Prediction: Sean Biggerstaff (Harry Potter's Oliver Wood)
Oh come on, you're making that name up.
*goes to IMDb*
...oh.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Doctor Submarine
Prediction: Sean Biggerstaff (Harry Potter's Oliver Wood)
Oh come on, you're making that name up.
*goes to IMDb*
...oh.
I'd love to see a male companion. Rory was great, but his motivation to stay on the TARDIS was more for Amy than for the Doctor. I'd love to see the Doctor and his best bro go on some adventures.
Aw boo. I really got into Doctor Who when I watched his first episode. He'll be missed.
Okay, so speculation time. Who's going to be the twelfth? I wish wow I knew British cinema and television better. I've mentioned Chiwetel Ejiofor before. I get the feeling that he's got a good sense of humor, and we know he has an intensity about him.
Or what about a female doctor? It might be a stretch to explain from a narrative perspective (so Time Lords can switch genders?) but it would be uncharted territory and could make for some fascinating material.
Is anyone actually going to see this? Hahaha jk obviously not. Especially since it might secretly about Scientology. Mike Nelson shared this on Twitter. SPOILERS, of course.
All the trailers have focused on character over super-punching, so I'm pretty optimistic. It has the potential to be the definitive superhero origin story, with Snyder and Nolan working together, much like the original Superman was.
Doctor Submarine wrote:Calling the people in FF6 "characters" is extraordinarily charitable.
Yeah...I was thinking the same thing.
Oops, wrong thread. Lol.
Still baffled that people all of a sudden like these movies. I really appreciate the cast diversity and the refusal to use cheap stereotypes. But this movie is no different from Battleship to me. Good action, idiotic otherwise. I laughed out loud several times at just how ridiculous some of the stunts are.
I guess the wraparound storyline is kind of interesting, but it seems to me to be just a cheap way to get a fan favorite character back. (Although that final scene does bring it all together in a major way, I'll give them that.) People are talking about this conceit like it's brilliant or revolutionary in franchise storytelling, as if they've never seen a single prequel before. It's not that interesting. Fast and Furious 6 is dumb fun at best and incredibly boring at worst.
I did enjoy its moments of self-awareness, like when someone comments on the fact that each member of the crew has an evil doppelganger on the villain's team. That was fun. And sure, the action is good. I just found it impossible to care about anyone or anything. But I guess that's not why people come to these movies. They aren't the worst action movies ever. But aside from the structure of the series and the casting, I'm not sure why these movies are even being talked about.
Calling the people in FF6 "characters" is extraordinarily charitable.
Much Ado is such a perfect fit for Joss. It's basically the play he would have written in Shakespeare's time. So much sass. I can't wait for this movie.
I'd like to get more into Korean cinema. My only real experience is with The Hist, which I don't really like.
Dave wrote:I just didn't care, I was having fun.
I suppose one can treat it like a demo VFX reel to see how the $190M were spent. Just turn the dialogue off, and admire the CG space ships, lens flares, underwear, and fluid physics modelling off the submerged Enterprise, etc.
Here's what I treated it as:
Star Trek Into Darkness is a sci-fi adventure with some great action setpieces, great character work, a balanced script, and some interesting things to say about justice and morality.
To me, that outweighs all these minor plot nitpicks. Whether or not
So here's just an example, and it might be the most controversial thing I've ever said on this forum. A lot of people on these boards disliked Looper but loved Primer. And why? Because the time travel in Primer is so much more intricate and well though out. Pretty sure someone actually said on the podcast, when discussing Looper, "Best time-travel movie ever? No, you're thinking of Primer." Primer might have a plot free of holes, but that's all it's got going for it. The characters in Primer are so one-dimensional it's like they don't even exist. Sure, Shane Carruth put a lot of thought into the science, but what was the point? And that's why Looper is a much better movie overall than Primer. And that's why Star Trek Into Darkness, despite little plot problems, IS a good movie.
Not to turn this into a discussion about the purpose of film criticism. That's deserving of a whole other thread. I just wanted to make my viewpoint a little clearer.
After seeing it in IMAX 3D on a rare 15/70mm print, I just rewatched the 3-minute Khan monologue in the cell that is the key to the entire plot and it makes no sense at all. Virtually every sentence Khan says in that monologue contradicts the previous one.
Why does Khan exist? To bring peace or wage war? How can 300 year olds be superior? Why did he freeze himself 300 years ago? Waiting for peace? But his job was to bring peace? Why was he alone awoken? Does he or does he not have access to his crew? If the admiral used the crew as leverage, how was Khan able to smuggle them into torpedoes? If Khan believed his crew dead, why did Khan transport to Kronos if that was the admiral's plan? Khan said his plan to smuggle his crew in the torpedoes was discovered, so does the admiral know the bodies are in there? How did Khan let himself be the Admiral's bitch, when he's so superior and easily able to take everyone else out? Whaaaat? And so on
This is the Iron Man 3 thread all over again. Nearly all of the "plot holes" being brought up here are answered in the movie.
Doesn't work for me.
What a neat idea! Good luck man. Don't have any suggestions right now, but if I think of any I'll throw them your way.
Well, that's one of the more unique creations we've ever had. Congrats!
Totally forgot to mention Greenwood! His score is great, very original and it really compliments the film. The jail scene is probably my favorite in the whole movie, if only because it really lays bare the central emotions of what is often a very guarded, distant film.
You know, now that I think about it, McCoy injecting the blood into a DEAD tribble makes no fucking sense. Why wouldn't he use just an injured tribble, if he wanted to study the blood's healing effects? Unless tribble biology is completely backwards, that blood isn't pumping through a dead animal.
The blood itself having healing properties is dumb, yeah, but it didn't bug me. But the way that Bones discovers it is actually super dumb.
...
Okay, FINE, this movie was dumb as hell all around. Still fun though. Not conceding that point. I'll almost certainly watch it again. The emotional beats work and the action is great. I wasn't asking for anything more. It wasn't all serious about itself and its themes like Prometheus, so I really can't hate it. Still, good thing that none of these writers are working on Star Wars VII. Abrams is a talented director who can turn out great product if he's got decent material to work with.
Trey wrote:Speaking of whom:
Damon Lindelof admits the Star Trek underwear scene was "gratuitous"
Now if we can just get him to admit the same about the rest of the movie...
It was hardly a "scene". 1...2 seconds max? Should have been more of it. It's the punch-ups that are gratuitous and over the top. 10 minutes of unrealistic indestructible punch-ups and 2 seconds of underwear flash - that's American mentality. If it was European production, those would be reversed.
The fact that it was only two seconds was what made it gratuitous. It was thrown in purely to titillate the audience. Completely unnecessary otherwise. The "unrealistic" action scenes (and if you're really complaining about that in a Star Trek movie, you were never going to like this thing) are absolutely necessary. It's an action film.
Why even have space ships if you can beam anywhere, anytime?
Because spaceships are awesome!
Doctor Submarine wrote:This was very interesting, and I'm excited to hear more. Curious to hear what the panel thought of Searching for Sugar Man. I found it pretty underwhelming. The story was kind of interesting, but the movie itself really didn't have a point. At the end I was wondering why they had bothered to make the movie in the first place, and what everyone else seemed to see in it. There was too much focus on Rodriguez himself and not enough on the impact his music had on South Africans, which to me was the really interesting part of the story.
You always have to keep in mind who the documentary is made for. If Searching for Sugar Man was made for South Africans, then, well, they already know all about the influence he had. It's the actual person that would be interesting.
Well, I guess the problem is that the actual person isn't all that interesting to begin with. "He had a failed music career, but TWIST! He's actually a nice guy!" There's not much more to Rodriguez than that.
Some questions / points:
1. Why did one stun shot knock out Khan on the bridge of the dreadnought for over a minute, but during the climactic punch-up, Uhura's many stun shots were brushed off like mosquito bites?
2. Why did detectors only detect one life form on Kronos, when there were heaps of Klingons?
3. What are the rules of the transporter? Every single time there's a transporter situation, the rules are different. It can't transport because of speed, distance, radiation, interference, lack of power, shields, etc. At other times, it can transport into a warp ship from across the galaxy, or between any two points in the universe.
4. Ditto for warp drive. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. Whatever the scriptwriters need at that time. Likewise, "Starfleet Protocol says we can't do this." Other times: "fuck the rules, we'll do whatever we want." In summary, all these things (e.g. warp, transporter, protocol, malfunctioning technology) are just arbitrary constraints upon behaviour, like a knob that can be twiddled on demand. And it feels really ARBITRARY. Oh so now they can't do this. Now they can. Now they can't. Whatever.
5. The technology and design aesthetic of the bridge don't look anything like the brewery down below.
6. Why continually have to run between the bridge and the transporter room? Inefficient design. Build a smaller transporter section on the bridge.
7. Star Trek 1966 was ahead of the Zeitgeist, but Star Trek 2009 is not ahead of its time. Just the same ol' no-stakes indestructible PG-13 runn'n fight'n shoot'n 'splosions as every other tent-pole.
8. Can't they just remote-pilot a 'cold fusion' device into the volcano? Or beam it down from orbit? Why did they have to park the ship underwater? Wouldn't the natives have seen it entering the water?
9. Why does the captain repeatedly have to stay on the bridge while the rest evacuate as if they ship can't do anything on its own? That's such a cliche. "Oh no, don't sacrifice yourself." "But I have to." But it doesn't matter anyway, because all main characters get saved/resurrected one way or the other. So stop pretending this scene is so tense and emotional, because in two minutes, everything will be okay again.
10. Khan from Wrath of Khan was far nastier. PG-13 tends to water-down the drama.
2. Don't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure the Klingons followed them to that area. There was no one there but Harrison when they scanned.
3. Warping has always been problematic. The rules don't make a lot of sense, but it didn't bother me that much.
4. Same with this one. But that was always a problem on the original show too.
5. So?
6. Yeah. Whatever. It makes things more exciting.
7. So? They weren't trying to be hugely influential. Star Trek 1966 has already been done. There's no point in trying to have the same impact that it did all over again.
8. Because then there's no tense opening action scene.
9. The captain goes down with the ship. Same as in Titanic and every other movie about ships, space or otherwise.
10. Ooh, gotta disagree with you here. 1980s Khan mainly snarled and quoted classic literature. 2013 Khan is crushing people's skulls with his bare hands. New Khan is WAY nastier than Old Khan.
This was very interesting, and I'm excited to hear more. Curious to hear what the panel thought of Searching for Sugar Man. I found it pretty underwhelming. The story was kind of interesting, but the movie itself really didn't have a point. At the end I was wondering why they had bothered to make the movie in the first place, and what everyone else seemed to see in it. There was too much focus on Rodriguez himself and not enough on the impact his music had on South Africans, which to me was the really interesting part of the story.
Ann Coulter has passed the point where you can write satire about her. It just sounds too realistic now.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Doctor Submarine
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.