Ah yes, Ljudsko Stonoga. A true classic.

You, switch? It was Maul that brought up up the Star Trek commentary that I was responding to.

"He explicitely stated that he wanted to make a Star Trek for everyone."

Translation: He wanted to make something for the lowest common denominator. I seem to recall people generally thinking that's a bad thing.

EDIT: I realized I responded to the wrong point and that my answer above only reinforces the perception that I dislike it purely because it is new and different.

It's not that it has a new "vibe." It's that the new vibe is a stupid one. It's a vacuous, superficial, ultimately meaningless movie that, as constructed, makes no dramatic sense. New vibe? Knock yourself out. Completely thematically devoid new vibe? Not fine.

Anyway, I'm as sick of having this argument as I'm sure everyone else is of having to listen to it and it's at best tangential to this discussion. Let's move on.

Oh fuck off, I'm done taking shit for the Star Trek commentary. I made a conscious effort to stake out a critical analytical ground separate from my fanboy objections. Do I have fanboy objections? Yes. Are those part of the discussion in the commentary? Yes. But I refuse to have my very valid criticisms of things like character motivations, magic bean construction, and plot absurdities written off as if I were complaining about nothing more than the color of the phaser beams. And if you'd like my opinion on how to fix AbramsTrek's story, you should read my very lengthy post in the Star Trek commentary thread about how to fix AbramsTrek's story.

And as Dorkman has already pointed out, if you take the recent stack of our commentaries, you actually have to go pretty far back to get to a solid hate fest, by my reckoning (not counting Scott Pilgrim), you have to go to Legion and Spiderman 2 (granted, I wasn't present nor have I listened to the Twilight commentary). And Legion is absolutely a "take it apart and put it back together" commentary and I distinctly remember both Dorkman and I (at the very least) talking about how to make Spiderman 2 better.

But ultimately, I haven't listened to Zombieland yet, so I can't comment on it specifically. But you'll need to present more evidence of this "trend" than one data point to make your case.

Eep.

I am so super jazzed that Los Angeles is getting a no-foolin-actually-been-in-space space shuttle. Griffith Observatory will have a challenger for my affections.

Patrick Stewart.

Nobody gives anybody shit for liking Spiderman 2 other than me. That does NOT count.

I just watched Red October yesterday and I hold to my opinion that "the shot of the cook" is not as terrible a giveaway as Kiss Kiss Bang Bang tells it. It's maybe four seconds at the longest, there's no push in of any kind and it's sandwiched in amongst lots of other "the crew is generally suspicious or might easily become suspicious" stuff.

I think McTiernan is right that he underplayed it, but I wouldn't consider it frail. In the beginning, the Red October's officers are very concerned about a spy or the crew otherwise mutinying if and when they discover the treason. But that aspect is eventually forgotten as the actual mechanics of escaping the Soviet navy and defecting to the United States dominates the film. But when the cook pops back up and fires into the control room, it's the perfect moment that's been established but forgotten by the audience.

Audio is echoey.

Very unsatisfied with purchase.

Listen, it's not my fault you guys don't realize how much everything sucks until I point it out.

GUH.

Hate.