OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

Anatomy of a bad SF movie: Precisely what made it fail?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 9, 2010 15:40
SHORT URL: http://goo.gl/CtKiP
VIEWED: 6936
PAGE 2 of 3

Thursday, November 4, 2010 9:15 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by cljohnston108:
Well, I myself can't stand Roland Emmerich's work

I kinda liked The Day After Tomorrow.


The laughing Chrisisall







What can I say? I likes me my cheese w/extra cheese on occasion. Never said it was a good movie, remember...


The laughing Chrisisall




That's fine and all, but when you attack far, FAR better movies as "failures", then talk about liking utter crap..... credibility and all, ya know?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 9:21 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

That's fine and all, but when you attack far, FAR better movies as "failures", then talk about liking utter crap..... credibility and all, ya know?


I'd rather watch a movie that was designed as cheese, and is totally successful at it, than a movie designed as great SF, and is only partially successful at that.


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 9:40 AM

STEGASAURUS


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
This always bothered me about the "great Star Wars trilogy".....

The last Jedis, Obi Wan and Yoda split up the twins of Darth Vader (Annakin Skywalker) so that neither Darth or the Emperor would ever know of their existence. Then they drop Luke off with Annakin's stepbrother Owen Lars, on Annakin's home planet of Tatooine, and he gets raised as Luke SKYWALKER. Might have been a wise idea to change his name, right? Before the modern-day "rebellion" what was Darth Vader doing anyhow? One trip to Tatooine would have revealed the truth about his son, but apparently he never went.

Also, in the first Star Wars, Leia is captured and brought on board Vader's ship. He physically touches her and holds her as her planet is being destroyed, but feels nothing from her? Cannot feel that she's his daughter? Sorry, that just don't fly.



I know we're not turning this thread into a gripe fest about the SW franchise, but I just wanted to chime my own *snicker* about this series.

When we first see Luke, his attire is essentially Jedi attire. Uncle Owen and Ben Kenobi are wearing similar dress. All through Star Wars (let's not call it "A New Hope" just for my sake, please) Luke's clothing changes once when he dons the Storm Trooper's armor, and then again when he's in pilot garb.

So why is it that when we see "Phantom Menace" and on, ALL Jedi appear to wear the "Tattooine Commoner's Spring Fashion" line?

Ok, back to your regularly schedualed Suckitude Listings...

-Steg

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 9:53 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

That's fine and all, but when you attack far, FAR better movies as "failures", then talk about liking utter crap..... credibility and all, ya know?


I'd rather watch a movie that was designed as cheese, and is totally successful at it, than a movie designed as great SF, and is only partially successful at that.


The laughing Chrisisall




Cool, I guess I just have higher standards. ;)

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 10:00 AM

CHRISISALL


Case #11:



The Day After Tomorrow

Apparent Causes of Suckitude-

A) The movie makes it seem like we could just suddenly 'slip' into a major Ice Age any moment. This seems kinda like crap.
B) Just HOW MANY miles CAN a person walk in a BLIZZARD with limited provisions & shelter, anyway???
C) The wolf thing... unnecessary, but also, really fake-looking. Wasn't a lot of money spent on the CGI?

Analysis:

A- An Ice Age jumping on us THAT QUICK is about as likely as sound in space. When the science advisers on that movie finally graduate Grade School, they will probably realize this.

B- Well, I once walked from Richmond to Trenton in a hurricane in less than 2 hours (barefoot), but then of course, I woke up.

C- The wolves in the hand drawn cell animation of Ralph Bakshi's Fire And Ice looked more realistic.
There's nothing worse than a narratively useless scene that LOOKS BAD TOO!!!

So, stupid eye-candy from a high-paid hack. At least it had Dennis Quaid.

Next case...



The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 10:06 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

I just have higher standards. ;)


What are these "standards" of which you speak? I don't believe I have any, at least, not on me. Are they big?
Where can I get some?




The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 11:01 AM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by Stegasaurus:
So why is it that when we see "Phantom Menace" and on, ALL Jedi appear to wear the "Tattooine Commoner's Spring Fashion" line?

-Steg



That actually makes perfect sense. As an order of humble warrior-monks who would presumably need to blend in with many crowds, they wear clothing common to peasants/commoners (reminiscent of the monastic orders of various Asian countries).

Although WE the audience see them as "Jedi robes" most citizens of the galaxy would recognize them as "commoner's robes" (remember, even in Episode I, there are only about 10,000 Jedi for a galaxy that includes significantly more planets than that--most people will never actually see a Jedi in their lifetime, so wouldn't necessarily associated any particular "look" with them).

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 11:10 AM

CHRISISALL


Whoah, outSTANDING explanation, GWEK!!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 11:14 AM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
This always bothered me about the "great Star Wars trilogy".....

The last Jedis, Obi Wan and Yoda split up the twins of Darth Vader (Annakin Skywalker) so that neither Darth or the Emperor would ever know of their existence. Then they drop Luke off with Annakin's stepbrother Owen Lars, on Annakin's home planet of Tatooine, and he gets raised as Luke SKYWALKER. Might have been a wise idea to change his name, right? Before the modern-day "rebellion" what was Darth Vader doing anyhow? One trip to Tatooine would have revealed the truth about his son, but apparently he never went.



The official story is that he never returned to Tatooine because there were too many painful memories.

I agree, though, that the hiding place is ridiculous, since they hide Luke in the one place that Anakin WOULD be likely to go if he visited, under a recognizable name... and "Ben Kenobi" isn't really a great disguise either!

I suppose Kenobi and Yoda are banking on nobody realizing the Skywalker children survived, although it still seems to be a needless risk.

Quote:

Also, in the first Star Wars, Leia is captured and brought on board Vader's ship. He physically touches her and holds her as her planet is being destroyed, but feels nothing from her? Cannot feel that she's his daughter? Sorry, that just don't fly.


The real-world solution is pretty simple: when STAR WARS was written, Leia wasn't his daughter. Even into early drafts of EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, Vader and Anakin were two distinct characters (not to mention the fact that Leia's paternity was not addressed).

If you want to try to reconcile all the movies, though, I present two possibilities:

1) Vader DID know on some level... he just didn't want to acknowledge it. When he has Luke in his power, he doesn't WANT to kill him. Similarly, when he has Leia at his mercy, he many understand who she is on some level, but he's not looking to kill her. Even if he were to understood consciously, outing her is likely to get her in the clutches of either Tarkin or Palpatine (neither situation is in Vader's best interests).

2) "The dark side clouds everything." EVERYTHING. Including the perceptions of Vader and Palpatine. For a pair of dudes smart enough to take over the galaxy, the two Darths have a lot of blind spots when it comes to information. Perhaps that's a mix of arrogance and the murkiness of the dark side.




]

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 11:19 AM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:

Seriously? You're not even trying anymore!


When I started the analysis of Waterworld, I found I did not want to write a whole BOOK on why it failed- I don't care enough about the flick. Sorry.


The laughing Chrisisall




Not a comment on your analysis, but your choice. If you're throwing out WATERWORLD, what's next? ATTACK OF THE KILLER TOMATOES? PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE?

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 11:27 AM

CHRISISALL


Case#12:



Sunshine

Apparent Causes of Suckitude-

A) So, re-start the Sun, eh? Is that like blowing on the embers of a dwindling camp fire? In a nucular way, I mean?
B) Alien much, Mr. Boyle?
C) Don't most folk COOK TO DEATH in unshielded Solar radiation?

Analysis:

A- The director clearly hired the science advisers from Rolland Emmerich's team for this flick.

B- Yeah, this was obviously a BLINDING re-make of the Ridley Scott classic.

C- Statistics reveal that one person in a googleplex will not die in this way, but instead go nutz & get real strong & look gross. That must have been The One...

So, yet ANOTHER pretty waste of time. *yawn* I was terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought.

Next case....??





The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 11:37 AM

MUTT999



Sunshine

Thought it was very good, up until the lame hack and slash ending.






NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 11:40 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Mutt999:

Sunshine

Thought it was very good, up until the lame hack and slash ending.


Scientific bs aside, yeah, it had me goin' 'till that part as well.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 11:56 AM

OPPYH


Back to the Future 2, and 3.
They were not as good as the first one.


Matrix 2, and 3.
Umm, they sucked.

Predators.
Non-memorable story.

King Kong(2002)
Pretty to look at, but a heartless, and unnecessary remake.

Aliens Vs. Predator
The best the writers could come up with was that? I can bang out a better screenplay in a weeks time. CGI from hell.

A.I.
Spielberg's quintessential nail in the coffin movie. He had Kubrick's blessing but not his vision. Colossal fail.

Star Wars episodes 1-3
"I hate sand, it gets in everything"
Anakin Skywalker






----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:33 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by OPPYH:
Back to the Future 2, and 3.
They were not as good as the first one.

A rare disagreement (of a sort) here; individually you're right, but taken as a whole, all three are a great story IMO.
Quote:




Matrix 2, and 3.
Umm, they sucked.

Predators.
Non-memorable story.

King Kong(2002)
Pretty to look at, but a heartless, and unnecessary remake.

Aliens Vs. Predator
The best the writers could come up with was that? I can bang out a better screenplay in a weeks time. CGI from hell.

A.I.
Spielberg's quintessential nail in the coffin movie. He had Kubrick's blessing but not his vision. Colossal fail.

Star Wars episodes 1-3
"I hate sand, it gets in everything"
Anakin Skywalker


While I kinda liked seeing A.I., I also feel like I might never watch it again. So, I guess I don't disagree on any particular point regarding the rest.


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:47 PM

STEGASAURUS


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by OPPYH:
Back to the Future 2, and 3.
They were not as good as the first one.

A rare disagreement (of a sort) here; individually you're right, but taken as a whole, all three are a great story IMO.
Quote:




Matrix 2, and 3.
Umm, they sucked.

Predators.
Non-memorable story.

King Kong(2002)
Pretty to look at, but a heartless, and unnecessary remake.

Aliens Vs. Predator
The best the writers could come up with was that? I can bang out a better screenplay in a weeks time. CGI from hell.

A.I.
Spielberg's quintessential nail in the coffin movie. He had Kubrick's blessing but not his vision. Colossal fail.

Star Wars episodes 1-3
"I hate sand, it gets in everything"
Anakin Skywalker


While I kinda liked seeing A.I., I also feel like I might never watch it again. So, I guess I don't disagree on any particular point regarding the rest.


The laughing Chrisisall




I would say that BttF 2 and 3 just didn't have the same feel as the original. Most likely because they were filmed at the same time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:51 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:

Not a comment on your analysis, but your choice. If you're throwing out WATERWORLD, what's next? ATTACK OF THE KILLER TOMATOES? PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE?

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."



Waterworld gets a bad rep from fanboys, but it has it's moments, made decent money, got decent reviews, and all the dialog is written by Joss. It aint THAT bad (okay, Hopper's character is...).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:53 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Stegasaurus:
I would say that BttF 2 and 3 just didn't have the same feel as the original. Most likely because they were filmed at the same time.

Well, and, four full years after the first...
Given that, I love 'em all!


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 12:58 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

Waterworld ... dialog is written by Joss.

Holy Cow, I did not know that!

but it still sucks

EDIT TO ADD: Bwahahahahah, you *MUST* read this review of the movie:
http://www.mutantreviewers.com/rwaterworld.html


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 2:03 PM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:

Not a comment on your analysis, but your choice. If you're throwing out WATERWORLD, what's next? ATTACK OF THE KILLER TOMATOES? PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE?

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."



Waterworld gets a bad rep from fanboys, but it has it's moments, made decent money, got decent reviews, and all the dialog is written by Joss. It aint THAT bad (okay, Hopper's character is...).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."



I don't know... I saw WATERWORLD again earlier this year, and watched it with a VERY open mind--and it was pretty terrible. It's draggy and slow... and draggily slow. A lot of the plot makes very little sense and the acting is about as subtle as an episode of SCOOBY-DOO.

On the other hand, I think THE POSTMAN is actually very under-rated. I'm not saying that it's brilliant, but it's pretty compelling. That, actually, is why I was willing to give WATERWORLD another chance.



www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 2:13 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:


On the other hand, I think THE POSTMAN is actually very under-rated. I'm not saying that it's brilliant, but it's pretty compelling.

I bought it on DVD recently, and yeah, I really like it. The book it's based on made the script decent, and what was left after the filtering came through, not perfectly, but enough.


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 2:16 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

Waterworld ... dialog is written by Joss.

Holy Cow, I did not know that!






Yeah, he was the on-set script doctor, served much the same role there as he did on Speed.

It's funny, another writer whom I'm net-friends with, Pete Briggs (co-writer of the first Hellboy) met with the director of Waterworld, and pointed out that there's not enough water on the planet, even if all the ice melted, to totally submerge everything. He did not get a second meeting....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 2:17 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:

On the other hand, I think THE POSTMAN is actually very under-rated. I'm not saying that it's brilliant, but it's pretty compelling. That, actually, is why I was willing to give WATERWORLD another chance.



www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."



I can't say I recall it that well, having not seen it since the theatre, but Costner is a far better director than Reynolds, so I can believe it.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 2:19 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

Waterworld gets a bad rep from fanboys, but it has it's moments, made decent money, got decent reviews

LOL, SO, is THIS the piece of crap movie that YOU like, Story? YOUR guilty pleasure?
The enjoyable cinematic dregs that make YOU like the rest of us?
Just a regular schlep?

COOL!




The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 2:48 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

It's funny, another writer whom I'm net-friends with, Pete Briggs (co-writer of the first Hellboy) met with the director of Waterworld, and pointed out that there's not enough water on the planet, even if all the ice melted, to totally submerge everything. He did not get a second meeting....


"Don't complicate major motion picture production with simple physical realities" is the message here, I believe.



The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2010 5:31 PM

CHRISISALL


Case # 13:


(Maybe not the right picture)

The Island

Apparent Causes of Suckitude-

A) Logan's Run much, Mr. Bay?
B) Scarlett not naked?
C) Ummm... what was the point?

Analysis:

A- Shamelessly copying s**t is the sincerest form of flattery.

B- Major FAIL.

C- That we need to mindlessly go to & rent stupid movies to fuel the sagging economy-? That set-pieces make a film? That millions of dollars can be spent on this kind of crap instead of planning a manned Mars mission?

Bay delivers- to the wrong address.

Next case............



The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 2:33 AM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

It's funny, another writer whom I'm net-friends with, Pete Briggs (co-writer of the first Hellboy) met with the director of Waterworld, and pointed out that there's not enough water on the planet, even if all the ice melted, to totally submerge everything. He did not get a second meeting....


"Don't complicate major motion picture production with simple physical realities" is the message here, I believe.



That's actually a GOOD lesson, I think. As long as you don't go too far, it's far more important to remain internally consistent than consistent with the real world. People don't want to pay money to see the real world--they want to pay to see ENTERTAINMENT.

Exhibit A: ARMAGEDDON vs DEEP IMPACT.

Same concept, but addressed in two completely different ways. DEEP IMPACT attempts to incorporate a modicum of reasonable science--and suffers for it. ARMAGEDDON, on the other hand, is basically trailer park trash saving the world using comic physics--and is by and large considered to be a much better movie because of the result.

I'm sure someone COULD do an excellent, completely-scientifically-sound movie about an asteroid/meteor crashing into Earth, but would it be as entertaining as Bruce Willis yelling "I will dig that hole! I will make eight hundred feet!!!"

I think not!



www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 3:40 AM

PEACEKEEPER

Keeping order in every verse


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Case#12:



Sunshine

Apparent Causes of Suckitude-

A) So, re-start the Sun, eh? Is that like blowing on the embers of a dwindling camp fire? In a nucular way, I mean?
B) Alien much, Mr. Boyle?
C) Don't most folk COOK TO DEATH in unshielded Solar radiation?

Analysis:

A- The director clearly hired the science advisers from Rolland Emmerich's team for this flick.

B- Yeah, this was obviously a BLINDING re-make of the Ridley Scott classic.

C- Statistics reveal that one person in a googleplex will not die in this way, but instead go nutz & get real strong & look gross. That must have been The One...

So, yet ANOTHER pretty waste of time. *yawn* I was terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought.

Next case....??





The laughing Chrisisall


I actually quite liked this effort. As for the scientific advisor, try Professor Brian Cox, one of the worlds leading Particle Physicists.If you bother with the DVD Extras, he does actually say that the basic premise is bunkum, but in the interests of entertainment he gave himself a little poetic license.

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 4:31 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Case # 13:


(Maybe not the right picture)

The Island

Apparent Causes of Suckitude-

A) Logan's Run much, Mr. Bay?
B) Scarlett not naked?
C) Ummm... what was the point?

Analysis:

A- Shamelessly copying s**t is the sincerest form of flattery.

B- Major FAIL.

C- That we need to mindlessly go to & rent stupid movies to fuel the sagging economy-? That set-pieces make a film? That millions of dollars can be spent on this kind of crap instead of planning a manned Mars mission?

Bay delivers- to the wrong address.


I liked The Island. Had some good actors in it including Steve Buscemi and Ewan McGregor. Scarlett really didn't need to be naked in it, as her form-fitting jumpsuit was quite enough to satisfy any man's purient interest. I thought the story was interesting too, and likely not too far off from the realities of the near future.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 6:46 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:

I'm sure someone COULD do an excellent, completely-scientifically-sound movie about an asteroid/meteor crashing into Earth, but would it be as entertaining as Bruce Willis yelling "I will dig that hole! I will make eight hundred feet!!!"

I think not!


RIGHT ON!!!
(I'm just a little emotional right now, ok? Ya'll throwing all this stuff at me, man! Look, I mean, after this is over, can I like get a hug from you or something?)


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 10:16 AM

CYBERSNARK


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:
I'm sure someone COULD do an excellent, completely-scientifically-sound movie about an asteroid/meteor crashing into Earth, but would it be as entertaining as Bruce Willis yelling "I will dig that hole! I will make eight hundred feet!!!"

I think not!


Scarily, if you do a completely-scientifically-sound movie about a huge meteor crashing into Earth. . . The huge meteor will crash into Earth.

(At this point, Bruce Willis is pretty much the only "plan" we've got.)

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 10:46 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Case # 13:


(Maybe not the right picture)

The Island

Apparent Causes of Suckitude-

A) Logan's Run much, Mr. Bay?
B) Scarlett not naked?
C) Ummm... what was the point?

Analysis:

A- Shamelessly copying s**t is the sincerest form of flattery.

B- Major FAIL.

C- That we need to mindlessly go to & rent stupid movies to fuel the sagging economy-? That set-pieces make a film? That millions of dollars can be spent on this kind of crap instead of planning a manned Mars mission?

Bay delivers- to the wrong address.

Next case............



The laughing Chrisisall




I actually consider that Bay's best film. Not his most FUN film (that, for me is still The Rock, with Armageddon as a close second), but this was a decent flick with some heart and brains (well, for a Bay movie).

I actually blame the failure of this movie at the box office for the tremendous suckitude we got from his Transformer flicks. He tried to make a movie with a bit of depth, got spanked for it, and reflexively made two of the dumbest lowest common denominator movies ever.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 10:48 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

Waterworld gets a bad rep from fanboys, but it has it's moments, made decent money, got decent reviews

LOL, SO, is THIS the piece of crap movie that YOU like, Story? YOUR guilty pleasure?
The enjoyable cinematic dregs that make YOU like the rest of us?
Just a regular schlep?

COOL!




The laughing Chrisisall




Oh, I wouldn't go that far. I havn't watched it in a decade. I was just adding context.

You want a piece of crap that I do enjoy watching, look no farther than any of the Highlander sequels.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 12:40 PM

MAL4PREZ


The Matrix sequels: The success of the first movie was founded on the idea that we are all trapped in a meaningless cubicle existence. Only in our most secret comic book fantasies do we dream that the escapes we find from our boring lives (video games, internet surfing, code writing) will suddenly become valuable. We will enter a new existence of meaning, where our knowledge that all this is shallow and vapid, our *belief* that the world we live in is bullshit constructed by those who mean only to use us for their own gain, gives us superpowers. Merely recognizing the shallowness of our society allows us bend the laws of physics…

The mistake the sequels made was focusing on The Real World. They should have stayed in the dichotomy of those poor souls trapped in the Matrix. That was the fantasy that pulled in so many viewers: the idea of escape, of the traits that make us outcasts somehow becoming strengths.

Armageddon: are you kidding me Gwek? That is still the A #1 example of the non-stop Hollywood thrill ride that, by the 100th consecutive moment of “Oh-my-god-we’re-all-gonna-die-now-soon-and-I-do-mean-ALL-of-us” had me lolling back in my theater seat and somehow managing to roll my eyes while I yawned.

Not to mention that I went to the movie with petroleum engineers, who damned near jumped out of their seats yelling: “You would NEVER use that drill bit!”

The Day after Tomorrow: Next to Armageddon and the Core, possibly the worst science movie ever. But dammit, I LIKE this one! So I take back the disgust I aimed at you, Gwek.

Sunshine: What? A slash ending? (Careful how you use that word LOL!)

Waterworld: My ex loved this. I saw his preference only as a sign of his psychological issues. Possibly the worst movie ever.

OK, which movies did I miss? Star Wars. Yeah. OK. Bad points. But I was a little bitty thing when episode 4 came out. How can I not love it?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 1:25 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


What I particualrly liked about Serenity was it's opening.

No one really needed to know who our heroes were because the opening gave a prologue as to why we're scattered (as humans) to the four winds - Earth That Was - which makes it sci-fi from the get go.

Then it goes (seemlessly I might add) into River's story, which takes us into the story of our BDH. Brilliantly set up and executed.

My theory on why it failed at the box office:

1-No big-name stars (I dare say that had Castle existed before this movie was released we would be analysing Serenity 2) and,

B- It was not promoted sufficiently as to create a buzz outside the Browncoat circle of influence (which is needed to reach Avatar numbers)

One can dream!


SGG



Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 1:41 PM

MAL4PREZ


My theory: Serenity failed because it tried to be an epic action movie, rather than letting us fall in love with the characters and the world the way the series did. Joss scrapped so much goodness because he had to choose a category, and "action" was the easiest one to go with.

Another good idea destroyed by those in charge of marketing.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 2:17 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


The Matrix sequels: The success of the first movie was founded on the idea that we are all trapped in a meaningless cubicle existence. Only in our most secret comic book fantasies do we dream that the escapes we find from our boring lives (video games, internet surfing, code writing) will suddenly become valuable. We will enter a new existence of meaning, where our knowledge that all this is shallow and vapid, our *belief* that the world we live in is bullshit constructed by those who mean only to use us for their own gain, gives us superpowers. Merely recognizing the shallowness of our society allows us bend the laws of physics…
------------------------------------------------------------
I like your take on this, but I would like to take it a step further, If I may............

meaningless cubicle existence while being controlled by the very things (machines) that we are told sets us free. The machines are given human characteristics (one of which is hate) and we are susbsequently enslaved.

Once we free our minds we can do extordinary things which "allows us to bend the laws of physics" it is the true meaning of being free - having ultimately control of ourselves through the power of positive thinking. Part and parcel to that power is LOVE. A truly powerful emotion that gives us the strength of 10 grinches, plus 2.

The mistake the sequels made was focusing on The Real World. They should have stayed in the dichotomy of those poor souls trapped in the Matrix. That was the fantasy that pulled in so many viewers: the idea of escape, of the traits that make us outcasts somehow becoming strengths.

I agree, plus the fact that they took themselves way too seriously - instead of expounding on the story of the "everyman" finding the strength within to break the bonds of "enslavement" by the very things we create, the W Brothers became distracted by the entrapments of of action/sci-fi flick. Especially telling was the Revolutions story that seemed interminable. They ventured so far off course that it became an entirely different movie failing to deliver on its compelling message of man's redemption to himself. Hence the killing off of 2 beloved characters that drove the story (sound familiar?).


SGG



Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 2:23 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


RIGHT ON!!!
(I'm just a little emotional right now, ok? Ya'll throwing all this stuff at me, man! Look, I mean, after this is over, can I like get a hug from you or something?)


LOL, RLOL (really laughing out loud)

Thanks, Chris I needed that!


SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 2:26 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


(At this point, Bruce Willis is pretty much the only "plan" we've got.)

Seriously, what else can we do?

Bruce just has to smirk that smirk of his; and haul off with a haymaker.

Next!


SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 2:48 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Case #14 (we are still counting, aren't we?)

The Fifth Element

Apparent Causes of Suckitude:

1- Chris Tucker, as an ambguious and loud radio personality

2- Rather questionable make up for monsters/villians

3- Not enough Milla Jovovich

Analysis:

The movie did not take itself too seriously, hence the rather over-the-top performance by Chris Tucker as Robby Rodd, complete with leopard leotard suit. A great soundtrack, coupled with superb editing, makes this a movie everyone loves but no one will admit has a place deep in the heart. Once again, not enough Milla Jovovich. Her minutes on the screen were limited but riveting with her kick-ass take no prisoners action sequences. I can only see Summer taking this role and making it better. Didn;t quite make my Top 10 but only due to the rather silly script, which BTW is what makes it charming.

"Leeloo Dallas, multipass"


SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 3:43 PM

CHRISISALL


Gary Oldman made that movie great.


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 3:45 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:

You want a piece of crap that I do enjoy watching, look no farther than any of the Highlander sequels.


Credibility gone.
There can be only one.





The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 5:19 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Credibility gone.
There can be only one.





The laughing Chrisisall




Well, I mainly just like the first movie... and the TV series.

But in my defense, I would point out, if there had been only one, I would not currently be in production of my very own officially sanctioned spin-off mini-series.

And I gotta tell ya, there are few things cooler than getting to make your own spin-off of one of your favorite movies.





"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 5:43 PM

CHRISISALL


Yes, that is cool Nation!


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 6:29 PM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Armageddon: are you kidding me Gwek? That is still the A #1 example of the non-stop Hollywood thrill ride that, by the 100th consecutive moment of “Oh-my-god-we’re-all-gonna-die-now-soon-and-I-do-mean-ALL-of-us” had me lolling back in my theater seat and somehow managing to roll my eyes while I yawned.

Not to mention that I went to the movie with petroleum engineers, who damned near jumped out of their seats yelling: “You would NEVER use that drill bit!”

The Day after Tomorrow: Next to Armageddon and the Core, possibly the worst science movie ever. But dammit, I LIKE this one! So I take back the disgust I aimed at you, Gwek.



There's no accounting for taste. :)

And, for the record, ARMAGEDDON's sciene is far superior to that of either THE CORE or THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW: while all are, at best, comic book-ridiculous, ARMAGEDDON, at least, remains CONSISTENT, while the others don't.

But that's all pretty incidental, because science doesn't enter into the equation. If I go to see a Michael Bay movie starring Bruce Willis, I'm not expecting science. If I want science, I'll read a book.

I stand by my assessment that ARMAGEDDON is probably the best b-rate movie ever made. Why? Characters and conflict. Characters and conflict, not science or facts--or even accuracy--are at the heart of almost every really good movie.

From the moment we meet Harry Stamper, before he even knows he will be tasked with saving the world, he is a character in conflict, particularly with is daughter and protege. This thread continues through the movie until his internal dilemma (his acceptance of his daughter and protege as a couple) is resolved essentially simultaneously with his external dilemma (saving the earth be destroying that rock). Textbook quality screenwriting, expertly executed (which is a credit to the screenwriters more than Michael Bay--a screenwriter's job is REALLY to write a script that's so strong that it can survive contact with the director).

And the supporting case? Buscemi, Duncan, Fichtner, Wilson, Patton, Stormare--Man, does it get much better than these guys?!? Probably the greatest collection of character actors outside a Tarantino or Rodriguez movie...

As for your petroleum engineer friends: a few thoughts. First, it's probably for the best that they didn't see the earlier draft of the script in which the gang makes a drill bit out of diamond fragments they find on the asteroid.

Second: unique expertise is the enemy of entertainment. 99.999% of mankind probably couldn't care less about the type or accuracy of drill bit used. You were with part of the 00.001%.

A related (and potentially ridiculous) example: I hate HAROLD & KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE. Why? I will tell you that it has nothing to do with the story or the characters. It has to do with the plot falling apart for me within the first 5-10 minutes.

You see, I grew up in Jersey City, NJ, which is adjacent to Hoboken, where the movie starts. I know that there is a White Castle in Jersey City, right across the street from Port Authority. All Harold and Kumar would have to do is hop on a train, pay a few bucks, and they would be at White Castle within a few minutes. This is even more apalling because the White Castle in question is around the corner from a neighborhood that is, these days, referred to as "Little India" or something similar. THERE IS NO REASONABLE WAY THAT KUMAR COULD NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS WHITE CASTLE.

Further, there are about two dozen White Castles in NYC (which would probably be quickier and easier to get to from Hoboken than the WCs that H&K try to visit). There are also probably at least a dozen WCs in New Jersey that are closer as well.

While this is a huge annoyance to me, the vast majority of people who saw the movie weren't from NJ, don't care much about NJ geography, and probably don't care about where the nearest White Castle is.

I'm no petroleum engineer, but I love's me the WC.



www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 5, 2010 7:06 PM

CHRISISALL


The Montclair WC fish sandwiches were a fave of mine. Fries were good too.


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 6, 2010 3:23 AM

IMNOTHERE


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:
And, for the record, ARMAGEDDON's sciene is far superior to that of either THE CORE or THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW: while all are, at best, comic book-ridiculous


Well, The Day After Tomorrow goes to the special hell because it was tackling a topical and controversial subject.

Quote:


If I want science, I'll read a book.


...you know, what did it for me with Armageddonoutahere was not the bad science - it was the horrible cliched characters and the toe curling "Look we're going to appease the international market by occasionally showing clips of crowd reactions From Famous Landmarks Around The World."

Guys: I'm not from the US but I am hereby giving you USAians permission to make most of your films about people living and working in the US without feeling obliged to paste in a few shots of Big Ben (pedants, start your engines...) and the Taj Mahal. If I want to see aliens invade other countries I'll watch Dr Who or District 9 or something.

Quote:


Characters and conflict, not science or facts--or even accuracy--are at the heart of almost every really good movie.


Then I give you Deep Impact: same scenario, far more realistic characters and conflict and a much better attempt at getting the science vaguely plausible. Nice balance between SF adventure (astronauts trying to plant bombs on a comet) and ordinary joes dealing with the end of the world. The astronauts are professional astronauts (there's enough drama in the job they have to do without contriving a reason to send some undisciplined rabble of meatheads with them). Best of all, the spaceship actually looks like something cobbled together in a year from shuttle and ISS parts, not some super turbo-charged secret "here's one I made earlier" shuttle. They even name-check (at very little cost to the plot) a drive technology (Orion) which might well be the best bet in a "oh shit we suddenly need to get a huge spaceship halfway across the solar system quickly" scenario.

The ordinary joes really are ordinary joes who's 15 minutes of fame buys them a ringside seat courtesy of the media (amateur astronomers do discover asteroids and comets, and the journalist stumbles across the story just before it was going to go public anyway). Again, though, the human drama is at least related to the subject of the movie: it is mostly about them dealing with being handed a free pass to the shelters when their friends and family will be left to die. Brucie in Ohmygodden could be over-protective of his daughter in a film about horse racing, gangsters, cowboys, purple CGI teddy bears...

OK, so we get a last, desperate million-to-one chance ending - but even then only one of the main protagonists survives and half of America gets washed away (and in those circumstances a messianic speech by the President is probably inescapable).

Sorry, but I quite like Deep Impact and can hardly bear to watch Hamageddon.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 6, 2010 5:28 AM

STORYMARK


I like both asteroid flicks, myself.

As to the shots of other countries in Armageddon, I think it was more about scope than politics. It was a global threat they were facing, not just an American one.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 6, 2010 9:46 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Case #10:



Serenity

Apparent Causes of Suckitude-

A) Who ARE these people? The flick starts out like we should know...
B) There was a weird 'western' vibe running through it- but isn't this a SF movie?
C) The bad guy, a vicious KILLER, turns good at the end? That's sooo 'Vader'.

Analysis:

A- It's the new thing in movies; start in the middle of a story (you never saw Pulp Fiction?).
See the series it's a continuation of, you idiot!

B- And "Alien" had a horror vibe running through it; Be flexible, and you will be Renewed!

C- This movie contained not only blacks & whites, but shades of gray, redemption, character evolution... touch of reality. Makes some nervous, I conjure.

So, it failed at the box office, but I submit it succeeded as a refreshing change of pace from the glut of same 'ole nonsense out there (the second Transformers movie just came out on DVD for you Hero/Villain comfort-addicts ).

Next case...?

BEWARE OF FALLING RANTS! INCOMING! GAME OVER, MAN, GAME OVER!

Chris, dayum, brother, for such a wonderful, decent guy, you have the looniest, capricious taste in movies. You criticize them for not being what you wanted--not the movie's fault. You criticize them for not being a carbon copy of their source material--not their fault. You criticize them for having state of the art fx which nonetheless don't look perfect--not their fault. And then you turn around and defend out & out schlock (Cherry 2000, seriously? Think with your big brain for a second and tell me what exactly was GOOD about it) just cuz you liked it. And you endlessly criticize a movie for killing a beloved character in an unsatisfying way and yet praise Serenity to the stars when it has the single most needless, bathetic death in all SF!

Serenity

Causes of suckitude-

A.) Adapting a near-current tv show as if you are continuing the series story arc and altering characters beyond recognition (the shy doctor retconned into freakin' James Bond when he has to save his sister). Beloved complex characters turned into cartoons whose personalities can be summed up in one wannabe-Orson-Welles long take full of wisecracks and one-liners, like in any other (other than Firefly) Joss Whedon extravaganza.

B.) The single most needless, bathetic death in all SF that amounts to nothing but masochistic fan service and atheism-porn. A death that ONLY die-hard fans of the show could ever POSSIBLY give a shit about. I would have rather Joss had taken his frustration with FOX out on something other than his characters. Ooh, Wash becomes metaphor for whole series--yeah, that's the ticket!

C.) Another utterly pointless, belabored death--the doctor walked away just 30 seconds ago, but it'll take him a good 5 minutes to get back here when he's called, giving you just long enough to make a speech, but seconds too long to save you, Shep, sorry--contrived for no greater reason than to justify another character getting meaner than usual to propel the trite winning-against-all-odds plotline.

D.) Super Barroom Ruffian vs. the Highly Trained Ultra Assassin! Who will win out in the end???

E.) Apologists who claim Joss HAD to make it stupider because it was a movie and not a network tv show! Does that seem right to you? Anyone? Bueller?

I'm sorry, I'm still a little miffed at our Joss (just a tad) for sabotaging far and away his best work 'cause he thought he could contrive a big dumb box office smash out of his timeless, heartbreaking, thoroughly adult science fiction series.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 6, 2010 9:51 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by GWEK:
And, for the record, ARMAGEDDON's sciene is far superior to that of either THE CORE or THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW: while all are, at best, comic book-ridiculous, ARMAGEDDON, at least, remains CONSISTENT, while the others don't.


Consistently bad?

Really – picture the size of the state of Texas. Now picture going 800 feet into it. An explosion there is really going to split the thing in half? Could they be any sillier? And as for the rest - Armageddon is not a better “science” movie just because only .0001% or whatever of the world is aware of the science involved.

Hey, you’ll get no argument from me about the bad science of the other two. Especially the Core. That is the reigning bad science movie of all time. (It is the apex of my colleague’s “bad science in the movies” class.) For the record, I think The Core is poor in general. Dialogue, characters, storyline. Blech. It wins many categories of bad movie. Science is a very small part of its failures.

Quote:

But that's all pretty incidental, because science doesn't enter into the equation.
Now, what’s the word that’s one of only two words in the genre that this whole thread is about, the word that comes first…?

Quote:

I stand by my assessment that ARMAGEDDON is probably the best b-rate movie ever made. Why? Characters and conflict. Characters and conflict, not science or facts--or even accuracy--are at the heart of almost every really good movie.
Except when the extreme non-believability of the overall premise and just about every little detail of the plot destroys suspension of disbelief and makes the viewer see nothing but 90 minutes of contrivances by screenwriters and bad decisions by editors.

*deep breath* That was very wordy sentence.

OK, but I get overlooking bad science in a movie. I really do. I have to do that for just about every sci-fi movie I see, and I manage to enjoy quite a few. But you’ll note what I really didn’t like about Armageddon: the overblown non-stop end-of-the-world series of crises. I didn’t buy into the whole movie, but could have enjoyed it anyway if they hadn’t gotten so damned silly with the never-ending ending. And if they didn’t use the same yippy-ya-hoo sci-fi action stud character who’s in maybe half the sci-fi tales ever written.

Take Michael Crichton. I’ve bailed on his books because they are such macho male fantasies. The characters and plot are as obviously contrived as any of Ayn Rand’s (in a very different way). There’s just no point in reading to the end. It’s pretty much the same character in Seven Days, and in Farscape. Same wild and slightly crazy but very manly and heroic beer-drinking GUY, rough around the edges but ultimately ready to sacrifice himself for those who never really appreciated him enough.

I liked and felt for this guy the first time I saw him, decades ago. Now I’m tired of him. (Except maybe in Farscape. The lead chick in that show was cool enough that I could get over the over martyred overly stud-boy John.)

BTW, Mal comes close, but he’s got much more depth. Also, I think Joss is aware of the stereotype and mocks it even as he uses it. As he did with broody Angel. This makes it work.

And besides, Mal is super hot.

Quote:

As for your petroleum engineer friends: a few thoughts. First, it's probably for the best that they didn't see the earlier draft of the script in which the gang makes a drill bit out of diamond fragments they find on the asteroid.
OMG. That would have been brilliant. Brilliantly bad, so far out the other side as to be totally worth it. It would have lived forever in the lore of petroleum industry. Which, let’s face it, is quite sparse and could use more material.

Quote:

Second: unique expertise is the enemy of entertainment. 99.999% of mankind probably couldn't care less about the type or accuracy of drill bit used. You were with part of the 00.001%.
Uh… yeah. Exactly. That was the point of the joke.

Quote:

THERE IS NO REASONABLE WAY THAT KUMAR COULD NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS WHITE CASTLE.
You never know. The boy did smoke a lot.

SGG: I openly do admit and aver that I LIKE the Fifth Element. And I fucking love Chris Tucker in it.

Go on with the Serenity analysis HK. I agree. I still like the movie, though. Cause it's better than nothing. And I don't 100% blame Joss, because I easily imagine the movie studio telling him: "Make it a swash-buckling adventure with no slow, charming character moments, or we won't pay for it. And make all the characters super sexy, or we really won't pay for it."

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Morena In Twilight Zone
Thu, July 9, 2020 14:38 - 1 posts
Attack on Titan.
Sun, June 21, 2020 16:59 - 6 posts
Picard
Fri, May 22, 2020 17:36 - 35 posts
Upload
Thu, May 14, 2020 21:50 - 1 posts
Snowpiercer
Thu, May 14, 2020 05:47 - 13 posts
Tales from the LOOP - Amazon Prime
Mon, May 4, 2020 18:28 - 16 posts
Carnival Row - amazon prime
Sun, March 15, 2020 16:47 - 31 posts
H.P. Lovecraft and Cthulhu
Fri, March 6, 2020 23:11 - 4 posts
Resident Alien; Tudyk is on Sy-fy this summer
Wed, March 4, 2020 19:10 - 4 posts
Emergence, and Evil
Thu, February 13, 2020 16:24 - 24 posts

Wed, February 12, 2020 16:54 - 51 posts
Counterpart (Calling all fans of Fringe)
Sat, February 8, 2020 20:09 - 4 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL