My own self

Very cool.

Yet ironically, also quite true.

It's about the game, not the movie, so I wouldn't know.

Morridini writes:

On a side note, tested the demo on Xbox 360.
Surprisingly good, it's a pretty standard Hack and Slash, but not a bad one.

In other words. it actually IS adequate? XD

It still amazes me that you liked Wolverine more than Star Trek.

Now THAT was an easy call. An action-movie with an actual plot (Particularly original? No. Complex? Heck no. But it was there) rather than a "Help, my planet's going to explode"-repeat with a tragic character backstory with no real bearing on the plot or the character, an incredibly dull enemy whose only interesting feature was having a ship that ripped off Bablyon 5, more plotholes than I have fingers, and a time-traveling subplot that exclusively was there so that people who'd be pissed the movie was a reboot would be somewhat mediated and so that Nimroy could star in it anyway. The amazing thing isn't that I liked Wolverine better, the amazing thing is that I LIKED Star Trek. At all. I did, but I can't fathom why. Except for the (largely meaningless) opening scenes, nothing in the entire movie stuck with me as Awesome. And yet, I liked it. J. J. Abrams deserves more kudos for that accomplishment than I'm able to give him.

I guess that makes sense.

For me though, Wolverine was walking way too close to Dreadful at times for me to give it any props in regards to a (poorly cobbled together) plot. Star Trek didn't actually impress me with its story arc or its "science", but the acting, characterization and dialogue was so highly enjoyable, and the action so well done, that it managed to make it a very enjoyable summer movie. So for me, Star Trek knocked 3/4 things it tried to do clean out of the park, where as Wolverine didn't manage to impress me at all.

Well, that's not true. It did manage to impress with the shittiest sfx-scenes I've seen in such a big movie.

Also? I really can't bring myself to enjoy movies with Hugh Jackman. The guy playing Kirk though? I'd watch him in ANYTHING.

Not sure if I'm with you on the dialogue, but the acting was very good. Thing was, Wolverine only really had two characters who needed to act, and I thought Wolverine and especially Sabretooth did good jobs, too.

As for Star Trek's action, I can't even recall it. I suppose there was some sort of monster on the ice planet, and then later some action when they went aboard the enemy ship? Clearly, I haven't been impressed.

That, though, could be related to the sfx-comment you make - I don't care. At all. Action and special effects are so irrelevant to me I'd be fine with puppet theatre representations of it. So if Star Trek did those better than Wolverine, that's quite likely indeed. Equally likely though, is my not noticing, or even if I did, not caring one fig either way about it.

Sabretooth was very well done, I'll give you that. I won't agree with you about the him and Wolvie being the only ones that should act; They all should act. They should all have tried their very best to steal every scene, to do bring something extra to it, and none save Sabretooth manage to do it. It was all just an endless line of flat scenes after flat scenes.

What can I say? If you're doing an *Action* movie, I think it should count how well it actually handles the *Action* scenes. Remember "Taken"? That's the best *Action* I've seen all year.

SFX is a non-issue for me as long as it doesn't pull me out of the story. Now, I'm no wiz on the subject, so I can't distinguish Good from Great SFX, but I know when shit looks really fake. It's like when you're reading a comic book and notice how that character doesn't really look consistent throughout the story. I may never actually be in doubt about who the artist is trying to depict, but it sure is irritating that he's making me think about it.

I agree with all you say in the first two paragraphs. I'm not walking around saying Wolverine was a perfect movie. I'm saying that the two only characters you really invested in were as well done as the cast of Star Trek. Sure, on Star Trek the entire cast (well, more or less) was pretty well done, but I didn't really feel invested in ANY of them. Save Old Spock, and that was because of the pre-existing relationship, not anything he did in the movie. Oh, and save Kirk's dad. But of course they killed him off right away. (The doctor was really cool though. If he'd actually have anything to do, he'd be one.) Even New Spock, who was probably the one given the most attention and who was very well acted - even him, I couldn't really care much about. The plot he was in was simply too uninvolving. I'm not saying that makes Wolverine's secondary cast as a whole not really impressing me okay, I'm just saying that I'd rather care about two well acted interesting characters in a sea of boring ones than have a sea of well acted boring ones and no interesting ones. I'm overstating the case to make my point here, but hopefully you catch my drift.

SFX to me - I expect it to look fake. I grew up with "Xena the Warrior Princess", "Sinbad the Sailor" and that ilk. If it doesn't, I don't notice because it's well done, and if it does, it's business as usual, and I thus don't notice much either. Similarly, in a comic, I'm only annoyed when I CAN'T tell who the character is (which happens saddeningly often), not very much when the character just looks unfamiliar.

Heh. You make it sound like I'm this snobby aristocrat who only drinks the fine wine & eats the extra smelly cheese, while you have nothing against a regular cup o' joe and a slice of Norvegia in between your stakes & other fine slices of meat.

And I guess you're right. I am indeed used to a high level of craftmanship, and when I don't get my money's worth, I have a hard time swallowing it. And I don't think there's much wrong with that; why SHOULDN'T a 100 million dollar movie like Wolvie have okay SFX? There's no reason whatsoever.

Glad you liked Kirk's dad, 'cause (as you know), he's the lead in the Goddard/Whedon film, Cabin in the Woods. As for the lack-of-plot that you're complaining about, I'll say that my favourite plot of Star Trek was the one involving New Spock & Kirk. To me, the film was more about just that - the character interaction and chemistry (which it had in plenty) - than anything else. The time-travelling side-plot was just a vehicle for Abrams to introduce these characters, and I think you'd enjoy it more if you viewed it that way.

Stories are, after all, always about people, and never about the stories themselves. At least the good ones are.

Paragraphs 1-2: There is nothing wrong with that at all, you know. I completely agree with you. I should be able to expect that from the movie, as should you. That doesn't change that to me, it's a minor flaw that doesn't change much about my appreciation and enjoyment of the movie, which are the things on which I base my judgment of it compared to Star Trek. My opinion is of course wholly subjective, and in my subjective view, special effects count for very, very little either way. Again, though - that is IN NO WAY the same as saying they shouldn't do them as well as they possibly can, nor is it saying that you're not right to expect them to and be annoyed when they don't.

3-4: I did, in fact, view it that way. Why? Because it was the only bloody way to view it. It was so frightfully obvious that the plot was a mere rusty skeleton on top of which they put the character-introductions that it never occurred to me to look at it in any other way. And this is my problem. Character interaction and chemistry is great WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. That movie didn't, not really. Because there was no plot in which to bring it forth. The plot was indeed just a vehicle, and my problem with it is not that it was a vehicle, but that it was a really, really bad one. It didn't bring any emotional heights, it didn't bring any moments of extreme tension, it just fell really flat. The character then raised it from flat to mediocre in spite of the plot. I'd be fine if they did it IN the plot. I'd be great if they did it THROUGH the plot, and I'd be bloody delirious if instead the plot did it BECAUSE OF THEM. If the plot had flowed from the characters instead of just sort of existing around them like a moldy frame around a 5 million dollar painting, the movie could have been quite awesome. Thing is, the character raised the movie IN SPITE of the plot. And that's not good vehicling.

As for your latter point, that's debatable. Some stories are about the stories themselves. Rarely my favourites, but some definitely are. This movie never was, and while I've seen few of them, I highly doubt any successful Star Trek-endavour ever has been. The movie was definitely about the characters. My problem is just that the characters had very little to work with as far as a context went.

Originally posted by Loki Aesir:

Action and special effects are so irrelevant to me I'd be fine with puppet theatre representations of it.

Allow me to derail this discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAOOnadmmpY

Hee. That's... different.

I can't think of much to add to this discussion. Well, aside from a snotty comment about "vehicling", but that's as far as my snot will reach this particular evening. I do think I'm very right about Star Trek being the better movie though, and I think history will back me up when it chooses to rear its ugly head, but you're of course allowed to be wrong about it.

I shan't complain more about the matter

A post related to the topic you might find interesting: On the Antagonist in Star Trek.

As for my thoughts, I liked both Wolverine and Star Trek, though I think overall, Star Trek was the better picture.

Star Trek probably was. But not by a big margin. And the things that it did better were things that mean very little to me. It's all about which qualities you value the most. Star Trek might have had slightly more of them than Wolverine, but those didn't mean enough to me in comparison to the few things I preferred in the other flick.

Obdormio: That was pretty interesting. Good way to view the movie. They should still have made the Threat a lot better, but framing the movie as being a conflict between the only two characters with any mentionable screentime is definitely a better way to look at it. Might even be able to stand side to side with Wolverine in my eyes if I rewatch it with that in mind.