Great image Mark. Totally sums up the movie. Glarey glare glarey flares! If only you could make it shake and go in and out of focus over and over again...
The latest Star Trek, although a good movie, was not really a Star Trek movie. Huh?, you ask? It was more of a sci fi action movie that a traditional Star Trek movie. I am not saying that because it clearly deviated from the traditional story line. It however did not contain the plots and sub-plots with themes and inner-struggle that traditional Star Trek movies contain. It was all blast, speed, and action from begining to end which is fine for an action movie, and it was a good one at that.
If I plan it right, I will be able to see it in all of the California IMAX theaters. Will that satisfy your requirement to see it more than 3 times, Mark?
The free streaming over my XBox 360 alone makes Netflix worth subscribing to. The dvds that arrive in the mail are just gravy. I know this runs counter to most people and even their business model, but thats my real world experience with Netflix. Love It!
The following Corliss comment is unfair because it presumes that in-demand but obscure movies would be sitting on the shelf at the local video store. It almost certainly would not be.
"(Did you want to compare the original The Taking of Pelham One Two Three with this summer's remake? At Netflix, you could have waited five weeks to see the 1974 film.) Other titles, which may have vanished from the stockroom, are called "Unavailable"; the wait time for those could be eternity."
There is no support given for the proposition that you're better off trying to do this at a local store.
Great read. Netflix is awesome, especially for old (~40s) movies that you can't really get elsewhere unless you want to buy them.
I have a question though. You can easily rip DVDs, yet Netflix is legal, so why can't they have a CD rental service? I for one would subscribe to that in a second.
@Californian: I suppose you mean Audio CDs (because, why would one want to watch movies on CDs, rather than DVDs)
The difference is in the way we use those two. A movie, typically most people only watch it once or maybe twice within a fairly large block of time. One would also have less temptation to rip a movie (illegal, btw) that they liked, but do not intend to watch it every other week, or every month.
Songs on the other hand, we listen to multiple times a day, and often times one tends to listen to them in a rotating manner every week. (Hardly a week has gone by without me listening to Hotel California, or Sultans of Swing in the last 5 years)
Not to mention that ripped songs are 5 megs in size, and its much easier to stash away an album even if you are not going to really listen to it that often, as opposed to a movie file that is 4 gigs in size.
[And if someone watched some movie every single day, or has a music collection so large that you listen to a song only once a year, please do let me know, because that disproves everything.]
Corliss made a nice and completely stupid point: a physical store with a wealth of choices for the consumer provides immediate satisfaction while mail order shopping makes you wait. Thanks for that.
If I lived in a city with a store that had had a huge selection of DVDs to choose from, I'd miss it when it was gone -- just as I miss lots of the eccentric and atmospheric bookstores that Amazon ran into the ground, not to mention the local video stores that Blockbuster drove off in its quest to provide me with the very best in movies from the last 12 months.
But this just in! Books, video games and DVDs are commodities that can be stored and distributed in more efficient ways than the brick-and-mortar storefront can offer. And when I can download virtually any movie (if that day ever comes) without much of a wait at all, I shall think of Mr. Corliss in his natty straw hat and bow tie, driving his Model T down to the general store, to pick up his mail, his Saturday Evening Post and all the latest news on Mr. Coolidge.
My *only* complaint with Netflix so far has been the limited amount of play-instantly films. As far as the physical DVDs go, they've got more movies than I could ever shake a stick at. But the play-instantly films seem to be generally obscure or, at best, less-popular movies that I don't have much interest in seeing. Sure, they could probably boast a large number of watch-instantly movies, but that doesn't necessarily mean they've got the same quality as the DVDs. But otherwise, I've been very happy with Netflix!
09/02/09
No love for the former Metreon?
You son of a Captain Archer!!!
09/02/09
That may as well be Coeur D'fucking alene.
09/02/09
warp speed, fido!
09/02/09
09/03/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
You bastards!
09/02/09
The latest Star Trek, although a good movie, was not really a Star Trek movie. Huh?, you ask? It was more of a sci fi action movie that a traditional Star Trek movie. I am not saying that because it clearly deviated from the traditional story line. It however did not contain the plots and sub-plots with themes and inner-struggle that traditional Star Trek movies contain. It was all blast, speed, and action from begining to end which is fine for an action movie, and it was a good one at that.
09/02/09
09/02/09
Also lens flares added for effect to make it more Abrahms-y.
09/02/09
How can you tell its 'fully loaded'?
Actually from the way he's sitting I'd say Nero is fully loaded...
09/02/09
09/02/09
WILL IT?
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
WTF.
How are Arnold Schwarzenegger and myself going to watch this now??
09/02/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
[www.wired.com]
[www.newyorker.com]
08/04/09
"(Did you want to compare the original The Taking of Pelham One Two Three with this summer's remake? At Netflix, you could have waited five weeks to see the 1974 film.) Other titles, which may have vanished from the stockroom, are called "Unavailable"; the wait time for those could be eternity."
There is no support given for the proposition that you're better off trying to do this at a local store.
08/04/09
I have a question though. You can easily rip DVDs, yet Netflix is legal, so why can't they have a CD rental service? I for one would subscribe to that in a second.
08/04/09
The difference is in the way we use those two. A movie, typically most people only watch it once or maybe twice within a fairly large block of time. One would also have less temptation to rip a movie (illegal, btw) that they liked, but do not intend to watch it every other week, or every month.
Songs on the other hand, we listen to multiple times a day, and often times one tends to listen to them in a rotating manner every week. (Hardly a week has gone by without me listening to Hotel California, or Sultans of Swing in the last 5 years)
Not to mention that ripped songs are 5 megs in size, and its much easier to stash away an album even if you are not going to really listen to it that often, as opposed to a movie file that is 4 gigs in size.
[And if someone watched some movie every single day, or has a music collection so large that you listen to a song only once a year, please do let me know, because that disproves everything.]
08/04/09
08/04/09
If I lived in a city with a store that had had a huge selection of DVDs to choose from, I'd miss it when it was gone -- just as I miss lots of the eccentric and atmospheric bookstores that Amazon ran into the ground, not to mention the local video stores that Blockbuster drove off in its quest to provide me with the very best in movies from the last 12 months.
But this just in! Books, video games and DVDs are commodities that can be stored and distributed in more efficient ways than the brick-and-mortar storefront can offer. And when I can download virtually any movie (if that day ever comes) without much of a wait at all, I shall think of Mr. Corliss in his natty straw hat and bow tie, driving his Model T down to the general store, to pick up his mail, his Saturday Evening Post and all the latest news on Mr. Coolidge.
08/04/09
08/04/09