|
Fooz posted:Into darkness was a great summer action movie. Perfect amount of action, worth 10 bucks. I understand if you hate it because you're a longtime trek fan but your version of the franchise is long dead and nothing will ever revive it. I couldn't care less about Star Trek as a franchise, but I thought Into Darkness was an ugly, poor designed and directed film. The action scenes, when not amusingly amateurish like the Klingon attack scene, were dull. The ship and set designs were busy and scenes were not filmed in a way that made it possible to follow what was going on (see: Ms. Abrams comment about oppressive lens flare obscuring actors' faces). And the story was confusing and inconsistent. Into Darkness is, at best, a serviceable movie. I'd put it on the same level as Drive Angry or Lost in Space. There's nothing objectionably bad, but--and here's my main objection to the film--there's nothing particularly good about it. Into Darkness doesn't bring anything new or interesting to the table. Its just more stuff that you've seen 100 times before arranged in a semi-competent way by a director with no distinctive style or voice (except lots and lots of lens flare). JJ Abrams is not Steven Spielberg and he's not Martin Scorsese. Few directors are. But the thing is, he's not Michael Bay, Quentin Tarantino or James Gunn either. He's much closer to a Bryan Singer or Michael K Vaughn (though I'd put him below both) in that he's very good at straddling the middle of the road. With a better script, better designs and better special effects, Into Darkness may have been a middle of road summer blockbuster. It could have been a great one despite those things with a good director. As it stands, though, its merely serviceable.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
Fooz posted:Into darkness was a great summer action movie. Perfect amount of action, worth 10 bucks. I understand if you hate it because you're a longtime trek fan but your version of the franchise is long dead and nothing will ever revive it. Not a Trek fan, it was just remarkably uncompelling. I didn't think the action was all that great, the plot logic was nonsense (I hate people complaining about plot holes but this poo poo was unforgivable), it outright steals moments from better Trek movies but in ways that drain them of any actual importance, it underserves its female characters (as well as most of its male ones), it falls prey to Crappy Thriller Syndrome where none of the characters have any agency and instead fill some role in some huge plot or conspiracy because the villain is eight steps ahead of everyone, yadda yadda you get it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
I dunno, the whole opening scene, klingon planet dogfight, the warp drive spaceship boxing match, the atmosphere entry, the spaceship crash, the realization of future San Francisco, all really cool stuff and delivered at a good pace. You're right that the klingon fistfight was really bad. I like it because I might go see a summer action movie with somewhat better direction, plotting, dialogue, etc, but if it only has 2 1/2 action scenes and they weren't amazing I'm gonna be bored and frustrated. I go into a movie like that with an expectation to be actively and outwardly entertained. If the movie depends on my introspection to deliver it's best side, it's a futile mission because I wouldn't have stepped foot in the theater if I was in any mood to introspect. I'd have gone to an indie theater most likely, and I say this as someone whose favorite movies are action-less dramas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
DivisionPost posted:Dude, I want so badly to agree with your main point, but you are giving way too little credibility to people who want to be on the cutting edge. Well said. And there's also the opposite, where a safe punching bag does something good or at least interesting but it gets ignored in favor of easy mocking non-criticism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
I saw that Lost in Space movie in the theater and as soon as I walked out I was just like "Yep, that movie sure did movie it up. That certainly was a motion picture!" All I can remember now is something about Gary Oldman turning into a spider, and it being somehow not as awesome as that sounds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
They asked Matt LeBlanc to carry a lot of the weight of that movie. It didn't work out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
I literally forgot he was even in it until your post. drat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
hcreight posted:They asked Matt LeBlanc to carry a lot of the weight of that movie. Weird cause he's gotten pretty good at carrying weight recently
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
The plot for Into Darkness is pretty straightforward, I don't see how it can be confusing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:The plot for Into Darkness is pretty straightforward, I don't see how it can be confusing. It's not confusing, it just has massive holes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
I really enjoyed Star Trek '09, but after about half an hour, I lost interest in Into Darkness completely. Just seemed like a complete rehash of '09, only dumber. The fact that I don't really like Benedict Cumberbatch much didn't help it. That being said, I've never seen anything else Abrams has made, so I don't really have much of an opinion on him one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
If you want to bash a JJ Abrams movie do it to Super 8. Into Darkness had some good ideas even if it needed a few more rewrites to hammer them out, Super 8 just missed the mark entirely and was a completely forgettable experience without even having the excuse of a troubled production.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:It's not confusing, it just has massive holes. just like ur mom
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:Everyone hated Wesley, although Riker was awesome. Not everyone, apparently. Speaking of which, I flipped by that Wil Wheaton Soup-wannabe show last night, and I had to turn it away after like 30 seconds because Wil Wheaton is so distractingly loving ugly. Talk about a face for radio.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
He's also the corniest person alive. Or is that Howie Mandell?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Yeah Wil is loving corny as poo poo, but he acts super excited about everything. It's sort of endearing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
He's the internet personified, for good or ill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
ashpanash posted:He's the internet personified, for good or ill. Did someone mention Chris Hardwick?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Hardwick dresses too well for the internet
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:If you want to bash a JJ Abrams movie do it to Super 8. Into Darkness had some good ideas even if it needed a few more rewrites to hammer them out, Super 8 just missed the mark entirely and was a completely forgettable experience without even having the excuse of a troubled production. Super 8 is my go-to example of a failed homage. It does pretty well as an 80's Spielberg flick at first but then just devolves into mindless monster nonsense that completely forgets what it was trying to do in the first place. Another example is The Box, which is Richard Kelly trying for Kubrick (right up to the bugfucky wait what the hell is going on ending) but was greatly limited by his own "abilities". The big problem with good directors is that they're rarely good by themselves. Again, Richard Kelly is a prime example. Say what you will about Donnie Darko, but compare the director's cut to the original and it's blatently clear that most of what made the movie work in the first place was the editor's doing. But once a director has a few films under their belt, they stop seeking advice and help from other people in an effort to bring their singular vision to screen. Sometimes it works out well (Kubrick, Hitchcock, Spielberg, Aronofsky). Most of the time, though, directors need someone to tap then on the shoulder and say "Hey, Rian, you've built a pretty drat cool future world here. Wouldn't it be better to set the climax of you movie about fate and responsibility in the beginnings of this world instead of the set of Witness?". Or " George, you've got some interesting ideas here, but why don't we workshop the dialogue a bit? And perhaps talk to the art department about not basing all the aliens on propaganda posters?" And then there's the rare almost always consistent directors who value and solicit advice from others. Chris Nolan wouldn't be where he is today if he didn't work so closely with his brother. Same with the Coens. asecondduck fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
I like the box  . It has a lot of confidence in its absurdism.The Darko director's cut was really bad though, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
I'll give you the confidence, but there's a big difference between purposeful absurdim (Gilliam, Lynch) and derivitave absurdism (Kelly). You can't force absurdism, it has to be something that comes naturally to you, or else it falls flat and cheap. For what it's worth, I have a feeling if Kelly stepped back while making The Box and thought "Wait, why don't I just make a movie about my parents' real life?" it would have made for a much better film. Instead, its like every idea has to be filtered though a drip feed of crazy in order for it to work as a movie. Have you read the script he wrote for Holes? It's batshit insane, and not in a good way. The fact that he thought Disney would greenlight a film in which a bunch of kids digging for the remnants of a nuclear bomb have sex with a prostitute speaks leagues to the way his mind works. asecondduck fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Where is the Rush thread this show is the bomb
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
How is Dominion?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
The lead actor could be replaced by a door knob. He also looks like a Nazi poster boy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:The Adventures of Richard Feynman action-comedy hour would be pretty entertaining. The actual life of Richard Feynman during his stint at the Manhattan Project would probably be more like a Lifetime movie or a Victorian novel. His wife was dying of TB while he was working on the Manhattan Project, and he used his Manhattan Project money to house her in a nearby assisted living facility where the dry desert air was supposed to be good for TB patients. By most accounts he visited her every weekend when he could, and his frequent run ins with Los Alamos security were caused by him spending too much time with his dying wife, and trying to drive in after hours. Feynman really loved his wife, and watching her die kind of broke him. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:How is Dominion? That said it's also far better than any TV series followup to the movie Legion has any right to be. I mean who was asking for a sequel to Legion??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_y-VxF_4tE But if you can't resist Mighty Morphin Power Angels or want more of that Supernatural angel drama with a higher budget, it's the only game in town. bull3964 posted:The only reason why Lost got the attention that it did is because it was one of the first genre shows that somehow managed to attract a mainstream audience. bull3964 posted:Point of fact, every example you gave (barring the broad category of Superhero movies) was post Lost, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. There have always been scifi blockbusters and there have even been high rated genre tv shows before. ashpanash posted:He's the internet personified, for good or ill. Assepoester fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:How is Dominion? It's not nearly as awful as 'SyFy Channel's sequel to the movie Legion' sounds on paper, but it feels like it can't quite figure out what kind of show it wants to be. The show is basically split between the stuff with all the angels and the political side of their goofy future roman-ish society. They frontloaded the season with angel fighting stuff, but now the show's kind of settled into this slower pace where they focus on the city's leadership and all the personal drama going on there and it just isn't really all that engaging. There are a few exceptions and to their credit they've set up some potentially neat things down the line, but to me the show is thoroughly 'meh' right now. With that said I'm still gonna keep watching unless it takes a huge nosedive in quality, so I'd say check out the first few episodes and see if it hooks you. If not then check back on it once the season's over and see if it improved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 09:25
|
|
|
Unless they end on a cliffhanger and then it's canceled cause gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
So I know everyone is all internetted up about the 12 Monkeys show because it's a remake of something that people like and therefore it must be awful but the cast actually looks really good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZNcVYqnCFw Zeljko! Noah Bean! Birkhoff is the main guy!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
zoux posted:So I know everyone is all internetted up about the 12 Monkeys show because it's a remake of something that people like and therefore it must be awful but the cast actually looks really good: Like I said before it's filled with Nikita actors and written by Nikita writers. So that bodes well for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:Like I said before it's filled with Nikita actors and written by Nikita writers. So that bodes well for it. Quite. Who are the other Nikita actors?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
I read an interview with one of the executive producers of the show and they said, in regards to being able to change the future that yes, you can and that's going to be one of the big conflicts on the show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
They changed the future in the movie. They sent that lady scientist back and she was on the airplane with the evil guy. "I'm in insurance."
Mu Zeta fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:They changed the future in the movie. They sent that lady scientist back and she was on the airplane with the evil guy. "I'm in insurance." But did they? I mean Bruce Willis was always sent back in time to die and make the phone call. I got that she also always went back, but the virus still occurred.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
zoux posted:So I know everyone is all internetted up about the 12 Monkeys show because it's a remake of something that people like and therefore it must be awful but the cast actually looks really good: Did people ever get internetted up about Fargo? Sounds like pretty much the same deal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:Like I said before it's filled with Nikita actors and written by Nikita writers. So that bodes well for it. I'm hype now.  Nikita
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:But did they? I mean Bruce Willis was always sent back in time to die and make the phone call. I got that she also always went back, but the virus still occurred. This is how I understood it as well. Also that trailer looked really lame. It's missing the surreal-ness of Gilliam in it's directing. It's shot so straight boring it reminds me of the new Robocop versus the old one. Hopefully the acting pulls it above it's directing shown in that trailer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
raditts posted:Did people ever get internetted up about Fargo? Sounds like pretty much the same deal. No because Fargo had Martin Freeman, Billy Bob, and Bob Odenkirk announced as cast members and they said it was a mini series. 12 Monkeys looks to be designed to run forever. bobkatt013 posted:But did they? I mean Bruce Willis was always sent back in time to die and make the phone call. I got that she also always went back, but the virus still occurred. The virus happens but I'm pretty sure the scientists finding out exactly when and how it happened in the first place is brand new. She can get a sample of it and go back to her own time. I thought the whole reason for sending Cole back was to get a sample to study it in the first place. Otherwise everything in the movie was done for nothing and not even Gilliam is that bleak. They at least saved the remains of humanity in the future. Mu Zeta fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jul 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
raditts posted:Did people ever get internetted up about Fargo? Sounds like pretty much the same deal. I think it depends on how much the show gets to breathe. Fargo the show used similar themes, setting, and character archetypes to the movie but got to tell its own story. Whereas I have no interest in that From Dusk Till Dawn Series because from what I heard it just wanted to retell the movie's story in a weird way. Also, fair or not, people are going to make assumptions because Fargo was on FX and this is gonna be on SyFy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2014 15:26
|
|