pacaway

Wow, some how I hopped up the queue line fast! Smash is now in transit to my branch! I should have it by the weekend! Awesome!

ntnon

Oh. The perils of a tiny TV, I suppose.

Then that makes... not very much more sense!

ntnon

I can understand that opinion, certainly. What I find slightly odd is that some people seem surprised that a film featuring the same characters from an earlier TV/film series should share similar plot points and characters. There's obviously, as I wrote earlier, a line that's different for each individual between 'inspired by'/'referencing' and 'blatantly stolen'.

Oops, slight Freudian mistype - it's "Benedict Cumberbatch" - and a) he's popular at the moment because he's Sherlock Holmes in the BBC (PBS) Sherlock, and b) in interviews for Into Darkness, everyone seemed to spend a great deal of effort in


That's interesting - you didn't like that 'out' as definitively making this new film series an alternate series? Without 'Real' Spock, there could be the implication that the new films are canonical, and thus all the changes are actual changes, rather than just being alternate universe differences.

It's oddly reassuring to know that my opinion 'now' is not a million miles away from (some) opinion then! It's even more of a shame, then that they didn't use the bigger budget to do something wholly new.

I talked to my (huge TOS fan) Aunt yesterday, and she said that there was a great deal of consternation because it had also been made clear that IF there was to be a III, then Mr Nimoy was said to have not signed a contract for it, so even if the film series continued, he was almost-certainly not going to be in it.

I suppose that wound up foreshadowing the TNG Season 3/4 "Best of Both Worlds" cliffhanger, too, in that there was (supposedly) very real concern that Mr Stewart would not return, either.

LJG765

It's been ages since I've watched either ST:TOS or The Motion Picture. One of these days I need to break into my BRs and rewatch. I know that I thought it was nice that they made the attempt to at least reference the originals in the reboot. I mean, it probably would have been easy enough to just say that they were going to just start over. To me, with all the time travel and other adventures like the Gateway to Forever, an alternate universe made sense. And looking at an alternate universe, having the same people pop up makes sense as well, as long as it is not exactly the same. I haven't watched the new one yet, but plan to in the next week, so maybe my opinion will change?

Finished Ghostwriter last night. It was a fun watch; while a bit chunky in places, it was worth rewatching.

Not sure what I'm going to watch next. Don't want to start something and not finish but I have a week...going to have to figure that out today, I guess.

Whiskey Warfield

I haven't watched anything in two days because the next movie I have lined up is the Rocky Horror Picture Show and I need a full keg for that one.

shadokitty

All this talk of Star Trek has got me in the mood to watch my movies, and my Borg Fan Collective, but since I try to stay in challenges for watching things, I guess I have to wait till the Sci Fi Challenge to rewatch them.

Dimension X

I haven't watched anything for my challenge in more than a week. (I did keep up with reading this thread though.) Just haven't been in much of a movie-watching mood lately, and what I have watched didn't count for my challenge. I'm thinking I should stick with more specific challenges, with specific stuff to watch, like I did the first and second year, because, looking at last year's list, I dropped out for a week then also.

I'm back into it now. I'm going to finally watch a few Jerry Lewis films with commentaries that I thought I'd watched last year, but they're not on my list. Maybe I watched/listened to them in June. I guess I'll find out.

BobO'Link

That's one reason I felt so ripped off by ST:TMP. The plotline was "blatantly stolen" from earlier episodes. I'd much rather see a *new* story rather than a rehash whether "inspired by/referencing" or "stolen". IMHO those are no better than "reimaging". That's partially why I've not yet watched the Spiderman "reboot". How many times do I need to see the *same story*? Hollywood would do better to create something *new* for a change rather than constantly borrowing from past creations. It might be different if they could actually *better* the original but that's such a rare occurance you wonder why they keep making the attempt. Surely there's *someone* on these projects who could say "Wait... this is *crap*! If we can't make it better let's just stop!"
And I *still* don't get all the hooplah. It just looks like typical Hollywood publicity machinations.
I knew it was an alternate universe and didn't need the distraction of "real Spock" to force it home. I'm not a fan of alternate universe stuff which is why I have such a low opinion of that film. I've always looked at most of those stories as "what if" type crap where someone couldn't come up with an original thought for the characters. Kind of like using the Holodeck to tell a detective story that's been slightly rewritten for Star Trek so it'll fit (yeah, ST:TNG, I'm looking in your direction). How hard would it have been to actually come up with a new story for the original crew in the original universe? They could tell stories of Kirk's *early* days as Captain of the Enterprise, even showing how everyone came together as a crew. If you want a "cool new version" then *change the names*! I'd buy a brand new crew before an alternate reality story.
A lot of that stems from the simple fact that Roddenberry had been pushing for a new Star Trek series. Paramount finally decided to do a theatrical film, changed it to a TV movie, went back to a theatrical film with a higher budget, and then to a relaunch of Star Trek as a TV series (to be called Star Trek Phase 2) when they planned a 4th TV network. When the network idea was abandoned they went back to a theatrical film which became Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The "new" film simply used the sets and script (with many revisions) from the 2 part episode ("In Thy Image") that was intended to re-launch the series. For a re-launched TV series it might have been OK and somewhat ignored but as a feature film... At least it got Star Trek back on the screen.
Yeah, that was a *big* deal. Most fans pretty much were of the opinion that if Spock didn't return somehow it would be a waste of time. It wasn't long before leaks began hinting that Nimoy *would* return as director and then as Spock. That's when it became "How are they going to pull that one off?" After all, it's Star Trek, *not* a comic where no one stays dead for long. I tend to think that was the plan all along just to get the fans worked up and talking about Star Trek again.

ntnon

I know I've got Rocky Horror Picture Show and Shock Treatment somewhere in my room, but couldn't find them in time for my challenge...

mrcellophane

I'm been traveling quite a bit and often away from my collection and television which means less movie watching. Am I the only person who has a real affinity for their own TV? I have a 43" Samsung plasma and like its picture much better than most of my family and friends' televisions. I suppose I am just acclimated to its picture, since I had the same feelings about the 32" Polaroid LCD television I had before this one.

Sorry for the off-topic rambling, but it feels apropos since I just finished watching Scorsese's After Hours which was a brilliant labyrinth of a film. I want to watch it again just to be with its insane characters for an hour and a half more. Ebert's take on it is interesting; he sets up the film's history as a project Scorsese took up after The Last Temptation of Christ was pulled out of production. The film falls an office worker who decides to dial up a woman he met at a diner and ends up spending the night in a nightmarish series of events.

Earlier today, I watched Coppola's The Conversation and loved it very much. I'm a fan of Gene Hackman, especially those hangdog characters he played in the 70s. Unlike After Hours, the film is measured and precise, and the main character deliberately allows himself to get drawn into a precarious situation. I'm a big fan of films that look at privacy and surveillance so naturally this was an enjoyable film. Also, Harrison Ford is hot. That is all.

One of the things I really enjoyed about both films is that they build worlds without spelling everything out to the audience or detailing how everything is significant. We don't know the whole story and can only infer and guess from the information presented. Because of this, both films became mental exercises, and I payed attention to as much as I could to get a clearer understanding of the characters' motivations and the way their decisions lead them down increasingly erratic rabbit holes.

ntnon

Some of the best film moments for me are those reference bits that are entirely subtle and/or completely in the background. Bits that you don't notice the first time around, but when you watch it for the second or third time just pop out and make it seem that much better. But it seems like a lost art. Now references are signposted, made in a glaring out-of-character manner and then often questioned and repeated.

I tend to give re-adaptations a pass (unless they're awful, like Superman Returns) because it's not really much of a surprise or shock when elements that were there in the source material pop up again and again. The Amazing Spider-man is actually one of the (very) good ones - it naturally repeats some elements, but not many and not particularly similarly. Uncle Ben gets mugged, Peter gets bitten. But they've been reasonably 're-imagined' (which does slightly distance those key parts from the Lee/Ditko source, but they are still well done: Uncle Ben's death is pointless and avoidable; the bite is unexpected and ultimately life-changing). And everything else is different - it's the Lizard not the Goblin (or Doc Ock, Sandman, etc.); it's Gwen not MJ (and Emma Stone is really good; I really like Kirsten Dunst, but Ms Stone is comparable); Garfield is cockier than I would have expected/hoped Peter would be, but he does a good enough job that it doesn't matter: plus Parker's quips are a key (somewhat annoying sometimes) element of the comics. And so on and so forth. If you like Spider-man or superheroes, you might want to consider watching Amazing (in my view, anyway).

Yep. But with big and bigger budgets, it's not entirely foolish for the beancounters to want to make something with the hoped-for 'built-in audience'. Of course, sometimes they make clearly (to anyone with some sense, at least) odd gambles - missing everything that's important about The Avengers (Steed/Peel) and Catwoman; making Jonah Hex; rebooting Conan; ignoring (John Carter) "..of Mars"; messing with Bewitched; allowing Russell Brand or Will Ferrel or Adam Sandler to remake beloved/popular properties - but by-and-large they're not wrong: the fanbase will turn out to watch a Batman film, or (a Joss Whedon) Avengers, etc.

Obviously there's no one individual who can accurately pronounce things 'good', 'bad', 'flop', 'moneymaker' and the rest, but I do wonder sometimes how everyone involved doesn't realise that they're making something terrible. Or why certain films' scripts aren't quietly (and on pain of lawsuit) passed out to knowledgeable FANS before filming starts. (Really, how hard is is to pick up that in Superman Returns and Catwoman - this character who is wearing a similar costume is NOT Superman/Catwoman?)

Yep!

Fair enough. That would probably be the key point, I suppose.

But then you get the chance to see familiar characters in unfamiliar settings! It's often crap or poorly done, but the IDEA - to me - is a sound one. You can learn a lot about a character by seeing how they react or act in different situations, and the differences of situation often wind up being only tangential episode-to-episode in SciFi/Fantasy shows, because characters can tend to fall into their designated roles however different the plots are. If the entire setting changes, then they can act out of their box a little bit.

Next to impossible..? Much of the new films' purpose seems to be to appeal to the hardcore fans in as general a way as possible. Thus the characters both are and aren't the familiar, beloved ones. That way, you can allow fans to treat elements as canonical or non-canonical as they see fit: if it fits into the 'true' Trek, then that's what "real" Kirk/Uhura/whoever would have done when he/she was younger; if not, then it's one of those elements that was different in this parallel universe. It's a great trick (and another fine line, since you're trying to be all things to all people, and that's broadly a losing game).

If they'd tried to slot the new films into the established canon of Trek, then there are slew of pitfalls: 1) You're trying to step between the threads of a spidersweb of said and un-said lore; 2) You risk alienating all your TOS fans by not living up to their expectations in adding to the 'true' characters; 3) You risk not making/alienating any potential new fans who may now feel they can't watch/understand these "new" films without being knowledgeable of the original series* and 4) You're completely hearkening back to/stuck in the past, rather than 'riffing' off it.


*Of course, while new people HAVE seen - and enjoyed - these news films, it was still a gamble, because it IS the characters you might feel you don't know (but need to) and the 'alternate universe' angle puts a lot of people off. Probably less nowadays thanks to some TV shows that have allowed it to be more 'mainstream', but even so: "It's the same characters from a 1960s SciFi TV show - but don't worry, they're parallel universe versions of the old characters, so you don't have to know about them much..."

It is interesting that someone somewhere must look at proposals and ideas and essentially say 'The TREK brand is strong enough that we think we can find a new audience. But it's not strong enough that we can do totally new stories with totally new characters.'

I do think that, if the money was there (and the cast could be convinced), the best way to continue making things with this cast would be to now switch it to Television. Call it "The All New Original Series" or something less rubbish, but then allow these new-old characters to have adventures that can be done-in-a-week and move on, rather than needlessly-extended, padded, stories every four years. They're unlikely to make more than three-or-four before the actors get "too old" or restless anyway, so why not have them age more reasonably in 20+ episodes a year? If the "filmstar" cast could be convinced/paid enough, I think it would work brilliantly.

I'd either forgotten or ignored the progression there. I know of Phase 2, but not precisely where it fits in the story, so thanks for that.

Yes - and for a surprisingly long run, too!

I wondered that, too. But then I've not actually seen Search for Spock (and might not for a while, since it's not on Amazon Prime - the only non-cartoon Trek thing to not be Prime-d - or at the library...), so I can only hazard an ill-informed guess at how reasonable the resurrection is, and thus whether I could believe it was (well) planned that he'd be back.

ntnon

We have a 14:9 (yes, 14) tiny, tiny TV. So I tend not to miss it!

Also - along with spelling out "in-jokes" to the n-th degree - something of a lost art. Thankfully, this is less likely to be lost, since it's much more likely that low-budget and indie films will keep this sort of film alive, even if the bigger budget blockbusters tend towards the filling-in-every-tedious-detail type of world-building, if they bother much at all.

ntnon

Sliding Doors is rather good. I liked the intermingling plotlines almost as much as I was thoroughly sad at the ending (but pleased at the foreshadowed post-ending). It did occur to me when I looked at the DVD, though, that I've somehow accidentally wound up watching quite a few films starring Gwyneth Paltrow... which is not a particular problem, since she did a fairly good job in all the ones I've seen, but might seem to imply something extra that was definitely not intentional!

(And in the two films of hers I've seen in two days, she's nearly-naked in both. A total coincidence.)

John Hannah was particularly good, and the cross-universe twists and parallels worked well, I thought. The only things I would quibble with from a Britain-on-film point of view - they even used a "Bloody Hell" in an appropriate place, while swearing more forcefully (and believably) elsewhere - were two TV references: Paltrow talks about questions and references Jeopardy! (NO), while Paltrow's-partner's-friend talks about awaiting new episodes of Seinfeld (probably not). Odd, but very minor, moments, those two.

Shakespeare in Love was, like My Super Ex-Girlfriend a film I thought I'd only seen bits of, but remembered pretty much all of. I'd managed to forget that not only is Ben Affleck among the cast, but so is Martin Clunes and some ex-Fast Show actors. I remembered Simon Callow (who could forget!?), and Colin Firth, and took care to keep an eye on how much Dame Dench was in it after all the to-do about her winning an Oscar. She may not have been in it much, but it seemed like more than the reports quote and it was important scenes threaded throughout the film. So I don't mind that she was only on screen for a matter of minutes - they were important and necessary ones. (Huh. The IMDb says Rupert Everett and John Inman are wandering in the background! Wish I'd known to look out for them...) There are some slightly eye-rolling "quotes" peppered throughout the script, but they're almost clever enough to work. It's not terribly historically accurate, but it's entertaining.

(On the other hand, I deliberately selected No Strings Attached because Natalie Portman was in it. And it was... somewhat forgettable, but not at all terrible. I was even pleasantly surprised by Ashton Kutcher! Did not recognise Cary Elwes at all, and it was predictable at every turn, but it was well done, mildly witty, and kept my attention more than I'd expected it to.)

Both Stepford Wives' are good, too. I was a little sad to hear so many of the cast of the Kidman/Broderick (Broderick?! Him again...) admit that they'd never seen the original, and only knew the term 'Stepford wife' from it being a staple of Pop Culture. The original is a lot bleaker, and worryingly more... maybe not "believable" per se, but a bit more likely. It's entirely unsaid (unless I missed it again), but there's a firm implication that the women are killed and replaced in the original. In the new version... well, it's unclear. Actually, it seemed confused: it showed microchips in the brain (implying that the 'new' wives were the old ones rewired), but then showed exo-skeletons and (in deleted scenes) significant robot-like modifications.

The interview featurette about the original was fascinating, and highlighted some interesting elements (e.g. the not-quite-uniformly-Playboy Bunny 'perfection' of all the wives because of particular casting) that illuminated the film. And the permeating worry and terror was very well done.

The update was more colourful, and it's reworked sledgehammmer ending wasn't as awful as it could have been. It was unnecessary, but as I do tend to prefer endings to not be as bleak as that of the original, I didn't hate it. The pointedly 'out there' TV pitches at the start seemed tame in light of what now exists, and I was unsure quite how all these people had wound up in Stepford, after being referred by supposedly diverse advisers. It's easy to forget that Nicole Kidman is a fairly good actress - even though she's not a patch on Katharine Ross.

Still, even with the tacked-on 'happier' ending, it's nice to see satire alive and fairly well in mainstream Hollywood movies, at least as of ten years ago.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

Somewhat. I have plasmas at home and when I'm at hotels, I don't see how anyone can think LCDs are anything but abominations.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

To finish what I'm currently working on, I have to average about 4 movies a day for the rest of the month. Probably won't happen.

shadokitty

I didn't focus on one particular show, rather some of a lot, so doubt I'll finish anything. Ah well, there is next month for docs, and july and august for a lot of my sci fi animation.

Indy24LA

Today's 80's movie... Big Trouble in Little China. 1st time viewing, didn't know Carpenter directed it.

pacaway

You are in for a treat!

Indy24LA

Yeah, what a fun movie. Can I say they just don't make 'em like this anymore w/o sounding old?

ntnon

There are a few rather baffling logical lapses in the Tom Cruise film adaptation of Mission: Impossible (1996), over-and-above the slightly laughable use of improbable e-mail addresses and foolishly naive (even then) use of 'The Internet'... So leaving aside the use of colons and lack of domain in the critically important e-mails - and assuming that the superspies can piggy-back on anybody's e-mail in the first place - and the utterly ghastly presumption that the entire CIA (et al.) would have a) overlooked the Biblical implications, b) have managed to 'decrypt' stuff on the Internet about Job and Max but nevertheless missed that they both used "Max.com" and "Job.com" to talk business(!), we have to believe that Max would not be suspicious of a novel e-mail that quotes the Bible despite her mentioning that the real mole never did, and then compound that with a personal meeting... Separately, we apparently - although it MAY be a complex double-bluff - have to think that Ethan Hunt would not be particularly suspicious of Emmanuelle Beart's re-appearance... Later, the 'head' of the CIA/IMF has no problem using train tickets sent him by persons-unknown/a believed double-agent with barely any backup or qualms.

Plot-holes and pitfalls aside, it's still exciting and entertaining. I can grasp a little better now why M:I fans took such umbrage at the use of the name "Jim Phelps" for Jon Voigt's character. Particularly since all the other characters (as near as I could tell) were NEW ones - there was no need for the name use, because the IMF details, self-destructing messages and title said all that needed to be said. Plus they used the proper theme music.

But the facemasks are good, the stunts are fairly nail-biting, and the threat seems plausible. Also, the acting is fairly good from all parties.


On the other hand, the acting in Mission: Impossible - 2 is almost universally atrocious. It's very, very odd. I scoured the credits for the Commander-chap because he was clearly familiar, but I wound up fixated on thinking it was Malcolm McDowall, while the IMDb says Anthony Hopkins. Either way, for a high-profile actor to be completely uncredited was... odd. Did he disown the film for some reason? Certainly he gave as disappointing a performance as everyone else. The plot was... mildly timely, with it's story about widespread man-made disease, but otherwise very odd. The implausibility of Thandie Newton's character falling so hard for Ethan Hunt that she would literally risk her life several times for someone she barely knows was very 'movie romance' but therefore seemed out-of-keeping with both the superspy nature of the story or the attempted-"reality" of the settings.

My biggest problem with the plot, however, was almost a minor detail - but a crucial one. As always, I may have missed some crucial point that makes that make sense, but... it seemed pretty inexplicable.

The final beach scene, with it's very-strategically-placed concealed weapon was also highly unbelievable, but that can get a slight pass for being a deliberate contrivance for a film. The appalling acting and (to me) completely baffling moment explained previous really took me out of the film, though, and I enjoyed it far less than I'd hoped.

Next up: #3 and #4. I've seen three previously, and remember it being a little too 'grim 'n' gritty' for an M:I film, but otherwise fairly good. (It's also another - the first - JJ Abrams adaptation of a 1960s TV show (pre-Trek), soon to be joined by his Star Wars to make it something of a re-imagining trend in his career.)




(N.B. Halfway through M:I-3, and around 51m in, it certainly sounds like Maggie Q's Zhen Lei tells Ethan Hunt that Philip Seymour Hoffman's character is heading to the bathroom saying "TOM, he's on his way"... but surely someone would have noticed if that's really an error, wouldn't they..?)

pacaway

M:I [1]: I agree with what you say about implausibility of this movie. But like you I still enjoyed it. As for the stupid use of the 1996 era Internet, it was like most movies of the time. Either the makers didn't really understand or know much about it, or they relied on a mostly ignorant audience on the subject. I don't think any movie was more guilty of this than The Net!

Why is Tom Cruise so compelling that you keep going back for more? I can't say I like him as a person (from my limited knowledge of his real personality), but it seems I must see all his movies. It's kind of like "a bad Tom Cruise movie is better than a good Vin Diesel movie any day." I guess it's kind of the same thing with Will Smith. Sorry to the Vinny fans. Just using him as an example of someone I NEVER feel compelled to see.

M:I [4]: Was it the long gap between M:I films or just the TC effect described above, but I was really excited about this movie too. This time I was not even slightly disappointed! LOVED this one! especially in IMAX 3D! It was a great action flick!

I also really liked Oblivion. I'm unsure what the general consensus is on this movie though.

BobO'Link

I have yet to see a film where Hollywood uses computers or "The Internet" in other than laughable terms *if* you are familiar with the technology in anything other than a "I use a computer to check email and keep up with friends on facebook" maner. Even though they'll hire a consultant for almost any other discipline to keep them on track and plausible, when it comes to computer use they seem to do what they want as long as it fits the needs of the script. It's so bad I tend to cringe anytime I see someone whip out a computer to "solve a problem" in a film.

pacaway

Love Jurassic Park for this! "It's a UNIX system!" Oh, my, word! That's supposed to be a UNIX system???

pacaway

I see next year's "make your own challenge" topic developing now! "Ridiculous Uses of Computers and the Internet". Easily a month's worth of material there!

pacaway

Okay, I guess now I'm Done, Done. I've seen all the Marilyn movies I could possibly get my hands on, and also the 'related to Marilyn' movies I was interested in.

Just thought I'd comment on the first season of Smash.

I liked its overall reverence for Marilyn. The characters really wanted to get inside Marilyn's head. They in no way were exploiting her. The acting was superb, even by relative new comers like Katherine McPhee. The singing was amazing and the songs were exceptional. If this was not actually intended to be the makings of a REAL musical, it should be. It would be fantastic! The behind the scenes view of what goes into the making of a Broadway musical was very interesting, and I would imagine the infighting, competition and politicking would be a lot like it is depicted here.
Big added bonus and surprise was seeing Bernadette Peters and UMA THURMAN show up! Unexpected highlights!

I'm not sure how much season 2 has to do with MM, if at all. I'll have to investigate further.