Movies You've Seen (or would like to see) Recently

[Lexx]

To be honest, after what Star Trek has become by now, I don't mind him trying. I mean, how much worse and how far away from the source material can it potentially get by now?

Edited December 8, 2017 by Lexx

[SonicMage117]

I like the new Star Trek movies but welcome a new director/writer/whatever at the helm. After all, it shouldn't really go "beyond" the trilogy unless it gets a new guy because the third movie started getting a bit... weird. It just felt like they were running out of ideas. I liked it but still, it wasn't as nearly as good as the first two.

[injurai]

I'm trying to think back to the new trilogy in order to rank them. I really could do with a rewatch, especially of the first two.

But I think I'd rank them as 1 > 3 > 2. But 1 and 3 are probably somewhat close.

 

Between Marvel, DC, and whatever else is out there. The big-screen is fraught with origin stories, and I think ST1 has some of the best origin material out there. I'm not particularly fond of the depiction of the Romulans, nor the finale. But I really never am with just about every action movie. So It's beginning and middle set well enough with me.

 

Into Darkness is just utterly forgettable, I can't really say a good thing about it. It's just... more material really.

 

3 had it's charm, the whole crashed planet thing felt right at home. You were certainly very well acquainted with the characters by now, so it was a fun romp to watch. I could say more about all these films, but I think I'd be more interested to hear what other fans opinions are.

[SonicMage117]

I think the main problem with Into The Darkness was Cumberbatch. He's just not a likable Kahn, especially even moreso when being compared to classic Kahn who was phenomenal.

 

Cumberbatch was surely the wrong choice and if they had just picked someone else (anyone else), the movie would have been much much better.

 

Eric Bana was a pretty great Nero, he was the perfect fit for the film. Although he does very little lines compared to Cumberbatch as Kahn, Bana was just an overall better fit for the part. A likable villain makes the movie so much more... more

[Raithe]

Cumberbatch played the whole.. Intelligent, Strategic, Focused Khan. But there just wasn't anything in the script to portray that Charismatic Leader Khan. That's part of what made it fall down for me.

[Amentep]

I think there were multiple problems with into darkness; Khan was just a singular part. It also suffered from not really giving the cast a lot to do as well as not allowing the story to stand on its own as it had to (weakly, imo) homage the wrath of khan.

 

The whole "no really, I'm not khan" stuff in the lead up was also distracting because the mystery never actually is important to the story.

[SonicMage117]

Yeah, Cumberbatch is great for stuff like Sherlock, don't get me wrong but classic Kahn was brutal, warlord almost Mad Max character type being.

 

I still think "Rockstar and superior being" when I see classic Kahn. When I see the new Kahn, I think "They have a British man so that must make the audience somehow believe he is more intelligent than everyone else."

 

I enjoyed those beautiful Enterprise shots though, I own the movies on blu-ray and my favorite thing about the new movies is the cinematography. Chris Pine is a good Kirk, the whole crew is goid and fitting but the stories are lackluster and I remember when the first one came out, my father called me to point out all the mistakes the writer made in the first movie because the alternate timeline changed everything.

[Volourn]

AnY ST is better than nu TV ST. Even Faux ST - The Orville - is a vastly superior ST than STD.

[ShadySands]

To be honest, after what Star Trek has become by now, I don't mind him trying. I mean, how much worse and how far away from the source material can it potentially get by now?

[rayofsunshine]Things can always get worse [/rayofsunshine]

 

Regarding the Kelvin Timeline Trilogy, I liked them all on the first viewing but I thought they all fell apart on repeated viewings

Edited December 8, 2017 by ShadySands

[Gromnir]

 

To be honest, after what Star Trek has become by now, I don't mind him trying. I mean, how much worse and how far away from the source material can it potentially get by now?

[rayofsunshine]Things can always get worse [/rayofsunshine]

 

we got a bit o' pith we borrowed from our sister and use almost daily: "at least i'm not on fire."

 

am finding there is few situations, no matter how dire or hopeless, which makes being set ablaze a desirable alternative.

 

even so, we do see tarantino as a curious choice for a star trek movie.  sure, star trek has adopted more violence since tos days, but tarantino camp levels o' gore do not correspond with our expectations, and am thinking nobody will ever mistake tarantino for utopian. 

 

didn't actual read the linked article, but perhaps if tarantino did a kinda tangential star trek movie?  not kirk and spock, but something insular and limited? a federation rescue attempt o' a ________ ambassador goes horribly wrong? whatever is federation equivalent o' a special forces team realizes/suspects they were set up to fail from the start and...

 

*shrug*

 

am thinking tangential makes more sense for tarantino than does anything dealing with enterprise and the core cast.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[LadyCrimson]

Well I'll say this ... Tarantino and Star Trek chould at least be ... interesting.

 

I gave up on Star Trek anything. I mean I found the first two reboots to be watchable popcorn action fare (and fangirl-ing over Cumberbatch even as I disliked the retelling of Khan - super blood, hahah) but I didn't bother seeing the 3rd one (haven't seen the CBS Now series either).  That 3rd reboot was the very first time I haven't seen a ST film in the theater since the original cast Motion Picture. Likely won't see this Tarantino version.

 

That said - at the very end of the 2nd reboot, did anyone else immediately think of Princess Bride and the "he's only mostly dead" scene?

[Gfted1]

Patrick Stewart Would Return to 'Star Trek' for Quentin Tarantino.

[Rosbjerg]

To be honest, after what Star Trek has become by now, I don't mind him trying. I mean, how much worse and how far away from the source material can it potentially get by now?

"Don't tempt me Frodo!" - Tarantino

[LadyCrimson]

Patrick Stewart Would Return to 'Star Trek' for Quentin Tarantino.

That could also be ... interesting. Or extremely disappointing, depending. But it might be the one thing that would make me rent it.

[majestic]

I think the main problem with Into The Darkness was Cumberbatch.

 

Nah, Humberto Cabbagepatch wasn't the problem of the film. None of the actors were. It was everything else that was bad.

[LadyCrimson]

My favorite part of Into Darkness was the whole 'It's not Khan! Really, it's not Khan!"  statements beforehand then "Haha, just kidding, you were right, it's Khan."

 

Also, Quinto-Spock screaming like that. Didn't work for me. No, just no.

[Blarghagh]

Yeah, Quinto-Spock screaming Khan made me laugh first off. Similar reaction to Darth Vader's anguished "noooooooooo" at the end of Episode 3.

[Lexx]

Just finished the Dark Tower movie. Thought it wasn't as terrible as people made it out to be. Except for the ending, which felt way too rushed (I guess that's kinda normal with these kind of movies nowadays), I actually liked it.

 

I'd say it would have worked a lot better in tv show format, though.

Also I'm not sure if people who don't know the books could understand anything at all. There's been so many tiny details and such that folks likely never even realize if they don't know the source material.

[Volourn]

92 minutes. It is the rare King movie I didn't even try to watch in theatres. Couldn't take it seriously since they weren't taking it seriously.

[LadyCrimson]

I'd say it would have worked a lot better in tv show format, though.

Also I'm not sure if people who don't know the books could understand anything at all. There's been so many tiny details and such that folks likely never even realize if they don't know the source material.

I was wondering if someone who hadn't read the books would enjoy it more as a "it's just a surreal supernatural-western with neat imagery" movie or something. eg, hard to miss details that I don't know exist in the first place. But are you saying the movie wouldn't make any sense at all without foreknowledge? eg, sometimes a movie doesn't need to make a ton of sense to be entertaining on some level but it can go too far in that direction.

 

I keep thinking about renting it just to "see" for myself but haven't mustered up the motivation yet. I recall trying to read the first book ages ago but never finished/got into it and haven't tried since.

Edited December 10, 2017 by LadyCrimson

[ShadySands]

Bought tickets to see Star Wars next Sunday

[Malcador]

Apparently TLJ is "hard hitting". So I guess Luke dies.

[SonicMage117]

Ermm... Spoiler alert:

Everyone dies

[Epaminondas]

Ermm... Spoiler alert:

Everyone dies

Eventuallly

[Lexx]

 

I'd say it would have worked a lot better in tv show format, though.

Also I'm not sure if people who don't know the books could understand anything at all. There's been so many tiny details and such that folks likely never even realize if they don't know the source material.

I was wondering if someone who hadn't read the books would enjoy it more as a "it's just a surreal supernatural-western with neat imagery" movie or something. eg, hard to miss details that I don't know exist in the first place. But are you saying the movie wouldn't make any sense at all without foreknowledge? eg, sometimes a movie doesn't need to make a ton of sense to be entertaining on some level but it can go too far in that direction.

 

I keep thinking about renting it just to "see" for myself but haven't mustered up the motivation yet. I recall trying to read the first book ages ago but never finished/got into it and haven't tried since.

 

 

Dunno, it's just all this stuff like the magic doors, Maerlyn's Rainbow, why the people react to Roland the way they do, why exactly he is something special, why does Walter do what he does, etc. The movie is going on very fast, to fill in all this stuff, which might make it easy to miss details and then you wonder what the hell is even going on... and this is also the problem of the movie. It's just way too fast. Hell, this could have been three movies like Lord of the Rings, just to better give you a feeling of the world. FFS, at least make this a 3 hours movie and not 90 minutes... who the hell thought this was a good idea??

 

Still, I actually liked this movie and wouldn't mind some extended edition. Guess there won't ever be any, though, considering it completely bombed.