I got that part, but it could have been iPhone footage. There was nothing it that was intrinsic to using actual film cameras (as happens in both Blow-Up and Blow Out). The gimmick didn't justify itself.

But that was to make a point. As happened frequently on original Trek (for example, "The City on the Edge of Forever" and "Mirror, Mirror") and overtly in the Back to the Future trilogy, the idea is that there's a certain course that events are "supposed" to take, but that there are significant variations.

Viz. Sunshine: I do indeed. I especially like the unabashedly Kubrickian ending. When you hear the recording of Pinbacker ranting "We are abandoning our mission!" the movie has progressed into philosophical depths that are rarely reached. The whole thematic concept of scale — the way the visuals and the storytelling…

You talking about me? Sorry about that. I didn't mean to be condescending (talking about my familarity with Trek) so much as to establish my cred — to show that I wasn't loving the Abrams movies simply due to unfamiliarity with the canon or with the original show.

Maybe I should see it again. I agree Bird is brilliant (I loved The Iron Giant).

But Into Darkness WAS that stuff. (My first point above.) I honestly don't get it; it's like we didn't see the same movie. Sure, the way in which the basic nature and purpose of the Federation and of Starfleet was challenged, tested and ultimately reaffirmed — and the way in which the political considerations were…

I absolutely loved Primer and Moon, as well as Sunshine and the Soderbergh Solaris (as well as the original). My favorite movie of all time is still 2001: A Space Odyssey. All that stuff is great. But it's not Star Trek, which was intended as a mainstream delivery system for sci-fi ideas, aimed at those members of the…

Okay, apologies for that part; I overstated the case a bit. But, come on. I'm tired of having Trek be something that I can't mention on a date.

I didn't think it was "cynical" — I just thought it was awful. Cobbled-together mythos; inept storytelling; a badly-misused title device (the filmmaking serves no real plot purpose) and, basically, just a narrative mess. It made me think that Abrams isn't really "cinematic" — he's a great interpreter of television…

THREE THINGS THAT REALLY BOTHER ME

Because it suited the point I was making. And, because Raiders is much more about Lucas inventing the idea (as is pretty clear if you read that Kasdan/Lucas/Spielberg transcript) whereas Last Crusade is a vastly less original piece of work, and (like Crystal Skull) has Spielberg in workmanlike "let me get this script…

This was back when Spielberg really didn't know what he was doing.

It's a line from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

@avclub-d4ff3c518d33328bfadc34f25b054267:disqus Yeah, I realize it's anachronistic. I just cannot fucking stand it.
Same with The Flintstones and I Love Lucy. I grew up constantly spending
time with people who liked to put on those shows or refer to them, and
they're just like torture to me. I hate loud morons…

(wrong thread)

@avclub-3a7e51d147107126d603db6022ddd70b:disqus You're coming at the whole thing from this weird, entitled position that I can't get behind. "I need more than a new vibe. I need good execution." You don't "need" anything; most TV is crap, and you're so ahead of the game with Mad Men I don't know what you're…

"Evil Gilligan" is Gilligan. Isn't he the reason they shipwrecked? Anyway, he's an awful, awful person. I know I'm supposed to be endeared to him because of how fucking stupid he is, but no sale — it's actually quite the other way around since his idiocy makes me want to smash him in the face. I hate him. Actually, I…

What I loved about Season 4 was how it totally changed the entire "framework" out from under the show. It was fascinating to me, like somebody had found a way to make television work like the best movie sequels.

Pete is Gilligan. (Duh.)

The weakest season is Season 3. It's nearly impossible to distinguish from Season 2.