The Escapist Presents: MovieBob Reviews Star Trek

Eric the Orange

Gone Gonzo
Apr 29, 2008
3,245
0
0
DalekJaas said:
That review sucked. Your taste in movies is terrible. Transformers wasnt that bad, at least it was entertaining, which is what a movie is meant to be. What the hell do you expect? Also you have an annoying, grating voice I'm sorry to say. Stop trying to be Yahtzee.
Don't like it, fine. But if all your going to say is essentaily "I hate you and I hope you die", then don't bother.

Many of the posts on this thred dissagree with this video. Heres and example of one that does it better.

Susan Arendt said:
Couldn't possibly disagree more with the review. I think it's a welcome and entertaining reboot of the franchise, while staying true and loyal to the spirit and core of the original series. Pegg and Urban are, indeed, the standouts, and Uhura does get short shrift, but I think Pine does a fine job as cocky, reckless, girl-chasing Kirk. Let's face it, Kirk was a bit of a dick, but his passion and sense of responsibility (if one can do something to help, one should, whatever the consequence) ultimately made him a good captain, and Pine carries that off well.

Yes, the original series did attempt to disguise discussions of serious and weighty matters in sci-fi trappings, but not every episode was meant to be some sort of object lesson. Star Trek was, at times, nothing but a ripping good yarn, and that's what this movie is.
See, this is polite, and give concrete reasons for opinions without saying things like "you're a fucking retard".

Also you may be surprised to know that this guy has been doing you tube reviews of games in much the same style long before yahtzee.

anyway, if you can't be polite don't bother poasting.
 

Escapefromwhatever

New member
Feb 21, 2009
2,368
0
0
DalekJaas said:
That review sucked. Your taste in movies is terrible. Transformers wasnt that bad, at least it was entertaining, which is what a movie is meant to be. What the hell do you expect? Also you have an annoying, grating voice I'm sorry to say. Stop trying to be Yahtzee.
Excuse me, but do you know what an ad hominem attack is? Its a logical fallacy that occurs when one's argument relies mostly on insulting the opposing arguer's character rather than focusing on the point and providing data in favor of his or her own position. Instead of saying, "Your taste in movies is terrible," why don't you back up why the review "sucked" with something a little more valid than an insult on moviebob. For instance, what about what he was saying "sucked," or what made Transformers "entertaining."

You have to put a little more meat on your arguments for anybody to take them seriously. Simply saying, "You suck, your taste in movies sucks, and your voice is annoying," doesn't quite cut it.
 

DtheHut

New member
Sep 25, 2008
12
0
0
Well, I liked Transformers but I wasn't a huge fan of the originals. I suppose I watched it as a kid but I scarcely remember it. For those of you that thought X-Men Origins was good, you have been sucked in by the George Lucas brand of apologetics that drove sales for the prequel trilogy. Origins was short, the plot was absolutely everywhere, and the entire box of "good" parts could have been copy pasted from every action sequence from every movie in the last ten years. It was old when it was new, and when its old nobody will be watching it.

As for Star Trek, there is alot of talking about whether it was an entertaining movie. This isn't the issue at all. The original canon is vastly more cerebral than this new reboot. The entire point of the show was to explore the human condition through unclear moral decisions between Hail Mary style ship-to-ship combat scenes. The action sequences were more like breaks for the mind than they were integral to the plot.

Originally Gene Roddenberry made it his business to explore a future without money, or poverty, or war on Earth. But to also paint the universe itself as a shifting dangerous plain. A frontier where the just and peaceful would be challenged time and time again to protect themselves without crossing moral lines. I liked this story.

I'm sorry but this new Star Trek was a fraud. The canon of this original series formed over the course of forty years and had a built in, fanatically adherent following. I'm not sure why they'd change it other than the two obvious reasons. The director and writers were unfamiliar with the franchise, and they needed to make a movie that departed from the lore of the first ten movies, two mega series, two long-running TV dramas, a comic book, and countless other publications to make something that appealed to the beer guzzling, crack smoking masses that wouldn't have noticed another Star Trek coming out unless the preview had alot bangs, whizzes and tits throughout.

Gene would roll over in his grave.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
My number one pet peeve: People stating definitive things about completely subjective... subjects. (Could've phrased that better.)

For instance, saying a movie is good or bad. You *Cannot* say that, because it depends entirely on the viewer and every viewer has a different frame of reference and perspective they're viewing the movie with.

You can only definitively state that *You* thought something was good or bad, not that it *Is* good or bad.

I really, really wish more people understood that.

Chris B Chikin said:
Why is MovieBob still here? He's not funny ; he's not insightful; he's not right! His reviews consist of self absorbed misinformed ranting. Not only that, but he's acting like he's one of the Old Guard Trekkies who actually watched the original series when in all likelihood he probably wasn't even born until at least a decade after the original series ended. Not that this is his fault, but he shouldn't be acting like he is one of those who is going to get especially offended by this movie.

He's trying to be Yahtzee, but Yahtzee and this guy a very big difference. Yahtzee starts playing a game with a neutral mindset, but intending to pick out every single deficiency of the game in a manner which his scathing and yet humorous and lighthearted. MovieBob, on the other hand, goes in to watch a movie already decided if he's going to love it (Watchmen) or hate it (Star Trek) and then give us six minutes of asinine fanboyism on whatever arbitrary stance he decided to pick.

To re-iterate, he is not funny; he is not insightful; he is not Yahtzee. Why does he try to be?
Take a look a few posts above yours, at SuperMse's post. They explain what an ad hominem argument is. You might find it illuminating. Many here might, actually.
 

ultimatechance

New member
Dec 24, 2008
583
0
0
Hey, as much as I like being a pessimist on the typical pop-collared abercrombie wearing douchebag, I would never let it interfere in my review as a crappy joke. Much of the humor you use seems to be just pure hatred of humanity as a whole, when you really just need to settle down, and tell me what the movie was like. Watching the whole video, there were too many jokes that fell flat, and you seem to look at things like the writers' previous work, and go off on an unnecessary rant as to why it is going to hurt Star Trek. I also hate going into Yahtzee territory when it comes to criticism, but these reviews are very much in the same vein, and the only reason why ZP succeeds is because it is well produced, not meant to be serious, and are actually funny.

Completely agree with Baby Tea here. Movies just need to be seen as for what they are, and the simple enjoyment factor that they bring, setting all of the hype and expectations aside.
 

THE_ZAR

New member
May 9, 2009
9
0
0
Right on target, MovieBob!

Paramount pretty much ruined the franchise* and now they try to "dumb" it down for their reboot to attract more flies... I mean more audiences.

Oh, and a word to those people comparing MovieBob to Yahtzee to George Carlin: Bull. Watch those interviews with Carlin by the "Archive of American Television" on YouTube and get an education.

(* Just check out how dull and boring ENTERPRISE turned out to be - or worse - that stinker STAR TREK: NEMESIS.)

THE_ZAR.
 

Stewie Plisken

New member
Jan 3, 2009
355
0
0
You know, I'm oblivious when it comes to Star Trek, I hadn't been following the production of this one obviously, but I heard all around good things and I wanted to check it out.

... until you pointed out that the fucking Transformers guys wrote it. Bullet dodged there.
 

Meatwad555

New member
Mar 27, 2009
16
0
0
Elminsters Hat said:
I don't really get the complaining in here. After watching the review again it wasn't even all that negative, or had a lot of swearing, or was any more like ZP than every wannabe edgy comment posted in here.

Yes, it's nerdrage directed at stuff you like, get over it. If you need some faceless internet personality to reassure you your opinion of popular media is still "the right one", google "star trek review 2009".
This. This. This.

Oh and this too.

DrGero said:
I enjoyed the review.

That's really all I can say until I see the movie myself, which I won't do for another few weeks, after the kiddies have cleared out.

Three things I wanted to comment on. From the forums.

One) I'm utterly amazed by how personal some people take things. He doesn't give a favorable review to something you like, so you attack him? I even read a couple comments about punching him. Holy crap people, get a grip.

Two) To people complaining about the quality: It's too bad your free entertainment doesn't match up to what you'd like. It must be incredibly inconvenient to be strapped down and forced to watch, a là Clockwork Orange.

Three) About the people saying "what do you expect," "it's just a popcorn movie," "I just wanted some good special effects," and the like. No. No no no no NO. Do *Not* take that attitude. It may be easier to just settle like that, but the more you do, the more you're telling film makers and companies "I don't care, I'll still watch it" and they'll keep lowering and lowering the bar.

Think Idiocracy. (Not the best movie imo, but it highlights things for some people nicely.)
 

SonofSeth

New member
Dec 16, 2007
205
0
0
I just had to try one more time, but my taste in movies and Bobs just do not converge, not in a single point, not in a single review he's done.

I have never read or watched a reviewer who is as useless to me as him, so good luck in your future endeavors Bob, but I'm out of here.
 

Cousin_IT

New member
Feb 6, 2008
1,822
0
0
hands up who here came looking for a review of a film they havent seen in the hop of hearing why someone did or didnt like a film & their reasons for it?

& hands up how many came for a review of a film they have seen hoping either a) to be able to agree with the reviewer by verbally fellating them or b) to disagree through OTT personal attacks & sweeping generalizations?
 

rickie-d

New member
May 9, 2009
3
0
0
I have specifically registered for these forums, for a website I am a big fan of, and check a few times a week to watch the new videos, on a computer that now frequently BSOD's at a moment's notice and is thus more of a hassle to use than not use, simply to say that this is single-handedly the most ham-brained "movie review" (I use quotes both to sound sarcastic and to note that somehow there are those of you who think this video qualifies as an ACTUAL movie review) I have ever seen. Complete with a voice fit for hearing-impaired Sunday morning gospel programming, the most thinly veiled "nerd anger" since the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, and a visual style that is OUTRIGHT duplicating that of Yahtzee, there is little to no redeeming value in this video whatsoever.

I sincerely hope this is the last review MovieBob ever does.
 

wyldefire

New member
Feb 27, 2008
49
0
0
Despite the hate that this review seems to have spawned, I whole heartedly agree with this review. Moviebob, despite the fact that you may not be a hardcore trekkie, I think you've succinctly and passionately represented how many fans feel. The fact that so many people disagree with you shows just how successful the tactic of mainstreaming properties is.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
MovieBob said:
(SPOILERS FOLLOW)

That's a fair point, so allow me to respond. As to "what other reason," that's just it: There really doesn't need to BE some big "whoa, so THAT'S how it happened!!!" reason for these guys to be there. These characters are in what is essentially The Navy serving on what is essentially a Battleship but in space. The only explanation NEEDED for why someone is at a post is because "it's my assigned duty." But instead we have "I'm Sulu, I'm here filling-in for another guy, coincidentally the same day that ALL the other 'name' crew members will show up and also more-or-less 'luck into' their best-known duties" and so on. It's just unecessary extra detail that in a few cases actually serves to undermine the characters - Sulu and McCoy no longer have their jobs because they're exceptional, well-trained men who've worked hard to get where they are; they have them because they were "there and still breathing" when the Enterprise stumbles into a disaster.

And let's not even get INTO the lead-in to the third act: Kirk just happens to be dropped onto the planet where Old Spock is, which contains ONE other guy who JUST HAPPENS to be the only guy who could possibly help them who ALSO JUST HAPPENS to be yet another 'name' crewman. C'mon, now. That's just lazy writing.

And the thing is, there doesn't seem to be a purpose to doing it this way save for the lamest of reasons - i.e. they're under a mandate that the new/old crew has to be a Hip Young Fresh Ready-For-The-CW bunch, so you need all these coincidences to explain why the main posts of this ship are all staffed by what appear to be Freshmen on a field trip ;)
I see what you're saying, but...

Ok, agreed that the bit about him finding future Spock is eye-rollingly stupid. There are coincidences, and then there's just magic-wand plot advancement. But so what if that's how Scottie came to be on board? He had to get there somehow - maybe it was because that was the assignment he was given, maybe it's because he happened to bump into Kirk when Kirk needed his help. Does it really matter? Put another way, if we didn't know that Scottie was part of the "name" crew to begin with, it wouldn't bother you in the least how he came to be on board, would it?

They're only coincidences when viewed from the perspective of "we know that the following people wind up as the crew of the Enterprise." Is it really such a big deal that Uhura got on board by bitching to Spock or that McCoy only joined Star Fleet because he got divorced? I don't see how.

If you want to quibble about coincidences, far more unlikely is Kirk meeting Uhura and Pike in the middle of Iowa. Seriously, what was that about?
 

Uszi

New member
Feb 10, 2008
1,214
0
0
WanderFreak said:
I've never understood the criticism of "coincidences." And then to complain about fate and destiny seems kind of contradictory (i.e. looking for something to complain about). You've eliminated coincidental as a reason for their getting together, you've eliminated fate as a reason for them getting together. So what other reason is left to explain how the crew winds up together? The Federation secretly orchestrating the entire thing to ensure they get the original series' crew together on the same ship?
...
This.


And this.
 

ElArabDeMagnifico

New member
Dec 20, 2007
3,775
0
0
rickie-d said:
I have specifically registered for these forums, for a website I am a big fan of, and check a few times a week to watch the new videos, on a computer that now frequently BSOD's at a moment's notice and is thus more of a hassle to use than not use, simply to say that this is single-handedly the most ham-brained "movie review" (I use quotes both to sound sarcastic and to note that somehow there are those of you who think this video qualifies as an ACTUAL movie review) I have ever seen. Complete with a voice fit for hearing-impaired Sunday morning gospel programming, the most thinly veiled "nerd anger" since the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, and a visual style that is OUTRIGHT duplicating that of Yahtzee, there is little to no redeeming value in this video whatsoever.

I sincerely hope this is the last review MovieBob ever does.

Thank you, for taking the risks of using your BSOD happy computer to join this site and set things straight with your extremely valuable "comment" (notice the quotes, to make me look like an even more smug asshole). We were lost without it.
 

THE_ZAR

New member
May 9, 2009
9
0
0
And here's my very special answer to rickie-d:

I have (also) specifically registered to this forum for a website I am a big fan of. (BTW, don't make your sentences too long, dude, bad style!)

I visit this website quite a lot over the week to read reviews and watch the newest videos - on a computer that I am fully capable of repairing and installing whenever the need arises (or at least I know somebody who can help me and not just complain about my own faulty property in public just to show everybody how much effort it takes me to write here at all).

Simply to say that this is single-handedly the most funny and aggressive movie review (I don't use any quotes here, because I think this actually IS a proper movie review and it is first and foremost THE PERSONAL OPINION of the person who wrote it) I have seen this year.

This one even came complete with the author's angry voice to comment about the movie,(obviously) wanting to have a good time and getting an "almost" dumb summer movie instead.

By stating quite explicitely that he is NOT a nerd/"Trekkie" (he didn't even finish the review with "Live long and prosper!" or "Q'Apla!") his anger is clearly pointed at the producers/writers and not the franchise, fans or actors (regarding Pine, even Hayden Christensen would have delivered a good performance if his director had been Irving Kershner and not George "we'll fix it in post-production" Lucas).

I really enjoy MovieBob's style and the attempt to make the reviews more "interactive". Oh, and if you "take" your inspirations and gags from somebody or something that works it's the way most things happen in journalism and show business.

The only serious question is how much further MovieBob can push his concept - or will he revert to a "tamer" style because some people want to bully him into that - or just want him to shut up because they hate his opinion and the fact that he was right to a certain degree.

The reactions prove already by themselves that there is quite a lot worthy of discussion in his review!

THE_ZAR.
 

mazeut

New member
May 9, 2009
45
0
0
Enjoyed the review and agree the movie was only so so. I'm not even talking from a Trek perspective just in general. It had a thin plot and only half the cast put any effort into acting and I seriously felt bad for the girl that played Uhura. She had maybe 30 seconds of screen time where she wasn't just there for sex appeal.

It doesn't even stand out as an action movie. Compare Star Trek to say Independence Day. Both movies are equally "B" grade but Independence Day had me shouting at the screen and all the characters were enjoyable even if they didn't have much depth.

Not sure why so many are frantically scrambling to defend it. Not saying its all that bad, just not all that good either.
 

Shapsters

New member
Dec 16, 2008
6,079
0
0
DalekJaas said:
That review sucked. Your taste in movies is terrible. Transformers wasnt that bad, at least it was entertaining, which is what a movie is meant to be. What the hell do you expect? Also you have an annoying, grating voice I'm sorry to say. Stop trying to be Yahtzee.
I agree with everything you said. I quite enjoyed transformers, it was a good movie. He is tryign to hard to be a non british, movie reviewing Yahtzee. He uses the same type of videos as Yahtzee, he talks fast, he swears a lot and he is critical. Real original.