|
DS9 season one isn't that bad, you can't call any season that has "Duet" in it "lovely" in good conscience. It's like that season of House that ended with "Wilson's Heart", it wasn't that good overall, but come on, it had That Episode in it.
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
Fag Boy Jim posted:DS9 season one isn't that bad, you can't call any season that has "Duet" in it "lovely" in good conscience. I mean, it's not Voyager lovely, but it's like, at least TOS season 3 lovely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
How is watching episodic tv shows a waste of time any more than watching serial tv shows is? It's only a waste of time if you don't enjoy the show. And cutting out anything that is more episodic on some kind of weird principle is cutting out most of the tv shows that have been made. Anyway yeah Star Trek is really more of a tv experience. Even the better movies aren't actually that great, except for Wrath of Khan and the JJ Abrams one. Trekkies were telling me for years to watch First Contact, and that it's the best TNG movie, turns out it's pretty mediocre.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Anyway yeah Star Trek is really more of a tv experience. Even the better movies aren't actually that great, except for Wrath of Khan and the JJ Abrams one. Trekkies were telling me for years to watch First Contact, and that it's the best TNG movie, turns out it's pretty mediocre. First Contact hasn't aged well, but that opening battle hosed my poo poo up in 1996. Generations is kind of a bummer because it sucks rear end, but it's beautifully filmed. Far and away the best lighting of the entire Star Trek canon. marktheando posted:How is watching episodic tv shows a waste of time any more than watching serial tv shows is? It's only a waste of time if you don't enjoy the show. And cutting out anything that is more episodic on some kind of weird principle is cutting out most of the tv shows that have been made. No, bro, he convinced me. I've now abandoned all episodic shows. I've also thrown out all music that's not a symphony or a concept album. Dream Theater is obviously better than Frank Sinatra, because Dream Theater took advantage of the album format, you see. Also, I've burned every short story collection I own. Motherfuck a vignette. penismightier fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Apr 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
penismightier posted:No, bro, he convinced me. I've now abandoned all episodic shows. I've also thrown out all music that's not a symphony or a concept album. Dream Theater is obviously better than Frank Sinatra, because Dream Theater took advantage of the album format, you see. doctor 7 posted:Personally I think Star Trek I is also a great flick. I also think the segment at the beginning (the confrontation between the Klingons and Vger) with virtually no dialogue, more or less `narrated' by Jerry Goldsmith's score, is one of the few places where that general conceit has ever worked in a genre film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 21:29
|
|
|
SubG posted:I also think the segment at the beginning (the confrontation between the Klingons and Vger) with virtually no dialogue, more or less `narrated' by Jerry Goldsmith's score, is one of the few places where that general conceit has ever worked in a genre film. It also introduced the immortal Klingon theme.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
In Heat, why don't they pick up Val Kilmer at the road block after Ashley Judd warns him? He's got a fake ID but surely they have a picture of him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 21:55
|
|
|
Aside from the horrific costumes, Star Trek I was a really long retelling of one of the original series stories, and so it really fell flat for me. They went too big, the enemy was just this one super powerful thing and after going through two hours of exposition we get to the payoff of "Durr Kirk saves the day, Spock does the mind meld" fan service poo poo that didn't sit well with me...a fan. I was so disappointed when I saw it, they were lucky I went to see Khan. poo poo, I just rewatched all the TOS movies recently (bought the set) and I have already forgotten exactly how they defeat Vger. Logic puzzle or some poo poo? It doesn't matter, because it was a huge letdown. The best part of that movie (SubG you just described it) is in the beginning and the rest is downhill. At no other point does that movie have any tension, or even action really. Wrath of Khan is still the only one I really enjoy. I had hoped to be able to get into some of the others because reading Clumsy's first time watching reactions made me wonder if my age had soured me at the time(s), but no. I still don't have any desire to re-rewatch any of them, except the WoK. The set just sits there, mocking me. Search for Spock isn't too bad as a follow up watch, just to continue the storyline, but after that it's over for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:In Heat, why don't they pick up Val Kilmer at the road block after Ashley Judd warns him? He's got a fake ID but surely they have a picture of him. Wasn't he wearing a disguise? Maybe I'm misremembering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
He cut and dyed his hair, but that's it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
The original Star Trek series is really almost an anthology show: the emphasis is on characters thinking their way through a completely different situation every week, and no previous situation informs any subsequent one: it's like endless variations on a theme. All the energy in the storytelling is on thinking through the premise, and a lot of the episodes are written by science fiction authors who were famous then or are famous now. It's really a cousin of the Twilight Zone as much as it's anything. The movies are interesting to me because they're kind of about getting older and having to deal with the consequences of what you did when you were young. Star Trek is just these young fuckers blasting through space and taking chances all willy-nilly and never really thinking about what happened because of their actions. Then they're all middle-aged and people start dying as a result of every choice they make and they're starting to think about how adventuring meant they never started families and then Ricardo Montalban drops in out of nowhere and ruins their poo poo. The consequences of something they did without thinking it through back in the 60's dog them for about three of the TOS movies, and it really weighs on them exactly like it didn't in the show. I don't know if that was an intention of the people making the movies, but it's something I've always appreciated about those films.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
The worldview change between Star Trek I and II is astoundingly polar Star Trek I is about cocky we're-so-smart smug assholes who go around the galaxy, encounter the strongest, most intelligent thing anyone in the known universe has ever seen and once they meet it they go "pshh, it's just a stupid kid looking for its mommy" The movie disappoints at the box office, and Roddenberry's taken off the driver's seat, to be replaced by Bennett and Meyer. Nimoy says "please kill me in the next movie because I'm tired of this poo poo" Star Trek II comes along and tells the tale of Kirk being forced to admit he doesn't know everything. Faced with the no-win scenario that he cheated out of in the past, he doesn't know what to do now. Spock, who for the length of the entire series was trumped up as cold logic personified, is the one who lays down his life to save everyone else, a display of human compassion that completely humbles Kirk. edit: VVVVVV Meyer then refused to work on III because he insisted that Spock should stay dead. After the damage was already done, he came back to work on IV. Then he skipped V because Shatner insisted on directing and writing (Nimoy directed IV, and Shatner's contract said anything Nimoy gets to do, he gets to do too). Then he came back to work on VI. This is why, until recently, the Star Trek Even Numbered Movie Rule existed. Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Apr 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:The worldview change between Star Trek I and II is astoundingly polar Plus it was a convenient excuse to get Nimoy out of Trek III because he wanted to (and did) direct.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
I'd also like to add that VI continues on Meyer's "Kirk needs to grow up" theme from II, brings about actual universe-changing events and is a decent end-of-cold-war movie. IMO, the second best Trek movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for the Star Trek input. I think I'll try first six movies from TOS and see how it is. After that maybe I'll try just watch some of the most popular episodes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 08:36
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:The original Star Trek series is really almost an anthology show: the emphasis is on characters thinking their way through a completely different situation every week, and no previous situation informs any subsequent one: it's like endless variations on a theme. All the energy in the storytelling is on thinking through the premise, and a lot of the episodes are written by science fiction authors who were famous then or are famous now. It's really a cousin of the Twilight Zone as much as it's anything. This is astute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 11:04
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:In Heat, why don't they pick up Val Kilmer at the road block after Ashley Judd warns him? He's got a fake ID but surely they have a picture of him. It's a great movie, but there are a few plot points like this one that make zero sense. I was always bothered by that one, along with Tone Loc casually using the word "slick" as the catalyst for the entire police investigation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 14:10
|
|
|
Butthole Prince posted:It's a great movie, but there are a few plot points like this one that make zero sense. I was always bothered by that one, along with Tone Loc casually using the word "slick" as the catalyst for the entire police investigation. Yeah I figured there was no answer for the Val Kilmer thing. The slick part never bothered me because weird coincidences happen all the time. Just today my grandpa's girlfriend got a wrong number from somebody trying to reach his grandma. The weird part is he said "This is Andrew, I want to take you and Jack out for dinner with Katie" where my name is Andrew, my grandpa's name is Jack, and I was just talking about a friend I have named Katie this past Sunday. Turns out it was some stranger who dialed the wrong number. I love Heat, every time I watch it I think maybe they'll getaway clean from the bank just this once, even though I know what happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:I'd also like to add that VI continues on Meyer's "Kirk needs to grow up" theme from II, brings about actual universe-changing events and is a decent end-of-cold-war movie. IMO, the second best Trek movie. VI's plot doesn't hold together very well on close examination but the political themes are so classic Trek and the cast is so comfortable in their roles by this point that it's a fantastic send-off. It's also probably the most theatrical of the Trek movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
DannoMack posted:My friends and I were watching A Knight's Tale last week for some reason, and we were trying to think of other period pieces where contemporary music was used. I don't possess anything near the film knowledge that the posters here do, what are the more famous examples of this happening? Julie Taymor's Titus, based off of the Shakespeare play, mixed industrial rock and swing music into the movie which is set in ancient Rome. It's a wholly original composition I think, so not exactly what you're looking for, but it's really loving great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 07:10
|
|
|
Jesus Christ Superstar is another.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 11:05
|
|
|
Yeah, but they also drive around in vans and carry machine guns in that movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 18:57
|
|
|
Bozz posted:Julie Taymor's Titus, based off of the Shakespeare play, mixed industrial rock and swing music into the movie which is set in ancient Rome. Since I can't say enough good things about Titus, I'll just say the bad thing: Aside from some of the principle cast (e.g. Hopkins, Lange, Cumming, whoever played Aaron), everyone was just reciting Shakespeare (as opposed to actually acting).
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 20:09
|
|
|
doctor 7 posted:It's actually kind of strange. I much prefer The Next Generation TV show to The Original Series but gently caress me TOS movies are, far, far better than the TNG ones. The TNG films suffer from having seven main crew who really don't have much to do but get swapped around depending on what the situation calls for. Data seems the most developed as he actually has a character arc with his emotion chip. The characters get worse once you watch DS9 and realise just how much Worf gets reduced to exposition along with the rest of the crew. It's also amusing to note the prime directive being hastily written away to free up any plot corners, such as in Insurrection where it transpires the primitive planet actually has warp technology, they just don't use it any more. First Contact is generally the best of the TNG films, plot niggles aside, it's the most accessible as it's sci-fi action. Generations is a confused mess, Insurrection wasn't developed well and Nemesis was an expensive B-movie. The Final Frontier also can be viewed as thumbing it's nose at the very rigid PC-ness of TNG; such as the ship not working, the crew actually interacting on a level that's friendly not formal. The TOS crew tend to work better as a team rather than being locked down to individual roles waiting for their point in the story (see also DS9) by comparison the TNG crew are bland. I give it a sympathy vote over the fact it had a pretty rocky production.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
WebDog posted:First Contact is generally the best of the TNG films, plot niggles aside, it's the most accessible as it's sci-fi action. Someone in CineD summed up my issues with First Contact (and really all TNG movies) in a very succinct way. For seven seasons, we saw Captain Picard always do everything in his power to find a diplomatic solution. In the movies, he turns into Rambo with phasers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:Someone in CineD summed up my issues with First Contact (and really all TNG movies) in a very succinct way. For seven seasons, we saw Captain Picard always do everything in his power to find a diplomatic solution. In the movies, he turns into Rambo with phasers. Blame Frakes. I was going to skip to the timestamp, but it's literally 12 seconds into this http://www.youtube.com/user/RedLetterMedia?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/49/5DT7sSp-3_I edit: the first 3 minutes of the video are all very relevant. Snak fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Apr 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:Someone in CineD summed up my issues with First Contact (and really all TNG movies) in a very succinct way. For seven seasons, we saw Captain Picard always do everything in his power to find a diplomatic solution. In the movies, he turns into Rambo with phasers. Let's be fair- he was up against the one enemy that HAS no diplomatic solution. I kind of got the impression he was glad of the chance to finally cut loose on those motherfuckers who put him through hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
Why do orchestral movie scores sound different now? Like, some movie scores just sound "old" while modern ones sound "new" and I can't put my finger on it. Is it just familiarity/confirmation bias? Or do older soundtracks have more brass? Is the music more prominent in older films and more atmospheric/ambient today? I guess none of this matters if I'm the only one who notices a difference. At least give me that! Something's different...
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:Someone in CineD summed up my issues with First Contact (and really all TNG movies) in a very succinct way. For seven seasons, we saw Captain Picard always do everything in his power to find a diplomatic solution. In the movies, he turns into Rambo with phasers. Another problem with TNG movies is how the show was an ensemble cast but the movies acted like it was the Picard and Data show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 02:42
|
|
|
Chandelier Stuntin posted:Why do orchestral movie scores sound different now? Like, some movie scores just sound "old" while modern ones sound "new" and I can't put my finger on it. Is it just familiarity/confirmation bias? Or do older soundtracks have more brass? Is the music more prominent in older films and more atmospheric/ambient today? You answered your own question in three different ways. Ya know how if you hear a conversation in a movie from another room, you can usually date it within a decade or two by the style of speech, rhythm/speed, fidelity of the recording, vocabulary and all that little minutia that gives away a film origins? The music's no different. There's some interesting text on this stuff if you dig around. The implementation of jazz was a big factor, and there were - as usual - a lot of changes around the early/mid-sixties. Kubrick chucked Alex North's 2001 score, which was a big nail in the classical style coffin. As I understand it, orchestral stuff was out of favor in the 60s/70s, and Star Wars helped bring them back. By then it was a whole different generation who interpreted it through a different cultural filter. penismightier fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Apr 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 02:48
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:Someone in CineD summed up my issues with First Contact (and really all TNG movies) in a very succinct way. For seven seasons, we saw Captain Picard always do everything in his power to find a diplomatic solution. In the movies, he turns into Rambo with phasers. TNG was great because it actually felt like progress. Instead of strong-arming the way through the galaxy it was possible to try and find the best solution for all involved while, at the same time, admitting that sometimes the best decision is really the least lovely one. If it was just one movie, fine, some episodes turned out to be big firefights. But I can't think of a single moment in a TNG movie that was resolved with civil discourse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
DevilOnYourShoulder posted:Let's be fair- he was up against the one enemy that HAS no diplomatic solution. I kind of got the impression he was glad of the chance to finally cut loose on those motherfuckers who put him through hell. And this is likely why First Contact is considered the best of the TNG movies. Unfortunately, Picard acts the same way in every movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
I don't have a problem with Picard flipping out in FC because he hadn't really encountered the Borg head-on since Best of Both Worlds, at that point. He had loads of unresolved issues with them, and the movie basically starts and ends with them. So I think it's consistent in that respect. After FC, it doesn't work. It's especially glaring at the end of Insurrection and the opening parts of Nemesis (the buggy chase). One thing that sucks about ST VI is how they had to replace Saavik with Valeris. Originally the script was written so that Saavik is the one who betrays Spock, but Roddenberry feared the fan backlash from this so he axed it. I think it's one of the weaker character points in the film, just because we've never seen her before now, and we'll never see her again, so it doesn't resonate. The Motion Picture has a similar problem. The story makes both Decker and Ilia central to the plot, but they've never been seen before now, and their sacrifices at the end just don't resonate. Especially in the case of Decker, there's really no indication before that final scene that he would be the kind of person willing to make that kind of journey. Mostly he just whines about Kirk taking his old command back. That, and the film is really full of itself when it comes to its special effects. It's 90% of the entire thing. It also obviously feels too much like the director was watching 2001. FlamingLiberal fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Apr 29, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2011 07:31
|
|
|
I just watched Avatar for the first time and it gave me a strong sense of the uncanny valley or whatever they call it. My question is, whatever technology they used to create the CG, now that they have the actor's data. Could they film a sequel without the presence of the actors (only voice) or do the actors have to be present to act the scenes out and then they "overlay" the CG stuff? If not, how long until we can do that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
HKS posted:My question is, whatever technology they used to create the CG, now that they have the actor's data. Could they film a sequel without the presence of the actors (only voice) or do the actors have to be present to act the scenes out and then they "overlay" the CG stuff? If not, how long until we can do that? So you could reproduce the appearance of any of the actors for whom the models were constructed (assuming their contract permits this), but not necessarily the performance you'd have gotten out of the original actor. For example you could today in theory produce a CG model of Fred Astaire that looks just like Fred Astaire looked like in Top Hat (1935), but unless you happen to have a mocap actor that can dance like Astaire, you can't necessarily reproduce the dance number for `Cheek to Cheek' because the model won't move like Astaire. And, as an aside, I believe Astaire stated that he didn't want his likeness used after his death in other works; at least I know his estate has filed several lawsuits involving this.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2011 01:42
|
|
|
Should I familiarise myself with the man before watching Ed Wood? The imdb plot description for it sounds great, but I don't want to spoil it by not getting any of the references.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
oceanside posted:Should I familiarise myself with the man before watching Ed Wood? The imdb plot description for it sounds great, but I don't want to spoil it by not getting any of the references. I studied the man in film class and saw Plan 9 from Outer Space long before I watched Ed Wood and I think my prior knowledge helped me appreciate the film. However, it's such a great film that I'm sure it stands on its own without any prior exposure.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
oceanside posted:Should I familiarise myself with the man before watching Ed Wood? The imdb plot description for it sounds great, but I don't want to spoil it by not getting any of the references. All his films are free to watch on archive.org so why not.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
The first time I saw Ed Wood, I had never even heard of the man and I still loved it immensely. If anything, seeing Ed Wood made watching Wood's films later on much more entertaining.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
I watched the trailer for Ed Wood after hearing some good things, and it seemed Whimsical Johnny Depp as gently caress. Is it worth it if I'm not a huge Depp fan?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 02:40
|
|
