Decent Films doings, May 2009

SDG here with a quick Decent Films update. Things have been slow lately, but May is going to really heat up.

This week I have two reviews, both pretty lukewarm, but still reviews I had a certain emotional investment in writing that I think makes them kind of interesting. Battle for Terra is up at Christianity Today Movies, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine is up at Decent Films.

In the next couple of weeks I’ll have some very NON-lukewarm coverage of two other movies, Star Trek and Angels & Demons. Star Trek is coming next week, Angels & Demons on the 15th.

Angels & Demons in particular I’ll have a bunch of coverage for — pieces written for Catholic World Report, Our Sunday Visitor, Christianity Today and the National Catholic Register, as well as the actual review of the film.

The last Friday of the month, the 29th, we’ll have the latest Pixar, Up. (I’ll be doing Catholic Answers Live that day; listen for me on Kresta the next couple of Thursdays.)

28 thoughts on “Decent Films doings, May 2009”

  1. It’s good and bad that, for me, the most anticipated movie is UP. Bad in that is speaks to the general lack of high quality movies geared toward adults. Good, well, because it’s PIXAR.

  3. I have been interested in Star Trek continually since I started watching
    the original series every day after walking home from elementary school
    in the 1970s. I also watched the cartoon series on Saturday mornings in
    the 1970s. I’ve managed to watch all of the new series. I’ve read more
    than 50 Star Trek novels, and I’ve watched every movie. Nevertheless,
    my interest in Star Trek has diminished over the last decade (in which
    I’ve not read even one Star Trek novel). Moreover, it seems from my
    point of view that the last decent Star Trek movie was First Contact.
    Anyway, I’ve really been hoping for goodness in this next movie.
    One thing that does worry me, however, is the potential for the
    glorification of sexual immorality. After seeing a preview, my wife
    thought that it might be a concern, but I hope that it’s OK.

  4. Dear SDG,
    You wrote:
    David B: Be excited about Star Trek. 🙂
    Now, it might be a great film, but it must take place in some parallel universe. I have my geek merit badge, third-class, you see, and so I know that the writers really didn’t watch the original Star Trek (TOS) very closely. The protagonist identifies himself as James Siberious Kirk, according to MSNBC (the spin-off of the television company, NBC, that originally broadcast TOS, for you youngsters who might not know). Either the new Kirk has a lisp to beat Daffy Duck’s or the writers just plain screwed up. It’s James Tiberius Kirk. In the episode, Court Marshall, Kirk’s name is given as from historical documents as, “Ensign James T. Kirk,”, so he must have had it even right out of Star Fleet Academy.
    Tiberius was the second Roman emperor; Siberius is a planet in a space-shooter video game.
    For those who are into minutiae, I can tell you where they found the reference: in the second pilot, Where No Man Has Gone, Before. When Lt. Mitchell (the mutant ESPer) is about to kill Kirk, he creates a tombstone with the words, [Here Lies] James S. Kirk. That’s right, James S. Kirk. I’m sure that the writers watched a whole one episode of the the original series – the wrong episode, as Kirks middle initial was changed once production started, as they would have found out if they had watched a single episode of the original series.
    Hmmmph…
    I realize Leonard Nimoy is in the film, but, but,,,why can’t they leave my childhood memories alone 🙁 Can’t they go retrofit something else, like, The Man From U.N.C.L.E.?
    On another note: at least the release of the Wolverine movie has had one positive note: Marvel has released the entire 1990’s cartoon version of the X-Men (the original, good series) on DVD this week.
    The Chicken
    P. S. In honor of the new Star Trek film, I will challenge anyone to a Star Trek (TOS) quote-off, seeing as how I have the entire series memorized.

  5. Thomas: I’m happy to report that the scene in question is (a) very brief, (b) abortive, and (c) not at all glorifying immorality. Quite the opposite even.
    Chicken: Very briefly (I’m on an iPhone), the story is *effectively* a reboot in that it quite deliberately departs from Trek canon, however the story is tied to “our” Trek universe, with a very specific reason for the divergence.
    James Tiberius Kirk’s name is unchanged (we even see his parents picking his names). It’s very clear. Someone must have misheard the trailer.

  6. David B: Be excited about Star Trek. 🙂
    Whoa. I am now. ;-P I’m kind of a sucker that way.

  7. Dear SDG,
    Whew! Thanks for the clarification. I guess you really can’t trust everything you read on the Internet 🙂
    As for reboots, this seems like more of a perturbation. Making Kirk a woman and Spock a Klingon, now, that would have been a reboot…
    I am suspecting that this film is going to be like the Stargate: SG1 episode entitled, Moebius, but I will wait and see.
    In any case, first Star Trek quote challenge to the crowd:
    In which episode did McCoy first say, “He’s Dead, Jim,” and did it refer to a man or animal [massive hint].
    The Chicken

  8. Oh, and ignore my completely uncalled for rash judgment of the writers of the movie. If I remember reading, correctly, at least one of the writers was a big fan of TOS.
    The Chicken

  9. Thomas: I’m happy to report that the scene in question is (a) very brief, (b) abortive, and (c) not at all glorifying immorality. Quite the opposite even.
    Then it’s definitely a rebooted Trek. 🙂
    I’ve enjoyed Star Trek (especially DS9), but a lot of Roddenberry’s philosophy, which seems taken largely from Marx and Hefner, rubs me the wrong way. Glad to hear the film gets away from some of that.

  10. In which episode did McCoy first say, “He’s Dead, Jim,”
    I’d go with the first episode, The Man Trap, and I’m not giving away any spoilers, even if it is 40 years old.

  11. In which episode did McCoy first say, “He’s Dead, Jim,” and did it refer to a man or animal [massive hint].
    The Enemy Within for “He’s dead, Jim”, and it was in reference to a dog-like creature. It was only a “dead, Jim” in The Man Trap.

  14. Not an Elevator is correct. The story was written by Richard Matheson, who wrote. among other things the Twilight Zone Episode, Nightmare at 20,000 Feet, which starred a younger William Shatner, and, I am Legend, which didn’t.
    Here is a Bible/Star Trek connection: In What episode were the events of Acts 12:5 – 11 carried out?
    Of course, these Bible-base episodes were almost always written by Gene L. Coon, who was a devout Christian.
    The Chicken

  15. Here is a Bible/Star Trek connection: In What episode were the events of Acts 12:5 – 11 carried out?
    I’d go with “Bread and Circuses”

  17. I’m looking forward to Star Trek with eager anticipation. I’ve been a fan since TOS was first aired, back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. So happy, SDG, to read your ‘be excited’ comment. I’m hopeful that they’ve done a good job on the new movie, so many of the other movies have been major disappointments.

  18. Sorry, Brian Sullivan, wrong episode. The situation in the episode is very similar to either Acts 5: 18 – 20, or Acts 12: 5 – 11 cited, above. Hint: a famous Klingon is in the episode.
    Oh, and I don’t know every line from TOS by heart, but I know many.
    The Chicken

  20. Dear Bill912,
    Ding, Ding, Ding…An Organian opens the door and walks right into the prison where Kirk and Spock are held. He has them get up and follow him. They next appear outside of the prison. The guards never see them and they never see the door open.
    Next: in which episode do we actually see a crewman pray?
    The Chicken

  21. “Balance of Terror”, in which the Romulan Commander bears a distinct resemblance to Spock’s father.

  22. Dear Bill912,
    Once , again, you are correct.
    Here’s a hard one. I what episode is King Solomon mentioned?
    The Chicken

  25. Important question– how is the soundtrack? Some really great film music has emerged from the Star Trek franchise, especially II & VI. Does this new one keep things in the sweeping classical vein or veer off into something more techno-pop?

  26. Margaret,
    Michael Giacchino, the composer, has done music for Lost, Ratatouille, and The Incredibles. He employs a range of styles in those works, but I think he almost always uses the traditional orchestra format. I haven’t heard the latest film’s music.

  27. Billy912 is correct. Here is another, very hard one: in what two episodes does Uhura appear out of uniform?

    I have been reading comments online about the new Star Trek film and while it might be a good film and an interesting reboot I can’t help but be sad for some reason. Scotty’s toast in TNG episode, Relics, “Here’s to you, Lads…” makes me think of what has gone before and what will be missed.
    I also think that the younger generation has no commitment to the original context of Star Trek and cannot know it as we knew it. How many people went into science and medicine because of that show (TOS)? My students have no conception of a world where the moon landing had not yet taken place, where lasers were cool and not just useful to point at the blackboard, where logic was failing, but not yet failed (post-modernism was a decade away), where people still blushed when they talked about how babies were made (as Spock did in the episode, The Apple), where loyalty still meant something and there was a purity about laying down one’s life for one’s friend.
    I don’t think that the original Star Trek would have made any sense to the current culture and since the culture will not change, Star Trek must change. I am not saying that the new film will not be Star Trek-like, but it will not be like the original. To make Star Trek relevant to this generation means to adopt some of the ideals of this generation and this generation no longer has very much regard for the past.
    I wish the movie well, but the original Star Trek (and Dr. Who, for that matter) had a certain poverty about it that brought out its creativity. This movie is not poor. It does not fly by the seat of its pants. It is calculated and rich. It will do very well in today’s world.
    I will wait for the patina of newness to wear off before I think about seeing it. The young will be excited; the old will be wary. I just hope that Scotty’s toast is not in vain.

    The Chicken

  28. “…the original Star Trek (and Dr. Who, for that matter) had a certain poverty about it that brought out its creativity. This movie is not poor. It does not fly by the seat of its pants. It is calculated and rich. It will do very well in today’s world.”
    You said a mouthful. One of the reasons I love to learn about the old NASA space program (you must see the documentary “Moonshot”) is that people had no idea – still have no idea – just how “seat of the pants”, gutsy and dangerous the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo projects were. No idea. When you look at the technology they had available, compared to what we have today, it is a jaw-dropping marvel that they ever decided to attempt even ONE manned mission to the surface of the moon, let alone several.
    What’s weird is that we have so much more in the way of tech now, and yet I doubt we would make that call today. We have no sense of adventure, no more pioneer spirit, and have grown allergic to risk.

Comments are closed.