You know I really hope in that tidal wave scene there are gonna be sharks flying through the air chomping down on people. Though thats just me dreaming. #2013
@CParis: ahhh well I live in NZ, so, we don't have Syfy. My only hope is this movie. I have the same vain hope everytime a disaster movie (with tidal wave) is made. #2013
@Jeremy Tapsell: Oh no! You have great healthcare, wonderful landscapes, women running the country, but no Saturday nights watching MegaSnakes or SuperSquids or man-eating lobsters?
I always wondered why you don't see more of that. You always get movies based on TV series but never the other way around (maybe BSG but that was just a pilot that they put in theaters first). Seems like there are lots of movies with one off concepts that never get their full exploration. #2013
@tande04: Stargate (also a Roland Emmerich film) is an example of another film-turned-TV-show. Buffy could also be used as an example, but that was largely because the film failed to live up to the writer's idea. #2013
@tande04: There are LOTS of examples of TV show spin-offs from movies. The problem is, most are so ingrained that people don't remember they came from film...or else they sucked. M*A*S*H was a spin-off (didn't suck), there was Ewoks show (most definitely sucked), Alice was a spin-off, Alien Nation, Blue Thunder, Clueless, Ferris Bueller, Freddie's Nightmares, Friday Night Lights, Highlander, Odd Couple, Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles, Young Indy Jones Chronicles, Tremors.
And that's not even counting the animated spin-offs of films. #2013
@tande04: Actually, in the 70s-80s they did it a lot. In the 90s they started going the other way, making movies from TV shows. Who can forget, "The Mod Squad" with Claire Danes. And then there was Mission Impossible, Charlie's Angels, and Brady Bunch. All trying to cash in on the rose-colored memories of Baby Boomers. Now, thanks to flops like Bewitched and Land of the Lost (hmm, both Will Farrell films), Hollywood's "creative" pendulum is once again heading back to TV show from film spinoff. I for one can't wait for The English Patient on NBC's "Can't Miss Comedy" Thursdays, right after Parks and Recreation. #2013
Well this answers one question I had about the film. if all this Destruction takes place halfway through the film then they could have some good character stuff afterwards as people are dealing with being survivors... looks like it's all disaster porn.
Huh, even with him giving us the ending to the movie, I don't feel like anything was actually spoiled. Probably because 2012 isn't a film about story, but about shit getting blowed up really good.
Which makes me wonder who, exactly, is going to watch it and then care enough about the characters to spend time watching a TV series.
Rather than filming yet another movie featuring a villain of the week, I’d love to see them do a movie in which the crew discovers a new alien race. A true first contact story. It’s in the show’s opening credits, for crying out loud: "Her ongoing mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life forms and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."
The problem for me is that they’ve been going where man has gone before. Over and over again. In that respect, Star Trek’s greatest movie (Wrath of Khan) is also the movie that ruined the film franchise to some extent.
Say what you will about The Motion Picture, it’s really the only Star Trek movie that actually lives up to Roddenberry’s founding intent. I watched it again recently, and I found myself thinking that it is an unduly maligned science fiction masterpiece. Science fiction, mind you, not space adventure, which is what all movies after Khan are. The Motion Picture has mystery, wonder, and the sense that we live in an unimaginably huge universe full of beings and intelligences that are beyond our reckoning. These things are all sorely lacking in the Trek movies that follow (except for IV, of course, which happens to be the next best in the series after Khan).
Yes, the first movie could be considered ponderously slow. But it also far and away the closest a Trek movie has ever gotten to following in the sci-fi story-telling tradition of Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke.
I happened to really love the Trek movie that came earlier this year. It was exciting and fun. But I’d be ecstatic if in the next movie the writers returned to the show’s roots and gave us an extraordinary science fiction story (with all that entails) rather than more action in space.
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/06/09
I think you should move! #2013
11/05/09
I always wondered why you don't see more of that. You always get movies based on TV series but never the other way around (maybe BSG but that was just a pilot that they put in theaters first). Seems like there are lots of movies with one off concepts that never get their full exploration. #2013
11/05/09
11/05/09
Just further illustrates that its a good idea that doesn't get used often enough. #2013
11/06/09
And that's not even counting the animated spin-offs of films. #2013
11/06/09
The rest of those, well they're mostly forgettable. Maybe thats why they don't do this very often. #2013
11/06/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
YEAH!!! #2013
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
Epicly bad. #2013
11/05/09
11/05/09
Diamonds...HUGE diamonds... #2013
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
Which makes me wonder who, exactly, is going to watch it and then care enough about the characters to spend time watching a TV series.
11/05/09
11/05/09
No one does explosions as well as him. #2013
11/05/09
11/06/09
- More splatter on the lens please. #2013
07/27/09
The problem for me is that they’ve been going where man has gone before. Over and over again. In that respect, Star Trek’s greatest movie (Wrath of Khan) is also the movie that ruined the film franchise to some extent.
Say what you will about The Motion Picture, it’s really the only Star Trek movie that actually lives up to Roddenberry’s founding intent. I watched it again recently, and I found myself thinking that it is an unduly maligned science fiction masterpiece. Science fiction, mind you, not space adventure, which is what all movies after Khan are. The Motion Picture has mystery, wonder, and the sense that we live in an unimaginably huge universe full of beings and intelligences that are beyond our reckoning. These things are all sorely lacking in the Trek movies that follow (except for IV, of course, which happens to be the next best in the series after Khan).
Yes, the first movie could be considered ponderously slow. But it also far and away the closest a Trek movie has ever gotten to following in the sci-fi story-telling tradition of Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke.
I happened to really love the Trek movie that came earlier this year. It was exciting and fun. But I’d be ecstatic if in the next movie the writers returned to the show’s roots and gave us an extraordinary science fiction story (with all that entails) rather than more action in space.