Page 3 of 4

Re: Movies I have To See

Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:29 pm
by NefariousDrO
The movie I recommend is "Serenity", if you haven't seen it. I've got mixed feelings about "Watchmen" I loved the comic, and I'm scared the movie just won't do it justice. What I'd love to see is someone take the episode from Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" where people are taking shelter in a tavern from a storm, and all sit around telling stories. If you've ever read any of the Sandman series he did, you know what I mean by stories!

Re: Movies I have To See

Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:25 pm
by Hypothetical
LotR ....The movies were a fairly decent adaptation. Yes, like many others, the exclusion of Tom Bombadil and the totally revamped end to the Saruman ( not Sauron!) story kind of irritated me, but that would have added another 2 hours to the films, so I can understand why they changed them.

They remained as true to the novels as they possibly could.

I am looking forward to "The Hobbit".

I'm looking forward to Star Trek XI. There are several things in the Trailers which totally piss me off, such as Enterprise having been built on Earth, let alone where a Civilian might accidentally see it, but it has potential.

Transformers 2. The first one was good, and bad, so I'm iffy on 2, but I know I"ll see it, just because.

Re: Movies I have To See

Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:06 am
by see317
Hypothetical wrote:I'm looking forward to Star Trek XI. There are several things in the Trailers which totally piss me off, such as Enterprise having been built on Earth, let alone where a Civilian might accidentally see it, but it has potential.
Why is it a bad thing that a civilian might see the enterprise? By the time it was built the Federation had been around a good long time and it isn't like they ever tried to keep warp travel a secret. I'm fairly certain that the enterprise wasn't even the first in it's class so it's unlikely that the design was a secret either.

Also, looking forward to Watchmen next month.

Re: Movies I have To See

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:41 am
by sherinik
Don't forget Fox made that really amazingly unbelievably BAD decision to scrap Firefly/Serenity, thereby launching the biggest viewer backlash on record! Well, what else do you call a fandom the size of Star Wars', generated from only 14 episodes (one one movie well after the fact?)

Fox seems to have as it's corporate charter the avowed aim of promoting only the most generic and mediocre, while actively scuttling anything that is high quality but may have a limited or specific demographic.

Re: Movies I have To See

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:06 pm
by Hypothetical
see317 wrote:
Hypothetical wrote:I'm looking forward to Star Trek XI. There are several things in the Trailers which totally piss me off, such as Enterprise having been built on Earth, let alone where a Civilian might accidentally see it, but it has potential.
Why is it a bad thing that a civilian might see the enterprise? By the time it was built the Federation had been around a good long time and it isn't like they ever tried to keep warp travel a secret. I'm fairly certain that the enterprise wasn't even the first in it's class so it's unlikely that the design was a secret either.

Also, looking forward to Watchmen next month.
Good long time after the fact, simply because I don't come to the forums very much...

1) The U.S.S. Enterprise, originally designated N.C.C. 1700 but changed to N.C.C. 1701 during construction due to major upgrades occurring during construction, was assembled in space.

2) The N.C.C. 1700 was such a high security project ( being the first Human space vessel designed to exceed Warp 8, and also the first human vessel to be tagged with the nomenclature Starship, rather than Space Ship) that even her first Captain, Robert April, did not find about it's existence until the day it was launched.


However...

I have now seen the movie. So many things were altered from the original TOS cannon that any objection I had originally ( apart from J.J. Abrams coming within a light year of the script) went out the window. ( Other than the Enterprise having been built on Earth. It has been stated, in many places cannon and non, that the Enterprise was far too large to have been assembled on a planetary surface. It's actual point of assembly depends on what source you are quoting, some say it was Star Fleet Shipyards at Earth, others that it was the Utopia Plentia Yards around Mars, the same Yards that later produced the Enterprise-D.)

The FX were good, the story was almost acceptable, the writing wasn't too bad. The only two actors ( apart from L.N.) that came anywhere close to being acceptable in their roles however were McCoy and Scott. Kirk would have been more believable if he had been a marionette,. The young Spock, well, I'm not going to go there, he was just horrible. Including Chekov and Sulu was a huge mistake, as both of them would have barely been 10 when Kirk was in Star Fleet Academy.

Re: Movies I have To See

Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:49 pm
by cbhacking
Hypothetical wrote:
see317 wrote:
Hypothetical wrote:I'm looking forward to Star Trek XI. There are several things in the Trailers which totally piss me off, such as Enterprise having been built on Earth, let alone where a Civilian might accidentally see it, but it has potential.
Why is it a bad thing that a civilian might see the enterprise? By the time it was built the Federation had been around a good long time and it isn't like they ever tried to keep warp travel a secret. I'm fairly certain that the enterprise wasn't even the first in it's class so it's unlikely that the design was a secret either.

Also, looking forward to Watchmen next month.
Good long time after the fact, simply because I don't come to the forums very much...

1) The U.S.S. Enterprise, originally designated N.C.C. 1700 but changed to N.C.C. 1701 during construction due to major upgrades occurring during construction, was assembled in space.

2) The N.C.C. 1700 was such a high security project ( being the first Human space vessel designed to exceed Warp 8, and also the first human vessel to be tagged with the nomenclature Starship, rather than Space Ship) that even her first Captain, Robert April, did not find about it's existence until the day it was launched.


However...

I have now seen the movie. So many things were altered from the original TOS cannon that any objection I had originally ( apart from J.J. Abrams coming within a light year of the script) went out the window. ( Other than the Enterprise having been built on Earth. It has been stated, in many places cannon and non, that the Enterprise was far too large to have been assembled on a planetary surface. It's actual point of assembly depends on what source you are quoting, some say it was Star Fleet Shipyards at Earth, others that it was the Utopia Plentia Yards around Mars, the same Yards that later produced the Enterprise-D.)

The FX were good, the story was almost acceptable, the writing wasn't too bad. The only two actors ( apart from L.N.) that came anywhere close to being acceptable in their roles however were McCoy and Scott. Kirk would have been more believable if he had been a marionette,. The young Spock, well, I'm not going to go there, he was just horrible. Including Chekov and Sulu was a huge mistake, as both of them would have barely been 10 when Kirk was in Star Fleet Academy.
I don't remember if any specific [star]dates were mentioned or how they compare to TOS canon, but the impression I got was that Kirk was late entering the academy in the alternate history. Thus, while the story takes place before TOS, it's not completely inconceivable that the TOS ensigns couldn't have have been just barely the right age, if you're comparing against Kirk's age.

Bigger problem for me was the ridiculously short time in warp to reach Vulcan, and the egregious use of Sci-fi Authors Have No Sense Of Scale (I'm not going to link to tvtropes, dammit). Of course, the latter is commonplace in Star Trek, but seriously - there's nowhere in space you could safely watch a planet explode like that unless the exploding planet orbited the one you were standing on!

I still liked the movie, though. It's not my favorite, and I don't entirely approve of the whole "reboot the canon" concept, but I'll watch the inevitable sequel.

Re: Movies I have To See

Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:55 pm
by Tempest8008
TRON: Legacy

I found it incredibly disappointing, though David can't stop singing its praises.

What did you think?

Re: Movies I have To See

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:33 pm
by see317
Tempest8008 wrote:TRON: Legacy
I found it incredibly disappointing, though David can't stop singing its praises.
What did you think?
I loved the visuals, and the soundtrack was like pure candy for my ears.
The plot though... I don't know. Maybe if I had found the time to do the whole FlynnLives ARG thing, and played the tie-in games that appearently cover the whole ISO discovery/extermination period it would have filled in the gaps that the movie didn't and made for a more complete story.

Re: Movies I have To See

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:38 pm
by skythorn
It satisfied me - apart from the strange light-ship ship that went to the gateway. Also the 2 versions of Geoff Bridges satisfied me also.

Seeing 'Monster' tonight = that should be fun!

Re: Movies I have To See

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:36 am
by Vile
I, too, was happy before, during and after the movie. Except I can't stand putting 3D glasses on top of my glasses.