A NERD’S GUIDE TO WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE NEW STAR TREK MOVIE

(SPOILER: DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE!)
First off, let me state that overall, I found the new STAR TREK movie to be enjoyable. It is fast-paced with lots of action, easily the best ST movie since THE WRATH OF KHAN.
Now, let’s get what’s wrong with this picture. Basically, the plot is a mess. Any time you do a time-travel story, you open yourself up to all kinds of contradictions and inconsistencies (I’m talking to you, Terminator movies!), but this movie has so many, it seems to violate the Prime Directives of the Movie-Making Federation!
The basic plot, as it is written, makes no sense. The Romulan homeworld is facing imminent destruction from a star that is going supernova. The greatest minds of the Federation figure out a way to try to prevent this from happening. Mr. Spock is sent to try to save Romulus. But he does not arrive in time. Romulus is destroyed. In the ensuing explosion, Spock’s tiny ship and a huge Romulan warship are tossed through time. The Romulan ship, led by an angry guy named Nero, emerges first from the timestream, not sure of where – or when -- they are.
Nero vows to find Spock and destroy him, blaming Spock for the destruction of his homeworld. The Romulans encounter a Federation vessel and they destroy it. The Romulans learn that they have traveled over 120 years back in time, to a period before their homeworld was destroyed.
Now, do the Romulans decide to pay a visit to their homeworld and try to save or at the very least evacuate their planet before it is destroyed? No. Instead, they vow to destroy all the planets in the Federation, since after all, it was clearly the fault of those Federation eggheads that a random star went supernova and fried Romulus. In other words, the Romulans are trying to get revenge for something that has not even happened yet and will not happen for another 120 years!
Now, here’s where the story really falls apart: after destroying that first Federation vessel, the Romulans vow to sit and wait for Spock to arrive. Spock is still trapped in the timestream, and he finally arrives –25 years later!
In other words, the villains of the piece sit and wait and do absolutely NOTHING for 25 years while they wait for Spock to arrive! These have got to be the most patient villains ever. And to add even more holes to the plot, the Federation makes no attempt during that 25 years to confront them. You would think they might want to investigate the destruction of one of their vessels, but no, they just ignore the problem for 25 years!
This is just sloppy plotting. Basically, the writers of the movie needed there to be a 25-year gap in the story to allow baby Jim Kirk to grow up to become James T. Kirk so he could fight the guy who killed his dad.


When Spock finally does arrive, what do the Romulans do? They exile him to an alien ice planet, so that he will have a good view of the destruction of his own homeworld, Vulcan. The scene where Spock is exiled to the iceworld is not even shown in the movie. The writers apparently deemed it not important enough to show. Kind of a major plot point, don’t you think? Methinks me smells deleted scenes here…
While on Iceworld, Spock comes across the now grown-up James Kirk, who has also been exiled there after being kicked off the Enterprise.
Wait a second. So Jim Kirk and Spock both wind up on the same planet? Isn’t that the stretch of a lifetime, to say the very least? Out of all the billions of planets in the universe, these two guys end up on the same planet, purely by chance?
When the plot to a movie hinges on a coincidence so colossal, it would make a Tribble’s head spin, you know a script has problems. All I can think is that the future Spock somehow did a long-distance mind-meld with the younger Spock and planted the idea in his head that he should send Kirk down to the iceworld.
That, at least, would have made some kind of sense. Despite the flaws in the plotting, the movie manages to be entertaining overall.
Other comments:
-The opening scene, where Kirk is born on the day his father dies, is hokey but effective. But wait a minute – this movie takes place before the Federation allowed wives and families of crewmembers aboard starships, so Kirk’s mom should not have been aboard giving birth. That seemed really out of place.
I realize they were trying to set up an epic story where Kirk is born on the day his dad dies, but it seemed kind of contrived. Like everything else in this movie, it works if you do not think too much about it. Just sit back and enjoy and try not to think too hard or the whole movie falls apart.
-Oh, and the attempts at broad humor, where Kirk is injected with drugs that cause bizarre side effects, did not work for me at all. I like subtle humor in STAR TREK, but this was too over the top. Next time, save the wacky humor for GALAXY QUEST.
-The new Uhura is breathtakingly beautiful. She should have had a much bigger part. When Kirk & Spock go to beam down for the climactic battle, I was really hoping Uhura would go with them so we could see her in high-kicking, mini-skirted action!

-How come all the ads for this movie try to make it seem like Kirk has a sex scene with Uhura? In the commercials, we see Kirk and Uhura exchange looks, then we see Uhura undressing, then we see silhouettes of two bodies writhing in bed. If you watch the movie, you know that Uhura does not have any sex scenes, and even if she did, in the new continuity, it would not be with Kirk.
-The Jim Kirk in this movie is not a very good hand-to-hand fighter. He spends most of his fight scenes getting choked by the bad guys, and then hanging over ledges, trying not to fall. I was hoping we would see Jim Kirk’s signature move from the old TV series, the dropkick. Alas, it was not to be. Maybe in the sequel…
-Wynona Ryder was an inspired casting choice as Spock’s mom. I always thought she looked kind of alien, with eyes far bigger than most humans.
-Overall I like the new cast, with one exception: they kind of blew it with Chekov. Chekov did not appear in the first season of Star Trek. He was brought in later, as a Davy Jones lookalike, to appeal to fans of the Monkees and the Beatles. In the new movie, Chekov did not have the Davy Jones haircut, so that was disappointing. I really wanted to see that!
-Overall I liked the movie, despite my quibbles about the story. I absolutely would like to see more stories featuring this new crew. But they need a better villain. The villains in this one were serviceable, but they could have been a lot more menacing. Maybe we will see Khan in the sequel?

BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR

The L.A. film critics group has made their choice for the BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR. And the movie they chose was... the animated hit, WALL-E.
Seriously? That was the best they could come up with? Really? I saw WALL-E, I thought it was okay for kids. But to single it out as the BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR?!! Did the year in movies really suck so much that an overrated cartoon beats all other movies, hands down?
Sheesh. Makes me wonder what the L.A. film critics are smoking.

Britney Spears’ new song, "Womanizer" -- worst song of the year

I have heard Britney Spears' new song, "Womanizer" -- and is easily the worst song of the year. (She also had the worst song of the year in 2001 with "I'm A Slave 4 u" and the worst song in 2006 with "Gimme More.")
I can't stand a song where the chorus is just the same word repeated over and over again. Let's look at the chorus for this masterpiece:
Womanizer, woman-womanizer, you're a womanizer, Oh womanizer, oh you're a womanizer, baby You you you are, you you you are Womanizer, womanizer, womanizer (womanizer)
How long did it take to write that? They couldn't find any words to rhyme with Womanizer? How about Paralyzer? Hypnotyizer? Analyzer? I just came up with that in 2 seconds and I'm not even trying! Let's face it, she hasn't had a good song since "Toxic."
At least she gets naked in the video, so it's not a total loss. But when it comes to recording crappy songs, I guess you could say, "Oops, she did it again!"

Another crappy Dane Cook movie

I see Dane Cook has a new movie out. He just keeps making one crappy movie after another. Is anyone seeing these things? I can't picture him ever making a good one.

They all have ridiculous plots with no basis in reality. He's either the guy who women want to sleep with because it means they will magically get married afterward, or the jerky guy who men want to hire to date their girlfriends... stupid stuff.

Dane Cook might be a good stand-up comic, but after GOOD LUCK CHUCK and MY BEST FRIEND'S GIRL, he should not be allowed to make any more movies.

TROPIC THUNDER VS. PINEAPPLE EXPRESS

TROPIC THUNDER is funnier. I was a big fan of Ben Stiller's old TV show in the 90s, and this movie is the closest thing he's done to his old show. It gets a little weak at the end, where Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr.'s characters each faces an identity crisis, and Matthew McConaughey shows up in Viet Nam from out of nowhere, but other than that, TT delivers.

PINEAPPLE EXPRESS is kind of lightweight. It's mildly entertaining, but seems lazily written. It gets by on the likability of the two lead actors.

But for sheer laughs, I have to go with TROPIC THUNDER.

AMERICA'S BIGGEST ASSHOLE!

Yesterday I auditioned for a new reality TV show where they are looking for guys who can be funny and act like jerks.The show is tentatively called called AMERICA'S BIGGEST ASSHOLE!

It is a comedy show where the guys play mean pranks on each other until finally one guy gets voted the biggest asshole in America.I don't really think I am the biggest a-hole in the USA, but it sounds like a funny show, anyway.

I doubt they will get to use that title, though.Too bad.It is a great one!

No More Super-Hero Movies!

A Longtime Comics Fan Pleads: No More Super-Hero Movies!

By Barry Dutter

I thought the Dark Knight would be different. I thought this would be the one where Hollywood finally gets it right.
Instead, the movie was overlong, sloppily plotted and a huge disappointment – just like every other super-hero movie from the past 30 years.
Theoretically, we are in a Golden Age of movies based on comic book characters. Every year sees at least three or four major new releases, with dozens more announced as being on the way.
This past summer alone saw Iron Man, the Hulk, and Batman all duking it out for box office supremacy, with the Spirit, Watchmen and Wolverine on the way. When I was growing up in the 1970s, comic fans were stuck with lame live-action offerings like Shazam! on Saturday mornings and the cheesy Amazing Spider-Man live-action show. We dreamed of seeing our heroes translated to the big screen in blockbuster movies. For most of the 70s and 80s, there were rumors of a big-budget Batman film that would return the hero to his grim and gritty roots.
But the technology did not exist to do live-action super-heroes the right way.
Special effects have now reached the point where any superhero, no matter how powerful, can be portrayed on the big screen. It is now possible to feature dozens, if not hundreds of super-beings in a single movie.
As a comics fan for over 30 years, I should be thrilled. Yet every time I see a movie based on a super-hero comic, I end up disappointed. Inevitably, the filmmakers make changes that tamper with the source material. Inevitably, the stories are lazy, disjointed and uninspired. Inevitably, the characters come across as being not as “real” as they seem in the comics.
Every time a new super-hero movie is announced, I get my hopes up. “Maybe this is the time Hollywood will finally get it right,” I think to myself. And every time, I am let down.
Oh, there have been some near misses along the way. The Spider-Man films probably come closest to capturing the look and the feel of the comics they are based on. But the films are not flawless. The first film comes very close to doing a straight adaptation of the hero’s origin, and then deviates with some new ideas that, as a longtime Spidey-Fan, left me cold.
Instead of getting his powers from a radioactive spider, as he did in the comics, the movie’s Peter Parker receives his bite from a genetic super-spider – one of many, which happens to escape from its cage.
And the movie skips a very important part of the Spidey’s origin – the part where the newly created Spider-Man selfishly tries to become a TV star instead of using his powers responsibly.
The Spidey sequels had equally disturbing changes to the mythos, like Doc Ock inexplicably reverting from bad guy to good at the conclusion of Spider-Man 2, and the Sandman being revealed as the killer of Uncle Ben in Spider-Man 3. It’s enough to make a true Spidey fan want to climb the walls in frustration.
The current superhero movie boom started in 1978 with the release of Superman: The Movie. Most comics fans agree that the first 2/3 of the movie got pretty much everything right (though long-time fans bristled at the depiction of Krypton as a cold, desolate place, instead of the warm and inviting world that was seen in the comics). But the climax of the movie, with Superman using his super-powers to spin the Earth backwards to turn back time, is one of the most hated endings in movie history.
Yes, the Man of Steel did have the power to travel through time in the comics, but it was never portrayed in that Earth-spinning manner before.
Superman 2 stood as the definitive super-hero movie for many years, but it, too, was marred by a climax that was weak, to say the least: Superman uses his “Super-Amnesia Kiss” to make Lois Lane forget his secret identity.
It’s funny how screenwriters can get so much right, but then leave a bad taste in your mouth at the end by throwing in some contrived bit where the hero uses some lame new powers he never had in the comics.
The biggest problem I have with super-hero movies is that inevitably, at some point in the movie, the filmmakers show a lack of respect for the characters. Thus, we get Spidey using his super-powers to deliver pizzas in Spider-Man 2, and the Thing getting pooped on by a pigeon in the first Fantastic Four movie.
1991’s Batman and Robin showed Batman whipping out a credit card with the Bat-symbol on it and saying, “Never leave the cave without it” – surely a low point in campy movie history.
The problem to me is that the screenwriters are constantly trying to add their own contributions to the source material. But I have never seen any change in any super-hero movie that improved on the original.
In the 1989 Batman movie, the Caped Crusader’s continuity was revised so that the Joker was responsible for killing Bruce Wayne’s parents. But did that really make Batman a more interesting character? Or was it just a typical Hollywood contrivance where the origins of the hero and villain must be inextricably linked together?
In the first Spider-Man movie, the decision was made to give Peter Parker “natural” webbing instead of him having to create his own. To me, this had the effect of making Peter Parker seem less intelligent. Part of the charm of the Peter Parker character is that he is so smart that he is able to create his own webbing (and other paraphernalia, like his portable Spidey tracers) after becoming a super-hero. Lose the artificial webbing and you’ve lost an opportunity to show part of what makes Peter Parker unique.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying super-hero movies are a waste of time. Most of them some have entertaining moments. Some of them have fine performances, like Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man or Heath Ledger as the Joker.
But inevitably, the story trips up the movie every time.

Sometimes you get some good fight scenes in a super-hero movie, such as any time the Hulk fights the army in the Hulk films. But often, the fight scenes are the worst parts of the movies. There have been six Batman movies since 1989, and not one of them has had a fight scene as good as the ones from the 1966-68 TV series.
The battle sequences in the Spider-Man movies have so much computer animation, they look like you are watching a video game.
The average comic book is meant to be read in ten minutes or less. As such, it doesn’t need a huge amount of story. But when you take that same comic and try to stretch it out to a two-hour length, you usually wind up with a loud, bloated, plotless mess.
Overall, I think Hollywood does far better when it creates original films that have the same tone as a comic book without ruining fans’ memories of their beloved super-hero comics. In this category I would put such films as Aliens, Total Recall, Robocop, Terminator 2, Army of Darkness, and the better entries in the James Bond and Star Wars series. Each of the films listed above have action, likable (if one-dimensional) characters, and humor.
Every time some hotshot Hollywood director spends $150 million on some over-hyped super-hero movie, all I can think of is, “They could have spent a fraction of that money to make a 22-page comic and it would have been far more entertaining, and it wouldn’t have wasted two hours of my life.”
And every time some A-list superstar signs on to play a super-villain like the Green Goblin, all I can think of is, “Does it really take an Academy-Award winning actor to say, “I’ll get you, Spider-Man?!”
Writer Alan Moore has long been against comic book-inspired movies. He has often railed against what he calls “the fallacious modern notion that making a movie of something somehow validates it,” and I can see his point. Comic books are a viable and powerful medium, on their own. Comics do not need to be validated by Hollywood in order to achieve greatness.
And so my plea to Hollywood is this: please stop making movies based on comic books. Stick to doing what you do best: ruining novels instead!
Because when it comes to super-hero movies, my response is always going to be the same: “The comic book was better.”