|
You have to remember just how much poo poo they have on Cruise, Travolta, etc too. They can never, ever leave.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
The Scorpion King movie was amazing
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:The Scorpion King movie was amazing The thing that bugs me about the first Scorpion King movie is that he defeats the bad guy at the end of the movie by doing something that didn't work earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The Church of Scientology has literally murdered people by tying them to a bed and dehydrating them. Cruise knows every bit of the evil, evil poo poo they do, and they were even going to assign him a new girlfriend after he broke up with Nicole Kidman. You don't rise to his level in such an evil organization and get to be considered harmless. Tom Cruise didn't "rise" anywhere. His weird, stupid cult promoted him because he's ultra-famous. You're acting like he's some sort of cult ladder-climber who personally ordered bad stuff for people to get ahead when in fact every indication is that they've treated him with kid gloves and kept him indoctrinated and away from the heinous poo poo. Anyway I'm not interested in this moral outrage poo poo, every religion has blood on its hands and there's no ethical consumption under capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:You have to remember just how much poo poo they have on Cruise, Travolta, etc too. They can never, ever leave. Wasn't the standard theory with Travolta was that he was gay, and the Church was covering that up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Their point about the Egypt thing was interesting. For a movie called The Mummy, it hardly looked like one. I think there's two or so shots in the trailer that show the pyramids and all that. The rest is London, a plane, a forest and the Avengers lair thing. It is odd. To be fair, the british have stolen so many pieces of egyptian history that it could almost pass as Egypt,
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
In the same way he covers up his bald head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:I remember when this came out, the movie bragged "our model of The Rock looks better than even the (WWF Game That Was Coming Out Soon) could do!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeofQ7iSBVA e:quote="Megaman's Jockstrap" post="473310352"] Tom Cruise didn't "rise" anywhere. His weird, stupid cult promoted him because he's ultra-famous. You're acting like he's some sort of cult ladder-climber who personally ordered bad stuff for people to get ahead when in fact every indication is that they've treated him with kid gloves and kept him indoctrinated and away from the heinous poo poo. Anyway I'm not interested in this moral outrage poo poo, every religion has blood on its hands and there's no ethical consumption under capitalism. [/quote] Except for the part where he has children raised on a boat wash his motorcycles and poo poo. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Except for the part where he has children raised on a boat wash his motorcycles and poo poo. You realize you're describing the majority of famous actors in hollywood and the majority of elected officials in office with this post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:You realize you're describing the majority of famous actors in hollywood and the majority of elected officials in office with this post. I'm surprised that many politicians own motorcycles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
smackfu posted:If you look at this list, can you tell when Oprah happened? That depends are you looking at the chronological list without any context for what the any of the numbers mean? Or are you looking at the inflation adjusted list?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The Tom Cruise Oprah thing is really a shame because apparently the energy in the room fed it. The crowd was totally going nuts for it but once you watch it in the comfort of your living room/on your phone, it just seems insane. Here's an interesting article about that and while I don't agree with everything in it, I promise you the article is decent and not as bad as the terrible headline and teaser make it seem. Just doesn't seem like an Amy Nicholson piece without Devin Faraci jumping in to call her an idiot every five seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm surprised that many politicians own motorcycles. Just John Kerry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
muscles like this! posted:The thing that bugs me about the first Scorpion King movie is that he defeats the bad guy at the end of the movie by doing something that didn't work earlier. He just did it harder than anyone ever had before. Or something. gently caress it was dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Who do you think washes Jay Leno's cars?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
muscles like this! posted:The thing that bugs me about the first Scorpion King movie is that he defeats the bad guy at the end of the movie by doing something that didn't work earlier. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yeah, that's absolutely why I don't like the new films. The reboot was great because it gave them the excuse to ignore all previously established canon and just do what they want, but apparently what they wanted to do wasn't Star Trek, it was just Generic Space Action Movie In Space. Without the trappings of Star Trek, literally nobody would bother to go see them, and therefore these characters are just assumed to have the same interpersonal relationships and attitudes towards one another that the original versions did, even though they're not the original versions. While there are a number of things you mention that I agree with but this is something the 09 Trek actually went to long lengths to establish. Kirk and Spock only become friends after the events of the movie. At the start, they are adversaries. The arc of the start of their friendship, I think, was one of the better things 09 Trek did. Your criticism rings a bit more true for McCoy and Kirk who briefly bond as loners on the shuttle as they enlist in Starfleet and we just assume they're good friends once we pick up with them again in three years. We do see McCoy doing Kirk a favor (and demonstrating the depth of their friendship) in getting him onboard the Enterprise but that's about it. The screenwriters then use the logical leap that if McCoy is Kirk's friend and Spock is an rear end in a top hat (generally but also specifically to Kirk), then McCoy would instantly have an adversarial relationship to Spock, mimicking the original McCoy/Spock relationship. But they don't evolve it much from there though. quote:Also I'm really getting tired of blowing up the Enterprise, big doomsday weapons that take forever to unfold and fire their movie-ending shot, thus giving the good guys time to escape from a seemingly-doomed situation and save the day, and evil Starfleet admirals. It's hard, when you're doing only movies, to establish the kind of characters and relationships required to not resort to big bad scifi weapons plots to provide motivation. The common thread in the original cast Trek movies is the strong characters and relationships between them. TMP doesn't quite work because it's relying too much on TOS to backfill the relationships (and brings in central characters that it has to quickly establish). I think this is a criticism we have on 09 Trek. Wrath of Khan works because of all the relationship/character work the series did AND it moves those characters into older ages to explore new ground AND the series provided a great villain to revisit. III and IV work almost entirely on the characters and their relationships alone seeing as how they lack strong villains (or villains at all as in IV). V shows what happens when you stretch your characters and relationships too thin AND have a thin plot AND lack a strong antagonist. VI works because you're wrapping up this entire chapter of the franchise and putting the characters through a last hurrah. It also just happens to have a great villain, strong story, AND a scifi weapon that ALSO isn't a threat to the universe/Earth/billions of faceless people. Essentially, the nuTrek movies have to resort to big bad events/doomsday weapons/etc for lack of existing character relationships to mine. Now there are ways to have your characters grow over the course of a franchise and the nuTrek movies have been awful at doing that. Which explains why the characters not growing from 09 Trek to Into Darkness and then "growing" too much from Into Darkness to Beyond is such a common complaint.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:TMP doesn't quite work because it's relying too much on TOS to backfill the relationships (and brings in central characters that it has to quickly establish). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b52b4yORX6U
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm surprised that many politicians own motorcycles. I kinda figured the "and poo poo" would've covered that but if you want to be oddly specific go on ahead and do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
I'll amend my previous statement to say that TMP doesn't work for a variety of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:I'll amend my previous statement to say that TMP doesn't work for a variety of reasons. I actually like it quite a bit myself but for real, there are some baffling decisions involved and I'm genuinely surprised they even got to make a second one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
I think the main problem was they tried to make Star Trek 2001 just when Star Wars became popular.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I actually like it quite a bit myself but for real, there are some baffling decisions involved and I'm genuinely surprised they even got to make a second one. I think every Trek movie has its moments. There are bits in all the bad ones that are legitimately great and I think that goes back to the strength of the characters and their relationships. I recall less of the nuTrek movies because they had less character and relationship work (among other reasons).
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:I think every Trek movie has its moments. There are bits in all the bad ones that are legitimately great and I think that goes back to the strength of the characters and their relationships. Even Insurrection?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:there are some baffling decisions involved and I'm genuinely surprised they even got to make a second one. It still made a metric fuckton of money for Paramount, and they wanted to strike while the iron was hot -- except they wanted to do it in a much cheaper fashion, hence Roddenberry being removed from all active involvement, and development of Star Trek II being handed over to Paramount's television division. Iron Crowned posted:Even Insurrection? Insurrection still has a great Goldsmith score (although he was really phoning in his action cues at that point of his career; much of the action in First Contact and Insurrection is nearly identical to, say, US Marshals), and the great scene of Geordi actually seeing a sunrise for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:Even Insurrection? In Insurrection, I enjoy the shuttle chase (yes, including the singing if only for Worf's reaction shot to being asked to sing). Edit: weirdly, I don't like the dune buggy chase in Nemesis which is pretty similar to Insurrection's chase sequence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Edit: weirdly, I don't like the dune buggy chase in Nemesis which is pretty similar to Insurrection's chase sequence. Maybe because the Nemesis buggy chase A) looks hideous due to ripping off Three Kings' bleach bypass look and B) is interspersed throughout with B4 saying stupid poo poo every six seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Timby posted:Insurrection still has a great Goldsmith score (although he was really phoning in his action cues at that point of his career; much of the action in First Contact and Insurrection is nearly identical to, say, US Marshals), and the great scene of Geordi actually seeing a sunrise for the first time. Speaking of, US Marshals was on TV this weekend. It's still such an odd choice for a sequel. I mean, I'll watch anything with Wesley Snipes in it and seeing Tommy Lee Jones in a chicken suit is great, but it's hard to watch it without thinking "why does this even exist?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:TMP doesn't quite work because it's relying too much on TOS to backfill the relationships (and brings in central characters that it has to quickly establish). I think this is a criticism we have on 09 Trek. VI also had the conspiracy of evil Starfleet admirals. Generations blew up the Enterprise. Insurrection had the conspiracy of evil Starfleet admirals, and the unnecessarily-slow-to-activate doomsday weapon. Nemesis had the unnecessarily-slow-to-activate doomsday weapon. Into Darkness had the unnecessarily-slow-to-activate doomsday weapon (in an even worse incarnation, because Marcus could have just kept firing his normal weapons and blown up the helpless Enterprise, but he instead chooses to hit the 'unfold' button and wait around doing nothing while the weapon activates), and again the evil Starfleet admiral. Beyond hits the trifecta: Bad guy is a Starfleet officer, there's a doomsday weapon that can't just go off but has to give the good guys time to stop it, which is the laziest way to build dramatic tension ever, and the Enterprise gets blown up. I'd like to think a Trek movie as good as 2 or 4 could be made today, but I don't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
I think it's fine they blew up the Enterprise in Beyond. I don't understand being "tired of" them doing it too much, I think it had been roughly twenty years since last they blew up the Enterprise on screen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Into Darkness it kind of blew up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:I think it's fine they blew up the Enterprise in Beyond. I don't understand being "tired of" them doing it too much, I think it had been roughly twenty years since last they blew up the Enterprise on screen. 22 years, and Beyond is only the third film in the franchise to destroy the ship. 1984 - Original E 1994 - D (TNG ship) 2016 - JJ1701 I don't understand the complaint either, unless he's including films like II, Nemesis, and STID where the ship was seriously damaged by movie's end but that's fairly standard for the franchise. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Speaking of, US Marshals was on TV this weekend. It's still such an odd choice for a sequel. I mean, I'll watch anything with Wesley Snipes in it and seeing Tommy Lee Jones in a chicken suit is great, but it's hard to watch it without thinking "why does this even exist?" It exists because Tommy Lee Jones killed that role in The Fugitive and the character was popular enough to have their own film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Honestly if you look at the franchise history the Enterprise gets clowned on a LOT. TMP- it's introduced with lots of fanfare, then the transporter malfunctions and kills two people, then the first attempt at warp speed goes wonky, then for the rest of the movie it's dwarfed by the giant robot space probe. TWOK- Crippled in the first attack, it's brutally scarred and functioning at half capacity the rest of the movie. Search for Spock- Gets blowed up good. The Voyage Home- Pops up at the end. The Final Frontier- Running gag about how nothing works on the drat thing. Is severely threatened by one Bird of Prey. Undiscovered Country- Again is almost completely crippled by Chang's ship, needs Excelsior's help. Generations- Enterprise-B is woefully incomplete, Enterprise-D gets blown up by a lucky shot from the Klingon sisters. First Contact- Okay, here it does kinda well, despite being nearly completely taken over by the Borg. Insurrection- there's some space battle, honestly I forget Nemesis- Ugggggggghhhhhhhh '09- Nemo's ship is again an overwhelming monstrosity, all the photography emphasizes the Enterprise as the smaller, more agile ship, almost Star Wars-y. Into Darkness- Comes very, VERY close to being destroyed. So yeah, the Enterprise basically exists to get heavily damaged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:It exists because Tommy Lee Jones killed that role in The Fugitive and the character was popular enough to have their own film. Well, yeah, Jones won an Oscar for The Fugitive, right? Doesn't make the movie's existence any less off to me. Especially with the chicken suit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:22 years, and Beyond is only the third film in the franchise to destroy the ship. Yeah, but the original Enterprise lasted 79 episodes (101 if you count the animated series) and three movies. That's about 80 hours. The Enterprise-D lasted 178 episodes and a movie. That's about 133 hours. The reboot Enterprise lasted three movies, or about six hours. All the other Enterprises got a healthy run before they got destroyed. We hadn't really had a chance to form an attachment to the new one before it got blown up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:VI also had the conspiracy of evil Starfleet admirals. My point is there's a right way and a wrong way to do a unnecessarily-slow-to-activate doomsday weapon and generally it involves the weapon being ancillary to the plot. In II, Genesis is part of the B plot. The real threat is Khan himself. In IV, the whale aliens present an existential threat to Earth but the real threat is man's recklessness in the past. In VI, the cool Bird of Prey that can fire while cloaked is a major threat but isn't the focus (the assassination is). In First Contact, the Borg in the past is the doomsday weapon. But the real threat is the failure/success of the warp flight. Only when the weapon itself is the major threat does it drag down a Star Trek picture. As for blowing up the Enterprise, it's been done three times in 13 films. I wouldn't call it overused. I will say that the way it's done, the context and tone, make or break its use as a Trek trope. In III, all the right notes are hit. It's done to save the cast in a bind (being boarded by Klingons), protect some ideal (prevent Genesis secrets from being stolen), and in a situation where the ship just can't deal with the threat (a hobbled together automated ship severely undermanned and is disabled). In Generations, they lose the Enterprise over a silly technobabble reason (to a tiny Klingon ship) because their shields are useless. It just isn't believable (especially if you watched TNG). Beyond does even less as the ship goes out like a punk. "We entered an area of space no ship has ever returned from and we got our asses handed to us by a force no one ever heard of before and had to abandon ship." Like there's no stakes there. No establishment of the threat before it rips the Enterprise to pieces.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:but it's hard to watch it without thinking "why does this even exist?" It began development as a direct sequel to The Fugitive, with Kimble and Gerard teaming up after Gerard is framed by a corrupt FBI agent. After Ford said, "Wait, no, this is poo poo" and abandoned the project, they rewrote the script to have Snipes' character as the one being framed and gave Jones a hefty payday to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Yeah, but the original Enterprise lasted 79 episodes (101 if you count the animated series) and three movies. That's about 80 hours. The Enterprise-D lasted 178 episodes and a movie. That's about 133 hours. The reboot Enterprise lasted three movies, or about six hours. All the other Enterprises got a healthy run before they got destroyed. We hadn't really had a chance to form an attachment to the new one before it got blown up. On the other hand, I don't really need to watch 50 or 75 films before I get attached to characters. Lots of movies are able to make you feel attachment, friendship, loss, etc. over the course of an hour and a half. Obviously, whether you think any of the new Trek films were able to do that is another story, but it doesn't necessarily require 100+ hours.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Timby posted:It began development as a direct sequel to The Fugitive, with Kimble and Gerard teaming up after Gerard is framed by a corrupt FBI agent. After Ford said, "Wait, no, this is poo poo" and abandoned the project, they rewrote the script to have Snipes' character as the one being framed and gave Jones a hefty payday to do it. That makes a lot of sense. Explains why Snipes's storyline seems like a watered down Kimble and a bit of an afterthought. Also interesting how they incorporated the original idea with RDJ's character.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 21:02
|
|