Re: Official Trek XI Website Has Teaser Trailer

"GeneK" <gene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:egSlj.64970$Rf5.29510@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote...
>> Nobody ever expects a monster movie to be appreciated by folks over 45.

>> I'm surprised that it gets rated even as high as 7.0 by them.  I doubt 
>> that other monster movies ever got rated that high by middle-aged and 
>> senior folks.
>>
>> Give the producers and the financiers some credit.  They knew all along

>> that "Cloverfield" is not going to appeal to the same niche audience as

>> "On Golden Pond."
>
> I think I was somewhere between 12 and 15 when I realized
> that all monster movies have the exact same plot:
>
> Monster appears.
> Monster attacks.
> People run screaming in panic.
> Military and other heroes try to battle monster and rescue people.
> Heroes win, monster is destroyed...or is it?  See the sequel.
> or
> Heroes lose, monster continues to attack.  See the sequel.
>
> The *only* thing that distinguishes one monster movie from
> any other is how good the design and FX are for the monster
> and the scenes in which it destroys Tokyo (or whatever city
> is being attacked).
> Any attempt to introduce any other plot or character emphasis that 
> distracts from the cool monster-destroys-Tokyo-or-wherever FX, whether 
> it's secret agent intrigue, romance or telepathic women with big ears, 
> only serves to distract from the reason one is watching the movie (to
see 
> the monster) and therefore from one's enjoyment of the movie.
> You can pretty much rate any monster movie by how soon you get to see
the 
> monster and how much screen time the monster has after it first appears.
> The more secretive the movie's creators are about what the
> monster looks like and the greater the lengths they go to
> to avoid showing it to you, the less likely the monster is to be
something 
> you enjoy watching after the cat has been let
> out of the bag.
>
> "Cloverfield" has now been out for an entire week, and there
> still have yet to be any images of the monster released.  This
> is not encouraging.
>

Gene there is no doubt in my mind that the entire campaign...(which seems
to 
have worked!) was to build up hype to cash in quick before the word really

got out on this movie. I urge none of you to go see it, but when you do
view 
it, I think you'll see what I mean. THERE is an attempt to change the 
monster formula through the Blair Witch filming technique. Problem 
is....it's a disaster! Ridiculous lines and the extremely stretched "i'm 
still filiming!!" premise, make any "reality" impact negligible. In fact,
it 
takes you out of the illusion because you begin to wonder why this moron
is 
filming and why you want to watch. but further, the EXTREME EXTREME
EXTREME 
idiocy of the characters...in conjunction with the ridiculous writing
simply 
make you unsympathetic, it takes the "stupid victim" from Horror movie 
stererotype to all new levels.

The monster itself is simply....bland....unremarkable and unexplained.

I could quite honestly go on for hours about how this movie missed the
mark 
in every way and brought up several other points on a movie message board.

However, suffice it to say, STRONGLY recommend not paying for it.