Movie thread

[knight1fox3]

^Dude, it's Trekker.

Both are correct.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trekkie

 

[Capt Worley PE]

You're thinking Star Wars. Not a huge Star wars fan (and hated 1 so much I never saw the other two CGI crapfests).

Now that I think about it, if I don't watch a film that has Natalie Portman in it, you know it is a total festival of feces.

 

[knight1fox3]

P-shaw. I like Trek just fine. I'm not really enamored by the latest two takes on the brand, though.

LOL. There's quite a difference between "liking Star Trek" and being a Trekkie. One of them understands the big picture and depth that is trying to be achieved. Not just what's on the surface.
And we've already established that you don't like the Sci-Fi anyway.

You're thinking Star Wars. Not a huge Star wars fan (and hated 1 so much I never saw the other two CGI crapfests).

I wish I could disagree here because my affinity for SW is much greater than ST. However, the dialogue is just atrocious. The storyline does follows the original book/comic story though to a point. And yes, the acting could be much improved. That said, if I'm ever in the mood to watch them, I really only watch certain parts with epic battles and confrontations. Darth Maul was one of the best villains to come out of those movies. His character was very well done.

 

[Dexman PE PMP]

^^^ Says the guy who wore a Red ST uniform to a comiccon...

Everyone knows the red-shirts die, why did you wear it?

 

[NJmike PE]

 

[Dexman PE PMP]

I'm fairly certain KF does not prefer Dos Equis

 

[NJmike PE]

but he does a sweaty and shirtless capt kirk? :dunno:

 

[knight1fox3]

^ LOL

^^^ Says the guy who wore a Red ST uniform to a comiccon...

Everyone knows the red-shirts die, why did you wear it?

Because exactly that! You wouldn't believe how many comments we got and how many ppl wanted their pics taken with us. It was a bigger deal than I anticipated.

And all the authentic SW costumes I would consider wearing are all super-expensive or difficult to make.

Did I really just type all that? :bag:

 

[Capt Worley PE]

And we've already established that you don't like the Sci-Fi anyway.

No, I love sci-fi, but detest bad sci-fi. Both movies and books.

Unfortunately, because of the vagaries of the sci-fi market (that is, fan boys will buy ANYTHING), there is a HUGE amount of crap in the sci-fi market. It has been this way since the seventies that I am aware of.

Lately, I've noticed the same trend with post-apocolyptic fiction, another genre I love. Soooo much of the current offerings are crap (driven by the survivalist fan boys), but there are a few good ones out there to add to the list of classics.

 

[knight1fox3]

No, I love sci-fi, but detest bad sci-fi.

I stopped reading after this phrase because your definition of "bad sci-fi" is flawed and often contradictory IMO. I believe if you read some of the original comics (not books, the actual comics where most sci-fi originated), you might have a better understanding of what transposes in some of the newer films. Again, most of your comments are surface critiques. Just sayin'.

And as always, to each their own.

 

[engineergurl]

I don't have a clue what any of you are talking about

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Comic books?

 

[knight1fox3]

^ LOL, you don't watch Big Bang Theory?

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Yeah, was that a quote from them or something?

 

[knight1fox3]

Yeah, was that a quote from them or something?

Indeed. And that's most of what they talk about on that show. Comics first, then movie.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Yeah, was that a quote from them or something?

Indeed. And that's most of what they talk about on that show. Comics first, then movie.

refernce flew over my head...I either missed the episode or forgot the quote.

Of course they go more for the superhero stuff than real scfi. If they were real scifi geeks they'd be going on and on about the pulp novels instead of comics.

 

[Dleg]

I am serious - I am disappointed that they could not come up with a new story for the new Star Trek films. Blowing up Vulcan and shifting the timeline, but then telling the same stories again only slightly different is not "new" stories.

As Road Guy says, there are shelves and shelves full of sci fi at any bookstore - I am certain they could have come up with some good, new material that was well within the original intent and feel of the series, if they had just ditched the Hollywood Hacks and hired some real sci fi writers.

Now this is not to say that I did not enjoy the new films - they were entertaining, especially the first one. But this most recent one, well, all it really did for me was make me put on the blu-ray from my original ST films box set. In that one, I actually get choked up when Spock is dying and Jim is spilling his guts, in his reserved, Captain sort of way. All I did in the new one, when Kirk was dying, was roll my eyes.

 

[knight1fox3]

I am serious - I am disappointed that they could not come up with a new story for the new Star Trek films. Blowing up Vulcan and shifting the timeline, but then telling the same stories again only slightly different is not "new" stories.

Well IMO, as I mentioned above, your comments are like the others, surface critiques. You're not looking or thinking big picture in the ST universe. This a new and very different period for the Federation. You can't just expect them to jump to something completely unfamiliar (or in your words, "new"). They would lose fan-base (remember ST Nemesis? Neither does anyone else). You start with something that is familiar, and you build on it. Then you can take things in very different directions. Which is what I believe they are doing. Also, if you are in fact a dedicated Trekkie, can you please tell me which ST series (and episode) you've seen this ship in before?

As Road Guy says, there are shelves and shelves full of sci fi at any bookstore - I am certain they could have come up with some good, new material that was well within the original intent and feel of the series, if they had just ditched the Hollywood Hacks and hired some real sci fi writers.

There are? :huh: When is the last time you were in the "Sci-Fi" section of any US bookstore today? They are sorely lacking. But I would like to hear more about what you consider a "real sci-fi writer/director" if not Abrams. J. Bruckheimer is decent, but he doesn't venture toward something as epic as ST or SW. Lucas and Spielberg are just too old. Cameron might be decent, but again, there's the intimidation factor of ST/SW.

EDIT: I forgot about Ridley Scott too. But again, don't think he'd touch ST/SW.

Now this is not to say that I did not enjoy the new films - they were entertaining, especially the first one. But this most recent one, well, all it really did for me was make me put on the blu-ray from my original ST films box set.

Is that so? Let me know if you feel the same way when you get to that turd ST III. Or "VGER" for that matter. LOL...fail.

 

[YMZ PE]

But I would like to hear more about what you consider a "real sci-fi writer/director" if not Abrams. J. Bruckheimer is decent, but he doesn't venture toward something as epic as ST or SW. Lucas and Spielberg are just too old. Cameron might be decent, but again, there's the intimidation factor of ST/SW.
EDIT: I forgot about Ridley Scott too. But again, don't think he'd touch ST/SW.

What about Joss Whedon? He would totally rock ST/SW, plus find a way to work lesbians into the storyline.

 

[knight1fox3]

But I would like to hear more about what you consider a "real sci-fi writer/director" if not Abrams. J. Bruckheimer is decent, but he doesn't venture toward something as epic as ST or SW. Lucas and Spielberg are just too old. Cameron might be decent, but again, there's the intimidation factor of ST/SW.
EDIT: I forgot about Ridley Scott too. But again, don't think he'd touch ST/SW.

What about Joss Whedon? He would totally rock ST/SW, plus find a way to work lesbians into the storyline.

Good call. JW could probably rock that. And hopefully find a way to get Capt Reynolds in there too.