1,526

(162 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Dorkman wrote:

I'm seeing it at midnight, so I'll have an opinion around 3AM.

This should be interesting...
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/35468455.jpg

1,527

(86 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Faldor wrote:

Does anyone know the name the book where Drew Struzan talks about the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull poster and how he decided to retire? I think it was mentioned on one of the podcasts

I thought that one of the panelists had the actual behind the scenes book for the Indiana Jones movies and was digging through it during the episode. I think it is this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Complete-Making-Indiana-Jones/dp/0345501292

But, I could be wrong...I haven't listened to that commentary in while. I mean, I might now, just to hear the pained groans of the panelists over this film wink

Anyway, movie posters...right

Actually, the first one that pops out in my mind is this from "The Dark Knight"
http://static.fastcommerce.com/content/ff808081163c05b001169d6655243ae9/mainimages/Dark_Knight_poster_Why_So_Serious_27X39.jpg

Perhaps its because of the life that Heath Ledger eventually breathed in to that role, but it really gave an odd sense to the movie. First of all, we know who the villain is, but the almost goofy artwork style smile has its own sense of macabre curiosity.
It stands out to me because it really creates more questions to what the film is about than normal. I like the almost lack of information in this style.

1,528

(956 replies, posted in Off Topic)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/971386_681963368499786_1071042577_n.jpg

1,529

(119 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Alex wrote:
fireproof78 wrote:

Respectfully, regarding Tolkien and allegory, he did hate it and he that isn't what he wrote in LOTR or the Hobbit. Allegory is literally a 1 to 1 representation of a person to another, such as Lewis' Narnia where Aslan is Jesus. Tolkien was not favorable towards allegory, and his writings, his letters all reflect that. He drew inspiration from mythological and historical figures, but they were not directly a representation.

I believe LOTR is a metaphor in some places, but not everything can be viewed as a metaphor and I don't think anything could be described as an allegory in terms of TOLKIEN's intent.

Excellent point. I tend to equate metaphor and allegory, and that's definitely not right. Thanks for the correction.

Its all good. Glad I could help smile
http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/848/09b/7af/resized/compassionate-shark-friend-meme-generator-it-s-alright-bro-i-feel-you-02ec63.jpg

1,530

(956 replies, posted in Off Topic)

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/6459_10151657771402074_1815512011_n.jpg

1,531

(28 replies, posted in Creations)

Just wanted to post this so you would see it:
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1005697_10151650210162840_1484903851_n.jpg

1,532

(359 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Ok, so I think about things way, way too much (ask anyone). So, I've been mulling over and chewing on Star Trek Into Darkness (no colon-grammar Nazis). So, I am kind of thinking in type over fixes for the movie, why I like it (covered in my review but I'll touch on it here) and how to get the most out of it, IMHO.

First of all, for those curious SFDebris has posted an initial feelings review, not his usual in depth analysis because the movie isn't out yet. Watch it here:
http://sfdebris.com/videos/special/intodarkness.asp

He definitely sums up my feelings of the movie. Its good, but it could have been more. I've made no secret of my defense of the film, with mixed feelings over all. Its a fun ride, I think we can all agree on that, and has some solid character moments and acting. For me, the characters save the film, but your mileage may vary ( a lot sometimes wink ). So, with that in mind, I think that some changes could have taken this good but flawed film and made it much better.
Thus, I present, my fixes, also known as the [redacted] treatment:

  Show
First of all, having Khan was a mistake. Let's be clear, Cumberbatch did an excellent job and  his Khan is unique, so I think comparisons between him and Montalban, while expected, can be unfair. This is due to the fact that Cumberbatch's Khan and Montalban's Khan are really driven by two different motivations and do not have the same history with Kirk from one timeline to the other.
But, despite that, keeping Cumberbatch as John Harrison, a genetically engineered warrior who turned on Section 31. mad science, essentially, as well as a moral dilemma.
Secondly, don't kill Pike for no reason. It was an emotional drama for Spock and Kirk but it really was too fast to matter much, given the importance of the character. If you want the emotional drama of the radiation room (a scene that works very well, in my opinion) then keep Pike as captain and have Kirk still do it. You can still have Spock chase down Harrison but it doesn't have to be emotional rage.
Keep Admiral Marcus as the main villain, pulling all the strings. Even Harrison shouldn't realize that he is being manipulated even as he tries to break free. Again, like I said in my review, this film has too many villains and is less for it.
Finally, there should be a sense of imminent war, that war that Marcus was afraid of. The fact that they go to Kronos (Klingon Homeworld) should be met with a sense of dread and fear that the Klingons will react with war.


There you go. Its a good movie but could have been great if it had gotten rid of the fan service and some silly moments.

Teague should write a Chinese rock opera...
don't ask me why. I just figured that bend many genres and break many ears wink

1,534

(38 replies, posted in Episodes)

Rob wrote:
AshDigital wrote:

Great episode! Love, love that movie.

I've liked the phrase "race bending" when actors play other ethnic groups than their own. So when I looked it up listening to the commentary I found this:

http://www.racebending.com/v4/

And boy do they have a word or two to say about Cloud Atlas.

http://www.racebending.com/v4/?s=Cloud+Atlas

p.s. I don't think I like that phrase anymore.

I'm liking it less now myself.

I liked what Dorkman said about it during the episode. It does seem like these criticisms tend to come from people who are reacting to the general idea of actors being made-up to portray characters of another ethnicity. The analysis linked above is by someone who clearly paid close attention to the film but still managed to sell short the motivations for why the choice was made. The film's conceit of reincarnation—the whole idea of the actors playing "souls, not characters"—and how all that funnels into the story's themes really does amount to a special case. Given what the film's trying to do, all the make-up jobs are necessary. I don't see a viable workaround. If the actors aren't made-up to play all those characters, you don't have the same movie. Obviously people are free reject that premise and say that the choice was not justified. But even still, Cloud Atlas shouldn't get tossed into the same bucket as Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Not the same ballpark.

I am having a tough time with the phrase too. I seems to be coming up more and more in movies, and that website, among others, is leading the charge. I've seen a couple of different articles by them and left them with the feeling of  hmm
Now what?
Also, Cloud Atlas.

1,535

(359 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I'm annoyed by the ignoring of some laws of physics, and like I said, I can enjoy both as Star Trek equally, but that is for the characters and their relationships rather than just the action beats. So, the dynamics between the characters, especially Admiral Marcus, is more compelling to me.
Honestly, you could take the space jump and Enterprise in the ocean out, and I would enjoy the movie more.

I think that part of the problem is people not just looking at TOS but also DS9, VOY and ENT, all of which i think show a starship in atmosphere regardless of aerodynamics.

But, I'll not argue with a old school Trek fan wink

1,536

(359 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Marty J wrote:

Finally, I saw this movie. To quote an often repeated phrase, it's a ride. A flawed, but enjoyable ride. As a matter of fact, it should be called Star Ride, 'cause it doesn't really feel like Star Trek. Quite frankly, I'd prefer not to think of it as Star Trek.

SPOILER Show
I could nitpick about the various inconsistencies, but Bernd Schneider (my personal hero) did this already. I won't even diss Cumberbatch, because I don't envy him the task (out-Khaning Ricardo Montalban was impossible).
What struck me the most about today's screening was the audience.

The previous ST movie I saw in a theater was Generations (it was in April 1995). The audience consisted of a few male, bespectacled nerds. One of them, a fat guy with greasy hair, kept grinning at me creepily. I still wonder if he was a child molester (I was 13 at the time).

18 years later I walked into the screening of STID and saw... three giggling girls in an otherwise empty room. Exactly the kind of girls that I would expect to see at a Twilight screening. After a few minutes some guy and a (heterosexual) couple joined us.

Good job, Mr. Abrams... Thanks to you, Star Trek became just another teen flick. Somehow I liked it a little better when it was a science-y, nerdy and "uncool" TV show tongue

Have I just fallen victim to this trope? Is there something wrong with me? Am I some kind of hipster? yikes

Not sure why people insist upon viewing it as "not Star Trek." Am I the odd one out in that I see more Star Trek in this film than Nemesis or Insurrection? O_o

Again, its personal preference and I like both equally. I just view them as both Star Trek.

1,537

(119 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Alex wrote:
Syl wrote:

I do get that in every Tolkien adaptation there will be a female part expanded or inserted, as he is mostly writing about dudes (with a few exeptions here and there), but seriosly, who is that elven chick?

Given the time in which the books were written, I've always felt that the low quantity of female characters in Tolkien's work is actually a good thing in terms of feminism. All of his female characters are strong and unique; focusing on what a single female could do was far more meaningful and interesting than having a ton of women in the book/film simply to have them there. Quality over quantity brings the characters' allegorical and poetic importance to the forefront.

Consider Eowyn's story: she is a symbol of feminine strength. In the Middle Earth mythology, that is her role--the idealized feminine realized through struggle. Her entire story revolves around being doubted as a woman and then proving that women can be just as strong, or stronger/more influential, than men. If every woman character did that, it wouldn't matter as much.

And I know Tolkien said he hated allegory. We all know that's bullshit.

Jackson's approach seems to be the opposite: rather than trying to underline a woman's story line in order to outline the genders' strengths, he's poising a preemptive strike by simply throwing in a female character with a lot of screen time but without much depth. It's like he's saying, "See? She has tons of screen time! Don't get mad at me about there being so many dudes!" As if he would be the one to blame in the first place.

Again, quality over quantity--except Jackson picked the wrong one.

Respectfully, regarding Tolkien and allegory, he did hate it and he that isn't what he wrote in LOTR or the Hobbit. Allegory is literally a 1 to 1 representation of a person to another, such as Lewis' Narnia where Aslan is Jesus. Tolkien was not favorable towards allegory, and his writings, his letters all reflect that. He drew inspiration from mythological and historical figures, but they were not directly a representation.

I believe LOTR is a metaphor in some places, but not everything can be viewed as a metaphor and I don't think anything could be described as an allegory in terms of TOLKIEN's intent.

I know that Jackson has his own vision and I will be curious to see the Hobbit played out.

1,538

(119 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Landporpus wrote:

Wow, Is Peter Jackson becoming the new George Lucas?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VdhnEESsAxc/UDbTs5xWXmI/AAAAAAAABH8/k0OQ-AiSBjk/s1600/George+lucas.jpg

And George RR Martin is the new Peter Jackson?

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/27218912.jpg

1,539

(119 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Syl wrote:
Doctor Submarine wrote:

Anyway, these movies feel like homework. I'm not excited for it, but I know I'm going to be there opening weekend.

Haha, that is an adequate comparison. I`m sure i will watch it, but I don`t know whether it will be in the theater. As I personally boycot 3d it probably won`t. I liked bits and pieces of the first Hobbit movie, but the action sequences, especially the long action sequence escaping the caves, bored me much like the light saber fights in episode1-3, and it already being so long and sidetracked so often, I don´t know whether I would even call part one a pleasant experience. So what am i expecting?

I do get that in every Tolkien adaptation there will be a female part expanded or inserted, as he is mostly writing about dudes (with a few exeptions here and there), but seriosly, who is that elven chick?

Btw I still dont get why they go for the hobbit and not for the story of Hurin´s Sons or the story of Luthien and Beren, if they want to go all lenghty and epic on it. Those are material for the format they want. And there even would be strong female parts in there, Silmarillion Spoiler

  Show
Luthien faces of Morgoth almost all by herself ffs.

That is Tauriel, captain of the Woodland Realm's Guard. She is a controversial character, to say the least. Caution, some spoilers ahead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tauriel

Also, I am a little surprised at the lack of use of miniatures given the success in LOTR. Personally, I at least am glad to see Mirkwood, and Smaug and am still interested in the film.

1,540

(35 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Snail!
You took all the fun out my analogy with your super detailed diagram  tongue

1,541

(35 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Quick bump because I just decided on a new theory:
The Goa'uld symbiotes are actually cousins to the sandworms of Arrakis.
http://www.chrismorton.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/sandworms.png

1,542

(38 replies, posted in Episodes)

Snail wrote:

Warner Brothers has used that menu alot the past year.  sad

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wXWfwamuuTc/ULyHSGYgd7I/AAAAAAAADMw/5g6oXbDU04c/s1600/budget-cuts.jpg

Trey wrote:

When you write The Game of Thrones, you finish or you die.

Look how well that worked out for Robert Jordan and Wheel of Time...
http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s671/Erich_Longpre/martinandjordan_zpsaa6b6553.png

Jimmy B wrote:

But it's called Star Trek Into Darkness, it's a sentence, if anything it should have a comma big_smile

Maybe it just should have been called Into Darkness so we didn't have these questions wink

1,545

(5 replies, posted in Episodes)

Eh, I think an arguement could be made for either one (I unfortunately could not stay to here Trey's comments so will have to wait for the release).
I tried to come up with a way to clarify my thoughts on the matter but I confused myself. So, here is a Big Bang clip instead:

Grammar Nazi...um, Scotsman wink

Yeah, i noticed that but man I hate not having colons in titles. It bothers me for some reason-probably just my brain disorder acting up again

Alright, I finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness and tried to pay close attention so I could relate them here. I missed out on fracas of Trek 09 and really wanted to get in to the debate of this new movie.
First of all, spoilers ahead. While I will do my best not to give away too many plot details, some of it requires more discussion of things that will reveal important points. So, you have been warned.

As a general review, before the spoilers, I would highly recommend seeing this movie, as it has good action, some fun moments, some serious character moments.  Each actor brings an excellent performance and there are some truly tear-jerking moments in there. The visual effects, of course, are well done, and there are some unique takes on the Star Trek universe.

Ok, now we move in to spoiler territory, so you have been warned.

The movie starts out with a typical Trek plot line: local aliens are in danger and Enterprise must save them. Spock must journey in to a volcano to stop it from erupting, but then is almost lost. Kirk insists on saving him, violating the prime directive as the pre-warp aliens see them.

This sets up some important character points. First of all, Kirk doesn’t care about the rules, and Spock hates that. Uhura and Spock’s relationship is a little rocky and Kirk finds this difficult to understand. All of these points are important, as it will relate later in the movie towards character development and change.
We are also introduced to John Harrison, an enigmatic man who tells a grief stricken father that he can save his dying daughter. How, we are not told, but we are shown Harrison working, then the father injecting something that allows his daughter to live. We also see Harrison’s price, as the father then goes to a Starfleet facility in London and blows it up.

Right off, I have to say, that was a gut punch of a beginning. The sacrificing for his daughter was wrenching to me as a father, as well as the almost cold way in which Harrison uses this family’s grief for his own ends. Right then, I knew this man was a foe.
Well, the story moves on as Pike informs Kirk that violating the Prime Directive means he loses his command, and Pike will take command back. He then informs Kirk that he is arrogant, reckless and feels he can’t lose. It’s a great moment of Pike’s fatherly discipline coming down hard on Kirk’s wayward behavior, reflecting the father-son dynamic present in the Star Trek 09. It was a relationship dynamic I was glad to see continue.

As the movie progresses, we see more dynamics, as there is a lot more at play than just Harrison bombing things. Kirk is made Pike’s first officer because Pike convinced Admiral Marcus that Kirk has great potential. So, when Pike is killed by an attack on a Starfleet captain’s meeting, Kirk is again in command of the Enterprise, and eager to avenge Pike.

We meet Admiral Marcus at this point, played by Peter Weller, who does a fantastic job. Marcus has a little more bite to him than the fatherly Pike, but he still gives Kirk friendly advice. Marcus wants to deal with Harrison too, but Harrison has fled to Klingon space. Getting him back means risking interstellar war, though Marcus’ fears its already coming. Again, it’s another character moment where we see Kirk willing to fly off half-cocked, but this time, he is encouraged by Marcus. Marcus gives him super torpedoes, designed to evade detection and can be fired in to Klingon space without provoking the Klingons.

Spock is reluctant to use these weapons, citing that Harrison is a Federation citizen and needs to be brought to trial not killed remotely. Kirk, however, is more than willing to take the chance. However, everyone questions him, Scotty resigns over not knowing what fuels the torpedoes, and Chekov is made chief engineer (hence the red shirt in publicity shots).

All of this protest makes Kirk rethink it, and he decides to use a captured smuggler’s ship to infiltrate Klingon space, retrieve Harrison and get back, without the arbitrary killing. However, their presence is detected and Kirk’s ship is forced down. Harrison saves them from the Klingons then willingly surrenders when he learns the torpedoes are onboard.

So, we get to meet Harrison, and Cumberbatch is fantastic as this cold, almost remote killer. He takes down the Klingons without breaking a sweat, and doesn’t even flinch when Kirk attempts to pummel him. Once on the Enterprise, Harrison reveals himself to be Khan, an engineered human retrieved by Marcus to help make better weapons to save the Federation in the event of a war.

Harrison/Khan goads Kirk in to opening a torpedo and they discover a person, frozen, inside. Khan then exposits his origins, altered to sound better. Marcus shows up and tells the rest of the story.

Here’s where the movie takes an odd turn, and has one of its weaker points. We have Khan and we have Marcus, who we discover is a villain and a part of a covert Starfleet organization known as Section 31. Marcus is determined that war is coming and Starfleet must be able to win at any costs. Khan wants revenge on Marcus for using him and his people, the frozen people in the torpedoes, and then wants to destroy everything else. Unfortunately, that is too many villainous plots for the movie to deal with, as we see Marcus trying to destroy the Enterprise, so Khan helps Kirk defeat Marcus, then turns on Kirk.

It becomes a bit convoluted and loses some of its punch after eliminating one villain for the sake of keeping the other. Marcus was serving as a good villain, showing the darker side of Starfleet, and giving Kirk a lesson in the necessity of the rules. Instead, Marcus is killed, without fanfare, and Khan steps in as the main bad for the rest of the film.

With this misstep, it unfortunately also allows for the comparison to Wrath of Khan. There are also some scenes which are directly taken from that movie, though turned upside down in some ways. Some will complain that it is too much and not original enough and I can understand that and will agree, to a point.

The thing about Khan is that it was too easy. They relied upon an existing villain, hoping to win points with fans burned by changes in Trek 09. Instead of trusting their story to stand on their own, they inserted a villain. That, to me, is the misstep. It does take away from the movie, somewhat, but more to illustrate wasted potential.

It isn’t the fact that they brought Khan back that bothers me, or the famous death scene, but with Kirk dying instead, or even the magic blood. It’s the fact that they were lazy and didn’t keep him as John Harrison.
However, the movie has some strong themes of friendship and family and the lengths that people will go to protect their family. As I mentioned earlier, Kirk shows disregard for any authority, believing to be above the rules. What he doesn’t realize is how that distances him from his shipmates, his family, until Pike dies and he realizes that he can lose. The theme continues until Kirk is placed in the position to save his ship and his crew, and he does so willingly. No one told him to do it, no one ordered him or argued him in to realizing it was the right thing. Kirk and Spock switch places from beginning of the film to end, where Kirk is willing to die for the sake of doing what he believes is right. Similarly, we see Spock realizing his need to feel emotions and to not be emotionless. There is a bit of extreme taken there at times, but Spock does reconcile with Uhura his feelings in the volcano.

The second theme, and perhaps, for me the more strong theme, is reflected in the movie's title. Into Darkness shows us the darker aspects of humanity, the willingness to use any means necessary to win a war, as Marcus points out. We see the Federation, supposedly an exploration agency, being treated more and more like a military. The movie drives this point home with Kirk arguing with many of his shipmates over their mission to kill Harrison. It shows Starfleet building a ship purely for war, and Marcus makes no apologies for it. He seems to relish the idea that he will be able to demonstrate strength to the Klingons because he believes war is inevitable.

At first, Kirk is on Marcus' side, but over time, with the help of his crew, his family. he recognizes that to embrace this darker, warlike nature, is to make him like Marcus, like Khan, and to reject the principles he believes in.

That is why the movie stays strong for me. It has some missteps, but the theme is strong, and the performances by the actors carry that theme all the way through the movie.


Final Score:
7 out of 10.

1,548

(18 replies, posted in Off Topic)

You done good, Snail.
Also, I never have seen Game of Thrones either. Too many deaths wink

1,549

(18 replies, posted in Off Topic)

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s671/Erich_Longpre/housefireproof_zps45cb9b47.png

1,550

(18 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Doctor Submarine wrote:


Get it! Because...submarine.

It's a picture of an anchor...  hmm

wink

Also, noticing a rising theme here.