BafflingBeerMan
-
Posts
1223 -
Joined
-
And yes, that is Mr. Sinister attached to Gambit. Because they worked together and Sinister is kinda, sorta a clone of Gambit (in that I believe Sinister had Gambit time travel to his past to give Sinister a piece of Gambit's brain to help his research/genetic manipulations on himself or some such).
-
That isn't Darwin, I believe that is Cassandra Nova, Charles' female twin who he killed in the womb but was still psychically alive and manifested herself during Grant Morrison's run.
I believe. -
In Havoc, will not exactly playing the role devilishly, she played a seductress pretty well. She was not out and out oozing sexuality, but she did have an air of "I am a woman men find sexy and I will use that to my advantage."
-
In Nolan, We Trust.
Hathaway is a good, rising actress. Tom Hardy is an emerging star.
Couple that with Bale, Freeman, and Caine, and a solid acted movie this will be. -
So he's a tracer, then?
-
It's like Chucky, but with a tire instead of a doll!
OR like Jack Frost, but with a tire instead of a snowman! -
Quote:There was talk of adding a Lost ride at Disney in place of Neverland Island (I think). But Disney decided against it.Originally Posted by Lord_Nightblade
From the title, I thought this was about a new Lost ride at Disneyland. Something that would take a long time to get through, and leave you completely confused when you left.
Technically, Lost already went Disney, since it was produced by ABC and Disney owns ABC.
And at one of the theme parks, they have an ABC-themed diner, where my friend order the Dharma Fish. -
I liked NBC under its old owner: Sheinhardt Wigs
-
Lucas was just telling Rogen how he was going to re-released the movie "2012" and add Hayden in place of Cusack.
-
Great, this week's Mickey Funhouse episode is Minnie Kate-centric. I hate those episodes!
Also, I am giggling thinking about Michael screaming "WAAAAAAAAAAAALT!" in Goofy's voice. -
The Halloween episodes are killer.
So is Modern Warfare...and the recent Christmas one.
And the one that spoofs Apollo 13...
And...all of them! -
My horoscope did say I would be slowed today.
-
Donde es boom stick?
-
Quote:Good news, then!Originally Posted by Wayfarer
Unless there's a frickin' star-sign of a frickin' shark with a frickin' laser beam on its head I'm frickin' not interested.
Over at Unleashed, we came up with a new Zodiac Calendar!
Quote:Jan 1-15: The sign of the Snake, with an explosion.
Jan 16-31: The sign of the AK-47, with an explosion.
Feb 1-14: The sign of the hand grenade, with an explosion.
Feb 15-29: The sign of the T-Rex.
Mar 1-15: The sign of the Velociraptor, with an explosion.
Mar 16-31: The sign of the Harley
Apr 1-15: The sign of the guitar, with an explosion
Apr 16-30: The sign of the kickass home theatre system
May 1-15: The sign of the rocketship
May 15-31: The sign of the rock star
June 1-15: The sign of the rocket launcher, with an explosion.
June 16-30: The sign of the Shark
July 1- 15: The sign of the Nuke, with an explosion
July 16-31: The sign of the Street bike
Aug 1-15: The sign of the Death Star
Aug 16-31: The sign of the Terminator
Sept 1-15: The sign of the guy walking away from an explosion without looking at it, with an explosion.
Sept 16-30: The sign of the ninja
Oct 1-15: The sign of the Pirate, with an explosion
Oct 16-31: The sign of the really cool sword
Nov 1-15: The sign of the Batman
Nov 16-30: The sign of the Fist
Dec 1-15: The sign of the sports car, with an explosion
Dec 16-31: The sign of the zombie. -
Perfectly alright with the look.
-
Looks scaley to me. Will wait and see how it looks in a more dynamic setting.
-
To be fair, I don't think the Romulan Sulu was fighting was a master swordsman himself, so it could just be that Sulu was more nimble and quick (traits learned while picking up a hobby like fencing) than being an expert anything. Like most henchmen, across all movies good and bad, the Romulan was a lunk.
-
-
Luckily, Star Trek has always used television to secure its long-term viability and achieve tonal shifts in its franchise.
ST: TOS movies starting to peter out ----> ST:TNG pops onto the scene with a more serious approach to the franchise
ST: TNG beginning to appear too happy and too "been there, done that" ---> DS9 debuts, which is a little darker and not spaceship-centered
ST: TNG movies starting to peter out ----> Enterprise debuts, which is something completely different (a series that predates the others, doesn't follow them). It ultimately fails, but if it was successful, it would have extended the franchise even more by allowing for stories to take place in the past.
Revitalizing it for the short term is a temporary fix, yes, but it allows other projects to get off the ground now. I have no doubt that STO experienced a boost in attention due to the success of the movie. I wouldn't be surprised if around the time the second movie comes out we hear talk of another show. Whether or not a future show follows the aesthtic of Abrams' interpretation remains to be seen. But the real viability of the franchise lies with television, like it always has. -
Quote:The sword fighting bit though is a gag/reference to TOS where when something (a disease? I forget) made the crew go crazy and Sulu was fencing around the ship. In fact, the real reason why the character was doing that on the show was because George Takei padded his resume by saying he could fence (he really couldn't) and the writers saw that and wrote it in. It was part of the show.Originally Posted by Lord_Nightblade
True, Chekov and Scotty were never the most developed characters. But they still had more depth than the "nuclear wessels" and "I know this ship like the back o' me hand *smack into pipe*" essences that JJTrek boiled them down to.
As for Sulu, I took more issue with him being a god of sword fighting because of his fencing training than I did with the parking break gag. He's a green officer who is expected to fly a sparkling new ship-of-the-line into an emergency situation, so he's bound to get nervous and forget a detail or two.
So I would say the fencing bit in the movie is an attempt to take a not so serious, throwaway thing from the show and flesh it out and make it more serious, relevant, and useful. -
Quote:My impression from TOS and from some of the earlier movies is the show was basically the "Kirk, Spock, and McCoy Show." Oh sure, the others had lines and even some plots, but the main focus always returned to that threesome. The fact that the Abrams movie focused on Spock, Uhura, and Kirk shows me that he is at least willing to play around with the characters and bring some into the light. He might even viewing the series of movies as "episodes." The first movie/episode gives most of the action to Kirk, Spock and Uhura. Maybe the next one subs in Sulu for Uhura (Kirk and Sulu did bond a bit when trying to save Vulcan).Originally Posted by Arcanaville
No argument there. On the other hand, Chekov and Scotty are not what I would consider to be well-developed in the TOS movies either. In many of them they become parodies of themselves; in IV particularly, even though that is seen as an otherwise good movie (worse in V, but I don't think we're going to be using that as an example of anything anywhere).
I think the main problem there isn't Abrams, but the original script, and the problem with the original script is that we really don't know those characters well enough to easily extrapolate their past selves, so Orci and Kurtzman didn't have anywhere interesting to go. Spock we probably can extrapolate the best, even moreso than Kirk, and Spock shows up very strongly in the film. Kirk less so, but we can still see the potential for the naturally brash and rebellious Kirk to get out of hand without a father to look up to, and perhaps resenting Star Fleet for taking his father away from him (although I believe the script goes too far there, particularly in the aforementioned Kobayashi Maru). But then we get to McCoy, who we know basically nothing about his past (or rather, most people even most fans don't know much) except he seems to have had a very long friendship with Kirk. Sulu and Chekov we know even less, and Scotty's best known for saying the line "its green" and being the TOS equivalent of a geek. Not much to work with there.
In any case, I think if there's someone to blame for Scotty being the Chris Knight of Star Trek, Chekov being Doogie Houser: Navigator, and Sulu having trouble with the parking brake, its probably more Orci and Kurtzman than Abrams.
The fact these characters, in general, were sorta nebulous (yes, they may have had a backstory in the TOS, but how often did it serve the story? Did the show treak the backstories of Sulu and Chekhov as really that important?). Over the course of the movies and the explosion of popularity did the characters deepen. I would expect the same for these series of movies.
Like I said, just look to Uhura and how important she was to the first movie compared to her role in TOS. Nichelle Nichols has even said she loved Uhura's expanded role and is happy for the character. -
And the writers of the latest Star Trek movie worked with Abrams in other projects that have more fully realized characters and may indicate a stronger development in the next movie. In Alias (and recently, Fringe) he worked with Kurtzman and Orci, who helped created the interesting characters of Arvin Sloane and Jack Bristow. Not to mention Sydney. Maybe I shouldn't mention her. And Abrams worked with Lindelof in Lost, which had a slew of interesting characters.
The problem with Abrams is he wears his pop culture influences on his sleeve and has a bit of directorial ADD. All of his shows are a mishmash of tropes and cliches, but somehow, in the end, they pull them off and create something new. I think we are seeing that somewhat with his Trek. We expected Uhura to be pushed to the background like she was in the original series, but she was moved to center. She's going to play "the strong female," which she never really was allowed to do on the original series.
So yes, that means his interpretation of Trek will be unique and different from all that went before. And yes, because this movie, unlike the original Back to the Future or Indiana Jones, is meant to be a franchise from the get go, it allows him more time to develop and set up. For better or worse. It could be that the first movie is intended to set the table (and act like a big, dumb action movie) to attract the general masses. Remember, the Star Trek franchise, while not dead, was in for a long hibernation if the Trek reboot was not successful. So now that this iteration of Trek has been established, there is a little more room to experiment, because the studio, Abrams, and other know that the audience is still there for the franchise. -
The 1972 Mustang model makes me laugh for some reason.