San Francisco, 5:06 AM
Sat Dec 5
24 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
I'm sick of Orci and Kurzman. They seem to be dead stuck on making pastiche of great science fiction works, some right, some really really cheesy. And frankly, I didn't even like the Star Trek reboot, and if they're saying that they are going rip more ideas off of classics, then I don't think Star Trek 2.0 - 2 is going to make me happier.
Granted, dramatic pieces of work are often a repeat in some form or another, but ugh. Star Trek 2.0 - 1 was so frustrating.
@Pessimippopotamus: Amen. I liked Star Trek but it's an incomprehensible mess entirely because the script is overly written and ill-considered from top to bottom. It's saved by mood, tone, and a few revelatory ideas (a new timeline, destroying Vulcan, Spock/Uhura, new Kirk with a chip on his shoulder), but when you watch the deleted scenes, you realize that they wrote a 3 hour movie and never edited before they shot the thing.
It was funny when Michael Bay said he was "working" on a "script". This means he is holed up in his Malibu palace with some printer paper and the big box of Crayola's.
I'm so over "FlashForward" - it's dead to me. I just watched Friday's ep this morning (my avatar name is hint why) and every time Fines makes that whiny little "I'm hurt and about to cry" face I just wanna slap him into the next week.
@Julius Seizure - Gall Bladder Free: I really disliked his character from the get go and I do like him as a actor in other things. I found his strange accent distracting. When I don't care whether a character lives or dies, they (writer/director/actor) haven't done their job.
@disatess: Yes, but do it early in the film, suddenly and gratuitously. Something like Optimus Prime's squishing her in the opening credits works for me.
The only thing Bay could add at that point is that no one in the film notices or misses her.
Oh, JJ Abrams. I get it, Greg Grunberg is like your bestest pal and all. But he's no Bruce Campbell. If you desperately need to find a way to shoehorn him in, maybe it's best to just give it up.
@jbq: Well, it's not like a redhsirt is a big role. And every Star Trek movie needs one, so why not cast someone you like? I don't think you can call that shoehorning. There wuld probably need a redshirt or two anyway.
I have no idea whether this is intentional or not (or if it is intentional, whether it is just an homage or an indicator of where the plot might be going) but in that first promo trailer for 'V', 'New Promo #2' for the season finale "It's Only The Beginning", Maurice Chestnut (as Visitor Ryan Nichols) is first seen pointing a pistol at (and then killing?) someone practically standing on the number "86" (the yellow parking bay number, so prominently featured) and then, in turn, standing on the same spot, whilst 'Erica Evans' points a pistol at him and threatens to kill him.
Those with a love of the vernacular, will be familiar with the meaning of "86" (to get rid of or kill) [en.wikipedia.org])#Origin and those with a love of science fiction films, will know that this usage was popularised by the alien Kreton in 1960's 'Visit to a Small Planet' [en.wikipedia.org] .
The alien (played by Jerry Lewis) activated his special powers with a series of number commands.
The power to kill being initiated by pointing his finger and saying "86".
Both the gesture and the associated command entered popular usage immediately thereafter.
Could it be possible, that the script writers of 'V', are intentionally referencing a science fiction film, written by no less a literary giant than Gore Vidal?
@Jesse Astle: I don't think even the guys who vehemently hate her would pass on that. She's like that girl who you hate talking to, but still kind of want to have sex with for some reason. Well, for most geeks I guess that's all women. ;)
@closeencounter: I just hope it features Ejector. Any film featuring a psychotic toaster that's really a toaster (and not just a snarky name dreamt up by the fleshbags) gets my vote.
@Woodsie: I can't believe I'm even saying this. I watched Transformers 2. It's a hollow piece of cuhrap to be sure. But, if Fox wasn't in it, it would have been soo much better. I just cringe every time I see her with her bizarre plastic makeup.
On the flip side, I just saw Jennifer's body and I was impressed with some of the scenes she did. Like the blood scene in the kitchen. The way she smiled. It's like...she really is a demon.
The Star Trek reboot is more fantasy than sci-fi at this point and I have little confidence in the writers to create anything other than a film that will be superficially entertaining and utterly improbable.
One of the qualities that made the original series so attractive was that even at its most outrageous it presented a world that we could imagine ourselves living in if we gave it our best.
This was lost in the reboot for several reasons:
First, the use of time travel as a deus ex machina to magically erase the series and reboot it. The way that time travel was used it was akin to magic, used lazily by the writers in order to avoid the hard work of writing something that could stand on its own.
Secondly, both actual physics and the fictional physics of Star Trek were trampled. For instance, the drilling platform would have had to be lowered from a geostationary or Clarke orbit which for a planet like our is 22,000 miles. Maybe skydiving from space is possible, but not from that height and not from just jumping out of a ship.
The supernova that threatened to destroy the galaxy? Hmmmm... Not sure where to begin. Red matter? Also hmmming...
Consider also the use of the transporter in this movie, something that maybe violated the fictional physics of the Star Trek universe and in practical terms rendered starships obsolete, all in order to accommodate the writers whims and inability to structure the story in a rational, "logical," way. Was it really necessary to transform this cool technology into something godlike just to continue the plot?
I would add several cool looking but non-sensical scenes, such as a young Kirk driving a vintage car off the edge of a cliff. Not sure what this really showed. Was he suicidal? Did he think he could make it? Was he really stupid?
Overall, the movie went straight into fantasy land by breaking away with what is actually possible and with the series own internal logic. Which ultimately is a trampling of what one would expect from Star Trek.
I can't believe Spencer hasn't put a bullet in his head yet or tried to kill himself in some other way. I will say Greer is becoming one of my favorite characters on SGU, much more than I thought he would.
Seeing Ray Wise in anything makes me miss Reaper that much more, I freakin' loved that show.
11/24/09
11/23/09
Granted, dramatic pieces of work are often a repeat in some form or another, but ugh. Star Trek 2.0 - 1 was so frustrating.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
#calendar
11/23/09
11/24/09
I hope that your recovery is going well!
11/23/09
oh... and quit filmmaking cause you suck at it .
11/23/09
The only thing Bay could add at that point is that no one in the film notices or misses her.
11/23/09
11/23/09
lol, +100 internets on usage of a new(?), gender-specific(?), triple-entendre(?) epithet :)
Test Question #403: Demonstrate your understanding of the meaning of the word by using it in a complete sentence.
Test Answer #403: "She's the biggest plothole I've ever seen."
Seriously, LOL.
11/23/09
Hey let`s blow -up the sun to get energon ..right .
11/24/09
I wouldn't touch that girl's dirty plot hole with a ten million foot wide detonated sun?
Shia, get le Boeuf out of that plot hole?
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/24/09
#calendar
11/23/09
Those with a love of the vernacular, will be familiar with the meaning of "86" (to get rid of or kill) [en.wikipedia.org])#Origin and those with a love of science fiction films, will know that this usage was popularised by the alien Kreton in 1960's 'Visit to a Small Planet' [en.wikipedia.org] .
The alien (played by Jerry Lewis) activated his special powers with a series of number commands.
The power to kill being initiated by pointing his finger and saying "86".
Both the gesture and the associated command entered popular usage immediately thereafter.
Could it be possible, that the script writers of 'V', are intentionally referencing a science fiction film, written by no less a literary giant than Gore Vidal?
Seriously?
'V'?
Is that possible?
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
#calendar
11/23/09
Megan Fox - an awesome part? Hmmm so she did lose a starring role next to Shia. Perhaps, I'm reading into it too much.
Possibly more Jill Valentine! yippee!
Chuck Season 3 - awesome. I am looking forward to it.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
I'd say Fox is more like a gnat. Something that's insignificant, can be swatted away, but keeps coming back to annoy.
11/23/09
On the flip side, I just saw Jennifer's body and I was impressed with some of the scenes she did. Like the blood scene in the kitchen. The way she smiled. It's like...she really is a demon.
11/23/09
One of the qualities that made the original series so attractive was that even at its most outrageous it presented a world that we could imagine ourselves living in if we gave it our best.
This was lost in the reboot for several reasons:
First, the use of time travel as a deus ex machina to magically erase the series and reboot it. The way that time travel was used it was akin to magic, used lazily by the writers in order to avoid the hard work of writing something that could stand on its own.
Secondly, both actual physics and the fictional physics of Star Trek were trampled. For instance, the drilling platform would have had to be lowered from a geostationary or Clarke orbit which for a planet like our is 22,000 miles. Maybe skydiving from space is possible, but not from that height and not from just jumping out of a ship.
The supernova that threatened to destroy the galaxy? Hmmmm... Not sure where to begin. Red matter? Also hmmming...
Consider also the use of the transporter in this movie, something that maybe violated the fictional physics of the Star Trek universe and in practical terms rendered starships obsolete, all in order to accommodate the writers whims and inability to structure the story in a rational, "logical," way. Was it really necessary to transform this cool technology into something godlike just to continue the plot?
I would add several cool looking but non-sensical scenes, such as a young Kirk driving a vintage car off the edge of a cliff. Not sure what this really showed. Was he suicidal? Did he think he could make it? Was he really stupid?
Overall, the movie went straight into fantasy land by breaking away with what is actually possible and with the series own internal logic. Which ultimately is a trampling of what one would expect from Star Trek.
11/23/09
11/23/09
Something about this just strikes me as being wrong. Bay? Scripts? Who's he trying to fool?
I kind of wish V wasn't ending so soon. It's been nice having a Tuesday-night-show. Maybe I can use the spare time to catch up on SG:U.
11/23/09
Seeing Ray Wise in anything makes me miss Reaper that much more, I freakin' loved that show.