|FAQ||Members List||Calendar||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|May 12th, 2009 01:03 PM|
|Captain PirateFace||My favorite part of this movie is when Obi Wan cut's Darth Maul in half.|
|Apr 25th, 2009 07:36 AM|
|Krythor||Everytime I hear that guy I think it's Jamesman.|
|Apr 25th, 2009 12:24 AM|
AVGN reviewed this, and had very different things to say about the film.
I agree with him more.
|Apr 19th, 2009 08:38 AM|
|Krythor||Hey now, don't cry.|
|Apr 19th, 2009 02:26 AM|
|berrypievision||Nope, just a defender of the lulz here. Just being a true EDiot is all.|
|Apr 18th, 2009 01:34 PM|
|Tadao||Is he some kind of ED salesman or something.|
|Apr 18th, 2009 10:35 AM|
|Apr 18th, 2009 09:18 AM|
|EzraSmith||Butthurt people arguing over the internet is always fun.|
|Apr 18th, 2009 09:03 AM|
[I'm sorry, I'll try to use a less complicated term than context to describe context next time. ]
Hey berrypievision, post in the other forums please. You seem like the kind of person who would make a lot of friends! "Lulz" is a real corker, I'd like to see that one again! Or tell me how "distinguish" has too many syllables by law for a movie discussion, and how that word should be cordoned off to the book forum, where those hoity toity snobs talk about their "meaningful topics." Keep those nerd words outta here buddy!]
Hoity toity? Lulz.
You're a lulzcow.
I don't think I'd ever want to go on the forums, as this site rather details it well:
[I think that's more or less the EXACT VERNACULAR that should be exercised when speaking about Star Trek. ]
Nah, the exact vernacular has to involve anti-time, warp bubbles, and positronic matrix's.
|Apr 17th, 2009 08:15 PM|
|Apr 17th, 2009 08:04 PM|
Hey berrypievision, post in the other forums please. You seem like the kind of person who would make a lot of friends! "Lulz" is a real corker, I'd like to see that one again! Or tell me how "distinguish" has too many syllables by law for a movie discussion, and how that word should be cordoned off to the book forum, where those hoity toity snobs talk about their "meaningful topics." Keep those nerd words outta here buddy!
|Apr 17th, 2009 07:24 PM|
|mburbank||I'm glad at least I could start an argument|
|Apr 17th, 2009 06:59 PM|
|caffman||I agree.Star trek 5 was fucking bonkers|
|Apr 17th, 2009 05:34 PM|
I guess you got your browser word search kernel set to automatic, like me. I really got to deactivate it one of these days.
Lulz at anyone who uses the term "contextual logic" in a Star Trek conversation. It's funny how such an old thing can bring out the armchair intellectual and wannabe film critics in anyone.
I wasn't picking up on a typo, I was seriously asking. I don't even remember a Star Trek episode about the Bubonic Plague, but because there has been OVER 9,000, I really can't be sure.
If you're willing to have an argument over an opinion of a film, then you either have an unwarranted aura of self-importance, or you don't get the point of an opinion.
Can't you have some of those deep discussions about contextual logic about a more meaningful topic?
|Apr 17th, 2009 11:46 AM|
I think I outlined quite clearly why being a parody of itself is a bad thing, but I guess you only pick up on typos.
Also, please don't pretend you actually believe your contextual logic. I wasn't aware that the reality of every episode of the series was centred around the 60s, as your logic dictates. I always thought the idea of fiction was that it could be set anywhere at any time.
I was willing to have a decent argument with you, but you are snooty and all around terrible.
|Apr 17th, 2009 01:38 AM|
|EzraSmith||Yeah, Star Trek IV was a very well-written parody, and its 80s theme is classic. It also has a good soundtrack. While its environmental message may be less than subtle, it's pretty entertaining as well. Same with 2, and even 3, so I don't understand the one and a half rating. The rest of the original trek movies blow, and only one of the bad ones is good for laughs. One and Six are beyond horribly boring films.|
|Apr 17th, 2009 01:31 AM|
Being a parody makes something bad? Well, it's fine if you don't like parodies, but I don't see how being a parody is a de facto reason for being bad.
"We might as well have a movie equivalent of those episodes where someone gets trapped in the hologram set to THE NAPOLEONIC WARS or THE BEUBONIC PLAGUE"
What are you talking about? Do you mean the bubonic plague?
And wasn't the movie in the 80's? Isn't that why it is centered around the 80s? I'm getting mixed messages on why you don't like the movie, but I really don't care too much.
|Apr 14th, 2009 05:44 PM|
Gotta disagree man.. this is a fairly great movie. The problem is star trek fanboys don't get it because it isn't a good star trek movie. (Yes there is a difference.)
The thing is, star trek movies were prety much supposed to end after II (or a least be sans-spock, which would essentially have killed the franchise anyway) so they gave spock this big glorius death scene expecting the film to only do marginly better than 1. When part II became the hottest thing since sliced bread, they were sorta screwed. Part III was just a giant plot-hole-filling device to get things back on track. So keeping that in mind it's amazing that this film turned out as good as it did.
1 1/2 pickles? Nah! It's at least a three pickle film.
|Apr 13th, 2009 10:33 PM|
I can't remember the exact dialogue between Shat and Iggy, but my rifftrax moment went something like this:
Shat: In case you hadn't noticed, the planet is destroying itself!
Iggy: Yes! Exhilirating, isn't it?
|Apr 12th, 2009 01:19 PM|
|mburbank||I forgot this was the first movie where they destroyed the Enterprise! It seems like they did it almost every movie thereafter.|
|Apr 12th, 2009 04:36 AM|
3 Things to love about this movie:
The aforementioned Kirk Lear moment
The whole crew (except for Spock) goes rogue to rescue a friend.
THEY BLOW UP THE ENTERPRISE TO GET AWAY! Back in the day this was like Optimus Prime dying, or Duke going into a coma because of the bad reaction of Optimus Prime dying, or Spock dying.
Seriously, this movie is like Empire Strikes Back. Only there's no hands getting chopped off (unless you count David's death), and there's no finding out the bad guy is your father. But it's the entire ending where "oh yeah, there's going to be another coming." The three of them (II, III, IV) rule as a whole, like the Back to the Future movies. On top of that, David's death helps fuel the plot for VI.
|Apr 10th, 2009 06:41 PM|
|Krythor||That's also why it's so bad. It's a parody of itself, which is an okay enough concept for an episode but not for a movie. We might as well have a movie equivalent of those episodes where someone gets trapped in the hologram set to THE NAPOLEONIC WARS or THE BEUBONIC PLAGUE. I was even willing to accept it when I thought it was the sixth in the series, but the fourth? So much for it being a universe of endless possibilities; it's only the fourth movie in the series and the writers decide science fiction fans want to see a movie about the 80's.|
|Apr 9th, 2009 01:26 PM|
|berrypievision||Star Trek IV is a parody of the things it encompasses, and that's why it was popular, and a good film. It's not meant to be taken seriously. Unlike the first one, which tries to take itself too seriously, or that fifth one, which is fucking bonkers. But then again, I'm more of a Next Generation guy myself.|
|Apr 8th, 2009 07:19 PM|
|Krythor||IV was the one where they saved the whales? And that's one of the POPULAR ones? Hoo boy. It could easily have been the Mork and Mindy movie with some of those jokes about how the advanced man survives in the 1980s man's world.|
|Apr 8th, 2009 09:49 AM|
|KanyonKreist||GIIIVE MEEE GENESISSS!!|
|This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|