I finally got a chance to see Star Trek and X-Men Origins: Wolverine for the first time. I had been going off critical reviews before of people praising Star Trek and putting down Wolverine, but finally got to form my own opinion of both movies. I placed this in the TF Movie section because I make comparisons between these movies and TF. Also because Alexk/BobO wrote both TF and Star Trek so I thought it would be a nice comparison. First off, let me say I am by no means a fan boy of either series. I am a fan to be sure and my knowledge of either far exceeds what the lay man would know of Star Trek or X-Men. However, by no means do I know that much about either if it makes sense. My experience with Star Trek basically revolves around The Next Generation. I have maybe seen a handful of episodes outside of the TNG series. I am definitely familiar with Trilithium crystals, space time anomalies, Jordi, Data, and all the rest - but am not familiar with DS9, the original Star Trek, or any other incarnation of Star Trek. I am also by no means a fan boy of X-men. I have watched a fair amount of the X-men cartoon that came out in the 90s and have maybe collected 10 or so comic books. Nothing that would make me an expert on X-men. So, in short, I am more experienced in either series to be more than a simple fan but far short of being a fan boy. And think I could provide a unique look at both movies and also make some comparisons to my take on Transformers (which I will admit I am an actual fan boy of). First, I thought that X-men was better than Star Trek. I thought the writing was better for X-men, simpler, and better thought out. It seems BobO/AlexK have a penchant for pushing sappy scenes on people. The initial scene with the baby being born on board a fleeing shuttle craft while his father is left to die is VERY cheesy. Its the type of emotional story a grade schooler would come up with. Something akin to introducing a bad guy by having the bad guy rip off a cute puppies head off. I just don't like that method - its cheap and shows no art at good story telling. Must all heros be born in a similar manner? Anakin was born almost akin to the virgin birth. Luke/Leia were born by almost the same storyline. I just wish they had gone with a more original idea. I didn't like the destruction of Vulcan and Romulus. Its been a while since I followed TNG, but I don't remember either planet being destroyed. I don't know why the writers had to destroy two huge pivotal planets to bring gravitas to their story. As if the fact that these guys destroyed planets was enough for them to be feared. During the entire movie, I did not fear or even dislike the main antagonist. He seemed confused and incompetent. Nowhere near the level of dislike or fear I had for the Borg or for Khan. The way the introduced the main bad guy was almost the same way that the main bad guy was in 300. He had the same type mentality. It was almost too easy how Spock and Kirk so EASILY destroyed a ship FULL of Romulans with only having to have a minor fire fight. How exactly does that happen? A ship from the future should easily be able to track all intruders at all times on their ships and lock the hallway doors so that intruders become trapped. Yet Kirk and Spock moved around the ship so easily. From the story - I could see definite similarities in plot style and writing between TF and Star Trek - and not for the better. IMHO, I would call these writers hacks. I remember back in writing class how our teachers would teach us to "show" the reader what you're talking about instead of "telling" them. Instead of saying "People were sad because a planet was destroyed" we were told to delve deeper "the unreadable expression on his face looking upon his planet being consumed was full of anguish, guilt, and helplessness". They both say the same thing - but one carries more meaning. We also were advised not to "create" an artificial situation simply to advance our story but have the situations be natural flows in our story that were easily believable. Having Kirk land on frozen planet, being chased by TWO alien monsters who both were somehow not able to catch up to him and eat him, and then oh-so-coincidentally run into the SAME EXACT CAVE that the older Spock was in and who ALSO happened to have been there long enough to create a torch AND find firewood in a landscape barren of trees is completely ridiculous. That entire scene was completely artificial. Again, its akin to a grade schooler telling a story. Now, Wolverine - which was critically dubbed as bad - I actually enjoyed. Again, based on story. I remember that in the cartoon, Sabretooth and Wolverine were something like father/son, but I didn't mind as much in this movie (thought I did mind BobO/AlexK making Prime and Megatron brothers). It seems that they think FORCING two characters who previously weren't brothers to become brothers somehow adds an emotional point to the movie. I don't mind using the brother angle - but to artificially MAKE two unrelated characters brothers is a very cheap story telling. Luckily, the writers of Wolverine made that the central theme of the movie. They EXPLAINED why they made the characters brothers. And I thought it worked very well in the movie. All of the characters in the movie were well characterized I thought. The love interest in Wolverine was much more well fleshed out than in TF or Star Trek. It wasn't forced or shoved into the movie. The writers took a large portion of the movie forging an emotional bond between the audience and the characters' love interest. It also provided a nice break from all the fast paced action by having slower scenes to balance out the movie. Loud has no meaning without soft. Finally, the twist at the end was perfect. Nobody would have suspected Wolverine's lover to be alive, let alone having tricked Wolverine, and THEN on top of both of those surprises - being forced to trick Wolverine to save her sistes AND still being in love with him. It brought a new found appreciation for the importance of those slow scenes and made them so much more important. Thus, there was a PURPOSE for those slow scenes beyond just breaking up the fast action scenes. The writiers could have killed her off and really did not need to do anything beyond that but they tied it in so masterfully at the end. Even with Deadpool they showed the importance of the early parts of the movie. There was actually a purpose in every choice the writers made. The scenes felt CONNECTED and thus showed that these writers really took more time to make this a good story. Their sad scenes actually felt sad too. Because they took the time out to flesh out a little bit more the characters. I felt I knew the old couple in the barn MUCH better than I knew Kirk's mom. I didn't feel sad at all when she died. I had no emotional connection to Captain Pike. But I WAS saddened when the old couple was killed in the barn. Because I could actually relate to them. Where was their son? Was their son dead and the appearance of Wolverine brought back memories of their son? Just those simple moments of down time in the barn, in the bathroom, eating supper, putting on a jacket - add SO much to the movie. Eitherways, enough with my rambling. I just wanted to provide my opinions on what I thought of the writing in both movies. Have at it, Defenders of the Faith! EDIT: Just saw Terminator this afternoon so thought I would throw in my opinions for that as well. I liked Terminator a lot. As far as story telling goes, there were some DEFINITE scenes that were not at all believable but overall, I liked the plot. I thought the little girl had no point in the plot, unless she becomes developed later on in the sequel (which I can almost see her playing a big role in sending Connor's father back in time. The attack on San Francisco was the most glaringly unbelievable to me. That Skynet would leave one of its main bases so utterly unguarded that humans could get within 100 miles of the city, breach the defenses, and THEN manage to escape unscathed WHILE ALSO rescuing almost all the prisoners was what was too unbelievable. I also don't remember exactly how Connor's father got free from his cell. If I was skynet and I already KNEW that his death would prevent Connor's existence I would have terminated him immediately, as soon as I got my hands on him. At least gas him in his cell. Just too unbelievable that the humans could attack at night (when it was already admitted that the machines could see better at night) without a MAJOR battle erupting and hundreds of T1000s attacking. That was my main gripe on Terminator. But overall I really liked the movie. Kinda weird that I again liked another movie that wasn't critically acclaimed. The use of a half-man, half-machine I thought added a new wrinkle to the Terminator series. Tho, again, knowind Skynet built the half-man/half-machine, I would assume that Skynet would have built in a failsafe whereby they could terminate his life instantly if found to be a threat. The movie had the feel of the Matrix mixed with Mad Max mixed with the Terminator series. It was done very well, I thought, save for a few glaringly improbably moments.