Is it me, or did James Cameron's name on a movie get it a million more Academy Awards votes than Star Trek?
Was just looking over the Academy Awards nomination list, and for some reason, it seems that Avatar, with nine nominations is going to walk away with the majority of the awards again, for what was essentially a remake on very old cultural memes.
Star Trek had it's own memes that it turned on it's ear, was a far better film overall, and got just two noms, both of them up against Avatar. In wedding parlance, Star Trek had Something Old, something New, and something borrowed. Kinda missed the something blue part, unless you count a few of the lights on the newest Enterprise. Or Spock and McCoy's uniforms.
Now, on the other hand, you have Avatar, which had something Blue, and some old stuff they borrowed. Mostly, it had a bunch of blue things.
Have I missed something critical here?
-Sarena
Avatar does have it's merit, in the graphics design field.
The other nominations I don't necessarily agree with.
Although a die hard ST fan myself, it does not surprise me really. The last Academy Award for a ST movie was First Contact for the makeup..... it has this stigma. Needs to change and the ST 2009 movie can only help.
By clutural remake, are you talking about that Pocahontas thing?
I don't by the "Avatar got the noms cos of Cameron's name" BS, though, cos Cameron just doesn't have that much of a name. Titanic was huge, no question, but he is viewed as kind of a jerk and the Hollywood crowd would have loved to see Avatar flop. The only thing they love more than building someone up is tearing him down.
People really need to get beyond the subjective "I didn't like it therefore it is bad" viewpoint. Whether you like it or loathe it Avatar got the noms despite Cameron, not because of him, and despite the fact it is both a huge success and a genre picture (neither of which are traditionally favoured by the Academy).
That's a rarity.
Delayed double post even.
That's a rarity.
More likely he meant to hit edit and misclicked quote.
More likely he meant to hit edit and misclicked quote.
Yup. Then I found the "delete" button and all was right with the world again.
Avatar on the other hand, just like Hollywood, is all about hating America, so of course it's going to get nominations and win awards.
The startrek move was meh at best overall. It doesn't really deserve any awards at all.
Avatar on the other hand, just like Hollywood, is all about hating America, so of course it's going to get nominations and win awards.
Heh. I'd go so far as to say that Avatar has a legitimate chance of being elected President of France.
-snip-People really need to get beyond the subjective "I didn't like it therefore it is bad" viewpoint. -snip-
I never said I didn't like Avatar. I just feel it's not as good a movie as Star Trek. Granted, it didn't cause a lot of controversy. Avatar did ghet a lot of attention, same as most other movies of it's type.
Not Sci-Fi movies... Enviromovies.
-Sarena
Star Trek has to deal with being Trek unfortunately. It will always be thought of second fiddle to one of it's own franchises (Wrath of Khan) no matter how great subsequent treks have been. They don't measure up.
It also didn't get people talking more openly (and imo a little more civily) about social and environmental issues like Avatar.
The Trek movies mostly avoided social issues. Undiscovered Country did deal with racism through Kirk's opinion of Klingons. The series on the other hand had it by the convoy.
* Ep where Kirk and Uhura kissed. This one also had aliens with mental powers who treated those without them like slaves (eventhough they only got them through eating the idigenous fruits).
* Ep with the two warring races who hated each other because they were black and white on opposite sides.
* Ep where the two planets were having a sterile war; simulated attacks and people reporting to disintegration machines.
* The new generation series also developed the Bajor-Cardassia situation into a kind of post-Hitler Europe.
I could go on... and on, and on, and... but I think the point is made. Trek tried mostly just to entertain with it's movies; it preferred to explore issues in the weekly morailty tales we all love as its episodes.
The Hurt Locker was a good movie as well.
Personally, I though District 9 was more impressive. Total sleeper hit.
Funny I view Star Trek as the much needed restart for the practically dead (at best) franchise (bad joke at worst).
It's not retcons. If you actually paid attention it's a different universe all together.
The Star Trek universe you know and love is actually still in existence. The new movie is it's own Reality and continuity. Deliberately seperated from the original. (infact Star Trek Online is the continuation of the old Continuity)
IMHO, Star Trek was one of the worst movies of the year (really... Turning the whole ST franchise into a -bad- action movie joke... And so much retconning in one movie... The story felt both convoluted and simplistic... A real nightmare, for me).
This is a good way to put it I think.
IMHO, Star Trek was one of the worst movies of the year (really... Turning the whole ST franchise into a -bad- action movie joke... And so much retconning in one movie... The story felt both convoluted and simplistic... A real nightmare, for me).
It's not ret-conning, it's an alternate universe.
Now the Hurt Locker, bleh. I can't stand that movie. 99% of it was complete bullshit.
I haven't seen District 9 yet but I keep hearing good things about it.
Hurt Locker, if there were any social issue vibes in there, I didn't get them. It was more about expositioning the experience of modern war. Very tense. Although I think it got a few too many awards.
District 9 aliens look nearly as impressive as Avatar aliens, especially considering their budget. What little CG you notice just blends in with the alien design.
The main protagonist is quite incredible in his role. You would never guess that it was his first time ever acting in a professional capacity.
Also brings through several social issues, including forced eviction, corporation power controversy, and xenophobia.
Directing and story are pretty top-notch as well.
I think it is more notable that Up! got "Best Movie" nomination. That makes two animations in that category, along with Avatar ;)
I heard that Up is pretty good, but haven't seen it yet. It's playing in theaters here in Japan. Maybe the wife and I will get the chance to see it.
I didn't even know it existed until this thread.
Did they mess up Hurt Locker that bad?
I didn't even know it existed until this thread.
The average moviegoer apparently really likes that movie. I've heard great things from people that know nothing about the subject matter. For those that actually do know something about what the movie is portraying, we can tear it apart scene by scene from start to finish. Honestly, if it was just another hollywood flick it wouldn't bother me as much, but the fact that it tries to pretend that this is a realistic representation of what goes on over there pisses me off. There'd be a lot more of us dead if we all acted like that.
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/biggotry is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
The startrek move was meh at best overall. It doesn't really deserve any awards at all.
Avatar on the other hand, just like Hollywood, is all about hating America, so of course it's going to get nominations and win awards.
Heh. I'd go so far as to say that Avatar has a legitimate chance of being elected President of France.Oh come on. Like the French have demonstrated any other traits towards us for quite a long time.
So the rest of this line of conversation was deemed too political and bigoted, but apparently not this. Fair enough, but I'll retain my right to say that from here, it looks very mutual.
I also don't see where Avatar was about hating America, but Iøm not sure we're allowed to have that conversation.
You do notice what party did that right?
They wear Red Ties. Critical to note that. Our lexicon never changed. We called them French fries, and french toast regardless.
Your point being what? That's it's okay to blow a gasket over one comment made by a government official, but it's no big deal that our Federal legislators took time to craft, debate, and pass a bill that insults a country that has been our ally since before we were a country? For someone that scorns the Red Ties, you seem awfully eager to jump on their band wagon.
As an aside I'm pretty sure our general ill will towards france started, when they expressed the desire to use our soldiers as conscripts (read Cannon Fodder to go out into No Mans Land for them)for their army in WW1. Then WW2 when they pretty much just threw up the white flag instead of fighting germany.
Wow. You really need to do a little reading. Everyone was used as canon fodder in WWI. Absolutely everyone. U.S. troops were no exception. They were, however, commanded by American generals, not French. In fact the primary reason mass attacks were stopped was because French troops refused to follow such suicidal orders anymore. And though the tactics were abandoned, many French soldiers were executed for their refusal.
As for WWII, your statement is a gross mischaracterization of the facts, The American military was no more capable of standing up to the German war machine than was any other country's military at the start of WWII. German tactics and technology were unstoppable for the first 6 years of the war. And let's not forget that the U.S. steadfastly refused to become involved in "foreign troubles" until we were actually attacked. Given the strong German support in the U.S. during the first years of the war, without Pearl Harbor, we may have never become involved militarily at all. It was only the determination of the Brittish and the Russians that allowed us the time to build up our forces. Sorry to burst your jingoistic bubble, but the U.S. was only one of the reasons WWII went to the good guys.
Your statement is also an enormous insult to the French partisans who fought and died for their country. America does not have a monopoly on heroism.
Then of course there was Vietnam. Which had they actually you know done what they were supposed to over there we would never have gotten involved in at all (at least that's the public perception I believe) Those three wars in fairly close succession for them gave us more or less the impression that they can't win a war without at least two countries fighting it for them, and an instruction manual.
"Done what they were supposed to?" What exactly were they "supposed" to do? Pacify Viet Nam? You are aware that we couldn't accomplish that either? The disastrous decision to become involved in Viet Nam was based on the American policy of "containment." It's pretty bizarre to blame that on the French. That was all us.
In more modern history though, the French have been more than overly critical our policies (see the "zomg Americans are going to Occupy Haiti!" comments that their government made). Which rankles us as a primarly Military Career country because frankly they suck at anyting involving Military Action on a large scale.
Again, wow. One government official made the statement that "It’s a matter of helping Haiti, not occupying Haiti," in regards to a dispute over a delay in allowing French assistance to land at Port-au-Prince, and you feel okay demeaning an entire people?
And since when are we a "Military Career country?" Fewer Americans serve in the armed forces than ever before. And what exactly is a "Military Career country," anyway? This is the U.S., not Sparta.
Personally like the British or pretty much the rest of the world in general I like to make fun of French car makers and their notoriously bad mechanics.
Yeah, cause Chrysler, Ford, and GM are names synonymous with reliability.
You also conveniently ignore the fact that without the French, we would still be a British colony. Not only did French naval support allow the revolution to succeed, a fact quite plainly stated by President Washington, but the very principle of a secular, democratic government is based almost exclusively on French political philosophy. And when the people of France tried to throw off the chains of monarchy, inspired by the success of the American Revolution, we, quite deliberately, refused to help.
As for the rest of your post whatev. France got utterly face trounced. You notice even you said it. Brittain and Russia. Funny how both of those countries managed to stop Germany dead in their tracks too. Notice what country of the Allies was absent there? France. French resistance was not that significant (before or during occupation).
Yeah, and did their government understand the basic concepts of stopping looters? No apparently not. What about securing the area so that when Aid does arrive it's not flooded by mobs of people that turn into mass unstoppable riots? Again apparently not. You don't just send in massive amounts of Aid without a Security force into, what is effectively a bombed out warzone.
That was not a way to be endearing to your allies, calling them an Occupation Force.
Doing what they were supposed to in nam would have been along the lines of actually giving a damn about the people that they had under their wing, and fighting against the political corruption that was running rampant over there. Not encouraging it. Best way to kill a political movment and rebellion? By not giving it legitimate ammo to gain ground.
And yah we botched it too. By having an Inbred Screwball in command over there.
But hey apparently I'm the evil **** american. What do I know about anything.
As for the rest of your post whatev. France got utterly face trounced. You notice even you said it. Brittain and Russia. Funny how both of those countries managed to stop Germany dead in their tracks too. Notice what country of the Allies was absent there? France. French resistance was not that significant (before or during occupation).
Stopped Germany dead in their tracks? Are you serious? The Brittish Expeditionary Force was not just defeated, but thoroughly routed. Nothing stopped the German army except the Atlantic Ocean and the Russian winter. And those just barely.
But hey apparently I'm the evil **** american. What do I know about anything.
And spare me the put upon American routine. The only one who used 'evil' and 'American' in the same sentence was you. The U.S. is not evil. But neither is the U.S. the font of all goodness in the world. We are just like every other country. We make mistakes, even terrible, indefensible ones. Pretending otherwise is the surest way to keep making them.
It's the guys in the red ties who started the France bashing. I'm surprised you fell for it.
Air Superiority which they would have needed to mass an invasion.
Russia stopped germany with a combination of things, the winter, pulling back and regrouping and massed waves and the T34.
At no point in my posts did I paint us as infallible.
Funny, I seem to recall a reading little something about the you know, invention of radar, the RAF and Triumph and Spitfires going up and stopping the Luftwaffe, denying Germany Air Superiority.
All of which happened after the Germans had driven the Brittish, literally, into the sea. If not for the English Channel, the Germans would have rolled right into London, the same way they rolled right into Paris.
An ocean is not a barrier in a modern war.
Especially when it's such a short distance across the english channel.
That statement shows an astonishing lack of appreciation for the complexities of amphibious warfare, especially in the 1930's and 40's. Hitler made a conscious decision not to invade the UK, primarily because he thought the Brittish were potential allies. He never truly believed that the English would continue to side with the countries of continental Europe against what he considered to be Brittain's natural ally, Germany. A fatal mistake on his part.
Air Superiority which they would have needed to mass an invasion.
The Germans controlled Brittish air space for most of the war. They could even float Zeppelins over London. While the actions of the RAF were undoubtably brave and certainly saved the lives of countless civilians, without the barrier of the English Channel, there was simply no way they could have stopped the German army.
Russia stopped germany with a combination of things, the winter, pulling back and regrouping and massed waves and the T34.
Only after the Germans had driven them back, what, a thousand miles? And only after we started supplying them.
Just so we're clear, you think the French deserve our scorn because they couldn't defeat the German army, something that neither the Russians nor the English were able to do without our help? Something that was only possible with the combined militaries of the U.S., USSR, and the entire UK? Really?
The U.S. would not be free today without the French (something you dismiss with a "whatev"). And the French would not be free if not for the U.S. Those should be ties that bind us together, not fodder for the red ties to drive us apart.
(Seriously wtf with Haiti. Really)
I think for a country that talks about other countries foreign policy as much as they do, they sure do seem to not get involved. That's what irks me about their government. Talk alot of Smack. Not alot of Walk.
If they'd talk a little less smack, or walk the line abit more I probably wouldn't have nearly the attitude I have with them.
And don't get me wrong. I've spent time among the French. They are insufferable and arrogant. But many times, so are we. Just something to think about.
BTW, if you're a fan of military history, or history in general, William Shirer's book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is a must read. It's long, but still an engrossing read that has stood the test of time.
No, they more deserve their scorn from their attitudes towards us.
(Seriously wtf with Haiti. Really)
I'm not sure we've read the same story. I don't consider that remark as ludicrous as you make it (it was more a question of not letting the military prevent emergency aid), and worse things have been said before. I think you're making a way too big deal out of it. But we shouldn't continue this line of conversation, at least nto outside PMs, since it's becomming too political.
Edit: Make that blue vette with red flames.
I've got some others that I'm gonna load up at some point.
Wow my post gets moderated for using naughty language that for whatever reason isn't caught by the filter, but the quote of my post using the same words is left untouched? And really, it had to be deleted, not edited? Someone here is waaaaayyyyyyyyy too sensitive.
The mods have been notoriously lax on that kind of attention to detail for years.
IMHO, Star Trek was one of the worst movies of the year (really... Turning the whole ST franchise into a -bad- action movie joke... And so much retconning in one movie... The story felt both convoluted and simplistic... A real nightmare, for me).
This is a good way to put it I think.
Whereas I think it is about 180º removed from both "good" and "accurate".
-Sarena
I'm still trying to erase the stain it left on my childhood.
Please do not speak of that travesty every again Dark Spartan.
I'm still trying to erase the stain it left on my childhood.
You know, I'd much rather see Dark Spartan post about a (bad?) Star Trek movie in a post dedicated to Star Trek/movie awards than see you morons continue to argue about France.....
Please do not speak of that travesty every again Dark Spartan.
I'm still trying to erase the stain it left on my childhood.
You know, I'd much rather see Dark Spartan post about a (bad?) Star Trek movie in a post dedicated to Star Trek/movie awards than see you morons continue to argue about France.....
I wasn't talking about Star Trek.
But Ignorious Basterds was nominated, so I guess it could easily replace that.
You know, I'd much rather see Dark Spartan post about a (bad?) Star Trek movie in a post dedicated to Star Trek/movie awards than see you morons continue to argue about France.....
Wow. Childish name calling and a lack of reading comprehension. You must be so proud.
-Sarena
Micha was talking about the other film I mentioned in that post. It was pretty vile, all things considered.
-Sarena
Strangely, I had no problems with that movie. It had entertainment value. I wouldn't say it's worth any awards for being exceptionally good or bad.
And I don't think that's an Academy Award type film.
What about being one of the most popular and highest-grossing films of 2009? Is that an Academy Award type film?
Well, Best Film is going to be Avatar, because the Academy Awards folks are a bunch of enviro-nazis.
Strangely, I had no problems with that movie. It had entertainment value. I wouldn't say it's worth any awards for being exceptionally good or bad.
That's about how I felt about it. I expected a pretty mindless action flick with lots of special effects and a hot chick, and thats what I got. I didn't go into the theater expecting anything truly deep and inspiring. Sometimes a movie doesn't need to be great, just good enough. Its entertainment, not something meant to inspire philosophical discussion.
What about being one of the most popular and highest-grossing films of 2009? Is that an Academy Award type film?
If you go by that, "Transformers 2" and "Twilight" deserve to be Academy Award type films.
I honestly don't really put lots of stock into the Academy Awards, but there's a difference between a good film and an entertaining film. I love "Predator", but it should never be considered for best picture. At least that's my opinion.
I personally thought Star Trek was one of the best movies released this year... At least the promise of it made Revenge of the Fallen tolerable at the drive-in.
As an action movie I do think that the Star Trek movie was good. I however think that it fell flat at being anything else. Well I was able to bear through ST a bit because I knew it was suppose to be an action flick but well IMO it sort of left all the ST behind as it went into the action stuff. Overall I don't think it was all that great. Well I also didn't like how glaringly huge some inconsistencies were or how horribly bad the science was in it.
As far as Trans: RotF I was fine with it. I knew it was angsty action robot film, and even though it was bad, it did not pretend to be anything. It was just what it was and it did a good job, I think, pandering to a specific audience.
Actually so far the best movie i saw of 2009 was the new Terminator. Its not what i was expecting at all. I figured itd be alot of fighting terminators and things blowing up. There was plenty of that, but there was actually a good story about humanity in there as well. I was pretty impressed with it. And I thought it was great that they made sure that the T-800 looked like the Governator, nice touch. I think they did an excellent job tiein it to the previous movies.
Actually so far the best movie i saw of 2009 was the new Terminator. Its not what i was expecting at all. I figured itd be alot of fighting terminators and things blowing up. There was plenty of that, but there was actually a good story about humanity in there as well. I was pretty impressed with it. And I thought it was great that they made sure that the T-800 looked like the Governator, nice touch. I think they did an excellent job tiein it to the previous movies.
Bwuh? Really? I mean I liked it and all, but I put it in the same category as Transformers. It was a good mindless action movie and pretty much delivered what I expected. In the very beginning you weren't entirely sure what was going on, but it really didn't take long to figure things out, and at that point you could pretty much predict the rest of the movie.
I thought the inclusion of a magnetic minefield was a nice touch, and something that would make sense when you're fighting machines. I thought they really paid good attention to detail because things like that are often neglected. I was pretty impressed. Then the mine popped out of the ground and stuck to the guy's leg. *facepalm*
I should also point out that i dont watch alot of movies, so me saying that T4 was the best movie of 2009 that ive seen, isnt really saying much.
Ive heard alot of good things about District 9 as well, I just got that one for my B-day so ill probably be watchin that one tonight. So i might change my mind and come back on here and say District 9 is the best movie of 2009! We'll see.
Another movie i thought was really good was the Watchmen. I know alot of people complained about that one cause they changed it from the comic, but its been like 20 years since i read that comic and to be honest i dont really remember that much about it, so i liked the movie. Its interesting to see a movie where the bad guy wins. It seems like i remeber the final battle happening on the moon instead of the arctic, but i may be thinking of X-men there.
but its kind of hard for some people to go to a movie to watch an alteration of an existing franchise even if its another timeline.
thi is likely what happened to the star trek movie.
Actually so far the best movie i saw of 2009 was the new Terminator.
You are literally the first person I've encountered who didn't list that is one of the worst of the year. Maybe not in top (bottom?) ten - that would be pretty impressive feat indeed in a year that saw releases like Bride Wars, Miss March, Dragonball, Street Fighter etc. - but certainly in the bottom (top?) 20 bad films.
Actually so far the best movie i saw of 2009 was the new Terminator.
You are literally the first person I've encountered who didn't list that is one of the worst of the year. Maybe not in top (bottom?) ten - that would be pretty impressive feat indeed in a year that saw releases like Bride Wars, Miss March, Dragonball, Street Fighter etc. - but certainly in the bottom (top?) 20 bad films.
Count me in one of the weidos that thought Terminator Salvation as one of the better films of 2009.
Mind you we had a lot of craptastic films last year. But Terminator Salvation was actually pretty good. I feel it was better than Slowmen, I mean Watchmen by far. It was also better than Star Trek, which frankly was one of the better movies of the year also.
OK saw i finally saw District 9. It was a little out there, and i admit i cried at the end. Still not as good as t4 in my opinion. I mean it was a good movie, but i dunno it just seemed like i was missing something, like coming into the second half of a movie or something and not knowing whats going on. I mean why did the aliens even come to earth in the first place? And did alien dude ever come back after 3 years? Maybe therell be a sequl and these things will be answered and then i can sleep peacfully.Another movie i thought was really good was the Watchmen. I know alot of people complained about that one cause they changed it from the comic, but its been like 20 years since i read that comic and to be honest i dont really remember that much about it, so i liked the movie. Its interesting to see a movie where the bad guy wins. It seems like i remeber the final battle happening on the moon instead of the arctic, but i may be thinking of X-men there.
I believe both movies are better if you don't have too high or too specific expectations. I knew next to nothing about them, and I was positively surprised.
I don't think District 9 was missing something, it just had a more open ending than the typical Hollywood movie. And I heard Watchmen got criticised for being too close to the comic, and some people felt like it didn't translate well into a movie, or the comic was groundbreaking for its time, but didn't offer anything new 20 years later. I still liked it.
And after reflecting on District 9 I realize that its very much like some of Peter Jacksons earlier movies, but with a bigger budget. If you havnt yet and get the chance i would suggest checking out Bad Taste, or my wifes personal favorite, Meet the Feebles. That was a wee bit of a joke there, my wife hated that movie, if you ever see it i think youll understand why!
I'll give Terminator a shot, 'cause I've enjoyed the franchise so far. Not expecting much beyond robots and explosions and stuff, so... yeah. I'll probably get what I want.
As for Star Trek, the current movie seemed to be a bit of a departure for me. It was more action oriented, which of itself I'm not opposed to. However, if it were to be more in keeping with standard Star Trek plots in the past, they would have "fixed" the timeline so Vulcan and Romulus never ended up all blowed up. Or at least, that's my opinion on the matter.
As a science fiction action movie, it was decent. As a Star Trek movie, it was a little off. Too dark.
As for fixing things so that Vulcan and romulus never blew up; that would only serve to restore the old timeline. If they wanted to reboot the franchise for a new generation (which I believe was their goal) they did the right thing by making it new and fresh.
Also, now that they've got all the character introduction for the primary crew out of the way, they can put a more thoughtful plot in any future Trek movies they make.
The best thing the new Terminator movie gave us was that fantastic rant by Christian Bale. Truly epic stuff.
1)
2) You guys watch too many movies. Even you guys that say that you don't watch many.
I was disappointed by the new Terminator movie, but that was probably more based upon expectations than anything else. I thought it was an okay movie and I thought there were some really nice parts about it. It was stylish and the story was okay. It was a decent action movie; no where near the bottom of movies. I also am hoping that Sam Worthington will continue to make action movies (after Clash of the Titans) so we can have some sort of action hero.
I also was not a fan of District 9. I think it had potential, but all the characters were just too horribly one sided. The idea of the movie and the openning documentary, I thought were excellent. But the characters just killed the movie for me.
I liked the new Star Trek movie. Really, it was the best Star Trek movie/show that's come out since DS9 ended. I think fans (especially Star Trek fans) sometimes take things too seriously. And the way I see it, it was either something like this (completely different) or nothing at all since the Star Trek franchise took some bad losses before this movie.
Edit: Zombie_babies: In the summer, its quite common for me to watch more than three movies in a month at the theaters. The only thing stopping me now is the fact that Lost shows on Tuesday (half-price movie tickets) which is our normal movie watching day. There's three movies now that I'd probably see if not for that.
So yeah, I watch way too many movies. And on top of that, we waste money with popcorn and soda so definately too much money of movies.
Meh. Star Trek could have had continued success without a reboot if they would have done the right/smart thing and made a DS9 movie after DS9 ended. That was, by far, the best series and they could have even taken a more action focused line with it since DS9 was all about space battles an' stuff. Instead, they gave us Voyager and Enterprise. Yeah. Totally wrong direction, IMO. Oh well. I may see the ST movie eventually. I also may just be happy with my memories of the good ol' days of Trek and with the occasional reruns of Next Gen and DS9. They really need to re-air more DS9 stuff. More OS, too. Too much love for Next Gen, IMO. It was great, don't get me wrong, but I'd like to see more of the others, too.Edit: Zombie_babies: In the summer, its quite common for me to watch more than three movies in a month at the theaters. The only thing stopping me now is the fact that Lost shows on Tuesday (half-price movie tickets) which is our normal movie watching day. There's three movies now that I'd probably see if not for that.
So yeah, I watch way too many movies. And on top of that, we waste money with popcorn and soda so definately too much money of movies.
Yeah, that's a lot. Heh. I used to see a ton of movies at the theater, but I can't take the morons anymore. And there's only been a few movies that have come out that I actually wanted to see. Overall, it's just a matter of weighing potential annoyance against want and potential annoyance is typically much stronger. So I just don't go.
What three movies do you want to see right now? I honestly can't come up with one title that interests me. I may be forgetting something, though.
Yeah. To me, if you saw over three movies in the theater last year, you saw a lot of movies. A lot. I can't remember the last time I was excited enough over three or more movies in a year to go out and see 'em. Cuz most movies are too lame to warrant a $10 expenditure.
I saw quite a few movies in theater last year. Even if one of them I wish I could erase from my mind entirely.
Two were Trash, one was mediocre, and two were actually pretty good. If I saw any others' I don't really remember them.
I saw quite a few movies in theater last year. Even if one of them I wish I could erase from my mind entirely.
Two were Trash, one was mediocre, and two were actually pretty good. If I saw any others' I don't really remember them.
I don't remember if I saw any movies in the theater last year. I must have, but can't recall. I got an early start this year with Space Pocahontas so I may hit three. Maybe.
Strangely, I had no problems with that movie. It had entertainment value. I wouldn't say it's worth any awards for being exceptionally good or bad.
I hated the movie. However, I did enjoy it more than the first Transformers movie. At the very least, it had about four minutes of entertaining action (the fight in the forest). The first movie, on the other hand, had about 60-90 seconds of entertaining action (Prime's half-minute fight on the freeway, and maybe a few cool shots of Bumblebee-vs-Barricade).
As for Star Trek - I thought it was an enjoyable and entertaining film, but I wouldn't nominate it for many non-technical awards.
I wouldn't give Avatar the win on many non-technical awards either, but I'd be quicker to nominate it.
As far as sci-fi movies from 2009 go, I'd rate District 9 higher than either of them.
The movie that really got the shaft from the Academy this year is (500) Days of Summer.
I'd suggest seeing the Star Trek movie. I thought it was quite good (one of the better movies of the year). If you like Star Trek and are willing to accept a new direction, it'll be great. If you don't want it to change, you may have more problems. My brother hated that they rebooted the franchise, but he still has a hard time giving reasons why he didn't like the movie (although he still says he doesn't like it).
For movies, I have a really low threshold of what I'll see. If it seems okay for any reason (sometimes even if it doesn't look good), I'll watch it.
The three that I'd see now if I had to would be "The Crazies", "The Book of Eli", and "Legion" in that order with a huge dropoff for "Legion" which I'd just see since it's a dumb action movie. That's one of those "the movies doesn't actually have to look good" instances.
Maybe I'll list all the movies I saw in 2009 later.
Edit:
VaultDweller: (500) Days of Summer was excellent.
Zombie_Babies:
I'd suggest seeing the Star Trek movie. I thought it was quite good (one of the better movies of the year). If you like Star Trek and are willing to accept a new direction, it'll be great. If you don't want it to change, you may have more problems. My brother hated that they rebooted the franchise, but he still has a hard time giving reasons why he didn't like the movie (although he still says he doesn't like it).
For movies, I have a really low threshold of what I'll see. If it seems okay for any reason (sometimes even if it doesn't look good), I'll watch it.
The three that I'd see now if I had to would be "The Crazies", "The Book of Eli", and "Legion" in that order with a huge dropoff for "Legion" which I'd just see since it's a dumb action movie. That's one of those "the movies doesn't actually have to look good" instances.
Maybe I'll list all the movies I saw in 2009 later.
Edit:
VaultDweller: (500) Days of Summer was excellent.
I'll watch it whenever it makes it to TV. I just don't have any real desire to see it, ya know? I'd give it a fair shot and view it as an entirely new entity, though.
The Book of Eli looked kind of interesting, but there wasn't a whole lot given to us in the trailers - which is better than giving the whole thing away, but still somewhat disconcerting. I do like Denzel, though. Man on Fire is simply awesome. Anyhoo, I've also heard it described as Road Warrior with a Bible and the post apocalyptic thing was recently (and likely better) done with The Road - a movie which I still need to see. I won't go and see Eli, but I was considering it for a time. Legion just looked silly to me. And not in a good way. The Crazies? More silly. Plus the population countdown in the trailer annoyed me. That was something Takami employed in the book Battle Royale and it seemed a bit too similar to me. I'm probably stretching a lot there, but it's still in the ol' noggin'.
theater movies
December:
"The Day The Earth Stood Still" - mainly because I liked the original; it wasn't very good
"Gran Torino" - because Clint Eastwood is the man; it was excellent
"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" - looked good plus I like Brad Pitt; it was excellent, much better than "Slumdog Millionaire"
"Valkyrie" - war thriller looked good enough; it was pretty good
January:
None
February:
None
March:
"Watchmen" - I liked the comic plus the previews were good; it was pretty good
April:
"Fast & Furious" - cars and I have a positive opinion of Vin Diesel; not great, but as expected
May:
"X-men Origins: Wolverine" - had a good trailer (even though X-men 3 sucked); it was alright
"Star Trek" - fan of the series and J.J. Abrams; it was quite good
"Terminator Salvation" - fan of the series and Christian Bale; it was disappointing, but okay
"Drag Me to Hell" - fan of over the top horror/comedies and Sam Raimi; it was very good
June:
"The Taking of Pelham 123" - looked okay and wanted to see something; it was okay
"The Proposal" - wanted to see something and the wife wanted to see it; it was okay
July:
"Public Enemies" - looked good plus Johnny Depp and Christian Bale typically are good; it was good
"Harry Potter and the Half-Blooded Prince" - wife is a huge fan of the series; it was okay
August:
"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" - fan of the franchise and dumb action movies; it was surprisingly good
"District 9" - sci fi plus good reviews; very disappointed as stated previously
September:
"Surrogates" - seemed like a cool concept plus Bruce Willis; it was okay to eh
October:
None
November:
"The Box" - interesting concept and good trailer; it was very good
"Ninja Assasin" - dumb martial arts action movie; it was okay, a little too much story
"The Road" - liked the book and the post-apocalypse; it was good
December:
"The Princess and the Frog" - like Disney animation plus wife was very excited; its was excellent
"Avatar" - like James Cameron and sci fi; it was good
"Sherlock Holmes" - trailer looked good plus curious; it was disappointing and eh
"The Day The Earth Stood Still" - mainly because I liked the original; it wasn't very good
"Gran Torino" - because Clint Eastwood is the man; it was excellent
"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" - looked good plus I like Brad Pitt; it was excellent, much better than "Slumdog Millionaire"
"Valkyrie" - war thriller looked good enough; it was pretty good
January:
None
February:
None
March:
"Watchmen" - I liked the comic plus the previews were good; it was pretty good
April:
"Fast & Furious" - cars and I have a positive opinion of Vin Diesel; not great, but as expected
May:
"X-men Origins: Wolverine" - had a good trailer (even though X-men 3 sucked); it was alright
"Star Trek" - fan of the series and J.J. Abrams; it was quite good
"Terminator Salvation" - fan of the series and Christian Bale; it was disappointing, but okay
"Drag Me to Hell" - fan of over the top horror/comedies and Sam Raimi; it was very good
June:
"The Taking of Pelham 123" - looked okay and wanted to see something; it was okay
"The Proposal" - wanted to see something and the wife wanted to see it; it was okay
July:
"Public Enemies" - looked good plus Johnny Depp and Christian Bale typically are good; it was good
"Harry Potter and the Half-Blooded Prince" - wife is a huge fan of the series; it was okay
August:
"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" - fan of the franchise and dumb action movies; it was surprisingly good
"District 9" - sci fi plus good reviews; very disappointed as stated previously
September:
"Surrogates" - seemed like a cool concept plus Bruce Willis; it was okay to eh
October:
None
November:
"The Box" - interesting concept and good trailer; it was very good
"Ninja Assasin" - dumb martial arts action movie; it was okay, a little too much story
"The Road" - liked the book and the post-apocalypse; it was good
December:
"The Princess and the Frog" - like Disney animation plus wife was very excited; its was excellent
"Avatar" - like James Cameron and sci fi; it was good
"Sherlock Holmes" - trailer looked good plus curious; it was disappointing and eh
I saw a few Avatar, Princess and the frog (girlfriend wanted to see it) The Blind Side, and Star Trek. All of them were at least good even the one I wasn't expecting to be good (star trek) I was never a fan of star trek, and mostly it was the vulcans that turned me off of star trek. An entire race based on logic? Eh kinda made me meh about the whole thing. Though I did like the new movie and hope they continue to do well. Still not as good as the first three star wars movies though.
As much as Zb is sure to lampoon me for saying it. I will admit Trek has one thing over The Trilogy that the franchise has yet to give an adequate answer for, and that was The Wrath of Khan.
I'm curious to see what they do with the second film. Maybe introduce us to this worlds version of Khan. And then III can be the show down between Kirk and Khan.
Epic.
EDIT: I'm down with the eugenics war stuff someone else posed earlier. That would be kinda cool to see. I'm also totally down with Khan makin' it to the new series. That's just cool.
I saw a few Avatar, Princess and the frog (girlfriend wanted to see it) The Blind Side, and Star Trek. All of them were at least good even the one I wasn't expecting to be good (star trek) I was never a fan of star trek, and mostly it was the vulcans that turned me off of star trek. An entire race based on logic? Eh kinda made me meh about the whole thing. Though I did like the new movie and hope they continue to do well. Still not as good as the first three star wars movies though.
As much as Zb is sure to lampoon me for saying it. I will admit Trek has one thing over The Trilogy that the franchise has yet to give an adequate answer for, and that was The Wrath of Khan.
I'm curious to see what they do with the second film. Maybe introduce us to this worlds version of Khan. And then III can be the show down between Kirk and Khan.
Never saw wrath of khan is it really that good a movie?
Dude it is the movie you can put that movie on for a room of people that think scifi is totally stupid and pointless and they will enjoy that film.
That movie is The Defacto Standard in space battles. The lines are extremely well thought out and delivered.
Some of the best dialogue ever spoken in film comes from this movie.
Oh my god yes.
Dude it is the movie you can put that movie on for a room of people that think scifi is totally stupid and pointless and they will enjoy that film.
I liked the movie, but I'd say that's a big exaggeration. People that dislike sci-fi won't like The Wrath of Khan.
The lines are extremely well thought out and delivered.
Some of the best dialogue ever spoken in film comes from this movie.
The best lines from the movie are from Moby **** and King Lear. :P Some of them are so well-known from the movie that it is very rare to actually see them properly attributed. I have seen the "To the last I grapple with thee..." dying monologue quoted many times, and I have never seen it properly attributed as a Captain Ahab quote.
{Edit}
Hooray for the forum censoring the title of classic literature!
The fact that the lines are delivered so well, and that they actually fit the context of the film make it all the more impressive.
The fact that it's a more modern Moby **** in space makes it so damned awesome. Better in some ways than it's parent material.
First Contact was also heavily inspired by Moby ****, except with Picard in the Ahab role instead of Khan.
Interestingly, that means that (up until 2009) the only two Star Trek movies that I liked were the ones that were very clearly written as parallels to one of my favorite novels.
Neither Khan or Picard are as awesome as Ahab, though.
But for me Khan does.
Picard does too. If only because you realise in First Contact just how much the borg really **** his mind up.
That said, it took Ricardo Montalban to make that role come to life, and I can't think of a single actor today with the skill to come anywhere close. This Kirk will have to find his own enemies, unfortunately. Although I personally want to see "The Trouble with Tribbles" or something very similar. Those things were just soooo kyute
-Sarena
Although I personally want to see "The Trouble with Tribbles" or something very similar. Those things were just soooo kyute
-Sarena
Yeah. If you've got something against quadrotriticale. Oh, and if you're not a Klingon.
If we see more NS movies, we'll be moving on to the "Five Year Mission" phase that was the OS. They'd have to relocate the Botany Bay and do a far larger treatment of Space Seed before they could do another Wrath of Kahn.
That said, it took Ricardo Montalban to make that role come to life, and I can't think of a single actor today with the skill to come anywhere close. This Kirk will have to find his own enemies, unfortunately. Although I personally want to see "The Trouble with Tribbles" or something very similar. Those things were just soooo kyute
-Sarena
I can think of a couple people that could do Khan.
One Oded himself out of existence though. (Heath Ledger as Khan. You know it)
There's a few still living I think could do a great job.
The guy from Taken could probably do it. (Liam Nessen sp?) for starters.
I could see Denzel Washington doing it as well.
I can think of a couple people that could do Khan.
One Oded himself out of existence though. (Heath Ledger as Khan. You know it)
There's a few still living I think could do a great job.
The guy from Taken could probably do it. (Liam Nessen sp?) for starters.
I could see Denzel Washington doing it as well.
You'll have to go younger than Liam or Denzel. Almost all SF movies are targeted at the 18-34 y.o. males demographic. Anyone older than 35 gets to be someone's dad.
And for some reason, I'm kinda looking forward to "The Crazies." Not really sure why....
You'll have to go younger than Liam or Denzel. Almost all SF movies are targeted at the 18-34 y.o. males demographic. Anyone older than 35 gets to be someone's dad.
And for some reason, I'm kinda looking forward to "The Crazies." Not really sure why....
I don't think people in my demographic care about the ages of our actors.
As an odd thought I just tried to visualise Nathan Fillion as Khan and I don't know why.
I always think of Khan as being bitter and older. I can't visualise him as around my age range. I think of what a 200 year old warrior genius psychopath would be like and 24 year old doesn't fit. New Kirk works because I've always seen Kirk as a young restless cow boy spirit anyway. Khan? No, Khan's meant to be at that opposite end of the spectrum.
It's their mutual obession with the other is what brings them to cross paths time and time again, and turns them so similar in their pursuit of the other.
I could see someone looking like they were in their mid 30s- late 40s easily being an embittered weathered super soldier genius however.
Mid 30s being the youngest I'd accept, if the guy was giving a phenominal performance.
I have two things to add to the conversation.The best thing the new Terminator movie gave us was that fantastic rant by Christian Bale. Truly epic stuff.
1)
2) You guys watch too many movies. Even you guys that say that you don't watch many.
I'm starting to suspect I didn't see any movie last year. Is that still too much?
Yeah Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Is definitely the best Trek ever made. I cant see them toppin that one anytime soon. Although I have gotten into argumensts with people that swear up and down that Star Trek IV: The One With the Whales, is the better movie. Star Trek II just had more of what made the tv show so great in my opinion. The humor, interaction between the characters, the big space battle, all top notch. And Spock dies! I still cry to this day when i see that, well its actually at the funeral when Scotty's playing "Amazing Grace" on the bagpipes, gets me everytime. I really like Treks 2-5 cause they all go together, one ends where the other begins, I really liked that, but 6 on up threw that out the window.
Anyone that says the Whales trek is better than II needs a head examination.
It's Saving the Blue whales for cripes sake.
The Undiscovered Country was a really good trek, it's probably my third favorite behind Khan, First Contact.
Five I pretend never happened.
Three I pretend never happened.
Seven might be the one I haven't seen or at least don't remember.
Parts of Generations was good. But mostly? I pretend it never happened.
Anyone that says the Whales trek is better than II needs a head examination.
It's Saving the Blue whales for cripes sake.
Humpback whales. But yeah, same deal. It was better than the next one, anyway.
Star Trek : The Motion Picture
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
Star Trek IV: The Whales one
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek VII: Generations
Star Trek VIII: First Contact
Star Trek VIIII: Insurrection
Star Trek X: Nemesis
Oh gods, its time i stop lying to myself, I AM a Trekker!
Seven might be the one I haven't seen or at least don't remember.
Parts of Generations was good. But mostly? I pretend it never happened.
I believe these two are the same thing. Generations was the seventh Star Trek film.
I don't get the Enterprise hate. After the first season or so, when they settled into story arcs, I really liked it.
I have two things to add to the conversation.The best thing the new Terminator movie gave us was that fantastic rant by Christian Bale. Truly epic stuff.
1)
2) You guys watch too many movies. Even you guys that say that you don't watch many.
I'm starting to suspect I didn't see any movie last year. Is that still too much?
Seeing no movies in a year is about the right and good amount that one should see. if you're normal. ;)
Oh my god yes.
Dude it is the movie you can put that movie on for a room of people that think scifi is totally stupid and pointless and they will enjoy that film.
That movie is The Defacto Standard in space battles. The lines are extremely well thought out and delivered.
Some of the best dialogue ever spoken in film comes from this movie.
Based on your response alone I can only assume you are speaking of Serenity.
Oh my god yes.
Dude it is the movie you can put that movie on for a room of people that think scifi is totally stupid and pointless and they will enjoy that film.
That movie is The Defacto Standard in space battles. The lines are extremely well thought out and delivered.
Some of the best dialogue ever spoken in film comes from this movie.
Based on your response alone I can only assume you are speaking of Serenity.
Serenity is too new yet to see if it will have the lasting impact that Wrath of Khan has had. I still see alot more people /referencing Star Trek II.
Serenity is awesome however. Period.
Serenity is awesome however. Period.
Agreed. I just wish Firefly had a longer run. It could have easily been the successor to the Trek series(es?) if they'd gave it enough room to run.
I am the only person who was didn't think Serenity was that great.
I watched Firefly and Serenity consectitively a couple of years ago. I loved Firefly but I was kind of disappointed by Serenity. It was cool and all, but I guess I'm just not a huge fan of it (compared to the series).
I am the only person who was didn't think Serenity was that great.
I watched Firefly and Serenity consectitively a couple of years ago. I loved Firefly but I was kind of disappointed by Serenity. It was cool and all, but I guess I'm just not a huge fan of it (compared to the series).
BURN THE HERETIC!
But yes Firefly was most awesome. I never even heard of it until after the show was cancelled. When one of my friends started describing it to me as a sci-fi western, I thought it sounded stupid. Now I have seen the error of my ways, I have repented and accepted Joss Whedon into my life.
I am the only person who was didn't think Serenity was that great.
No you're not. Pretty much me and my entire circle agree. Joss Wedon does a pretty good job on TV shows where he has plenty of time to work on characterization of a wide cast, but his movies tend to be a bit lack luster and let downs after the awesome-sauce on cake that is his shows.
In other news: laser shotguns?
PS: I haven't actually seen Doll House yet, so I have no idea if it's actually good.
"Serenity" felt like "Firefly", but, at least to me, it seemed like it was much more focused on action than some of the mystery/humor of the show. For example, I thought the Reavers (?) were much better as a horror that never appeared on screen and were "unbeatable". After seeing the actual Reavers (and the crew escaping), I was pretty disappointed.
But maybe its just that "Firefly" was so good that "Serenity" couldn't live up to it.
Have you guys watched "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles"? That's a great show if you like seeing Summer Glau kick some ass. (But of course, it was also cancelled by Fox.)
"Dollhouse" was quite good. I was a fan of it. It has some ups and down on individual episodes, but the idea is really good. Although, since Fox suck (which I thought Joss Whedon knew), he basically had to condense 3 or 4 seasons into the second half of a season to finish the story. So it definately feels really rushed at the end. But I thought it was quite good and it left me wonder how it would have developed if he had time.
"Serenity" felt like "Firefly", but, at least to me, it seemed like it was much more focused on action than some of the mystery/humor of the show. For example, I thought the Reavers (?) were much better as a horror that never appeared on screen and were "unbeatable". After seeing the actual Reavers (and the crew escaping), I was pretty disappointed.
But maybe its just that "Firefly" was so good that "Serenity" couldn't live up to it.
Have you guys watched "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles"? That's a great show if you like seeing Summer Glau kick some ass. (But of course, it was also cancelled by Fox.)
It's Fox do you think they would keep anything good if their life depended on it? Especially if it had you know compelling characters, which feature strong women roles.
You guys should watch Burn Notice. It's really well done. Usas thursday at 9.
You can also catch up on the usa website.
It's Fox do you think they would keep anything good if their life depended on it? Especially if it had you know compelling characters, which feature strong women roles.
Well, they had X-Files and there's Fringe.
And even though I don't like it: Bones?
Yeah, Firefly was awesome. I actually liked it better than Trek. Yeah. My friends and I were watching them ST MMO preview vids yesterday before D&D. We all decided a Firefly MMO would have been a better way to go.
There's a reason the makers of the ST:MMO didn't do Firefly.
It's already been licensed on the Multiverse engine. I keep an eye on their Forums from time to time to see what the progress has been, but there really hasn't been a lot of late.
-Sarena
There's a reason the makers of the ST:MMO didn't do Firefly.
It's already been licensed on the Multiverse engine. I keep an eye on their Forums from time to time to see what the progress has been, but there really hasn't been a lot of late.
-Sarena
Huh. I had no idea. How is that engine?
There's a reason the makers of the ST:MMO didn't do Firefly.
It's already been licensed on the Multiverse engine. I keep an eye on their Forums from time to time to see what the progress has been, but there really hasn't been a lot of late.
-Sarena
Huh. I had no idea. How is that engine?
Not bad, in my opinion. Got the Firefly RPG for a birthday present from the wife, ran a couple campaigns. Well, started and then made them "save vs. DM." Works really well for something episodic like that.
-Sarena