Watch: Daily Show & Colbert Report Go Star Trek (Again) + Futurama Too | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Watch: Daily Show & Colbert Report Go Star Trek (Again) + Futurama Too June 28, 2012

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Great Links,Humor,Viral Video/Mashup/Images , trackback

Colbert and Stewart are Trekking again. Over the last couple of nights both of Comedy Central’s late night shows have thrown out Star Trek references. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart seems to have Wrath of Khan on their mind, while the Colbert Report sees the president as a Vulcan. Watch the clips below (if you live in the USA). Also this week’s episode of Comedy Central’s Futurama had a brief Trek reference, a screenshot of that below as well.

 

Colbert and Stewart and Futurama go Trek (again)

Last night on The Colbert Report, Stephen talked about a new poll where Americans said they thought President Obama is better suited to handle an alien invasion better than Mitt Romney.

And on the previous night, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart branded their story on the "Fast and Furious" scandal with a Wrath of Khan twist.

And wrapping this up, this week’s episode of Futurama ("Decision 3012") had a brief clip from the future TV show "Bowling For Quatloos." The episode isn’t available online yet, but here is a screenshot.

 

 

for those who are embed video challenged, here are a couple of screenshots…

 

Comments

1. Whalien - June 28, 2012

Not again. Anthony, stop stirring the pot!!! You just like to stir the pot, get people upset and then ban them!!

2. Jed Bartlet - June 28, 2012

Thse segments were great even beyond their Trek references. I love those shows.

3. Michael - June 28, 2012

Wow, comments that were actually funny and made just in jest were deleted.

The comment policy of this website is simply absurd.

4. davidfuchs - June 28, 2012

@3

Unfortunately, jerks on the internet is why we can’t have nice things. The mods do what they want, it’s their website.

5. Basement Blogger - June 28, 2012

Funny stuff. I hope when J.J. Abrams visits Stephen Colbert to talk about the new Star Trek, that he brings a model of the Enterprise to be placed next to his Captain America shield. In case you missed it, check out where Colbert geeks out over Prometheus.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/415110/june-11-2012/neil-degrasse-tyson-on–prometheus–gaffe

6. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - June 28, 2012

The clip is great, and reflects the absurdity and hypocrisy of American politics all too well.

I love Jon Stewart. He’s one of the few people on TV who actually does tough political interviews. Granted, he definitely skews to the liberal side, but he’s not above criticizing them as well. For a comedian, he’s one of the more fair and balanced commentators out there.

In my opinion!

Jump down my throat if you wish, I will not respond because I’m not here to argue anybody’s politics. I think both parties stink and do not serve us at all.

7. C Miles - June 28, 2012

I don’t care what network /show/comedy show covers this.

The more Trek in the zeitgeist the better.

The whole idea that National Geographic ran this poll hurt my head- but it’s kinda funny that it made its way into the news cycle.

8. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - June 28, 2012

Oops, I forgot about Colbert. That was pretty funny, too.

In my opinion.

9. UKTrekkie - June 29, 2012

Can you please stop posting video content that is only available to US residents?

It is getting beyond a joke now, the last few entries have quite a few interesting videos, none of which anyone outside the US can see!

I should’t have to go through a US proxy server to view online videos, this regional rubbish has now gone too far.

Do you not realise that this site is on the “WORLD WIDE WEB” and other people also like Star Trek but don’t necessarily live in the US?

10. Jeffrey S. Nelson - June 29, 2012

The Futurama episode repeats tonight (Friday) at eight p.m. …

11. Mark Lynch - June 29, 2012

Errrrrm, I don’t think you can blame AP for external sites not allowing their videos to be viewed outside of the country of origin.

Anyway, as you said in your post, all you need is a US based proxy server and, job done.

12. Bob Mack - June 29, 2012

#6 – for not wanting to argue politics you sure seem to want to argue politics!

13. gowron8472 - June 29, 2012

Wait, Futurama referenced Star Trek? I’m shocked.

14. Anthony Pascale - June 29, 2012

This has come up before, but once again the majority of visitors of this site are in the USA and it is based in the USA. We cannot control how networks make their videos available. But if something is available and relevent to Trek should we not provide it for our USA readers? Also note that we have also posted video links to the BBC, which are only available to people in the UK.

The preview text noted the videos were USA only so you dont even have to click. I’m sorry it isnt available but I feel its worth it to share with USA readers.

15. sean - June 29, 2012

#9

You do realize we can’t watch BBC videos over here, right? It goes both ways. Stop blaming Anthony for it.

16. CmdrR - June 29, 2012

Don’t worry, folks.
Soon, the EU will be bankrupt and the US will buy it and annex it. Then you will be in the US and be able to watch these videos.

(just wanted to see the veins in some forehead pulsate)

17. Basement Blogger - June 29, 2012

@ 9

There’s really nothing that Anthony can do. These videos unfortunately exist on America sites. I blog. and embed Colbert and Stewart videos. If they posted the videos on YouTube, I would use it but they don’t. I hear that overseas people can get YouTube.

I’m not versed in copyright or Internet mechanics. I just hope that one day, people from all over the world can view American content. It’s also advantageous to the Americans too. Think of the advertising revenue.

18. CanadianShane - June 29, 2012

Ive been upset in the past on what i can watch on this site and others…its always the same, contractual agreements with providers who buy the rights to those shows supersedes our watching these clips, these shows. It’s not Anthony’s fault, hopefully in the future these agreements will be revisited and all will be able to watch them. In the mean time, I can go to the equivalent of comedy central in canada and watch the very shows, I did it in the past with the ones on Shatner. But I think we need to recognize that all are not equal when it comes to the internet, and if the United States Congress has its way you’ll watch even less. Stop the passing of laws that work to control the internet..thats my soap box thanks..

19. Steve J. - June 30, 2012

There was another reference to Star Trek in that Futurama episode – the scene showing the “Tholian” ships building the Dyson wall around the solar system…

20. Azrael - June 30, 2012

@1. What are you complaining about? Seriously I don’t have a clue, I rather suspect Anthony doesn’t either, because you provide no context.

21. Whalien - June 30, 2012

#21 — The one sided political pandering. That’s what I was referring to. Then, when you call him on it — or present an opposite political opinion, he bans you…

22. Caesar - July 1, 2012

#9: So because YOU can’t see it, you want him to stop posting the videos? Stop being such a selfish dick.

23. Jack - July 2, 2012

18. The exact same thing happens with Canadian sites in the U.S. — folks in the states can’t watch videos on CBC and the Comedy Network (and plenty of others)… and they write in complaining too. It has to do with contracts and paying for broadcast rights — it’s not a conspiracy.

24. MJ - July 2, 2012

All, I believe that there are several software solutions that would enable you to get a VPN connection to a U.S. server, such that you could see U.S. videos, etc. FYI:

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-watch-movies-and-shows-on-hulu-sling-from-abroad/

25. Jack - July 2, 2012

21. I’ve noticed it too. No politics in this site — unless he agrees with them.

26. Whalien - July 2, 2012

#25 — And we know where his political loyalties lay…lol!!!

Oh well, Jack, such is the way the country is going at the moment — dictatorship. Why should this place be any different?

27. Vultan - July 2, 2012

To be fair, Anthony did post a Trek reference in the Glen Beck show some time back. The fact the majority of Trek references happen in left-leaning media is probably a statement on the condition of the media rather than Anthony himself.

28. Jack - July 3, 2012

I’m talking about opinions posted — and the right-leaning ones seem to stay, the others get deleted.

And I don’t believe in the left-leaning media, it just doesn’t exist. There are (self-identified) left-leaning columnists and pundits, but mainstream coverage diesn’t have a liberal bias, if snything it’s too soft on conservatives because of the fear of being labelled as left-wing. And I say that as a journalist.

I’m starting to understand why he doesn’t allow politics on here. I’m from Canada and assume that we can have reasonable discussions without getting into nonsense about dictatorships.

29. Vultan - July 3, 2012

I don’t know about Canada, but here in the US the majority of media does lean to the left. Not complaining or anything. It’s just a fact.

30. Whalien - July 3, 2012

Jack — Vultan is correct. The media in the US is very liberal and it’s practically at the point where it’s state media. Now I could go into a bunch of reasons why I believe the word “dictatorship” may seem extreme to some but can be backed up by facts. The over use of the executive order pen and bypass of the Congress are ample reasons why I believe we are heading down this path.

When the people are systematically cut out of the process and have limited to no say — that’s a dictatorship.

Anyway, you’re Canadian, so what do you know? You’re used to socialism.

And if you think conservatives get fair treatment here, well…you must be a newbie to this site. LOL!!!

31. MJ - July 3, 2012

@26 @27 @28

Also, consider all near-wacko-level political stuff he let’s Orci get away with saying from time to time.

32. Red Dead Ryan - July 3, 2012

Anthony allows sexist and derogatory remarks about Sarah Palin, but if someone says something remotely negative about Obama, they get banned. I’ve seen it happen here.

I don’t like to criticise Anthony, but he’s been pretty inconsistent in his “no politics” policy. You either have a zero-tolerance policy, or you allow politics. The selective double-standards leave him with little credibility on the matter.

33. Whalien - July 3, 2012

#31 — You have to forgive, Bob. He can’t help himself. He’s surrounded by people out in Hollyweird who are just not in touch with the real world (most of them; there are exceptions — Dennis Miller, Dwight Schulz, Chuck Norris, Jerry Doyle among them). So, I don’t get to bothered by his politics.

#32 — Well, I don’t like to complain about Anthony either. The reason I’m here is because I consider this the best TREK site out there. I don’t come here for politics, truthfully. I can’t say enough good things about this site as a Trek fan. But some things are like waving a red flag to me…lol!! And i’m going to tell the truth as I see it…

34. Vultan - July 3, 2012

#31

True, very true.

I lean to the conservative side, but if Anthony wants to post Stewart and Colbert videos, I’m all for it. These guys make me laugh. Politics are too absurd to take (all that) seriously.

35. MJ - July 3, 2012

Star Trek and political thinking is an interesting topic. At first glance, one might assume the future portrayed in Star Trek is more of a liberal version of society. However, digging deeper, you see that most people in Federation Society in the future take more personal responsibility, and are more self sufficient, and are thus more conservative.

In actuality, I don’t think either “liberal” or “conservative” fits the Star Trek vision of the future.

36. Keachick - July 3, 2012

“When the people are systematically cut out of the process and have limited to no say — that’s a dictatorship.
Anyway, you’re Canadian, so what do you know? You’re used to socialism.”

Huh? I think it is actually more of a case of “what do you know”? You’ve never experienced socialism AND democracy because you live in the US. Others, outside of the US, do! Oh and just so you know, socialism is NOT communism!

Terms like “left” and “right” are relative anyway. It is possible that some of the most “right wing” people here in NZ would appear “left” to many people in the States. These are labels. It is more important to try to see where the real health and well being of the majority of a nation’s citizens is at – ie do they (men, women and children) have access to medical care, reasonable standard of education, security, housing, ability to put good basic food on the table and sleep in a warm bed…and be able to write on the internet, to newspapers etc expressing their ideas, not matter how *weird* they may seem to others, and have a vote(s) when it comes to local and general elections, irrespective of their ability to pay for any of this at any one time!

Long live true democratic socialism and egalitarianism (kiwi style)! Sadly, there are those who want to undermine that worthy cornerstone of my country…:(

My politics – QBE.

37. MJ - July 3, 2012

@36 Democratic socialism works better in some places than others.

Having been to New Zealand, I saw hard working self-sufficient people. With a population like that, or like in Sweden or Norway, socialism can work.

However, in other places, it just doesn’t work because you have too many selfish people who will take advantage of this system — like here in the U.S. As an even more extreme example, consider Greece — ask Greeks how well democratic socialism is working for them these days.

Different strokes for different folks. This is not a one solution fits all kind of problem.

38. Keachick - July 3, 2012

I agree with you, MJ. I don’t know much about Greece and the dynamics involved. Any system can be sent down the gurgler. None are impervious to abuse and mismanagement, unfortunately.

The first white people to come to these shores had to be independent, self-sufficient and hard working. Most ended up being stuck at the back end of *nowhere* and NZ topography is rough. Fortunately, what it did/does have in its favour, is NO SNAKES. Yet NZ’s closest large inhabitable landmass, Australia, has the largest variety of poisonous snakes in the world – go figure. Many of the birds have made it across the ditch over millenia but not the snakes…Phew! But I digress.

I think that our particular form of socialism was borne in part out of these virtues – hard work, self-sufficiency along with a sense of community, in the sense that the few that we were/are, are in this together and need to take care of each other…

I’m not sure the present generation properly understand or appreciate fully this fundamental and noble aspect. Many seem a little blase, whether they are the beneficiaries or the very wealthy who think they have little or no need of such social benefits and so see no need for the higher taxes that people pay here compared with other countries.

39. Whalien - July 3, 2012

#36 — I’m not here to discuss politics. You know nothing of the regime currently running the US. You don’t know who their bedfellows are and therefore, you are exempt from commenting.

Now, I could give you all the facts in the world, but I don’ t think Trekmovie is the place to do that.

40. Red Dead Ryan - July 3, 2012

Well, to break up the politicking, I just came back from seeing the not-so-amazing “The Amazing Spider-Man”. It was a poorly made rehash of the first Sam Raimi film. Andrew Garfield lacked the charisma of Toby Maguire, and was pretty stiff through a number of scenes. I found myself distracted by Martin Sheen’s goofy overbite. Curt Connors was too similar to Norman Osborne from the first movie. The Lizard was pretty lame. A lot of the movie was lit too dark. It lacked the optimism of the first two “Spider-Man” flicks.

Throughout the movie, I kept waiting for it to get to the point. And when it did, it was very underwhelming. Maybe because I saw it done better before. A total disappointment.

The kids will like it, but grown-ups will find it an uninteresting rehash made with inferior parts.

I give the movie 5 out of ten.

Hopefully, Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman can do better with their own script next time. Otherwise, we’ll be seeing yet another Spidey reboot.

41. MJ - July 3, 2012

@40. Before I saw the trailers I was wondering why they were rebooting so soon, but then the trailer was like fools gold — it looked promising. Sorry to hear that it sucks, but thanks for saving me $12.

42. MJ - July 3, 2012

@39. Whoa, ease us there a bit, Hoss!

I guess you just illustrated the point for us all why Anthony has the no politics policy, dude — i.e. because people like you get all “freaked out” when someone says something you don’t like.

43. Vultan - July 3, 2012

#40

Thanks for the review. I keep reading the plot is similar to Spidey 2002.
Might catch it on TV some day.

Saving my pennies for the Bat.

44. Red Dead Ryan - July 3, 2012

Yeah, I saw the “The Dark Knight Rises” trailer before “The Amazing Spider-Man” movie. TDKR, in a two minute clip of scenes, looks a lot better than what I saw in two hours of TASM.

TASM was a waste of $12.

BTW, the score by James Horner stunk. That guy’s skills have gone downhill since the days of “The Wrath Of Khan”, and “The Search For Spock”.

45. Vultan - July 3, 2012

#44

I listened to some of Horner’s tracks for TASM on youtube the other day, and yeah, I have to agree. Sounded generic. Or like someone trying to imitate Danny Elfman’s spidey music and not quite getting it right.

46. Red Dead Ryan - July 3, 2012

#45.

They should have gotten Hans Zimmer and/or James Newton-Howard. Those guys worked some magic with the first two “Dark Knight” films.

Or they could have gotten Alan Silvestri, Michael Giaccino. Or brought back Danny Elfman.

Horner seems to have lost his touch.

47. Vultan - July 3, 2012

#46

Sadly, yes, it seems so.

And yes, Silvestri did some impressive work on Captain America and The Avengers. Michael G is also very good. And Danny Elfman, well, I’ve yet to hear a bad note from the guy. His soundtrack for The Wolfman was excellent. So-so movie, but great, Gothic music throughout it.

48. Vultan - July 3, 2012

Okay, this nothing to do with anything here, but I’ll post it anyway.
Apparently, some folks in Tunisia are now living in the abandoned sets from Star Wars The Phantom Menace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kaZrb9R_8yE

At least some good came from that movie.

49. Red Dead Ryan - July 3, 2012

#48.

Cool!

And after “The Matrix Reloaded” was completed, the freeway walls were dismantled, and sent to poor towns in Mexico for housing.

50. MJ - July 3, 2012

Orci is probably thinking, W-T-F right now about taking on the sequel to the lackluster spidey reboot. This on top of the poor guy having his release of Enders Game moved to the unenviable wasteland of an October release next year. Does anyone ever recall a good scifi movie released in October?

Argh! Thank goodness he has our Trek sequel!

51. Jack - July 4, 2012

The spidey reboot is terrific. I’ve seen it twice. Best spiderman movie ever, and probably one of the best superhero movies I can think of.

It’s a really small, intimate pic, despite the save-the-city plot — I’m a little worried Orci and Kurtzman are a bad fit.

52. MJ - July 4, 2012

@51. Hmm, you didn’t like Prometheus, but you saw this Spiderman reboot that everyone is panning twice???

53. Keachick - July 4, 2012

#39 – “You know nothing of the regime currently running the US. You don’t know who their bedfellows are and therefore, you are exempt from commenting.”

#30 @ Jack – “When the people are systematically cut out of the process and have limited to no say — that’s a dictatorship.
Anyway, you’re Canadian, so what do you know? You’re used to socialism.”

You are presumptuous. You mention “socialism” in a manner which is clearly derogatory, and ill educated. As I said, it seems that you are the one who has little idea what social democracy is but allude to the US being changed to this kind of political system by the current people in power. The countries Jack and I come from are respectively Canada and New Zealand, not Soviet block countries. Whatever you think the current US administration is up to, it has little to do with real socialism as I have lived and experienced as a born and bred New Zealander.

If there is anyone who should consider themselves exempt from commenting on certain political systems, it could well be you, Whalien!

As far as freedom, I don’t believe that New Zealanders and Canadians are any less free than people in the US.

54. Vultan - July 4, 2012

#50

Had to look it up, but the only sci-fi movies I could find released in October were “Stargate,” which did well at the box office, and “Gattaca,” which did not (still a good flick though).

November or December would probably be a better time.

55. MJ - July 4, 2012

@53. Well said, Keachick! As an American myself, I’d like to apologize to those of you from other countries, for Whailen’s comments. Seeing his authoritarian demands for people to shut up is about as anti-American as you can get, and it embarrasses me to see those comments here directed at people from other democratic countries.

A major tenant of democracy, whether conservative, socialist, or whatever, is to allow the freedom to express your views.

56. Whalien - July 4, 2012

I never told Keachick to shut up, but a tenet of Socialists and Communists is the attempt to discredit THEIR critics by attacking them personally — which is what I see here.

It’s not working, MJ/Keachick.

What I said was, I have no desire to discuss politics at Trekmovie. If that offends you, sorry. You haven’t read any of my views on this subject since I haven’t PRESENTED any.

:-) Have a good day…both of you.

57. MJ - July 4, 2012

Thanks McCarthy! LOL

FYI. I am and Independent. I am not bound by the ridiculous partisan crap that this country has degenerated into. The extremists on both sides are taking the USA down the toilet.

58. Red Dead Ryan - July 4, 2012

#51.

Yeah, I don’t know about “The Amazing Spider-Man” being one of the best superhero movies ever. I have to say it’s perhaps on the opposite end of the scale. “The Avengers” blows it out of the water. “The Dark Knight Rises” looks like it will do the same as well

“Batman Begins” is the standard-bearer for how to reboot a superhero movie franchise. Christopher Nolan had deep respect for the source material, but didn’t become tied down in canon and wasn’t afraid to do some things differently.

TASM, on the other hand, felt like a safe retread of the original “Spider-Man”. Marc Webb built the same movie only with different parts.

Too many things bother me about TASM, and the more I think about those problems, the more I hate the movie.

The movie itself was uncalled for. Next up: A “Venom” movie. Oh, yay. (Sarcasm).

59. Vultan - July 4, 2012

#58

I have no problem with them “rebooting” Spiderman, with a new actor in the role like James Bond. But why go back to his origin? And so soon! Couldn’t they just proceed along with Spidey the hero we already know fighting bad guys full time. Surely everyone and their mother knows his origin by now.

Same goes for Superman and the upcoming Man of Steel origins reboot. We’ve been there! What made Batman Begins, Casino Royale, and Trek ’09 unique is they covered new ground—the untold stories.

Oy….

60. MJ - July 4, 2012

My boys are going to drag me to see the spidey reboot on Saturday, so I will post my actual review opinions on the movie later on Saturday.

My expectations are low, so maybe that will help me to enjoy it more.

61. Red Dead Ryan - July 4, 2012

#59.

Agreed! We didn’t need to see Spidey’s origins again. They should have just written a script where Spiderman was fully established.

TASM left out J.Jonah Jamison. Parker’s interest in photography was barely mentioned. There were several lame atttempts at comedy during the movie. Yeesh!

62. Keachick - July 4, 2012

Whalien, this is what you wrote in response to my post –

“You know nothing of the regime currently running the US. You don’t know who their bedfellows are and therefore, *YOU ARE EXEMPT FROM COMMENTING.”

No, you didn’t tell me to “shut up”, however telling me that I am exempt from commenting (since I don’t live in the USA), is tantamount to the same thing. You may have been more polite, but the intent is the same.

You were the one who mentioned the word “socialism”, in response to Jack’s post, not me or anybody else. I did not make anything personal. You did, with this comment to me, *”YOU ARE EXEMPT FROM COMMENTING.”

* My emphasis

63. Red Dead Ryan - July 4, 2012

Well, now I’m an L.A Lakers fan as Steve Nash has signed on with the Purple-and-Gold Gang. Steve Nash is from my city of Victoria and for the past several seasons, was playing with a bunch of nobodies in Phoenix. Now I can’t wait to see him work some “Magic” (see what I did there?*WINK*) with Kobe Bryant and the Lakers.

Hopefully Nash wins a championship. He really deserves it.

64. MJ - July 4, 2012

@63. WOW, I can’t believe we got NASH !!!!! I was just starting to think that it what going to be a slow demise for my Lakers, but this changes that.

65. MJ - July 4, 2012

@56 / Whalien: “I never told Keachick to shut up…”

@39 / Whailen (to Keachick): “…you are exempt from commenting.”

Whalien, while I would normally just call you a liar here, I think I instead need to say that in terminology that you will understand….so:

Whailen, you are exempt from being truthful with us!

LOL :-))

66. Whalien - July 5, 2012

HAHAHA!! Touché, MJ! (that rhymes…cool…:-))

I’m not exempt from laughing tho…;-)

67. Whalien - July 5, 2012

My short but sweet Spidey review:

1.) Cast was good.
2.) As others have mentioned — no need to retell the origin and doing so bogged down the first hour or so of the movie.
3.) The pacing was…off. I nearly fell asleep at one point.
4.) Cool villain. I always wanted to see The Lizard in a film and this played well.
5.) Stay for the extra scene during the end credits.
6.) Overall, a good film — not great. Then again, any superhero movie coming in the wake of The Avengers is going to pale in comparison — IMHO.

68. Jack - July 5, 2012

I dn’t fully understand the whole complaint about telling Spidey’s origin again — unless you’re doing a sequel to Raimi’s movie, then you kind of have to say where the guy came from… especially if they’re semi-following the Ultimate continuity and are keeping the guy in high school. I still think this origin story is much better told. The Raimi movies kind of screwed up Spidey, I thought.

Maye we’re just showing our age — Raimi’s Spider-Man… the first ever live-action Spidey on film… (not TV) was 12 years ago. Why can’t a new generation get their own Spider-Man… This is a ultimatey a very small movie about Peter Parker and his shit, and I think that’s a good thng.

69. Jack - July 5, 2012

52. The film eveerybody’s panning is at 72% on RT — Prometheus is at 73%.

It’s a good Spider-man movie, especially if you’re an Ultimate Spider-Man fan. Many of those negative reviews are complaining that it’s unnecessary and a cash grab by the studio… If that’s your attitude — that it shouldn’t exist and I therefore won’t like it — well, no movie on eqrth will chqnge that. Others complain that it’s not an auteur movie dripping in the director’s stylelike something Raimi, Burton, or Nolan would make. Basically, they’re complaining that it’s not a Sam Raimi movie. Or they’re complaining that it’s not epic as heck, like The Avengers. They’re defining it by what it’s not – The Avengers. It’s an indie movie about a teenage kid, his family and his parent issues… judge it on its own merits.

It’s a comedy-drama, with some good, easy-to-comprehend action scenes. It ain’t the transformers.

Decide once you’ve seen it, not before — it’s my biggest internet pet peeve, people having opinions on movies they haven’t seen. Sure, say you liked or didn’t like the trailer, if you saw it. Have an opinion that you want to or don’t want to see it. But until you see the movie, you’ve got no business having opinions about whether it’s good or bad.

Roger Ebert liked it, btw. He also liked Prometheus. He didn’t like Trek 09, but found it entertaining and fun.

70. Vultan - July 5, 2012

#68

I think many young people–and older people for that matter–are well acquainted with Spider-Man’s origin. It’s apart of basic superhero knowledge, along with Bruce Wayne’s parents’ murder and Superman’s coming from Krypton a baby, then raised on a farm.

To film it again, and a mere ten years after it was done to great critical and financial success, is just plain unnecessary.

But then, maybe the TPTB think we don’t have access to the internet or a DVD player to learn about this character’s origin. Play it again, Sam….

71. MJ - July 5, 2012

@69 “Decide once you’ve seen it, not before — it’s my biggest internet pet peeve, people having opinions on movies they haven’t seen.”

Agreed. I will refrain from further comment until I see it myself on Saturday.

72. MJ - July 5, 2012

@68 “Maye we’re just showing our age — Raimi’s Spider-Man… the first ever live-action Spidey on film… (not TV) was 12 years ago. Why can’t a new generation get their own Spider-Man… This is a ultimatey a very small movie about Peter Parker and his shit, and I think that’s a good thng.”

Disagree with you on this point completely. I could buy this “12 years is a long time ago,” but this completely ingored that that the second sequel to that 12-year old movie came out ONLY FIVE YEARS AGO.

Thinks aren’t moving so fast these days that you reboot at five years!

73. Jack - July 5, 2012

70. Have you seen it? Again, it just seems like it’s all about opinions that there shouldn’t be another origin story, out of principal. Not based on the actual movie itself.

72. That’s what everybody says. That’s what I thought when I heard they were doing this. But really, the last sequel was 5 years ago — so what? Are people pissed off that we’re not getting another Raimi/Maguire/Dunst movie (and I don’t think Raimi wanted to do it)?

And you’re talking about “another” origin story — the origin was 12 years ago. What, are they supposed to wait for a decade after Spider-Man 3? We’re not getting another sequel — ever — so what’s wrong with a new Spider-man series with a fresh take 5 years after the last sequel? And any sequel done without the originals would have been panned, also out of principal… plus, a lot of the possibilities had been exhausted (harry’s dead, osborne’s dead, doc ock is dead, Peter and MJ have been off and on myriad times, Gwen Stacey is a non-character — hey, and I actually liked Spider-Man 3, more or less [2 was better])

Again. all this (whether it’s 5 years or 12 yeasr) — It’s the same thing — ‘how dare they re-boot.’ And, I for one, would like to see the Green Goblin done properly.

It seems like it’s all about the idea of a reboot. Fine, you think it’s a bad idea. So what? Is the alternative a moratorium on Spider-Man for 20 years? When’s long enough? Batman Begins started development 5.5 years after Batman and Robin. Yes, but Batman and Robin was terrible, you say, and Spider-Man 3 was not. Again, so what would make you happy — no Spider-man until 2020?

We get to see a fresh take on Spider-man (in a completely different universe, but possibly the same one as Iron-Man etc., Avengers etc. which you couldn’t always say with Raimi’s – Raimi’s New York was unlike any NYC Ive ever seen on screen, and certainly not the same NYC as the Avengers) with 2012 FX? If the film’s even remotely good, how can that be bad?

This sounds like the same complaints about the Trek 09 reboot — people worried about their TOS and TNG DVDs overwriting themselves in the night. Trek 09 was released 7 years after Nemesis — too soon?

My advice — don’t go into it trying to prove me wrong. I liked it (I liked the first half much more than the second), I also loved 500 Days of Summer (I like me a little engineered quirky and twee faux-indy rom-com) .

74. Vultan - July 5, 2012

#73

Yes, principal. That’s exactly what it is.

Again, no problem with rebooting Spidey with a different actor and a different universe and a different tone. But spending another movie on his origin seems unnecessary. And if they absolutely have to remind us how Spiderman came to be, why not go the Batman ’89 route—a short flashback? Saves time.

75. Whalien - July 5, 2012

I loved Raimi’s Spiderman films. Raimi quit Spiderman after the studio wanted him to go back and rewrite his script for S4 (that’s what I read anyway). When he quit, so did Toby McGuire…then Kirsten Dunst…then it fell apart and Sony decided to reboot.

Knowing that, I didn’t have a problem with the reboot. It’s a GOOD film…but I guess it really suffers in comparison to Avengers — which was just so great (IMHO). I didn’t think of this as a comedy though….I wouldn’t describe Amazing Spiderman as a comedy at all!

After thinking about what Jack said about the retelling of the origin, I DO agree with him now…because this version showed him being handed off by his parents to Aunt Mae and Uncle Ben. According to rumor, his parents will figure in to the sequels…so, from THAT perspective, it makes sense that they redid the origin.

It’s a good movie — definitely worth seeing — particularly in 3D!

76. Red Dead Ryan - July 5, 2012

#73.

Why go over the same ground again? Everybody knows these characters. We saw the origin story done by Raimi only 10 years ago. They could have picked up where “Spider Man 3″ left with the new cast.

I actually went and saw the movie so I do know what I’m talking about here. There was nothing new here. Except for Peter Parker’s parents, who disappeared without an explanation. That was a major problem for me. The fight scenes weren’t all that interesting either. The Lizard was a bore.

What I liked about the Raimi film was that it established the characters but also cut to the chase quickly. TASM didn’t really do that. It didn’t feel epic, more like a tv movie.

77. Vultan - July 5, 2012

#76

Come to think of it, were Peter’s parents ever mentioned in the Raimi trilogy? Maybe in passing…

78. Red Dead Ryan - July 5, 2012

#77.

His parents weren’t mentioned. It didn’t bother me anyway, since Uncle Ben and Aunt May have always been regarded as Peter’s true parents.

I always figured mom and pop died when Peter was quite young.

79. MJ - July 5, 2012

@73 “And, I for one, would like to see the Green Goblin done properly.”

Wow??? Really??? Dafoe owns that role for all time — nothing anybody can say will convince me otherwise.

80. Red Dead Ryan - July 5, 2012

#79.

I really liked Willem Dafoe as the Green Goblin. He was great. But his outfit was kinda fake looking and cartoonish.

Doc Ock, so far, is the best on-screen Spidey villain though. Alfred Molina hit it out of the ballpark, and the cyber-arms were really creepy.

81. Vultan - July 5, 2012

#80

Yeah, I agree. Dafoe was great as the Goblin. That guy doesn’t need a mask or makeup to look scary!

Back to Peter’s parents: the point I was trying to make was since they weren’t mentioned or their back stories explored in any way, weren’t the filmmakers free to use them in the 4th movie without necessarily going back to the origin story [again]? Instead, inserting flashbacks where needed? Your thoughts….

82. sean - July 5, 2012

I just got back from Amazing Spiderman and thought it was great. People kept saying it was going to be dark and brooding, but I found the opposite to be true. The film had great faith in humanity, to be sure. And I think Garfield fit the sarcastic Spidey role better than Tobey (who is a fine actor, just not the greatest Spiderman out there). Gwen Stacey wasn’t simply a damsel-in-distress, and I could buy the chemistry between her and Garfield. Denis Leary was really great as well.

Yeah, the origin plot felt a bit ‘been there, done that’ but they added some nice twists to it (actually acknowledging that Peter Parker had parents, something the Raimi films seem to gloss over). And I liked that they laid down the framework for future films with Osborne in the shadows and the mysterious disappearance of Peter’s parents, as well as the possibility of catching up with Uncle Ben’s killer at some point.

And really, as awful as the third Raimi Spiderman was, I can understand why they wanted to start fresh. That sucker was painful.

83. MJ - July 5, 2012

@82. Sheesh, Uncle Ben gets murdered again in this one? Couldn’t they have a least not done that over?

84. Red Dead Ryan - July 6, 2012

#81.

Good point about the parents. But they’re saving that plot point for future sequels. Just like how they’re saving the resolution of Uncle Ben’s murder. Peter Parker/Spiderman let his uncle’s killer go, which I found unbelievable.

#82.

Toby Maguire played a shy, nerdy, socially-unconfomfortable Peter Parker. He was great in the first two films. He was so-so in the third, but I blame that more on the writing. Andrew Garfield played his character as cocky and sarcastic, which I found awkward.

#83.

Yup, he gets killed again. Shortly after a robbery at a store. In fact, Peter Parker helped the robber get away before his uncle was shot trying to stop him.

Maybe they should have killed off Aunt May instead. Could have been more interesting.

85. MJ - July 6, 2012

@84. I can’t believe they repeated the nearly exact plot with his uncle dying during a robbery, and Parker doing something related to the murder that will haunt him forever.’

Come on…BEEN THERE, DONE THAT !!!

My “review” will come tomorrow, but I am not that hopeful given how it seems like they have repeated so much from the first film. This is starting to sound like the 1977 King Kong reboot.

86. Vultan - July 6, 2012

Pushing Spidey aside a moment, the Dark Knight Rises is just around the corner….

Looks like a great movie. Could be wrong though. Third installments are usually weaker, sometimes the weakest in a trilogy, with a few notable exceptions. Nolan said recently in an interview this will be the end of his Batman story.

I’m wondering if he has the stones to… you know… break the bat? Permanently perhaps? Pull an Alien 3? Oh, I hope it’s not Alien 3 bad…

87. MJ - July 6, 2012

@86. You are correct. One notable exception was Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The Lord of the Rings – The Return of the King comes close, but the Two Towers is my favorite film of that trilogy.

The only other one I can come up with is the third Connery/Broccoli Bond movie, Goldfinger.

88. Vultan - July 6, 2012

#87

I agree. Return of the King was good, but… I don’t know… seemed to drag a bit, especially towards the end. Two Towers was a tighter movie.

I do like Goldfinger, but From Russia With Love has always been my favorite of the early Bond movies. The book is also good. Has a great structure, focusing half on the assassin (played by Robert Shaw in the movie) sent to kill Bond. Gives more detail on his background, too, how he has psychotic episodes that coincide with the full moon.

Yeah, sounds silly, I know, but Fleming makes it work.

89. Whalien - July 6, 2012

You people are insane!!! Don’t you know Return of the Jedi was the greatest third movie ev-errr?!!!!! The Ewoks were a MASTERPIECE!!! LOL!!!

90. MJ - July 6, 2012

@89. LOL !!!

91. Red Dead Ryan - July 6, 2012

“Return of the King” was a great part three. “Goldfinger”, “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”, “Return of the Jedi” are all great as well.

“The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly” is the best of the “Man With No Name” trilogy. A total classic right there.

“Star Trek III: The Search For Spock” and “Back to the Future Part III” are two of the underrated third chapters.

92. MJ - July 7, 2012

Agreed on the Eastwood trilogy and The Search for Spock. The Luke-Vader-Emperor and Space battles parts of Jedi were very good, but the Ewoks dragged it down a bit. Still, when I first saw in the theater on opening day, I loved it — it has only been from years of hearing people bitch about the Ewoks that has tainted my current view of it.

93. Whalien - July 7, 2012

The musical number and the Ewoks ruined Jedi…:-)

94. sean - July 7, 2012

#83

That’s really one of those unchangeable elements in the Spiderman story. It’s like letting Bruce Wayne’s parents live. It just doesn’t work.

95. sean - July 7, 2012

#84

Spiderman is really sarcastic, though (and in certain instances, quite cocky). That’s always been part of his character, the quips. Raimi kind of left that out, and when he did incorporate it I felt Tobey never sold it well.

As for Uncle Ben’s murderer, I felt that was an important part of his character growth. He started out as nothing but a vigilante looking for revenge, but he evolves into an actual hero out to protect the city. I don’t think he simply let the murderer go, he simply realized that couldn’t be his priority.

96. Jack - July 7, 2012

85. They repeated it because it’s Spiderman’s origin story. And it’s finally better done and makes more sense. You’ve got to have a spider bite and Uncle Ben’s death. They had to establish that this isn’t Tobey Maguire’s character just played by a new guy. It ‘s like complaining about a Superman movie where the guy comes from Krypton AGAIN, or a Batman movie where Bruce Wayne’s parents get shot outside a theatre AGAIN.

People saying they should have just started this as Peter Parker years after the spider bite, in the middle of being Spider-Man, with no origin, expksnation or look into the character’s past, but in reality, how the hell would that work?

PS. I’m worried that Orci & Kurtzman won’t be able to sustain this movie’s scope (this is an intimate pic about a kid dealing with some crazy shit) and not turn it into an epic, cliche-filled, melodramatic, wouldn’t-it-be-wild-if? Mindless Fx/action end-of-the-world extravaganza filled with loose ends and cringe-worthy dialogue. No offense, Bob.

97. Red Dead Ryan - July 7, 2012

#96.

C’mon man, this is the post-VHS age. People who want to see Spiderman’s origin story can watch the first Sam Raimi movie. Or read the comics. The problem with your argument is that you’re assuming nobody knows/cares about the past comics/films. Also, “Batman Begins” did show us the death of Bruce Wayne’s parents. Just like how Tim Burton’s “Batman” did. But aside from that, both movies are totally different. Liam Neeson’s Ra’s al-Ghul was a fanatic, whereas Jack Nicholson’s Joker was a psychopathic gangleader. The whole atmosphere of each movie was different. Different stories, and different styles.

“The Amazing Spider-Man”, on the other hand, too closely paralleled Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man”. Both movies featured Peter Parker involved in situations leading to Uncle Ben’s death. Both films featured a mad scientist. Both movies featured Spiderman trying to save people from a long plunge into the ocean, with Spidey using his web to grab onto falling vehicles. NuParker decides to break up with Gwen Stacy for her safety, while in the original movie, Parker decides to break up with Mary Jane Watson for her own safety.

There just wasn’t enough new and unique ideas in TASM for me to enjoy.

And yeah, I also expect superhero movies to be epic. “The Avengers” was epic. So were the first two “Dark Knight” movies. The first two “Superman” movies. “X-Men” and “X-men First Class”. The Sam Raimi “Spider-Man movies.

98. MJ - July 7, 2012

@96. “People saying they should have just started this as Peter Parker years after the spider bite, in the middle of being Spider-Man, with no origin, expksnation or look into the character’s past, but in reality, how the hell would that work?”

Worked fine for The Incredible Hulk, as well as for Superman Returns. I liked both of those movies, even though I realize others didn’t.

Didn’t get to see Spidey today — had to F’ing work today, and will probably be working tomorrow as well. This weekend sucks!!!!!

99. Whalien - July 8, 2012

Agreed MJ! The only reason to re-tell the origin though is if there is some new twist — which there is, with regard to Peter’s father. So, I would say go see the movie and then come back and tell us if you still have the same opinion.

I do agree what we’ve seen too much of what’s in “Amazing” before though — and that’s my main gripe with the film. We can only hope that the sequel will introduce Electro or Mysterio and give us something new and exciting…

The franchise still has a lot of life and potential left in it…

100. Vultan - July 8, 2012

#96

“People saying they should have just started this as Peter Parker years after the spider bite, in the middle of being Spider-Man, with no origin, expksnation or look into the character’s past, but in reality, how the hell would that work?”

With a little imagination it works. Again, see Batman ’89. A short flashback and some flowers on the sidewalk were all that was needed.

101. MJ - July 8, 2012

The batmobile in Batman-89 with the fracking jet engine is still the coolest action movie action hero vehicle of all time.

102. Red Dead Ryan - July 8, 2012

#101.

Totally agreed! The Adam West car comes in second. The Tumbler is third. I regard the Tumbler as the “Defiant” of the Batman universe. Ugly, but very effective.

The Batmobiles from “Batman Forever” and “Batman & Robin” were cool looking, but they didn’t have the weapons, or gadgets that the ’89 car had.

The designs for the BF and B&R cars were aesthetically cool, but also illogical in practical terms at the same time. Why would Batman drive around in a car where you can see the engine? Wouldn’t that give the bad guys something to shoot at to blow them up? Where were the weapons and shields? Driving up walls? WTF???

The ’89 Batmobile had it all. Machine guns. Shields. Bombs. A hoist. A jet engine. It was able to detach its sides to become a Batmissile.

103. Vultan - July 8, 2012

The ’89 Batmobile—best looking car of the ’80s. At least the best looking movie car.

And don’t forget the Batwing. One cool looking jet. The part where it’s silhouetted against the full moon to form the Bat logo is my favorite part of the movie.

“Where does he get those wonderful toys?”

104. Red Dead Ryan - July 8, 2012

#103.

Agreed!!!!

105. MJ - July 8, 2012

@103 ““Where does he get those wonderful toys?”

Well, probably not from KRE-O

LOL

106. The Charming Mentalist - July 9, 2012

Haha nice…Colbert is great

107. Jack - July 9, 2012

100. Yes, they could have. But in this case — the movie is ABOUT the transformation and Parker figuring out how to handle it. It’s ABOUT the backstory (Peter’s parents, Peter’s dad’s research, Peter’s parents’ working relationships to Norman Osborne and Curt Connors, Osborne and Connors’ connection to their deaths. Heck, Peter’s dad bred the spiders that bite Peter. The webbing comes from Oscorp and was developed originally by Peter’s dad. Parker growing up not knowing any of this, just knowing that his parents vanished) and these are going to keep coming up, presumably, in the sequels. It’s not just about Spidey fighting the Lizard. That’s the least interesting part of this movie.

It’s a movie about a young kid dealing with all this and figuring out how to handle it — fine, if they cut out the 10 seconds with the spider bite, or the five minutes of him discovering his powers — it would still be the exact same movie. It would still be about him dealing with all this and about a f*cked up kid very, very slowly learning to grow up (which will happen over the next two movies and likely won’t be over) So it doesn’t make a lot of sense (I know I sound like I’m contradicting myself, but I’m not) not to show all that. It’s not like the Raimi movie where he was out of high school before the first half of the movie was over. This series is about a high school kid. He’s still in school when it’s over.

The origin story (apart from here’s what happend) has never been particularly essential to Batman, apart from explaining why he does what he does, and you can explain it in a sentence — he saw his parents get killed, now he fights crime. Done. A character can say it, or they can have a quick flash back. Spidey’s a bit more complicated. Yes, of course you could say it all in a sentence or two — “so this kid got bit by a spider and then he ignored a criminal and the guty killed his uncle and so…” But, well, that story is kind of the ENTIRE POINT of this movie and this series. It’s not about adult Spider-man mid career having one particularly shitty week as Spider-man.

If you don’t want to see another origin story, you don’t want to see another origin story. So don’t see it. But most decent reviewers are focusing on whether the movie works or not, period. And most say it works. Most negative reviewers say ot works just fine, it’s an improvement in some ways — but it simply shouldn’t have been made because Raimi told the stroy a decade ago. and dthe studio shouldn’t make money from it. They’re hating it on principal. How is that a film review?

Reviewers and trolls say a Spider-man 4 would be fine, but a new Spidey movie in its place (and even a year or two later than it would hav e come out) is a brazen money grab. Why? How is it a bigger money grab than any other film a studio produces?

Why is two 3-part film series so much worse than one 5 or 6 part series (especially one running out of juice)? Do people feel like Sam Raimi is somehow being disrespected or ripped off and they think a few lousy reviews will drive down ticket sales and teach the studio a lesson?

People who haven’t seen it generating a list of “they shouldn’t haves because Raimi already…” well, it’s just blather. It’s hating a movie in principal, instead of actually seeing it and deciding whether or not you like it.

108. Vultan - July 9, 2012

An interesting defense, Jack, but that still doesn’t make up for the copy and pasting that went on with this movie. Maybe if they had been more daring and constructed the plot more radically different from Raimi’s original movie, they would’ve avoided the criticism.

Hey, it’s another reboot. It’s found an audience, which is great. Glad you enjoyed it so much. But it’s just a bit too… safe (and typical these days) for some of us.

109. Jack - July 9, 2012

Yeah. I just don’t see how telling Spiderman’s origin story is, in and of itself, copying and pasting. There are things you’re stuck with. I didn’t say it was perfect, but I do think the origin is told better here than Raimi told it.

How would you have liked it to be different?

110. Jack - July 9, 2012

PS. The movie has problems. Like with most of these things, the final battle was mostly forgettable. I found the first half the most interesting — once the villain attacks started, I was like meh. But I feel that way in nearly action/hero/scifi movies. That was the part where I would have liked to have seen some originality…

111. Vultan - July 9, 2012

#109

How to make it different? Only what I said before: an older Spiderman on a new adventure and, if we must, learning the truth about his parents. And how that’s explored could be done in a variety of ways. Through flashbacks, old photos, old friends, Aunt May, the villain, etc., etc.

And a nonlinear plot would be interesting. Though Pulp Fiction-goes-superhero might be too confusing for the kiddies.

112. Red Dead Ryan - July 9, 2012

#111.

“Batman Begins” had a non-linear plot.

113. Vultan - July 9, 2012

#112

YES! I totally forgot that.
Thank you, RDR.

114. Jack - July 10, 2012

http://m.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jul/10/movie-remakes-amazing-spider-man?cat=film&type=article

115. Gwen1818 - July 11, 2012

@UK trekkie – its called hotspot shield. I am in the UK and I saw it perfectly well.

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