainstream movie goer.

Ebert has been particularly harsh since the TNG era films started coming out because he sees them as two-hour episodes of shows he didn’t follow. All the continuity references became a source of frustration and annoyance. He doesn’t know who the Duras sisters are and – more importantly – doesn’t care. That whole business in “Insurrection” about the Son’a being producers of ketracel white, for example, was a waste of time for anyone who didn’t watch DS9 religiously.

And while fans might agree more with Siskel, Ebert’s critiques are important because he approaches this material from the viewpoint of the mainstream audience. Many of his gripes about the series are the same ones uttered by folks who find Star Trek incomprehensible.

62. captain_neill - March 27, 2010

49

Just like how Siskel would have loved Transformers Revenge of the Fallen because it equals box office, empiracally?

63. captain_neill - March 27, 2010

So Bob

Do you feel your movie is better than TWOK, TUC and FC?

64. captain_neill - March 27, 2010

11

I don’t agree

65. Hugh Hoyland - March 27, 2010

#61 thats probably close to the truth about the continuity references. A good example of a motion picture that more or less dropped almost all of the continuity references succesfully was The Dark Night. And it communicated very well not only with Bat Man fans, but with the mainstream audience to. This could be the way the SC is approaching the sequel to Star Trek 09, and that may work great and pull even more new fans in. But keep in mind that approach will only work for a while, you might hit pay dirt once, maybe twice but unlikely not more than that. But thats just my opinion for what its worth.

66. Hugh Hoyland - March 27, 2010

I like what the SC did with Star Trek 09 though, it worked very well. Now their task is to continue that same style, while at the same time creating a story that “blows” the viewers minds, like 2001, Outerlimits, Twilight Zone type elements.

67. CmdrR - March 27, 2010

Bob!

I miss these guys. I hope Roger Ebert finds a way to do more on cam reviews, even with a robo-voice. How appropriate for the next Trek flick.

While many reviewers string together oh-so-clever quips about a film’s weaknesses, Siskel and Ebert always seemed like well-informed movie lovers. (Lovers of movies, that is. You!) They clearly were routing for Trek to succeed, but not allowing it to indulge in laziness (as many of the late TNG films did.) I think, Bob, these reviews are good homework for your next script.

68. captain_neill - March 27, 2010

sorry if my last comment was a bit scathing

but come on you def need a stronger script for Star Trek XII, one has does NOT rely on plot contrivances

69. captain_neill - March 27, 2010

Im sorry but I do think the Destiny card is lazy writing

And you say the later TNG movies are lazy?

70. boborci - March 27, 2010

62

No. Just pointng out how silly it is for you to mention my presumpuousness when it is a necessary component of my job. It’s the equivalent of saying that it is presumpuousness of me to write a script and think it is going to succeed. Agree it’s presumpuousness, but DUH.

As for plot contrivances, how many times r we going to have this argument?Have you not read the interviews here in which I make it clear that quantum mechanics covers your unfounded objection?

71. The Disinvited - March 27, 2010

#51. boborci

Lord knows I like writers to have healthy egos, but I would think you would find the lack of acknowledgment as the best of last year from your peers at least somewhat humbling? Not that you shouldn’t find being overly complimented by your fans somewhat compensatory.

72. Author of The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers - March 27, 2010

Glad *someone* else here remembers “Sneak Previews.”

I note that comment made by Siskel that “one, three, and five were bad,” but I don’t at all recall Trek III being reviewed badly – certainly not as bad generally as TMP. (Although I do recall Siskel saying he didn’t like Trek in general at the outset). I do remember Siskel saying TMP was a “bore,” but Ebert critizing him in return, saying, “what on earth are you expecting? [These aren't] Shakespearean actors…” Heck, I’m pretty sure I still remember USA Today offering that Trek III was “classy” effort, or words very close to that. Oh, well, that was 26 years ago :-)

Trek III launched Nimoy’s directorial career that spanned several very successful films through the mid-late 80’s, as I recall.

With regard to the 2009 reboot, I think Ebert wrote that “well, you wanted space opera, you’ve got it,” and it wasn’t necessarily meant in a positive light. I think he was one of the few mainstream critics who really didn’t seem to like it.

73. boborci - March 27, 2010

71. Since we were nominated for a writers guild award, I’m not sure I understand your point. Those are my peers, no?

74. boborci - March 27, 2010

71

I agree, however, that humility is the best policy. That’s usually my course, but I am not in the mood today. Who wants some?!;)

75. The Disinvited - March 27, 2010

#73. boborci

“Best” being the operative word. Being nominated is in no way the same as being awarded, and thus acknowledged, as best.

Be honest, which would you rather have on your shelf, the Razzie or the WGA?

76. The Disinvited - March 27, 2010

#74. boborci

Like, I said I like ‘em with healthy egos. Good to see yours is healthy with a level-headed attitude.

77. boborci - March 27, 2010

75. I was responding to someone who pointed out a lack of acknowledgement from my peers. Obviously, being nominated is a ackowledgement.

And I live my Razzie. Truly. Hilarious.

78. The Disinvited - March 27, 2010

#77. boborci

“And I live my Razzie” – boborci

Such a (hard to interpret as anything but Freudian) slip!

LOL!

79. boborci - March 27, 2010

I phone slip. Damn auto spell check. And I’m at an airport!

80. Magic_Al - March 27, 2010

^26,29 Reviewers probably saw a very rough cut of TMP because the film’s post production was behind schedule and continued to literally the last minute. Robert Wise famously took the just-printed reels with him on the plane to the premiere and felt the film was unfinished.

81. Happy Russia - March 27, 2010

@ #47–

Ebert didn’t like it very much.

“The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action.”

82. Jim Nightshade - March 27, 2010

HAHA Bob Orci you are HIL-AR-ious Buddy! hehehehe….thanks for continuing to pop in on us fans!

Also just to let ya know cant wait for new Fringe starting next week!
This outta work for a year almost guy is very entertained by Fringe. Thanks for helping me to escape temporarily….

83. STTE - March 27, 2010

Watching these reviews back-to-back, it is easy to forget how intelligent Siskel & Ebert were together.

Their reviews were concise and bang-on. Nostalgia for the old days…

84. philpot - March 27, 2010

bob must be writing Trek 2 on a plane!

85. philpot - March 27, 2010

jus finished reading Star Trek Nero TPB for the 1st time

pretty neat when Vger turned up….your idea bob?

86. captain_neill - March 27, 2010

85

Oh shoehorning V’Ger into the Nero story was a weak point inthat comic for me.

And I love the concept of V’Ger.

I don’t always agree with their reviews but Siskel and Ebert had some good comments in their reviews.

Look Bob I am sorry if I seemed way of base but I love Star Trek and when everyone talks about this movie I do feel like people will be forgetting all the Treks we grew up loving. I hate to see the Trek I love lost the way baseball is out of favour by the 24th Century. Lost to a generation who want things to happen faster and with louder set pieces.

I know my Trek ain’t gone but it feels like it when I read these message boards.

Bottom line did a great movie and sorry about my opinion on the story being weak and contrived

87. rj - March 27, 2010

Mister Orci,

I mean no personal disrespect when I ask this, but could you please stop producing films like the Transformers series? Star Trek proved to be a charming piece of popular entertainment. I am certain that you could lend your talents to other worthwhile projects in the future. But hackneyed corporate conveyor belt movies like Transformers only work to dull the imagination of children, turning them into unthinking consumers of worthless garbage.

88. ryanhuyton - March 27, 2010

#87

I think Bob has said he won’t do “Transformers 3″ because he wants to focus on “Star Trek 2″. Of course, I could be wrong. In either case, it doesn’t matter. He has the right to write whatever he wants because he enjoys it. Plus, he wants to make money so that he can continue to afford the internet to continue chatting with us fans. Look, the “Transformers” movies play to a different crowd than “Star Trek does. Nobody should begrudge anybody for following their dream, even if that path goes to places others might disagree with. Bob can write whatever movies he wants, even ones I have no interest in seeing. “Transformers” 1 and 2 were obviously worthwhile to Bob, so who’s to argue?

89. Maltz - March 27, 2010

This is for #12.

The problem is that as Star Trek increased in sophistication in the 1990’s, it was matched by a publicly perceived increase in sophistication in the REAL space program, what with Shuttle-Mir and all.

Now, there is a schizm. While the technical prowess of Star Trek 2009 is warranted, we are at a crossroads in Human Space Flight that has one pondering the lack of progress in the real world. If Star Trek is to have any credible future, shouldn’t the real space program also be seen as having such?

90. Hugh Hoyland - March 27, 2010

#87 my advice for you, or anyone who does not like what they see on the screen is to make your own movie and/or story. And I’m saying this not as a snide remark or invalidation. Anyone can write, no matter what level of education you have. If you dont like what is being written by the PRO writters of Hollywood, start writting your own stories. FanFic is the wave of the future! And with the new technology coming out everyday it seems, anyone can, without to much expense, be able to make quality motion pictures of their own. It just comes down to determination, a little bit of resources and a good camera. My advice is GO for it. My hope is eventually anyone with those things in mind can create entertainment that they, and others will enjoy.

91. S. John Ross - March 27, 2010

#61: What’s more, Ebert has real-moviegoer tastes married to a genuine love and respect for science fiction and what it can be, and a genuine love and respect for finely-made adventure cinema. He’s by no means my favorite genre-flick critic, but I think his Trek reviews have been pretty much perfect, right down the line.

92. John - March 27, 2010

It appears that Mr. Orci is a little drunk! XD

93. David G. - March 27, 2010

I absolutely miss Gene Siskel. And Roger Ebert’s voice.

94. boborci - March 28, 2010

85. philpot – March 27, 2010

No, I believe that was actually Tim Jones’ idea.

95. I am not Herbert - March 28, 2010

“Sneak Previews” on PBS! EXCELLENT!

Ebert was the thinking man’s critic, while Siskel was the every-man’s critic.

I loved it when Ebert looked at Siskel like he was a twit!

They also kind of reminded me of Statler & Waldorf… ;-)

96. Michael Hall - March 28, 2010

No. Just pointng out how silly it is for you to mention my presumpuousness when it is a necessary component of my job. It’s the equivalent of saying that it is presumpuousness of me to write a script and think it is going to succeed. Agree it’s presumpuousness, but DUH.”

Uh, Mr. Orci–

Hate to break this to you, but all of us commit to tasks every day, sir, without any guarantee that they will ultimately pan out successfully. That applies to everyone, not just millionaire screenwriters. To forget that isn’t presumption, it’s arrogance.

And yes, it is the very definition of ‘presumptuous’ to proclaim that a dead man would have liked your work. Ebert (who, justly or not, was often regarded as the easier-to-please of the two) certainly wasn’t all that impressed. Having seen your film and knowing Siskel’s tastes, I’d put the odds at 50-50.

97. Red Skirt - March 28, 2010

#73, … and cronies. ;-)

98. captain_neill - March 28, 2010

96

Agreed

99. Captain Rickover - March 28, 2010

I have to say it’s Bob’s good right to think he and his partner wrote a great movie. Many people liked it (proved by box office) and so, his statements are not wrong. He can also hope that Siskel and Evert would have liked his movie and compared to what the two guys liked in the past, his guess is not so bad.

But the true proof will be the test of time. At the moment only II, IV, VI and to a certain degree FC survived this test. So, Evert’s and Siskel’s opinions were well reasoned.

100. Hugh Hoyland - March 28, 2010

#96 yes we all have jobs to do in one form or another, but I dont think anyone goes about their tasks with the idea of failure. Or that the task they have just completed, is going to stink. They go about it as if they WILL succeed at what they are doing. Thats isnt presumption, its the difference between a PRO “whatever” and a hap hazzard “maybe it gets done, maybe it wont” worker.

101. Hugh Hoyland - March 28, 2010

And as far as critics go, I have no particular use for them to be honest (that includes those two birds S&E). Art is a VERY subjective thing. I dont really care what a critic likes or dislikes, thats his/her opinion and thats fine, doesnt mean I’ll feel the same way about the piece.

102. Rastaman - March 28, 2010

“Siskel would’ve liked trek 09.”

Based on what Siskel said about the characters loving each other in Star Trek IV, I think he would have definitely loved Star Trek (2009). Orci and Kurtzman really nailed the chemistry between the characters. So long as they continue to focus on the characters, Trek 2012 will be great!

The one thing I think Star Trek (2009) missed out on which Siskel and Ebert pick up on in their reviews of Star Trek IV and VI is delivering a more thoughtful message a la “Save the Whales” or “Make Peace with the Russians.” The Nero “weapon of mass destruction” plot device was a bit run of the mill (blowing up Vulcan aside). Had the plot delivered a more effective parable of some sort, it might have gotten a Best Picture Nomination.

103. Sebastian - March 28, 2010

Watching these old reviews again, I really miss the banter between Siskel and Ebert; these guys were great together.

And one element of the TOS movies that Siskel (RIP) and Ebert always seemed to agree upon was the feeling of ‘family’ generated by the cast and the chemistry between them (whether they got along offscreen is immaterial; onscreen they were great together).

On that basis? I completely agree with Bob Orci; the late Gene Siskel would have loved Star Trek 2009. The characters really had a chance to shine in this movie as rarely before (even as we watched them come together for the first time; granted, it’s in an alternate timeline, but who cares?)

The core family of characters is nascent, but by movie’s end, they’re firing on all thrusters! It’s the characters that really make these movies work; and Siskel and Ebert always recognized that fact.

104. Luke - March 28, 2010

#102 – I think ST XI had a pretty clear message, just one that primarily left-wing Hollywood is uncomfortable with: negotiating with terrorists (Nero/Bin Laden) is unwise, even illogical.

Some people kill just because they hate, and the justification for that hate may make sense to them (Spock is responsible for the destruction of Romulus because he didn’t do enough/America is responsible for the Islamist nations’ troubles somehow), but it isn’t an excuse for mass murder (the attack on the Kelvin and Vulcan/9-11 and other terrorist attacks).

Sometimes the correct response, however unpleasant and risky, is force, if that’s what it takes to stop those who would keep on killing innocents in their quest for power and revenge (the misguided crew of the Narada/al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations).

I’m not saying I feel this way at all times about every conflict, but these parallels immediately jumped out at me the first time I saw ST XI. I thought “The Dark Knight” (also snubbed for a best picture nod) had a similar in-defense-of-the-Bush-doctrine theme, but that’s a theory for another website.

105. Luke - March 28, 2010

Granted, Mr. Orci might pop back on here and tell me my theory is full of crap. If so, still loved the film you co-wrote.

106. benny chew - March 28, 2010

I miss, much like the old Star Trek cast, the back and forth of Siskel/Ebert.
While we can read Ebert’s well written reviews on his website, Gene Siskel is missed.. It is funny to me how Siskel always seems to apologize for liking the movies- implying that unlike some of the other movies, he likes this one but out of the 9 he reviewed, he gave thumbs up to 7 of them! And Ebert who is more the admitted Star Trek fan, he too seems to diminish the movie series as a whole even saying that #3 was bad when he gave it a positive review when it came out (thumbs up)- and still does in his database. In fact of the first 8 movies, Ebert liked 2,3,4,6,8. It’s not cool to like Star Trek movies, friends (even when you are on record for liking most of them)

107. boborci - March 28, 2010

104 Luke

good theory in terms of framing the debate for sure! From a certain point of view, it could be said that Obama/Spock advocates getting support from rest of fleet (UN) while Bush/Kirk advocates unilateral action.

The fact that Kirk gets his way is not necessarily an endorsement of such a view but more a reflection of where we’ve been recently. But even Kennedy started of as a cold warrior.

108. boborci - March 28, 2010

96.

Talk about reaching. Given your comment history, it’s clear that if I had said that I like eggs for breakfast when I write, you’d accuse me of forgetting that other people like eggs, too, and “they’re not all soulless hollywwod fornicators like you!”

109. Luke - March 28, 2010

Bob,

I found this exchange interesting:

Spock: [after Kirk offers surrender terms to Nero] Captain, what are you doing?
James T. Kirk: Showing them compassion. It may be the only way to earn peace with Romulus. It’s logic, Spock, I thought you’d like that.
Spock: No, not really. Not this time.

That seemed to point the film in the direction of favoring Kirk/Bush’s original action plan for me: having the calculating, future-ambassador Spock/Obama favor unilateral action, as you put it, in the face of a ceaselessly active terrorist/Nero.

If I over-analyze, I apologize: I’m interested in politics, I’m a burgeoning screenwriter, and a post-graduate acting student who hopes to make it in movies. Plus I love Trek. This, like beans and bourbon, is a powerful combination.

Thanks for the feedback, Bob!

In response to your Kennedy observation: Kennedy was assassinated. Please don’t shoot Kirk :)

110. boborci - March 29, 2010

109.

No such thing as over analyzing! However,
Not necessarily an endrosement of unilateral action, but more of a prediction, that despite talk of peace and ending war, it wouldn’t happpen, regardless of who is Captain.

111. Michael Hall - March 29, 2010

“Talk about reaching. Given your comment history, it’s clear that if I had said that I like eggs for breakfast when I write, you’d accuse me of forgetting that other people like eggs, too, and “they’re not all soulless hollywwod fornicators like you!”

Actually, Mr. Orci–you can check this out if you care to–my “comment history” also includes noting with thanks your willingness to appear in these forums at all and for addressing critics like myself with tact and humor–in short, for being a “class act.” Other than the obvious fact that you and I obviously have vastly different ideas about what constitutes good storytelling, I wouldn’t be so quick to infer my opinions on anything (for example I couldn’t care less whether you like eggs or not, and I have no real problems with Hollywood, let alone fornication).

I’m sorry I thought your work on the movie was largely by-the-numbers and uninspired. It’s nothing personal, just a matter of taste. As I’ve stated repeatedly, I’d much prefer to have loved it.

OTOH, #104, your post is nothing but sheer ahistorical blather, and I find it very telling that Bob Orci would even partially endorse it (and while likening Kirk to Bush, to boot). There are many reasons why we’re hated in the Middle East and other parts of the world–some justified, others not. But there’s a history, in any case, behind what others think of us, and we do our posterity no favors by telling ourselves, pace Bush, that “They hate us because we love freedom,” or “Because we buy houses (!)” The original Kirk certainly knew better; there was never an episode where his willingness to put aside his own prejudices and understand his enemies didn’t ultimately work to his advantage, and often pull things back from the brink. No wonder Trek 2009 feels so shallow and formulaic by comparison.

112. philpot - March 29, 2010

OT but after Trek ‘2’ or 12 id like to see bob and alex write Indy 5 (from a story by Lucas of course)

i really dug the Sci Fi elements of Indy 4 and would like to see more of that…bob and alex would be ideal

113. boborci - March 29, 2010

111. I think you are agreeing with me without fully realizing it, in terms of the politics touched upon in the movie. Unfortunately, I don’t feel comfortable fully elaborating. So you can go on thinking it was shallow. See u next round.

114. Luke - March 29, 2010

111, Michael – I didn’t say “They hate us because we love freedom,” or “Because we buy houses (!)” I was just noticing some similarities between characters and situations in the film and current events. Nor did I state the Bush doctrine as my world view–again, I was just having fun analyzing.

Going out of your way to insult someone who’s not even addressing you isn’t going to make you any friends. Bullies like you are the reason I rarely post on forums.

115. boborci - March 29, 2010

114

and u are one of the few to tap into some of this line of our thinking, which will continue to be extrapolated. Cheers!

116. boborci - March 29, 2010

112.

Yeah!

117. ryanhuyton - March 29, 2010

#112

Bob and Alex should write the scripts for the upcoming live action “Star Wars” series. Their style worked for “Star Trek” and their style will work for “Star Wars”.

118. philpot - March 29, 2010

117 – i havent heard any news on the SW live action series for ages…must be ultra top secret.

imagine if it were all a ruse and Lucas was actually making Episodes VII, VII and IX…

119. ryanhuyton - March 29, 2010

#118

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if George Lucas decided to scrap the live action series in favor of Episodes VII, VIII and IX after seeing “Avatar” in 3-d. He said he’d like to do “Star Wars” in 3-d but said it would be too difficult to convert the original trilogy. And not as many people would care to see the prequels in 3-d. So that leaves a third trilogy……

120. Hermioni - March 29, 2010

#104, #107, #109, #111 . #113, #115

@ Luke, Mr. Orci and Mr. Hall, I am not quite sure why, but these last few posts of yours have suddenly (and rather uncharacteristically) prompted me to engage in a round of “(mis-?)reading the tea leaves” with regard to some possible future developments in the New Star Trek Verse:

It just occurred to me that the Federation might have put itself on a path leading to armed conflict/war with the Romulan and/or Klingon Empire, rooted, and not to a small part, in some arguably questionable decisions of New Kirk/Spock during their first mission.

And, that our protagonists might have to reassess at least some of their earlier actions in order to avert what could otherwise become catastrophic developments.

121. Michael Hall - March 29, 2010

#114–

Well, to take one example: if you don’t know who the first head-of-state to use poison gas on the Kurds was (no, it wasn’t SH), it might be helpful if you acquainted yourself with some history on Western (not just U.S. by any means) policies in the region before claiming, as you did in your earlier post, that negotiating with enemies who hate us for no good reason at all is just foolhardiness. Americans are renowned throughout the world for our collective historical amnesia–for better or worse, that’s definitely not the case with the peoples of the Middle East.

I’ll repeat: for what it’s worth, the Manichean notion that the Other is bereft of our civilized virtues, and therefore worthy only of slaughter, could hardly be less like the philosophy embodied by the Star Trek of Gene Roddenberry, or Gene L. Coon.

Still, that’s just my opinion, and you’re certainly entitled to yours. FWIW, I don’t like bullies either. If my earlier statement to you came across that way (and I can see how it might have), I sincerely apologize.

122. Red Skirt - March 29, 2010

Oh brother …

Yes, let’s equate Nero’s simple minded psychotic delusions with Al-Qaeda.

123. ryanhuyton - March 29, 2010

I think this thread has gotten away from the original topic. I don’t know how Al Qaeda, Iraq, George W. Bush and military history managed to usurp the news of “At The Movies” coming to an end.

124. Luke - March 29, 2010

#123

I made an observation about a possible allegory in ST XI, in response to someone’s statement that ST XI didn’t have an effective parable (see #102 and after). Since the observation involved Bush, some people got in a tizzy, as people tend to do whenever the name of Bush is typed or spoken. Also, one of the writers, Bob Orci, got involved, so that was exciting. I didn’t mean for my musings to derail everything.

#121

My point was only that taking innocent lives in revenge or in order to acquire what you desire is never an effective way to set things right, that it is evil, and that stopping it by force is often the justifiable course of action, as was portrayed in ST XI. And ST II, VI, VII, VIII, and IX for that matter, each from a different angle.

9/11 and other Islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. persons and interests did nothing to correct past U.S. injustices in the Middle East, nor do they foster a peace that might ensure injustices won’t be repeated. Same goes for Nero’s response to the Federation’s sins against Romulus, both real and imagined. In an attempt to exercise brevity I didn’t make myself clear enough in my original posting.

One thing you can’t say about ST XI is that it doesn’t encourage deeper discussion :)

125. ryanhuyton - March 29, 2010

#124

“One thing you can’t say about ST XI is that it doesn’t encourage deeper discussion :)”

Amen. I’d say that applies to the entire Star Trek universe, not just this movie. :-)

126. S. John Ross - March 29, 2010

#124: “One thing you can’t say about ST XI is that it doesn’t encourage deeper discussion :)”

I’ll go ahead and say it, and at the same time I’ll agree with post #125 (sort of). If you stripped away the Star Trek trademarks, you’d have a film nobody would have much to say about, beyond a beer belch and a “woo boy, lookit them ‘splosions, yee-haw! It’s fun when the bad guy gets all kilt!” Only by pasting a Trek logo and Trek trappings on the story does it become something the fans invest with substance for the sake of discussion.

ST XI doesn’t inspire deeper discussion. But the legacy the producers purchased their way into, does, and will, for a long time.

127. boborci - March 30, 2010

122. Like many things in thus movie, it can be read two ways. Prequel/sequel etc.

In the case of Neros actions, here we have a being who is wiiling to “premptively” strike the federation.

128. boborci - March 30, 2010

126. “star trek XI doesn’t inspire deeper discussion…”

… He said, analyzing the situation, in his 1000th post – lol!

129. Red Skirt - March 30, 2010

#127 – I hope you weren’t responding to me. Because that makes about as much sense as those posters I saw outside Trader Joe’s equating Bush with Hitler. By your logic, one could also infer that Nero is like the US, preemptively invading Iraq before they could deploy their weapons of mass destruction – oh yeah, that’s right they didn’t have any. Please.

130. philpot - March 30, 2010

Trek and the Trek movies have always commented on current world events/problems etc

Genesis – the bomb/nuclear war
Whales – greenpeace
Sybok – Evangelism
Klingon peace – chernobyl/fall of the wall/cold war

although the TNG movies seemed to be more straight SF stories..

131. boborci - March 30, 2010

I was responding to you, red skirt. However, you seem to be having a nice lively debate with yourself and I like just listening, so keep em coming.

132. Michael Hall - March 30, 2010

“In the case of Neros actions, here we have a being who is wiiling to “premptively” strike the federation.”

And why would Nero want to do that? Okay, his wife and civilization died and he’s PO’d. I get it. But Spock Prime did his utmost to avert the catastrophe, and at considerable risk to himself. He failed. Now Nero finds himself a century in the past. Romulus is out there, but disaster still looms in the future. So rather than warn your people, or make plans to evacuate, or spend your time (you’ve got plenty of it now) looking for technobabble solutions in the finest Trek tradition, you go around wiping out the very people who did their best to help you in the first place? What sort of dramatic sense does that make, even as a crazy motive for revenge?

133. ryanhuyton - March 30, 2010

#132

Because Nero witnessed the deaths of his family and near-extinction of his people. It had a massive effect on his psyche. He didn’t know how to deal with his trauma in rational way. He percieved Spock’s failure to be deliberate since Spock essentially promised Romulus would be saved.
Spock miscalculated and underestimated the events that would occur.
The star went nova. Romulus was destroyed. Nero lost his rationality because of a flood of emotion and trauma. He then felt Spock had betrayed him and his people because for many years the Federation and Vulcans were enemies of the Romulan Empire. He assumed that the Federation was really anticipating the destruction of Romulus as a way to end hostilities. He was unable to regain his psychological “balance” and so his mission to obliterate Vulcan and the Federation was a one way course.

134. boborci - March 30, 2010

132. Because he knows the federation had the technology to save his planet (red matter) but they failed to act in time. Clearly he doesn’t believe whatever excuses they have for failing to act. He therefore sees the federation as having wanted the destruction of Romulus to occur.

In terms of warning people, he has plenty of time and he knows the only way to prevent the supernova is to get the red matter from Spock prime because it is a technology from the future.

135. boborci - March 30, 2010

133. Yes.

136. boborci - March 30, 2010

132. So didn’t make enough of a point that Nero sees the federation as a direct threat to his home world, even if in this universe it is in the future. Thus, his acts are pre-emptive.

137. Red Skirt - March 30, 2010

#132, Silly!

Nero is Al Queda. The federation is the US. Haven’t you been following? He does not trust the Federation. Like present day Al Queda, he is insane and irrational unable to cope in a rational way with the injustices he perceives, fabricates, and projects on the good guys (the US is after all doing nothing wrong with their policies and actions in the Middle East).

Or perhaps it is being suggested that Al Queda are actually time travelers from another parallel universe attacking the US preemptively for something it did not actually do in the future.

Either way, don’t think for one minute the US and Western ideology in general bears any responsibility for the actions of Al Queda, in the same way the Federation did absolutely nothing wrong to incur Nero’s wrath to begin with. They’re all a bunch of fundamentalist religious zealots, with no financial or political motives at all. Of course when the colonies took the same approach with England in 1776, it was ordained by God so it’s people could live without interference from their oppressors. Yes that was completely different.

And yes I would agree that this thread has gotten ridiculously off topic, including the discussion about whether George Lucas will produce Star Wars in 3D or not.

138. boborci - March 30, 2010

Here is why this thread is not off topic. Ebert hated the movie because he felt it had no relevance. I would argue he us too old, too drugged, and too set in his ways to see the world we are reflecting, because he can’t see the world as it is today. And I dont blame him. It is a difficult task.

139. Michael Hall - March 30, 2010

Red, I just love it when you call me ‘silly’. :-)

133-136–well, okay. Personally, if you really had to go the ‘villain out for revenge’ route I think it would have benefited the story enormously by giving Nero’s character the dignity of having some real, legitimate grievance–for example, showing the Vulcans, reluctant to give up such a potent material as ‘red matter’ to an avowed enemy, as dithering to the point that Spock’s mission was delayed to the point that it failed. As it stands, we the audience know that Spock and the feds did their best, so Nero can be dismissed as one more crazy disposable supernemesis, the sooner blown up, the better.

Again, I’m not much of a fan of the villain out for revenge trope, but if you’re going to use The Wrath of Khan as a benchmark for the Trek films, remember what Khan revealed to Chekov as the source of his rage: “Admiral Kirk never bothered to check on our progress.” That one line said it all–and while we can’t exactly relate to a genetically enhanced superman on a murder spree, we can understand why he feels as he does, and even reflect that Kirk may bear some responsibility for the situation he now finds himself in (as Kirk comes to see himself). I just don’t see that level of empathy or believability in Trek 2009.

140. philpot - March 30, 2010

139 – i know you’ll say ‘you shouldnt have to read the comic to understand the movie!’ but i really recommend reading (if you havent) ‘Countdown’ and ‘Nero’ – it really builds on the anger and need for revenge, motivations etc etc

i mean what you suggest there about Khans line that said it all – that was kind of the same thing when Nero is about to torture Pike – in fact he explains it all quite throughly (maybe even more so than Khan did)…but if you wanna know more and get a greater depth and understanding of what makes/made Nero tick then id suggest reading the comics..

141. boborci - March 30, 2010

139.

I must say again that it is not ss simple as revenge. Like many things in the movie, there our two ways to look at it. In our timeline, it’s a pre-emptive action. As Pike says, “you’re blaming us for something that hasn’t happened yet.” Now, you may not find premptive action to be a satisfying motivator fior military action against another culture AND THAT’s THE POINT!

142. S. John Ross - March 31, 2010

#128: Read the last sentence of my post carefully. Have an intelligent friend explain it to you, if necessary.

143. S. John Ross - March 31, 2010

#141: “AND THAT’s THE POINT!”

There is no point. But it’s cute that you’ve begun to believe your own sycophants.

144. Anthony Pascale - March 31, 2010

S. John Ross

That is trolling. This is your final warning.

Find a way to post here without being rude and namecalling or move on

comments to
http://trekmovie.com/about/feedback

145. Michael Hall - March 31, 2010

“In our timeline, it’s a pre-emptive action.”

But, pre-emptive for what? For decades, Spock Prime (Lord, how I hate that designation!) has worked as ambassador to Romulus to bring about an accord between the two peoples. Given the news of the impending supernova, he did everything in his power to stop it, and regrettably failed. Since the nova was a natural disaster and had nothing to do with any action taken by the Romulan Empire’s neighbors, what would Nero be “pre-emptively” defending against? That fact that the Federation and Klingons exist as competitors at all? This would make Nero out to be some kind of uber-Romulan patriot on a crusade–okay, I guess, except there’s nothing else in the story to provide any background on that kind of mind-set. (I thought he was supposed to be just a regular Joe who liked to spend time with the wife and kids when he wasn’t out strip-mining planets.)

Nero’s actions in the film are simply insane, because there isn’t the faintest whiff of a rational basis for justifying them. I don’t deny such things happen in real life, but I can’t say I find it all that dramatically interesting.

–And on the subject of this thread, Mr. Orci, I feel compelled to tell you that I found your comments regarding Roger Ebert in #138 to be. . . ill-considered. I understand you take pride in your work, and that it might rankle that the 95% rating from Rotten Tomatoes excludes the opinion of what some consider to be the nation’s foremost movie critic–but do you really want to go with the idea that he’s just too addled by medication to understand what you were going for with this film? Do you really think that a man who has had to adjust to life changes more profound than you or I could imagine, and by all accounts having done so with dignity and good humor, can rightfully be accused of being set in his ways? That someone who has used his notoriety as a platform to write about the many subjects which concern him, going far beyond typical film criticism, is incapable of seeing the world as it really is?

Taking pride in your work is one thing, but I would ask you to consider that this sort of defensiveness is churlish, and beneath you.

146. boborci - March 31, 2010

145. I consider myself a part of a culture war that will be more defined as time rolls on. I am perfectly within my right to defend myself against a man who has made part of his living attacking my work ( and thus my livelyhood). And my defense isn’t at all based on the fact that he is trying to take food off my table, it is based on a long time assessment of his work, which I have never found compelling or relevant. Fascinating that you would defend a critic from criticism.

147. boborci - March 31, 2010

145.

On pre-emption, put all my posts together and read them at once. I dont think I can say much more at this time to be any clearer.

148. Michael Hall - March 31, 2010

“Fascinating that you would defend a critic from criticism.”

No, I’m not exempting him from criticism at all. And you’re obviously entitled to defend your work as vigorously as you care to. My point was simply that notions of common decency would possibly have you think twice about attibuting a ravaged cancer patient’s dislike of your work to their medicinal dosage. Apparently not; oh, well.

(Incidentally, I find your reference to threats to your livelihood as disingenuous in the extreme. C’mon, Mr. Orci–am I to believe with your track record of economic success that J.J. Abrams or anyone else might think twice about hiring you in the future, just because a dying man once gave you a less-than-enthusiastic review? Give me a break, sir. This is about your injured pride, and nothing more.)

I do find it fascinating, though, that you view all of this in the context of a “culture war,” and would be greatly interested in hearing the details. Somehow, I don’t think they’ll be forthcoming.

149. boborci - March 31, 2010

148.

Good debating. Much appreciated.

I appreciate that you think my position is
so secure that it can withstand attacks from one of the most famous critics in the world. Forgive me if I don’t see it that way. Perhaps you find me to be more influential than I believe myself to be.

I have no pride to injure. I believe all of the entertainment industry to be a distraction from things that are truly important.

But I stand by my “review” of Ebert’s reviews. Prior to being a produced screenwriter, I thought he was irrelevant.

I am nonetheless grateful to him and siskel for promoting the business of movies in general, even though he has attacked my work as his livelyhood.

150. boborci - March 31, 2010

In terms of our culture war, you are correct that I can’t be firthcoming at this time. I truly apologize for that. Stay tuned.

151. Horatio - March 31, 2010

It is hardly a novelty that writers hate critics, but it is still surprising to see insults just because of one bad review … of a highly-successful movie.
You over-achieved, no need to attack Mr.Ebert, Mr.Orci. His opinion will not destroy the success of this or the upcoming movie. :)

Whether people like it or not, Mr.Ebert has every right to utter his opinion and make money with it. I liked ST09 but his point is perfectly valid, the movie is formulaic and lacks an interesting theme. Or in other words, it ain’t sci-fi just because there are spaceships and explosions.
ST09 is a fine summer blockbuster, nothing more and nothing less.

152. Michael Hall - March 31, 2010

“I appreciate that you think my position is
so secure that it can withstand attacks from one of the most famous critics in the world.”

Yes, it does seem that you’re quite insecure, particularly for a bright young man with excellent prospects compared to most caught in the midst of a global economic catastrophe. This in spite of your having at least several more high-profile writing/producing gigs in the offing that I know of just from frequenting this site–not to mention the undeniable fact that you’ve probably earned more for your efforts thus far than most working people will see in a lifetime.

While I claim no inside knowledge of the workings of Hollywood, I’ve read my share of Biskind, Bach, Cowie, et al. In its broadest outlines, moviemaking seems to this outsider pretty similar to any capitalist enterprise, with those who generate profits for the sharesholders amply rewarded with plum assignments, high compensation, perks, etc. Your movies have grossed well over a billion dollars for the studios which produced them–so yes, you’ll forgive me if the notion that one movie critic, however influential, could somehow threaten your position after that kind of success seems a little farfetched. If that’s wrong, I’d be fascinated to hear why.

“I believe all of the entertainment industry to be a distraction from things that are truly important.”

I agree wholeheartedly. And implied in understanding what’s truly important would be having the perspective to know the difference between a personal attack and the sort of criticism any artist or craftsman should be willing to accept as part and parcel of the job. (The late critic John Simon’s criticism often did get personal. Harlan Ellison greatly respected him, but I considered him an erudite ass.) Of course Hollywood is rife with individuals both fabulously successful and notoriously thin-skinned, but to my knowledge even James Cameron hasn’t accused a cancer-ravaged critic who can’t even speak or eat anymore of being too high on his meds to appreciate his work. Even he didn’t cross that ethical line. Regrettably, you did.

153. Luke - March 31, 2010

Holly hell, what have I wrought?

154. boborci - March 31, 2010

151. Not tryng to insult the man. Quite the opposite. Giving him an excuse for what I consider to be his irrelevance.

And I dont consider his attacks personal. Doesn’t change the fact that if he had his way, I wouldn’t be working. May be hard for you to understand since you don’t have an industry based on attacking your work.

155. Michael Hall - March 31, 2010

Spoken like a scientist at Trinity, or the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. But really, it’s Red Skirt’s fault. :-)

156. Hugh Hoyland - March 31, 2010

I’ll throw my 2 cents worth into this. Can anyone here honestly state what a “critics” role is in relationship to Art? Art is an infinite quality that is subjective to each individual. What one person views as beautiful, another view point may consider ugly. But its the INDIVIDUALS opinion that matters to them, not anyone else. The so called “critics” of art are full of crap, in fact I will say it up front with no fear of being banned or hated, they are full of CRAP! If you dont like a painting, learn to paint then. If you dont like what someone presents as Art, create your own. But my advice is dont invalidate anothers work. Make your own if it doesnt meet your idea of how it should be. If Red Skirt doesnt like how things have turned out, make his/or her own Art and stop b*******.

157. Michael Hall - March 31, 2010

#154–

If you’re just referring to a negative notice or two, and not some direct knowlege that Roger Ebert has personally tried to blackball you, it’s a real stretch to say that if he had his way you wouldn’t be working, inside the industry or out of it. This is the man who wrote “Beyond the Valley of the Supervixens,” after all, and went on to win the Pulitzer anyway. Somehow, I think he gets the notion that writing a mediocre script or two doesn’t render one’s career irredeemable. But as a film critic, if he doesn’t care for the results of your work, his detailing why isn’t an attempt to deprive you of your livelihood or career, it’s simply doing his job, whether you agree with his reasoning or not.

No, I don’t have to contend with an industry based on attacking my work. But like most people I have had to deal my entire working life with bosses who not only have the ability to criticize my efforts but to actually fire me in the process. And you know what? Occasionally, their criticisms have been right on the money. When that’s happened I’ve taken them in stride (for the most part), learned from them, and moved on. Contrawise, I have never seen you, in these forums, admit to any real shortcomings regarding Trek 2009’s storyline or its fidellity to the Trek canon, even as J.J. Abrams has allowed that the film in retrospect isn’t anything close to perfect. How do you expect to grow as an artist if your base reflex on every criticism raised is always to defend the indefensible, or to switch the subject to quantum mechanics when the issue at hand is drama?

As to Ebert’s supposed “irrelevance,” since one can only speculate what caused it before the advent of the cancer meds, your generously providing him with an “excuse,” is, in itself, just an excuse.

158. ryanhuyton - March 31, 2010

I find it very fascinating that even though this thread has been relegated to “page 2″ of this site, the conversation is still raging.

Fascinating….

On the subject of critics and what they think, its best to take what they have to say with a grain of salt. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
What one person sees as great, another might see it as good, others might consider it average and still others might consider it crap. There is no right or wrong when it comes to tastes. Case in point: The “Transformers” movies written by our good friend Bob. I didn’t like the first one (I haven’t seen the second yet) the critics panned both of them, yet judging by the money it made, great number of ordinary people liked them. And a lot of those people probably saw both multiple times. Are they wrong for liking these movies?Absolutely not. Are they right? Absolutely not. There is no logic when it comes to whether someone likes something or not. Its almost always about how one feels about it.
Art is very subjective. And critics aren’t always right or wrong. They just let us know how they feel about a particular movie. Its then up to the individual to take the reviews and judge whether a particular film is worth seeing. Often its a gamble. Even a film like “The Dark Knight” didn’t appeal to everyone. Ditto for the original “Star Wars”. For the most part, nobody knows for sure whether they like a certain film until they see it. Or sometimes they go in with low expectations and come away surprised at how much they like the movie. Or their tastes change over time. They might like a movie the first time they see it, but after several subsequent viewings decide they don’t like it anymore. Or vice versa. A film that may be technically great in all areas might not be one’s cup of tea. A flilm that is highly flawed might be appealing to them instead. In other words, you’ll never get 100% agreement with everyone who sees a film such as “Star Trek”.

159. boborci - March 31, 2010

Your boss has a vested interest in your success. Critics the reverse.

And to paraphrase a conversation from catch-22

yosarrian: “they’re trying to kill me!”

response: “it’s war. They’re trying to kill us all.”

yosarrian: “what’s the difference?”

160. Horatio - March 31, 2010

Wow, someone is really paranoid, film critics don’t wanna destroy movies or scriptwriters, that would be suicidal for them.

Job interviews, critics and reviews serve a simple purpose, to reveal the quality of an unknown product to potential buyers, be it a new worker, a toothpaste or a book. Needless to say that the process itself ain’t perfectly objective.

Nothing to fear from all that unless the quality of one’s product is bad. :P

161. boborci - March 31, 2010

157. Well it’s so nice to hear about your coninued growth.

What are you, my guidance counselor?

I think one of he themes that’s been overlooked that Ebert may have a hard time with because it’s aimed somewhat at him is that the previous generation or two have been asleep at the wheel and have utterly failed to leave this world a better place than they found it.

“whatever our lives might have been, out destinies have changed..”

why? “because I failed.”

162. boborci - March 31, 2010

160. To repeat. Critics have vested interest in having something to criticize. Bosses don’t.

163. boborci - March 31, 2010

Correction: whatever OURr lives might have been

164. boborci - March 31, 2010

Damn iPhone!

165. Horatio - April 1, 2010

As writer you should be more aware of language than me and know that me that critique doesn’t equal reprimand, that critique is not one-sided but points out the perceived weaknesses and strengths of what- or whoever is criticized at the moment.
That’s what my boss does to me, that’s what Mr.Ebert does to your movie, that’s what a consumer magazine does to a toothpaste producer, that’s what
I do to my dentist if anybody asks me how good he treats patients.

The majority of critics, coinciding with the majority of the audience, loved the movie you wrote, that’s all I would focus upon in your case.
Positive vibes, Ebert doesn’t intend to and even if he did he couldn’t undo the success of ST09 or the upcoming movie you are about to write.

166. boborci - April 1, 2010

I repeat my distinction and fail to see the merit of yours

167. ryanhuyton - April 1, 2010

There is a serious disconnect between the point Bob is trying to make and some folks who assume he is being arrogant. Look, Bob was never a fan of Roger Ebert. And Bob is right to say that Ebert is set in his ways because of old age and medication. Perhaps some of you people need to consider the fact that illnesses and medications used to treat them do have side effects. It effects the way people function. We all know this. Having said that, even before his illness, Ebert never thought highly of video games. He considers them to be a waste of time. He doesn’t consider them an “art form” like he does movies. I like the guy, but I have to agree with Bob that time has passed Roger Ebert by. This movie isn’t our “father’s Star Trek”, it’s this generation’s. That was the point of the reboot. Ebert can’t see that. It’s the unfortunate truth.

168. Michael Hall - April 1, 2010

#158–

The phrase in Latin was De gustibus non disputandum est–“In taste, there is no disputing.” Too true, and thank the gods for it!

169. Horatio - April 1, 2010

@166: I guess all the praising movie reviews that Mr.Ebert wrote also served the purpose of destroying screenwriters and the movie industry? I sense a serious lack of logic … which I understand as it is pretty natural that writers dislike critics.

@167: So what, is being a movie for this generation a merit in itself? Is a teenage angst Spock automatically good just because it appeals to the target audience?
There is one general quality of good art, its timelessness. That’s why we still read Shakespeare or watch Hitchcock movies.

170. boborci - April 1, 2010

169.

Putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say he is out to destroy industry. Said critics need to have things they don’t like to survive as critics. Seems like an uncontroversial point to me, but oh well.

171. Michael Hall - April 1, 2010

“Your boss has a vested interest in your success. Critics the reverse.”

Oh, horseshit. To assert that you’d have believe that Roger Ebert, A.O Scott, Dana Stevens, etc. never gave anyone a positive review if they could help it. What about the 95% on Rotten Tomatoes who liked your film (albeit as a fun summer diversion, not the Meaninful Experience that exists solely in your alternate quantum universe)–were they vested in your failure?

“What are you, my guidance counselor?”

A thankless task, apparently, since your counselor apparently couldn’t convince you that it’s quite demeaning to yourself to suggest that a really sick person could only take issue with your work because of a side effect of their medication. (You too, Mr. Huyton.) No, I don’t want the job.

“I think one of he themes that’s been overlooked that Ebert may have a hard time with because it’s aimed somewhat at him is that the previous generation or two have been asleep at the wheel and have utterly failed to leave this world a better place than they found it.”

“Previous” generation to whose? Yours? What have you done?

172. Horatio - April 1, 2010

You said something like he threatens your economic existence with his reviews, sorry for just paraphrasing and not quoting you.
To me the fact that critics sometimes praise and sometimes scorn movies seems to be the uncontroversial point but obviously it isn’t.

173. ryanhuyton - April 1, 2010

#169

But there have been various versions of Shakespeare dramas. There was the movie “Romeo +Juliet” that came out in 1996 that starred Leonardo DiCaprio. It took place in modern times. The location was changed. But the style of English stayed true to what people spoke during Shakespeare’s life. Plus, people are doing their own versions of Shakespeare all the time on stage. The idea of it is to appeal to younger and more recent generations who otherwise wouldn’t be interested or wouldn’t know about Shakespeare. The point is, if people hadn’t “updated” Shakespeare for each new generation, then Shakespeare would have disappeared into the annals of history.
Original Shakespeare still exists. Its the same thing with Star Trek. Shakespeare has to be constantly adapted and so does Star Trek.
Its what keeps the originals alive in the public domain.

174. Horatio - April 1, 2010

Good point, without Westside Story Romeo and Juliet might be not be so often-read today.
But if I may offer another perspective, I rather take a conventional theatre production without any fancy gizmos or modern clothes of Romeo and Juliet over any movie adaption.

Back to Trek, nothing wrong with “updating” it but in my opinion an update that is too-deeply rooted in its own times will not endure as long as the original.

175. boborci - April 1, 2010

171. “previous generations to whose? Yours? What have you done?”

aren’t you the one who called me a bright young man? Am I supposed to have already fixed the messes you’re leaving behind?

176. Michael Hall - April 1, 2010

“To me the fact that critics sometimes praise and sometimes scorn movies seems to be the uncontroversial point but obviously it isn’t.”

Generally speaking, quotes aren’t lifted from unfavorable reviews to be plastered over double-page ads in the Sunday Calendar section. You’d think that would be an uncontroversial point too, but obviously it isn’t. :-)

177. ryanhuyton - April 1, 2010

#174

Fair enough. But there is nothing wrong with liking various versions of the same thing. But the original is usually impossible to beat.

But that is the thing about updates. It allows for more choice and greater appreciation for the original, regardless of whether the new version is your cup of tea.

178. ryanhuyton - April 1, 2010

Glad to see Bob is still up. :-)

179. Michael Hall - April 1, 2010

“aren’t you the one who called me a bright young man? Am I supposed to have already fixed the messes you’re leaving behind?”

No, I’m asking what you, or your generation, have done to fix things, not assert that they already should have been fixed.

Well?

180. Horatio - April 1, 2010

Gee, I am still in my twenties and obviously too dumb to get this whole generation battle thing, but what besides teenage angst Spock is so ‘present generation’ about this movie? And what have the past generations done so horribly wrong and what has this generation done so perfectly right?

181. boborci - April 1, 2010

I’ve only taken the first step.

I woke up.

182. ryanhuyton - April 1, 2010

#180

It’s a clash of egos, I’m afraid. Usually Bob is calm. But he’s been fired up on this thread. And some people, like Michael, just won’t get out of Bob’s hair.

183. Horatio - April 1, 2010

If people have a fight I don’t want to get into it, I am just interested to hear something concrete about this generation thing.

184. boborci - April 1, 2010

182. All in good fun. Made it clear up front that this thread would be my rant thread! Seemed appropriate under thread about critics.

185. boborci - April 1, 2010

183.

Spock Prime blames himself for the events of the movie. Therefore, for death of Kirks father, and destruction of Vulcan.

186. Horatio - April 1, 2010

Thanks for pointing this out, Mr.Orci. :)
That’s pretty hard to miss, isn’t it, especially after having seen the movie several times.

187. Michael Hall - April 1, 2010

“I’ve only taken the first step.

I woke up.”

Hmm. My late Dad–that would be two generations “previous”–went off to Korea as a bright-eyed-and-bushy-tailed apostle of freedom and came back, body blown to hell, to a two-year paid vacation in a VA hospital. Eventually they gave him a Purple Heart and sent him home. In 1969, in Century City (fair chance you’ve pitched some story ideas in or near that very place, Mr. Orci), not wanting to see other young men go through what he did, my Dad marched against the Vietnam War with thousands of others, until the cops waded in with nightsticks and mace and tear gas. He actually got off lightly–just a clubbing in the back–compared to some others. Strangely enough, no one asked him about his Purple Heart.

As for me–that would be one generation “previous”–I went to Thailand in 1979 to work in the refugee camps along the Thai-Cambodian border in the wake of the Khmer Rouge massacres. Nothing compared to my father’s experience, of course, but if I’d even considered going into the service he would’ve killed me.

But I’m glad to hear you’ve woken up. That’s very nice.

188. ryanhuyton - April 1, 2010

#184

Well, you certainly made it clear of your strong dislike of critics!

Kirk’s arch nemesis were the Klingons and Khan

Picard’s enemies were the Borg

Sisko’s enemy was Gul Dukat

Bob Orci’s rivals: the critics?

RRROGGGERRR!

189. boborci - April 1, 2010

187.

Respect to your father. A wonderful exception.

190. boborci - April 1, 2010

187. So you think things have gotten better?

191. Hermioni - April 1, 2010

Mr. Orci, if I might, I would like to try to get a better understanding on your position in this discussion. Are you taking issue specifically with various established gate keeping practices in the (US-) entertainment industry?

Or, does your stance represent a more generalized critique of the methods and strategies through which societally powerful groups tend to deal with various issues of interest to them?

Could you be viewing the former as an expression of the latter?
Or, am I just completely misreading your argument altogether?

192. boborci - April 1, 2010

191. Hermioni – April 1, 2010

Appreciate you taking time. I think I’ve gotten my ranting out of my system now. Thanks to all for engaging in this kabuki theater. See you on the next thread perhaps?

and call me bob;)

CIAO!

193. Hermioni - April 1, 2010

Bob, :-) ,

Thank you, as always, for making yourself available once again, and have good night!

194. Hugh Hoyland - April 1, 2010

<<<<continues to lie on his back, smoking a cig, dressed in black with sunglasses doing/not doing Zen. His Star Trek movie still whirling around in his mind. So much to ponder, plot, act? (what the hell is an act?) it will need a screenwritter, I may have to assign danger and write that myself, and a director, Im thinking George Lucus, but it will get done! Im just not sure of the time it will.

195. Michael Hall - April 1, 2010

“Respect to your father. A wonderful exception.”

Thanks. Exception to what?

“So you think things have gotten better?”

Better than what?

196. Luke - April 1, 2010

I think if we work hard, we can make it to 200 comments.

Also, props to Bob. I prefer a screenwriter who argues with his fans and critics to one who never listens to them. To paraphrase alternate timeline Scotty:

“I like this thread! This is exciting!”

197. ryanhuyton - April 1, 2010

There is nothing more to see. Time to move on. The show is over and the curtains have been drawn. And the balcony is closed.

The End.

198. S. John Ross - April 2, 2010

#144: No, it isn’t, and I always carefully avoid namecalling, without exception.

199. Michael Hall - April 2, 2010

Almost up to your 200, Luke. :-)

Personally, I’m sorry this whole thread ever got started. Lord knows that many of us are prone to intemperate comments from time to time (see my own to Luke upthread), so when Mr. Orci made his suggestion that a sick, disfigured critic disliked Trek 2009 as the result of being high on his cancer medication, I gently (and respectfully) suggested, for his own sake, that he reconsider leaving such a harsh and mean-spirited assertion on the record. Instead, he chose to dig in his heels–pretty much the way he responds to anything he perceives as criticism, I now see–ranting about “culture wars” and generational conflict and things that have godknowswhatall to do with the issue at hand.

It seemed to me that Roberto Orci was a stand-up guy, and though I never pretended to think the work that he and the rest of the “Supreme Court” did in “reviving” something so near and dear to me was anything less than a colossal letdown on my part, I shared in the general opinion that it was mighty big of this Hollywood hotshot to stop by here once in a while and participate. Now, I have to suspect it’s more about having his ego stroked, and wielding the power of feeding the occasional tidbit to an info-hungry fanbase, than any sincere desire for dialogue or feedback.

Again, I wish this discussion had never taken place at all. It didn’t reflect particularly well on any of its participants, and it doesn’t bode well at all for Trek 2012.

200. ryanhuyton - April 2, 2010

200!

Well, I was wrong. I thought once Bob left the thread it would be over.

201. boborci - April 4, 2010

199. Michael Hall – April 2, 2010

You’ll excuse me if after two years (2 and a half? 3?) of calmly engaging in dialogue and feedback that I used the critics thread to criticize critique.

202. The Disinvited - April 5, 2010

Nero is from a time and universe where Soran’s been obliterating suns with tri-lithium bombs just to attempt to re-enter an energy ribbon. Time was/is Nero’s enemy. Squandering it in the past so that the orbital dynamics of the galaxy can once again line things up, and thus limit his options to deal with the threat, is just as do-nothing as Nero would accuse all those that supposedly spurred his reasons for vengeance to begin with. Red matter became the only solution because there wasn’t enough time for any other. However, after Nero has time-travelled, Red matter is not the only option. The star’s potential supernova is not yet in a position to threaten Romulus. He can blow it the Soran way asap in the past rather than wait around 75 years betting that QM improbablities would allow him a chance to capture some Red matter and/or Spock Prime.

Star first, then Nero can enjoy the luxury of sitting around to see if time will hand him Spock Prime and his technology that he can use to torment Spock while twirling a Romulan moustache.

203. Michael Hall - April 5, 2010

“You’ll excuse me if after two years (2 and a half? 3?) of calmly engaging in dialogue and feedback that I used the critics thread to criticize critique.”

Of course, the issue was never about your “criticizing critique.” I think you understand that full well, Mr. Orci. Challenge Roger Ebert’s review of your film on the merits, say he’s overrated as a critic, lament the state of American film criticism in general, whatever. Have at it, no problem. That’s a very different thing, though, than deploying a very sick man’s illness as a rhetorical weapon against him. Choosing such a means of defending your work strikes me, at least, as the act of a very angry man. And while I really can’t fathom that sort of anger from someone who has been so blessed by life and circumstance, I think it may go a long way towards explaining your take on young Jim KirK, who is handsome, charming and immeasurably gifted, yet confronts the universe with a Jupiter-sized chip on his shoulder because he had to grow up without a father. Daddy-less and having to put up with critics–oh, the unfairness of it all! Of course, people can change. It’s possible I might eventually come to like your version of my childhood hero. But that won’t happen unless he grows up–and for him to do that convincingly, I expect his creator will have to do likewise.

204. boborci - April 7, 2010

203. Michael Hall – April 5, 2010

Not rhetorical.

205. Michael Hall - April 7, 2010

No? Then I don’t think the word means what you think it means.

206. boborci - April 8, 2010

205. Loved Princess Bride.

Meant it literally. Understand?

207. Michael Hall - April 8, 2010

No. Your deployment of the weapon was real, and not just part of your rhetoric?

And much as I like William Goldman and Rob Reiner’s better movies, I always thought “Princess” was overrated. Kind of like how you feel about Roger Ebert. I just wish you’d left it there.

208. Rick - April 15, 2010

Never understood why some like ST V and VI over ST I and III. I really think even with STAR TREK IV (although that film is still strong enough to me to get away with this.) the characters had begun to be more made fun of than by part of the humorous elements. Granted VI is still better than V, yet it is still a disappointment to me. There is the new female Vulcan character where it should of been Saavik, the really bad scene where they tried to translate Klingon, and not really making good use of the characters overall. I guess I thought after V they would of gotten back to more of the feel and strength of the earlier films and some of the series.

It always bums me out that all 6 or 7 films with most or all of the original cast could not of been equally strong. But it is rare for any film series to have every film be equally good. Oh well I guess that is just my opinion on how I feel the original series films played out. Now I enjoyed the newest film for the most part. I just hope they keep the quality in the next one and bring in a few more elements from the original series. I still think the first season of TOS really had some great mood, style, sound, music and writing. It really struck a nerve with me at least.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.