601

(93 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Well.  Saw it.  Didn't hate it.  Didn't think it was vastly better than anything else we've seen this summer, either. 

Better, yes - just not vastly better.  smile

Rest of response spoilered just in case (but not particularly spoiler-y, really).

SPOILER Show

The premise was just as silly as Superman or Iron Man or any of the others, so that's a tie.  And there was as much dumb "science" as those other movies, too - but not as dumb as Star Trek Into Darkness, which is still the summer's "I Am In Fact Not Smarter Than A Third-Grader" champ. 

Just gotta mention my personal fave "whaaaaaaa?" science moment here:

"We had only fourteen months to build the first Jaegers.  We didn't have time to think about radiation shielding."

Seriously, the topic never came up?   Hell, when Marty McFly found  out how the deLorean worked, radiation was the first thing he asked about.  And he wasn't even an engineer.

I'm going to give the movie the benefit of the doubt and assume they really meant "We didn't have time to bother with radiation shielding."   I realize I may be being too kind.

Character development was... sort of there in spirit...

"I lost my brother, so that means I... sometimes mention that I lost my brother."

"I can't Drift because of painful memories so that means I... wait, I'm okay now.  Never mind."

"I am terminally ill, which...  pretty much negates any actual sacrifice in my act of sacrifice."

The plot was... okay, the plot was to punch monsters until they all died.   The subplot: "The Cast of The Big Bang Theory Visits The Criminal Underworld" actually had more plot than the plot.

Plusses:

  • Visually gorgeous.  Obviously.

  • Flashback Shoe Girl deserves an Oscar nomination

  • The worldbuilding was better than most.  They didn't do much with all those interesting ideas but at least someone gave that stuff some thought.

  • It wasn't a reboot or sequel.   This actually counted even more than I expected it would.

What I realized while watching Pacific Rim was that the silly premise and by-the-numbers story and half-baked character development were no better or worse than most tentpoles.  And yet, I found it so much more watchable than almost anything else this summer - because at least it wasn't another damn story I already knew.

Because, let's be honest here, what was "new" in Man of Steel?   Man of Steel was the filmic equivalent of giving your Superman Lego kit to your little brother.  He might put a few parts together differently but you already know what the parts are.  The kit either makes Superman or it makes a half-assed stack of stuff that sort of resembles Superman.  There are no real surprises in any reboot or sequel, only quibbling over the arrangement of the parts.   

But - I had never seen a Pacific Rim movie before.  That alone was so refreshing that the movie coasted right across the finish line on sheer goodwill from me.  Just simple gratitude that I was not asked to be the last link of another Franchise Centipede and eat the same old shit again.

So is Pacific Rim great?  Nah.  Is it good?  Well... there are good things in it.   It's another Sucker Punch, pretty much.  There's an audience for this that will love it and hug it and squeeze it... but not 200 million dollars' worth of audience, I don't think.   Not in this country at least - but it may indeed turn out to be a smash in the rest of the world.  We'll see.

Me - I'm disappointed in Guillermo this time out.  Hellboy 2 proved he could deliver spectacle and interesting offbeat characters who have real feelings and make surprising but understandable choices.  We didn't get much of the latter here.   He did deliver on the spectacle, though.

And at least it wasn't fucking Iron Man.  AGAIN.

602

(112 replies, posted in Episodes)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

So, wait, the panel really likes The Newsroom? I've never watched it, but I thought it was pretty much universally acknowledged to be terrible.

Only by very bad people.   

/two hours to the season premiere squeeee


EDIT:  to be fair, a legitimate criticism I've seen is about the handling of the female characters.  Although all the female characters are phD level in intelligence (it's Sorkin, so all the characters are geniuses), there have been complaints that they're all goofy and awkward and just exist in relation to the male characters.   

Which is kinda valid, but it doesn't bother me that much - probably because I'm a boy.   Also, I would point out the male characters do exceedingly dumb shit at times too.

I am wondering if that criticism will lead to any changes in the dynamics of the new season.  We'll see.

603

(39 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Some years ago, I worked with a fella who had two kids.  He acted out the differences between one's first and second child like this:

Firstborn child drops their pacifier on the floor...

*waves arms while shouting* OMG What do we do?  We have to buy a new one!  Or maybe we can boil it?    We better call the pediatrician and ask.  OMG OMG OMG

Cut to: a few years later. Second child drops their pacifier on the floor...

*pantomimes picking it up, shaking it, sticking it back in the kid's mouth*

If that was what Shyamalan was going for, then maybe he should have said so in the movie.   I think this is a case of imprinting much more on a movie than was actually there.

However, having read that I am now going to pull a Dorkman and say I am totally going to start thinking about a script where everybody thinks aliens are coming but it turns out it's actually demons.   Because that is a great idea.

605

(4 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

Haven't seen that one in ages, but I remember liking it at the time.

Mostly all I can remember now is "NOW it looks like a taxicab,"  "Oh noooo, he didn't know what Deuteronomy was" and "The answer is Ipswich clams."

And the action gag where the bulletproof glass turns out to be a problem.    Am I remembering right?

606

(112 replies, posted in Episodes)

redxavier wrote:

Do you need some sort of context to fully enjoy it?

Naah.   I watched Children of Earth without knowing anything about modern Doctor Who or prior seasons of Torchwood.  Loved it.

Here's all the back story you need:

Torchwood is a secret government group that investigates weird shit.   

Not necessary to know, but : The connection to Doctor Who is that the leader of Torchwood was one of the Doctor's companions for a while.  So he's seen a lot of weird shit.   

Also, he's immortal.  But you'll get that just from watching Children of Earth itself.

607

(112 replies, posted in Episodes)

So I decided to give the Doctor a try this week.  My only previous Doctor Who-viewing experience was approximately a month's worth of Pertwee episodes when I was a kid and my local station ran the show on weekday afternoons for a while.   That and the last few Torchwood series - liked Children of Earth very much, Miracle Day not so much.

So I tried Blink, since most sources say it's a really good episode.  It was.  Then Zarban recommended going to the other extreme and sampling the silliness of The Unicorn and the Wasp.  So I did.  Also fun. 

That led directly to the library two-parter Cotterpin just mentioned, so I watched those as well just now.  That was some twisted crazy stuff.   But still fun.

The one impression I kept from those ancient Pertwee episodes, and which seems just as true in the four 21st century Who episodes I just watched (and Torchwood as well), is that one of the themes of Doctor Who is that the universe doesn't give a damn about anybody.  Every episode seems to involve one or more random people getting royally farked by random circumstance.

Which is common in television in general, of course - every Law and Order and CSI episode starts with somebody getting murdered, for example - but something about the way Who handles it makes you really really feel bad for those poor random victims the Doctor leaves in his wake.  And usually all the Doctor can do is say "yeah, I'm sorry the universe jacked you like that.  Welp, gotta go."  No wonder the poor guy's half-insane.   Same goes for the immortal Jack Harkness from Torchwood, actually.   Pretty dark stuff.  I like it.

So those were all Tennant episodes obviously.  I liked his semi-demented approach to the character, and the loopy sensibility of the show overall.   I dunno what other Doctors might be like, maybe someday I'll give one of them a try.

608

(112 replies, posted in Episodes)

Nathan M wrote:

Loved the call back to Trey's supervillian team and now with the addition of Golden Cronenberg I can't wait to see this flick. Lol

Not a flick - Golden Cronenberg is in the new SHIELD series.  Rumor has it we'll also see Firefoot, Sergeant Pants, Lady Drywall, and Paperclip. As for the rumors of a cameo by Cheesestraw and Tickling Otter, I'm not holding my breath.

609

(93 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

It's possible that that's just what we're seeing in the trailer.

Well damn, I just hate trailers that don't show everything in the movie.

Really enjoyed reading these recaps - I saw every Trek episode a half-dozen times as a kid after school (it only took four months for 79 episodes to cycle through, when played every weekday afternoon) - but that was quite a while ago.   I haven't actually watched an episode of TOS in I dunno how long.

As a result, I'd forgotten A Taste of Armageddon even existed until reminded of it here - and it was one of my faves!   Probably one of their purest "sci fi" episodes, since the concept of "what if a civilization turned war into a theoretical game?" could easily have been the subject of a classic sci-fi story that would have shown up in Astounding Magazine or something similar.

And maybe it did - after all, the famous "Arena" episode supposedly wasn't intentionally based on Fredric Brown's well-known 1944 short story of the same name and plot.  But it seems likely that Gene Coon must have read Arena and simply forgotten it by the time he wrote the Trek episode.  Fortunately someone caught the similarity in time, and so they paid and credited Brown retroactively for the story.

This weekend's box office may play a large role in this decision.

26 - Errand of Mercy

...I get the impression the writer of this episode isn't as capable of writing smart Kirk as some of the others involved in the show.

Interestingly enough this episode was written by Gene L. Coon, co-producer of the series with Roddenberry (some call him The Forgotten Gene).  He also wrote Space Seed and several other episodes, and supposedly was the one who originated the concept of The Prime Directive.

He and Roddenberry disagreed often, and Coon left the series halfway through Season Two.

28 - City on the Edge of Forever

Kirk and Spock must travel back in time to undo damage to the timeline caused by a McCoy driven mad by a drug overdose.

This is generally considered the very best episode of original Trek, it's also notorious because the original script was written by Harlan Ellison, and he's still pissed off to this day about how it was rewritten, and the various untruths he believes Roddenberry and Shatner and others have been saying about it ever since.

For his take on the whole saga, check out his book City on the Edge of Forever

I'm seeing another episode called Operation Annhilate! on the wiki, but didn't find this one in my download folder. I might have to track it down.

Not a great episode, suffers from End of the Season There's No Money So Just Get It Done-itis.   Sorta interesting because it (briefly) introduces Kirk's brother - one of the few times his family ever gets a mention at all - but not very good otherwise.

There are a lot of good episodes in the second season, when the show mostly hit its stride.  There are also some clunkers as well.   But the third season, Roddenberry kinda stepped aside, the budgets got cut, and the scripts got pretty goofy overall.  The notoriously bad "Spock's Brain" is a third season episode.

613

(112 replies, posted in Episodes)

Dead Zone also inspired one of my favorite Walken SNL sketches: Ed Glosser: Trivial Psychic.

/may be blocked outside US, dunno

614

(112 replies, posted in Episodes)

Problem is, King's written so damn many books it's easy to forget a few when trying make lists.    So yes, Misery definitely belongs in the "really good (and also really disturbing)" column.

And another I should/would have mentioned: The Dead Zone.   Not necessarily the scariest of his early books (that's probably Shining or Salem's Lot), but it's probably my favorite. 

Bonus:  Dead Zone spawned one of the best-ever movie adaptations of a King novel.    Cronenberg directing, Christopher Walken at his Walkeniest, and a glimpse of a Martin Sheen presidency that's a bit different than the West Wing. smile

615

(112 replies, posted in Episodes)

I know, weird, right?  I hate Transformers like Hitler but Pacific Rim bears just a superficial resemblence to Transformers.  And the last Godzilla-like movie was... what, Cloverfield maybe?  No robots in that one.

Meanwhile, I just read another early review that said Pacific Rim was dandy.  The word the review kept using was "fun" and I'm all for having a fun movie to watch, after sitting through drudge-fests like Man of Steel.

So we'll see.  My hopes are still up.

616

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I really enjoyed Haywire for what it was - a showcase for Gina Carano to beat the crap out of a series of guest stars.  But hey - if that's all a movie is trying to do and does it really well - then good on ya, movie.

617

(346 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Now this is what I call a reusable booster.    Damn, SpaceX.   You scary.   smile

618

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Haven't seen the movie and am not likely to anytime soon - but I was surprised to find out it was directed by John Putch.  I remember him as a staple player in just about every sitcom in the '70's, including a season as Valerie Bertinelli's boyfriend on One Day At A Time.   He's also the son of the recently departed Jean Stapleton.

What I really want to know is if he made the movie because he believes in the ideology - or if it was just a gig.   And if it's the latter, how does someone direct a movie with a morality you don't personally subscribe to?    I mean, if I got offered a Christian-themed feature, I suppose I could turn in a serviceable job.  But I'd feel weird as hell about it.

By the way, if you weren't aware of the latest news about the Galileo prop - after years of neglect by multiple owners, it was recently bought by a new owner and completely restored. 

The restoration was completed just a few weeks ago and the Galileo is on its way to its new permanent home at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, where it'll be on display.    Hopefully I'll get to see it next month when I'm in Houston for Space-City Con. 

/I win

620

(162 replies, posted in Off Topic)

INCEPTION was a July release.   Summer and fun, yes.  Dumb, not particularly.   

Unfortunately, there just aren't a lot of similar examples in recent years.

EDIT:  The Dumb Summer Fun movie has been around as long as kids have had summer off from school. 

However, it used to mean movies like this:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/08/article-2305898-192E6D19000005DC-900_634x495.jpg

I'd classify This is The End as one of this year's Dumb Summer Fun movies.  Probably The Heat as well. 

Meanwhile, Star Trek Into Darkness is just a dumb movie that came out in the summer.  The problem is that it was actually trying to be smart.

621

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

We're kind of into spoiler territory about Primer already, so just in case...

SPOILER Show

Not only that, they even start fucking with themselves, which they obviously could never have done without time travel being an ongoing part of the plot. 

A key moment is when they discover someone else knows about the machines - one of the two main characters had to have told that third person, but neither of the current incarnations did it.   It must have been an alternate version of one of them in a time loop they can't get back to now... so they'll never know which of them it was, or why.   According to Carruth's commentary, that's when they realize they can't even trust themselves anymore.

Primer's not perfect - though for me a lot of the negatives are due to the ultra-low budget, rather than a lack of ideas in the movie itself.  Several key points could have been made clearer with just one more shot or two, but it just wasn't an option the way Carruth made the movie.

But even with its flaws - damn, Primer is a hell of an achievement.  Especially for a first time filmmaker.

622

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Zarban wrote:

It's 45 minutes long. It's on Netflix, Amazon Instant, YouTube, and Vimeo. Go watch it now.

And then - if you haven't already - watch Keaton's The General. 

You've seen fireworks already.  Watch the goddam General instead.

623

(346 replies, posted in Off Topic)

It already is a thing, but the keyword is smaller payloads.    For example there's the Pegasus rocket, with a max payload of about 1000 lbs.  Enough for a small satellite, not nearly enough for a passenger vehicle.

Anything much bigger than that and the orbital vehicle gets so fuel-heavy that no plane could carry it.    Or, to look at it another way - a 747 can obviously carry a Space Shuttle... but it can't also carry the massive propellant load required to get the Space Shuttle into orbit.

624

(346 replies, posted in Off Topic)

redxavier wrote:

edit - DAMN YOU TREY!!

http://www.trivworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Charlie-Sheen-Winning1.jpg

625

(346 replies, posted in Off Topic)

There's "space" and then there's "orbit".    A plane can get close to the edge of space (which is defined by the amount of atmosphere) but can only get you a fraction of the distance to orbit.   Launching anything substantial into orbit still requires so much propellant that you might as well just skip the plane  So, we just start from the ground. smile

Virgin Galactic's passenger ship is sub-orbital - you'll "go into space" but then come right back down again.    Galactic also has plans for an orbital launch system but it will only launch micro-satellites, nothing remotely passenger-sized.