Star Trek (2009) - Page 15 - Blu-ray Forum

Blu-Malibu2009 · 11-10-2009, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gremal

That sounds like just what the doctor ordered. After a hard day at the office, I just want to escape. Any depth to the writing or acting is a bonus, but I'm not going in with major expectations despite the great reviews.

I see that you have Iron Man in your collection. Odds are if you enjoyed that one a lot, you will also thoroughly enjoy Star Trek too. It has a similar tone to it.

Gremal · 11-10-2009, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

I see that you have Iron Man in your collection. Odds are if you enjoyed that one a lot, you will also thoroughly enjoy Star Trek too. It has a similar tone to it.

Funny you should mention that. I reviewed that one for blu-ray.com when the screener came and I gave the movie a 4.5.
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Iron-...ay-Review/899/

Can't wait to check out ST.

Blu-Malibu2009 · 11-10-2009, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gremal

Funny you should mention that. I reviewed that one for blu-ray.com when the screener came and I gave the movie a 4.5.
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Iron-...ay-Review/899/

Can't wait to check out ST.

Heh, I didn't realize you were Greg Maltz.

Sussudio · 11-10-2009, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gremal

That sounds like just what the doctor ordered. After a hard day at the office, I just want to escape. Any depth to the writing or acting is a bonus, but I'm not going in with major expectations despite the great reviews.

Greg -- that's exactly how I view the movie too. It was one of the wildest rides of the year, and I'd almost like to say one of the most fun movies I've ever seen. Well worth picking up imo

Rob J in WNY · 11-10-2009, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gremal

That sounds like just what the doctor ordered. After a hard day at the office, I just want to escape. Any depth to the writing or acting is a bonus, but I'm not going in with major expectations despite the great reviews.

That about sums it up - well. Really, suspending expectation is the best way to approach this movie.

Escape? You won't be disappointed!

toef · 11-10-2009, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beast

But the rating isn't comparing it to other movies.

You can't really say that all movies that recieve 5's are in the same class.

They each have to be taken on their own merit. That's what people don't grasp.

Also, I'd rather watch Star Trek over all of the films you mentioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctorthodt

That's a totally unfair and misleading assessment. First of all, Amadeus and The Graduate were reviewed by different people than The Rookie and Rambo. Second of all, movies shouldn't be reviewed based on a single, linear, draconian grading system. Movies should be assessed and reviewed based on their own individual merits, and how well they accomplish what they set out to.

It's perfectly valid for someone to think that Rambo is a better action movie than Amadeus is a period piece biopic, even if only ever so slightly.

edit: Beast beat me to it, but basically what he said.

Do you realize how little sense that makes though?

If everything has it's own rating system, then why is anything rated?

Ratings are a way to compare things to each other. That's all they are. So if you can't compare them, they're useless.

I agree with doctorthodt, in that the movies should be compared within a genre. But it's another thing to say they shouldn't be compared to other movies at all.

The different reviewers is a fair point, but still not a great one. The only difference between reviewers should be their personal tastes. And that shouldn't matter, because that person should be rating the quality of the movie, and try to be keep personal likes/dislikes out of it. If a person is just posting their opinion on if they liked a movie, they can do that on their Facebook page. If they're paid to review a movie, it should be more objective.

toef · 11-10-2009, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gremal

Not sure what you're looking at but Marty reviews about five movies a day. Ok that's an exaggeration, but he's reviewed TONS. If he gives five stars it's because he's thought it through and arrived at a conclusion that's meaningful to him. If you don't agree, so be it. I haven't seen ST yet but it's gonna be a blind buy for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonR

Ummmm...Martin Liebman has had a few more than 5 reviews this year, he probably has more than any other reviewer?

He also gave Shoot 'Em Up a 5.0. Is it a perfect movie from a film snobs point of view? Probably not.

But is it an excellent cheesy action flick, in a class almost by itself? I can easily say yes to that!

It is an opinion, that is all.

Yeah, I don't know what I was looking at before. He's written a billion reviews... or at least a hundred or two. My mistake.

toef · 11-10-2009, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

It will be nominated because there are 10 spots this year, which is a direct result of populist outrage at WALL-E and The Dark Knight not getting nominated last year. So they doubled the number of nominated films this year, which is a joke in my opinion.

It's a tough year for the Academy, because it seems like it was a lot easier to fit 10 into last year (Gran Torino, Changeling, The Dark Knight, Wall-E, and The Wrestler are a quick 5 that come to mind), whereas this year it seems like they'll need to stretch a bit to fill the spots, and the deservedness of some of the nominated movies will probably be questioned (well, I guess they always are... but more so this year).

I agree about LA Confidential though.

banned user105 · 11-10-2009, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toefer

Do you realize how little sense that makes though?

If everything has it's own rating system, then why is anything rating?

Ratings are a way to compare things to each other. That's all they are.

No. That's actually completely backwards, I think. Ratings are a way for an individual to express how they feel about a particular movie, not a way to compare movies to each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by toefer

And that shouldn't matter, because that person should be rating the quality of the movie, and try to be keep personal likes/dislikes out of it.

I don't think you'll find a single professional reviewer out there who agrees with this notion. That's the whole point of reviewing a film - to give your own personal opinion about it

brps3 · 11-10-2009, 03:00 AM

So is it true that according to the reviews I have read the picture on bluray isnt very good?

banned user105 · 11-10-2009, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brps3

So is it true that according to the reviews I have read the picture on bluray isnt very good?

What reviews say the picture isn't good? It got a 5.0 for picture here and DVD Beaver said it's probably the best-looking Blu-Ray of the year.

brps3 · 11-10-2009, 03:10 AM

I've read a couple that said that the picture is no better than what you saw in theater. Lots of lens flares and skin color variations.

toef · 11-10-2009, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctorthodt

No. That's actually completely backwards, I think. Ratings are a way for an individual to express how they feel about a particular movie, not a way to compare movies to each other.

But what does that even mean?

Why does it matter how you feel about a particular movie? And if all that matters is whether you like it or not, then you only need two ratings: like and dislike (or thumb up and thumb down, or whatever else).

If you need more ratings, it's because you want to imply you like it MORE than another movie you also liked, which is comparing movies to each other, which you said isn't the point.

Quote:

I don't think you'll find a single professional reviewer out there who agrees with this notion. That's the whole point of reviewing a film - to give your own personal opinion about it

Roger Ebert.

I challenge you to find someone out there who actually rates movies without comparing them to other movies. I've never met a person who sits in a movie and then walks out and says "that movie felt like a 7", without using 7 as a reference point for not as good as some movies (8's) but better than others (6's).

Sussudio · 11-10-2009, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brps3

I've read a couple that said that the picture is no better than what you saw in theater. Lots of lens flares and skin color variations.

That's EXACTLY what it should look like

banned user105 · 11-10-2009, 03:12 AM

I dunno about skin color variations because I haven't seen the blu-ray yet, but the lens flares are deliberate. They have nothing to do with the quality of the picture.

toef · 11-10-2009, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brps3

I've read a couple that said that the picture is no better than what you saw in theater. Lots of lens flares and skin color variations.

That wouldn't really be a drawback. If the movie looks as good as it did in theaters, then it looks great. All screens I've seen of it so far have seemed to show that the BD does look great.

brps3 · 11-10-2009, 03:17 AM

I forgot to mention that one said that it's no better on BR than on regular DVD.

banned user105 · 11-10-2009, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toefer

Roger Ebert.

I find it curious that you should mention Ebert, since he has emphatically stated over and over again throughout his career exactly what Beast and I said earlier in this thread, and exactly what you disagreed with, which is that movies should be judged on their own merits. In fact, that's Roger Ebert's entire basis for reviewing films - which is to say, determining whether they succeeded at what they were trying to do. Why do you think he gave both Garfield movies a higher rating than Brazil, A Clockwork Orange, Blue Velvet, etc?

Sussudio · 11-10-2009, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brps3

I forgot to mention that one said that it's no better on BR than on regular DVD.

Ok, at this point are you even being serious?? Of course it's better than the DVD...It looks incredible

Blu Titan · 11-10-2009, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brps3

I've read a couple that said that the picture is no better than what you saw in theater. Lots of lens flares and skin color variations.

Where exactly did you read that?

11-10-2009, 03:00 AM	#290
brps3 Expert Member Member since:Nov 2008 Location:kansas city, MO	re So is it true that according to the reviews I have read the picture on bluray isnt very good?

11-10-2009, 03:10 AM	#292
brps3 Expert Member Member since:Nov 2008 Location:kansas city, MO	re I've read a couple that said that the picture is no better than what you saw in theater. Lots of lens flares and skin color variations.

11-10-2009, 03:17 AM	#297
brps3 Expert Member Member since:Nov 2008 Location:kansas city, MO	re I forgot to mention that one said that it's no better on BR than on regular DVD.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Star Trek 2009 surpasses all previous Star Trek in adjusted gross $	Movies	Havenbull	15	09-20-2011 07:06 AM
Star Trek (2009)	Movies	CZAR	191	07-09-2010 09:36 PM
Star Trek (2009)	Wish Lists	Yeha-Noha	5	05-14-2009 05:48 PM
What Star Trek Movies Do You Want In 2009	Wish Lists	RustyK94	38	01-19-2009 09:45 PM

11-10-2009, 03:12 AM	#295
banned user105 Banned Member since:Aug 2009 Location:Orlando Blu-ray collection:1672	I dunno about skin color variations because I haven't seen the blu-ray yet, but the lens flares are deliberate. They have nothing to do with the quality of the picture.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals