Well, I have pretty much given up on the Hobbit. I will watch it and I will enjoy the spectacle, but LOTR is firmly my favorite book adaptation and Jackson work. All the leaky info for DoS has pretty got me going *shrug*
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by fireproof78
Well, I have pretty much given up on the Hobbit. I will watch it and I will enjoy the spectacle, but LOTR is firmly my favorite book adaptation and Jackson work. All the leaky info for DoS has pretty got me going *shrug*
bullet3 wrote:Lets hold off on the marathons for at least another 100 episodes, eh?
It's in everyone's best interest to keep the FIYH crew aliveSo too early to suggest a 'doing' of the Firefly series boxset, then ?
BigDamnArtist wrote:I've tried rewatching it a few times over the years, I always get about 1/2-3/4 the way through season one and fizzle out. Don't get me wrong, season 1 is great, but there isn't much to really sink your teeth into on a rewatch. So I've seen most of season 1, 3-4 times.
So that's what it was! I've tried rewatching the series a couple of times and I lose interest around or before half a dozen episodes into the first series. I remember really liking the series overall though, and I couldn't work out what the problem was.
Is there a particular point (season 2, finale of season 1) that you recommend as a starting point?
I'm coming up to my annual obligatory Babylon 5 rewatch. Gods I love that series. It haunts me.
Well, if you want my recommendation I would start with "Nerve and The Hidden Memory" towards the end of season 2, which introduces Scorpious and is a two parter, then move on to "Family Ties" the season finale and keep going with Season 2. I think there is a little more a plot line as you hit Season 2.
I agree with all of that with regards to Abrams first Trek movie. That's exactly what I said at the time, that Abrams made Trek fun again. However, he managed to do it without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But Into Darkness bent the rules beyond their breaking point.
And really, I would piss on any movie that played such silly games with science as Into Darkness did. It was just extra enraging that it had the name Star Trek on it.
Fair point, and I certainly feel the first one is much better. I know that you, Trey, are much more of a science stickler than I am, so I don't begrude that point either. It just doesn't enrage me, mostly because Voyager and Enterprise are packed full of stupid science so I think I just roll my eyes and move on.
I think Into Darkness suffered for many reasons beyond the science, but none of it broke the movie in the sense that it is, to me, a bad movie. The characters are really what I focus on and that pushes it forward for me. I liked the social commentary of both movies as well.
But, but, I certainly can see where you are coming from. It was the more hateful comments, things that make your prequel treatments look tame, that confused me.
No offense to my fellow Trek fans but I don't feel like it goes against EVERYTHING Trek stood for. First of all, science is bad and I will not defend that part. Yeah, it's dumb but that is as much a failing of other series as Abrams trek. Abrams Trek just hyped it up and said no, we will do what we want. No argument there.
One place (and I may stand alone in this) is that Abrams recaptured a sense of fun and adventure that the Original Series had but was lacking, at times, in the other series. Abrams also attempts some social commentary, in both films, that I found more engaging that any of the TNG era movies.
Abrams Trek, for me, is driven by the characters. One aspect of Roddenberry's future was humans becoming more enlightened and reaching for their potential. I don't think he would set himself on fire (and I could be wrong) because Abrams takes a different tack at this future. It isn't that humanity isn't working towards a more peaceful and united world but that the vision is being challenged, either from within or without. TOS had a couple of episodes like this, and DS9 took it on more fully with the Dominion War.
Abrams does so mainly through characters. You have Kirk, who was the poster child Starfleet captain, a man of principle but flawed at times, but trying to become better. In Abrams Trek, Kirk is not reaching for anything beyond himself. He is not seeking to fulfill his potential but is willing to squander it. It takes the influence and guidance of Pike to make him take a step towards becoming better, to cultivate that potential within himself.
So, again, no offense, but I don't see it as antithetical to every aspect of Roddenberry's vision. I think that Pine's Kirk is more related to Shatner's Kirk than many realize. Shatner's Kirk is a flawed man who recognizes it, while Pine's Kirk is just now learning and maturing. The flaws are still there, but one is trying to correct them while the other is learning about them.
I'll take either one
I went into this with the full force wave of the internets and this forums rage and hate at my back. And I gotta say. I didn't hate it. It wasn't bad. I spent the movie going...wait... This is actually pretty enjoyable, it's no masterpiece sure, but it definitely doesn't deserve raging hatred, wtf is going on?
And then it kept being...not horrible... and I had fun.
This was part of my reaction too. I am so confused by the large fan hatred that seems so I wish I knew what was up. Like I mentioned in the 2013 Movies thread, the fan reaction spans the continuum with the hatred being so much as accusations of racism, hack writing, Abrams hates Trek and wants to ruin it, etc.
So, yeah, internet...wow
@BDA
Farscape was definitely one of those shows that hit me at the right time too. I still have the first issue of the official magazine (back when there was such a thing ). I trailed off with the whole Scarran War started but might be revisiting it soon. Thinking of buying the new complete series set that is out.
Lets hold off on the marathons for at least another 100 episodes, eh?
It's in everyone's best interest to keep the FIYH crew alive
Says who?
But, I would be done for Batman Begins, because it is one of the more interesting parts of the series as far as character stuff goes. The whole "becoming is more interesting" stuff
Also, a plug for Stargate: the movie. Sorry, one of my personal favorites, and it would be nice to hear them take it on.
Also, would not mind hearing Eddie take on Blade. Don't need to do all three, just the first one will do
Well, we know this: it will be pretty and fairly insane.
Personally, regardless of casting misgivings and story potential concerns, I am excited to see this film. I have a growing love of scifi concept art and movies like this just bring some interesting and fun designs to the science fiction world. As much fun as hard scifi is, there is something about space opera that is more exciting to me. I'll take the weird title too, thank you very much
fireproof78 wrote:Ewing wrote:Wait, what?
In his casting of Cumberbatch as Khan, since we obviously couldn't have a genetic superman who is white. That's ridiculous...
I can see how it creates a problem in terms of logic of the universe - Khan existed before the new timeline, why the fuck is he white now - but I highly doubt Abrams is racist. Benicio del Toro was the first choice for the role, but it fell through.
Yeah, it's not exactly a great argument but it is still there. Also, it isn't even an in universe problem because I can see Admiral Marcus modifying his appearance to help disguise him further. One of the ways Kirk and Co figure him out in "Space Seed" (Khan's first appearance) was via pictures. So, disguise him. The perfect plan
But, yeah, there was a whole stink about it and even an article. I'll have to find it again.
fireproof78 wrote:or even the more extreme opinions, like Abrams is a racist
Wait, what?
In his casting of Cumberbatch as Khan, since we obviously couldn't have a genetic superman who is white. That's ridiculous...
Ughhhh. Another "chosen one" plot. If you told me this was based on a Young Adult novel for teens I would believe you. I know you guys love Cloud Atlas, but I really don't think they've pulled off a narrative since The Matrix. They really could use a third collaborator to rewrite some of their dialogue.
Sean Bean is in it though, so that's a plus.
Yes, but does Sean Bean die? That is the question
I am semi-interested in it, but fear that with Tatum (who I didn't recognize until someone said his name) it will be another John Carter. Pretty visuals, a little pulpy with a princess to boot, but lacking substance.
That all being said, I am impressed with the ideas behind the story. Most space opera style stories do not use Earth as a back drop (at least in recent years. Perhaps the Star Wars effect). The idea that Earth isn't the center of the universe or a galaxy spanning empire but rather a small cog in a larger machine is an interesting concept and one that I am at least willing to give it a shot with.
fireproof78 wrote:Jimmy B wrote:I like the first hour, forty. That's the length of some movies, is that good enough?
I'll take it lol
Heh, good, cause that's basically the crux of my opinion.
Again, Ill take it, mostly because at least the two of you were willing to watch it and give it a chance. The majority of fan negative opinions (this is not reflecting on anyone here, just FYI) fall under two categories. 1, it is a mindless action flick or 2, it is an aping of Wrath of Khan. Both starts lead to the conclusion that it sucks, or even the more extreme opinions, like Abrams is a racist, hateful, anti-Trek hack who wants to tear that franchise down before moving on to his first love, Star Wars.
Sorry for the derail...now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
fireproof78 wrote:Personally, I haven't seen much, and continue to be the outlier in terms of liking Star Trek Into Darkness.
I like the first hour, forty. That's the length of some movies, is that good enough?
I'll take it lol
I've seen the film and watched most of the first season of the show, I just couldn't get into it. If I had seen it all and I hated it, then yes, that would have been interesting
Well, now I have to find someone who hates it...
fireproof78 wrote:Personally, I haven't seen much, and continue to be the outlier in terms of liking Star Trek Into Darkness.
I won't go so far as to say I really liked it, but I definitely surprised at how much I liked it. Dammit, I really just need to do a write up for it. All right, imma do a write up for the last movie you watched thread.
And here I was thinking I wasn't contributing
Well, I don't care about Stargate so there will be a place open if we ever do one
Jimmy, do you not care AND have you seen it? Because, I think that would be an interesting perspective.
*perfectly serious*
Personally, I haven't seen much, and continue to be the outlier in terms of liking Star Trek Into Darkness.
Also, I'll through Desolation out there since I will be seeing that and am anticipating good things
*watches video*
*debates contributing for the electric bill alone*
Good job guys! I'm sorry that I missed it but this is one of those things that makes this group so incredible.
And, if you watch the dub, you get to hear Cary Elwes battle Tim Curry, the matchup you've all been waiting for!
Absolutely!
You guys are insane...
fireproof78 wrote:I don't think the significance or the poor taste of the marketing should be underestimated.
I just highly doubt that there are people who have no problem with the content of this advertising who will now refuse to see this move because of the timing of it's release. And even those who claim that now, can't stay mad at it for the full year that passes between now and the movies release. If it was the movie itself being released on the 50th anniversary that might(and I doubt that even) register in box office figures.
But, that isn't the point of my post, or of the OP (at least, I don't think). It seems to me, that nothing can affect box office numbers other than advertising. Even films that are considered "stupid" and the like still keep going, so I'm not sure of the relationship.
My only point was that anniversaries have significance as does the fact that JFK was assassinated 50 years ago. Both events have importance to the culture at large. What impact that importance has will likely be minimal in terms of box office figures. But, that doesn't strike me as the point.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by fireproof78
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.