| Author |
Message |
|
| bartist |
 Posted: Thu May 23, 2013 6:41 pm |
 |
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6958
Location: Black Hills
|
So I've heard.
The error stays, mainly because I like to think that Khan Noonian Singh turned the "Reliant" into a sort of love boat - his motivation was to avenge the death of his wife, so really, it was about love. In any case, ST II: The Wrath of Khan is the best ST movie ever made, and I have to wonder if Abrams made a mistake mining it so heavily for his own second ST film. It suffers from the comparison.
Alas, in marketing film franchises, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one." |
_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 9:21 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| And the raveworthy flicks just keep on coming. The third film in the Richard Linkater-directed "Before" cycle starring Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke (this one titled Before Midnight) has a 98 average on Metacritic, based on 20 reviews. That's amazing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bartist |
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 9:44 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6958
Location: Black Hills
|
| It's really gonna be a mixed year - the raveworthies you've mentioned - I'm looking forward to seeing Payne and Dern (together on Citizen Ruth) reunite in "Nebraska.... contrasted with a whole ton of sci-fi shlock like Oblivion and After Earth (dear god they've let Shyamalan out of Director's Prison AGAIN!) and something with Brad Pitt that, from the trailer, didn't look good. The common theme, this year, seems to be the planet after some catastrophe - it's like the wave of dystopian Millenialism that started in the 90's is the stuck record of Hollywood. |
_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| lshap |
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 10:15 am |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 4248
Location: Montreal
|
bartist wrote: No one with an extensive collection of ferrets is dull.
Saw the new Star Trek and was also "meh" about the plot, which buried story, philosophy, and character development underneath wave upon wave of technical problems - so it's "science fiction" in an overly literal sense. The villain, who was so memorably played by Ricardo Montalban in the OS episode and in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Love Boat Captain, is here stripped of all the passion and vanity that made the original character so interesting, and turned into a cold crusher of heads.
That said, it's still adequate sustenance for a Trekkie, with pointless-but-fun digressions where New Spock confers with Old Spock on Khan-whuppin' tactics and such, Spock and Uhura have spats, and supportings like Simon Pegg keep breathing fresh life into the OS regulars.
Hey man, our job is to hold the Trek torch high and proud, regardless of details like plot or which 70s show Montalban was in. No matter how they try and dumb-down the franchise into Die Hard: The Final Frontier, you and I will boldly go to each and every film for the same reason we'd never miss our kid's tuba recital. It's all about being there for the characters we love.
And I do love those characters and remain happy with how they've grown into their Lego-coloured uniforms. Credit where it's due - this film may not have the depth of the mini-sermons we saw on TV, but it did take a stab at one or two issues (the prime directive, the meaning of leadership, hubris) and opened up a little space for the main characters to ponder their internal struggles.
As for the antagonist, I liked Cumberbatch's Khan more than you did. He lacked the long arc of the original Khan's backstory, but given that his character was drop-shipped into a two-hour feature film with no preamble, he was a strong, chilling presence with hints of inner-conflict. Remove Montalban's iconic cheese factor and you're left with a much, much better actor in Cumberbatch. Plus, "Benedict Cumberbatch" has to be one of the coolest names for any actor since... since... well... "Ricardo Montalban". Clearly, the role of Khan can never, ever be played by "Ed Norton". |
_________________
"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 11:38 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bartist |
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 11:50 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6958
Location: Black Hills
|
Lorne, you make a compelling case for tuba recital, I mean Trek, loyalty.
Quote: Plus, "Benedict Cumberbatch" has to be one of the coolest names for any actor since... since... well... "Ricardo Montalban". Clearly, the role of Khan can never, ever be played by "Ed Norton".
Spit-take! Clearly, I'm not wowed by Cumberbatch, but apparently there is a fan brigade composed of something like 27 million women who call themselves "Cumberbitches" who would beg to differ. No doubt they were disappointed by the lack of Montalbanian décolletage. What's the world coming to when supermen don't flaunt their pecs? |
_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 12:30 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| bart--Did you see the video? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 12:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| I saw the video. You corrected him on the Star Wars/Star Trek thing if I remember correctly. He seems like a nice guy. Not egocentric and he's cheerful. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 1:15 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
marantzo wrote: I saw the video. You corrected him on the Star Wars/Star Trek thing if I remember correctly. He seems like a nice guy. Not egocentric and he's cheerful.
Gary--That's not really J.J. Abrams. That's actor/comedian John Zachary Townsend, who is quite a bit younger than Abrams--and, I suspect, more cheerful and less egocentric. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 2:11 pm |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
Good thing Billy (and Marc) are getting a bead on 2013 films.
I've barely gotten started at all.
I think I mentioned Sally Potter's Ginger & Rosa here, with a standout performance by Elle Fanning.
That's about all I've seen with regard to recent filmage. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 2:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Billy, I thought J.J. Abrams was a lot younger than I thought he would be.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 3:39 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
marantzo wrote: Billy, I thought J.J. Abrams was a lot younger than I thought he would be.
Yeah, Abrams will be 47 next month. And I'm not a Disney executive either.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 6:02 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
whiskeypriest wrote: bartist wrote: Those weren't one show? Albeit that I didn't own a tv in those years, I'm pretty sure that you reached the fantasy island by means of a love boat, where you would be greeted by a suicidal midget. A lot of midgets tend to kill themselves. A disproportionate amount, actually.
I'd heard the numbers were small. I'll be here all week, folks! |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 6:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| I was going to correct you about midget suicides, but then I realized it was a word joke. A short word joke. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 8:45 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
Yeah that Brad Pitt WWZ looks kinda dumb.
And White House Down is just offensive crap.
And isn't there some The Rock film out too?
(or did I just gte confused by his new TV show?) |
Last edited by gromit on Sat May 25, 2013 4:53 am; edited 1 time in total
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
