226

(364 replies, posted in Episodes)

I can't help but think some of you haven't even seen the movie. The name isn't given in an attempt to be clever, smarmy, satirical or whatever, it's not a wink wink to the audience, it's not really given to him by the screenwriter in that sense, it's the name the character has given himself - one of many that he has gone by in his long lifetime. And that act demonstrates an aspect of the character and how he feels about himself (much the same as it does in Django).

Which is basically completely missing the point.

Never played Minecraft either, but any other games I'm... game?

Says who?

229

(364 replies, posted in Episodes)

Dorkman wrote:

The 14,000 year old man is named Oldman (Old Man). It's exactly that kind of on the nose superficiality that permeates the entire film. Combine that with the poor production value, clunky dialogue, and laughable dinner-theater performances and you've got something I found frankly unwatchable.

What he called himself (and all his previous names) was more an indication of his own character, of both his sense of identity and humour, than a wink wink move on the part of the writers.

As for the rest, agree to some extent, but unwatchable? Surely you've seen worse and managed just fine.

230

(364 replies, posted in Episodes)

How does the name of the character represent a problem?

231

(364 replies, posted in Episodes)

I liked that movie! Quite memorable. It's like a play: few characters, one location, a thought-provoking concept.

I prefer it the way it is, it was a lot more surprising and interesting with Hermione and Ron. Plus it allowed Harry to develop relationships with other girls, Ginny especially.

233

(121 replies, posted in Episodes)

Finally saw Elysium, I found it refreshing in that it wasn't facepalmingly stupid and incoherent like most other films of its kind (though some of the fight scenes were filmed terribly). Started off strongly (though I do have questions about the worldbuilding) with an interesting twist on the protagonist, and then ended rather unsatisfyingly with its 'everything is now magically ok' climax. Had they established more of the whys and whys nots, and had a more measured resolution which didn't feel quite as much like a wave of light sweeping over the dark landscape ala TRON, I would have liked it more.

I could also have done without the million flashbacks.

234

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I liked When the Last Sword is Drawn, and found it poignant, funny, powerful and gut-wrenchingly sad. So I disagree with you on that,  it's not a film to watch for its action, which is typical of every chambara film ever made, and is still pretty good. It's certainly more melodramatic than Kurosawa, but I think that if you liked those old films you might like this as well.

235

(17 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Jeremy Irons is an interesting choice, I honestly wouldn't have ever pictured him as Alfred.

236

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Saw Europa Report - pretty good, I liked it. It's essentially a superior version of Apollo 18, and I was surprised at its camera views approach.

237

(5 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I watch the live shows with the movie, but never the recorded ones. I prefer not to watch along to be honest, as I sometimes get a little irritated when the guys aren't commenting on something happening I think warrants some discussion (usually an awesome shot). Off topic conversations don't matter at all when you're doing something else!

238

(30 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Zarban wrote:

I don't know. This is exactly in keeping with everything Hollywood has done lately. Recycle an old property, take it in a different direction, Americanize it with guns and California accents, tart it up with effects.... Is this any different from Hansel & Gretel?

Not seen this presumed POS, but Hansel and Gretel was great fun to watch.

239

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Ender's Game
What was the point of this? I've still no idea. It didn't seem to have anything to say, and yet had many ideas that could have been explored. This could have been a superb Outer Limits episode, right down to the revelation, if in a tighter more confident form. But I was surprised at how bored and disinterested I was.

240

(121 replies, posted in Episodes)

Not many directors are good with action direction these days - Michael Bay is pretty bad at it (or is now) and Peter Jackson isn't terribly good either (either in the LOTR or Hobbit).

The best I've seen recently is The Raid.

241

(87 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I love this one!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BdlxUJeCMAE-DYs.jpg

Is this someone we know?
http://www.codersnotes.com/images/5.jpg

243

(121 replies, posted in Episodes)

Trey wrote:

Well, I AM one of those fathers, so I still say it is.   Trek09 was the first incarnation since the original that was fun to watch.  Speaking for myself, obviously.   I never got into any of the other TV versions, where people in onesies talked about their feewings.  Not my thing,  but even so I can still recognize those as Trek because there was a schmeer of science nerdery and an attempt to do actual scifi stories.

I know you're one of those fathers, which is why I'm baffled by the favour you give the reboot. It might be fun, but the original series was never this dumb and never this whizz bang style over substance. Is your memory of the series colouring your perception of what they really were? I'm only a recent convert to the TOS, and I'm appalled at how badly they've rebooted the classic characters.

Trek 09 is closest to Star Wars any Trek has gotten, so it's even more bizarre that it be considered the 'most Trek'.

To be clear, I think these movies are both incredibly dumb. That the second goes "one dumb too far" doesn't really make the first that much better. And me personally, I had much more fun with the second so it's not like the first is objectively more fun.

244

(121 replies, posted in Episodes)

Dorkman wrote:

If you're referring to Khan, he's an identical antagonist to Nero. He's come to get revenge on the Federation for what they did to his family.

That's an incredibly simplistic comparison.

Nero wants revenge against a group of people that had absolutely nothing to do with a natural disaster that destroys his planet (ignoring for a moment how bad science the supernova thing is and how it portrays the Romulans as idiots for not, I don't know, evacuating) and specifically Spock - who appears to have been the only one who was doing anything about it but simply failed (because of time, whilst in a time-travelling ship). With a crapload of years to him due to a time jump, Nero does nothing about saving his planet and merely goes around blowing up Klingons and Federation ships. And then he kills billions of Vulcans because and leaves Spock to die presumably stranded on a planet because? Thus guaranteeing the destruction of his planet again. Nothing he does makes sense because, I don't know, he's "mad".

He's a rip-off of Wrath Khan without any of the backstory and with a nonsensical fridge logic motivation. What's more, he's not much of a danger at all - his ship is the threat. That makes him a weak villain (even Nemesis' ripoff of Khan had a clone who posed a worthy counterpart to Picard).

Abrams Khan, who is also derivative of Wrath Khan but only really in name, is motivated by trying to free himself from the blackmail of the Admiral, who's holding his family hostage, and to kill as many of the section whatever people as he can. Immediately, we can at least understand this, and that makes it better in my view. He's not deranged by a desire for revenge. He's not targeted people who have nothing to do with his greivances. Heck, the Enterprise joins him because they agree it's fucked up.

The Admiral wants to start a war, and that's also something we can understand. We have hawks in our world too. The movie doesn't really explore the why, and that's why it's not a great film.


I think you're giving far too much credit to 09 Trek for its forward momentum and characters. Last year, I watched the first season of the Original Series Trek, and absolutely loved it. An unexpected side effect of watching these great characters on the small screen was a diminished appreciation for their old movie adventures, and particularly for these new versions, who are absolutely nothing like the originals. Everyone is a pale shadow of what they were, and in some cases a parody version - Kirk is a pop culture perception of the character from someone who seems to have never watched the show, Spock has none of the nuance of Nimoy's version and is in a relationship of all things, and Bones (like a prequel Yoda) is just delivering his lines in the way Bones would do.

Trey's fond of saying how the reboot is more akin to the original series, and I could not disagree more. This is emphatically not our fathers' Trek. This is quite possibly the further from Trek any depiction has gotten!

I think the main reason why STID gets such a bad rap is its climax. It's terrible, with all the wrong decisions being made. Change that ending, with the ship crashing, Kirk dying and the magic blood, and it would improve significantly.

Dorkman wrote:

The opening sequence of TREK 2009, with the death of the Kelvin, had more heart and character development than all of STID.

I agree with this. The opening to 09 is superb.

245

(121 replies, posted in Episodes)

Interesting discussion about the Star Treks, I completely agree with Brian though. The films are virtually the same, with the second film being slightly better in terms of the actual story. For instance, I don't really think anyone can deny that its central antagonist and his motivation is far superior to Nero.

Or Silent Running? Come on... spaceships!

247

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Goodness me, a couple of those got 8s. They must be really good!

248

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

BigDamnArtist wrote:

EDIT: I've actually been wanting to check out both Forward Unto Dawn and Blood and Chrome for a while now.

I had put it off for ages as well, they're worth a viewing.

249

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I don't believe you have to see all parts for the theme to emerge. Watching each part one at a time in order, your knowledge of what's happening grows. For instance, in the first, the water person is virtually an apparition, it looks wispy and takes a rather menacing approach to the diver (it's Blair Witch underwater). Then 50 years before, we see a dressed up but passive girl who simply watches the pilot get out of his cockpit. Immediately, the contrast between the experiences is telling us something. This isn't a maths class. It's not an effort on your part, you simply have to observe. And a fair amount of these are subconsciously registered. I'm sure you don't actively think 'that person looks troubled by that event' when watching TV or movies. And the observations lead you to think that things are different no? Repeat for each part, each encounter is different and the differences are telling us something. We don't necessarily know what this is always, and we're left with only vague notions about who these people are and their culture, but the mystery and unrevealed backstory is ultimately more interesting, and different viewers will come away with different thoughts - Were the encounters with mankind destroying them? Was their civilisation stagnating when compared to on the surface? And isn't that the purpose of most shorts, to make us think about something?

And this is why I question whether you chose to engage with it. You appear to have walked away having made no observations about what was going on, so instead of an approach of 'I wonder just what the hell those people were doing?' and coming up with some ideas, it's a comment that it's just a bunch of random things happening and it makes no sense. I just can't see how you could walk away with so little whilst emphatically trying to enjoy it. Can you see where I'm coming from on this?

In any case, I can see that you're sort of not denying that there is substance, but that the story just isn't that interesting or engaging. And that's really a different matter. I agree, they could have worked more on characterisations and generally made each part a bit more of a complete and enjoyable experience, but then I imagine that would somewhat change the scope of the fairly basic story. To be honest, it is probably more of a theme than a story.



Anyway, we've probably laboured far too long over this. In other news, I've just finally seen two collections of webisodes for popular sci-fi franchises - Blood and Chrome for BSG and Forward Unto Dawn for Halo 4. I enjoyed both quite a bit, and was impressed by the effects in both (given their nature).

Forward Unto Dawn starts off, worryingly, like a high school Full Metal Jacket, children playing at soldiers with guns in the woods, but it mercifully shifts into a different gear and features some unexpected moments and some fantastic action that very likely will make you pine for that lost in development hell Halo movie.

Blood and Chrome starts off superbly and then devolves a bit as it crumples under the weight of its twists and turns, and then it sort of fizzles out at the end because either the money's all been spent or they've written themselves into a corner.

250

(97 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Clearly Chris Nolan in that case. He's way more talented than Fincher  wink