Films

[G-Stud]

That looks shit.

[radish]

that's a bit leftfield - he doesn't usually do mainstream movies

I think it's a good move. Wasn't RDJ a bit of a left-field risky choice for Iron Man? That panned out quite well. Hopefully Spader will let rip with a nasty, vicious psychopath performance, presumably voice only maybe with mocap. Can't see it being a man in a suit job.

[Purple Monkey]

Can't wait to see Spader's Ultron.

Marvel have been on the ball with casting their characters.

Also almost every time anyone has been announced as being cast as a superhero or well known character the Internet has gone into a cynical meltdown. I remember the furore on many a website about actors being cast as comic characters: Heath Ledger (pretty boy!) Anne Hathaway (not sexy!) Tom Hardy (too small!) Chris Evans (he was Johnny Storm!) Daniel Craig (BLONDE?!) Andrew Garfield (too scrawny) and Downey Jr (washed up!) and in every single one of those cases people were made to shut the fuck up because they were all revealed to be pretty damn brilliant in their roles.

Now it's happening with Ben Affleck (Wasn't he that rubbish Daredevil?) and the like. It's just a bit sad. How much critical success does that guy need before people cut him some slack? First thing I thought when I heard he was Batman I thought "ooh that's interesting" not "fuck everything!" like most seemed to.

Whatever is wrong with these films - it is rarely ever the casting or the choice of the actors that ruin the movie. It's right down at the bottom of the pile when it comes to reasons why a movie sucks.

I would count the Star Wars prequels in that too - people blame the actors involved but really when you look at how they were made not even Alec Baldwin (the best actor in the universe) could have saved those films.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Purple Monkey

[TheGayTent]

I remember the furore on many a website about actors being cast as comic characters: Heath Ledger (pretty boy!) Anne Hathaway (not sexy!) Tom Hardy (too small!) Chris Evans (he was Johnny Storm!) Daniel Craig (BLONDE?!) Andrew Garfield (too scrawny) and Downey Jr (washed up!) and in every single one of those cases people were made to shut the fuck up because they were all revealed to be pretty damn brilliant in their roles.

That's a matter of opinion. Whilst I might agree with some of those examples, certainly isn't true for all of them. Hathaway was dreadful as Selina Kyle. Really really bad.

[viberunner]

That looks shit.

+1

Because what Robocop REALLY needed was the removal of the bipedal tank with a dead skin mask nailed to the front and reinvented as a dude in a rubber suit.

The new Robocop is just another Batman.

[Purple Monkey]

+1

Because what Robocop REALLY needed was the removal of the bipedal tank with a dead skin mask nailed to the front and reinvented as a dude in a rubber suit.

The new Robocop is just another Batman.

I think it's still a full body prosthesis - except the hand. It's unclear. Looks like he doesn't have amnesia either, knows who he is right away.. He looks more like The Tick than Batman though

Wonder if it'll have reworked Jesus imagery? In the original he is betrayed (by OCP) pinned to the cross (shot in the hand/stigmata) killed (shot in the head) resurrected and then walks on water at the end.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Purple Monkey

[Purple Monkey]

Anyone else confused with the plot to Star Trek Into Darkness? I don't see how the time travel stunt in the first movie can magically transform a certain pivotal character who was very Indian in origin into a very English, very white man. This wouldn't be a problem if these new films were entirely detached true reboots of the old Star Trek, but the presence of Leonard Nimoy's Spock means these films are still actually sequels to everything that Spock-Prime was a part of. Here the characters can now 'cheat' and ask their alternative-future selves how to solve something. The casting of the villain would make sense in a full reboot: a detached clean slate. This fiction, which is reinforced 3/4 of the way in when Spock consults the Spock of old, is broken by the casting of this villain. It makes no sense. Films can be far-fetched as long as the fiction is robust under mild scrutiny, something Star Trek was always good with. The casting of the villain would have been inspired, and would be fine in a true reboot, but in this fiction it's just dead wrong.

It's a shame because the villain is the best thing in it. I think going with that time travel nonsense rather than just going with a full on clean slate reboot just raises too many questions like this. Is it a sequel? a prequel? a reboot? Is nuKirk going to look like Shatner one day? Spock obviously turns into Nimoy one day. That's why they cast Zachary Quinto as Spock and not Will Smith. So how the hell does Benedict Cumberbund eventually morph into Ricardo Montalban? Aren't they meant to be the same people at least physically? No? What's going on? How come Chris Pine emulates Shatner but Cumberbatch doesnt emulate his future incarnation? It's annoying. It's one thing or the other. If it's an alternate timeline - they should have cast a young Montalbon lookalike.

And having Spock consult old-Spock like a cheat-code for a videogame robs the new crew of the dignity of solving the problem themselves. It immediately makes them appear inferior to the originals (who solved the same problem with their wits) and it insults the intelligence of the protagonists which is not a good way to get the audience on board. Everyone loved Shatner and Nimoy because they solved their problems themselves, earning your respect.

Having remnants of old Trek haunts this new stuff and drags it down. It really needs to boldly go somewhere new - and that means properly throwing out these convenient plot contrivances and shitty Deus ex machina's. If its an alternate timeline, they need to stay the hell away from reusing any event or character that would have been completely unaffected by the time travel (such as the origins/race of a character born 300 years prior to said event - the villain in Into Darkness)

And they need to not take the audience's intelligence with such contempt quite so much. Just because its a popcorn movie doesn't mean it shouldn't have to mostly make sense. It should always make sense no matter how many pie charts you have that says audiences are too stupid to pick up on things.

Back To The Future can have it's fiction tugged and pulled but it still holds together and makes sense when held up to its own rules. When Biff changes the present and makes himself rich and Marty meets his alternate-world mother, she isn't inexplicably all of a sudden black.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Purple Monkey

[LondonTom]

Anyone else confused with the plot to Star Trek Into Darkness? I don't see how the time travel stunt in the first movie can magically transform a certain pivotal character who was very Indian in origin into a very English, very white man

Meh, it was a latino playing a man of supposed Asian origins in the first place.

I'm still of the theory it's not actually Kahn but one of his subordinates protecting him and they will revisit it in the next one or maybe down the line. This allows its to be an alternative universe still within the rules they appear to have set out

Maybe it would been if they had just made Benedict "John Harrison" and be Kahn like rather than Kahn.

And having Spock consult old-Spock like a cheat-code for a videogame robs the new crew of the dignity of solving the problem themselves.

I've not actually watched it again since getting it on Blu-Ray ...but doesn't Spock just say his dangerous and not actually how to defeat him? It was an act of desperation in the face of certain defeat, but what it did give was the crew hope he could be defeated.

Having remnants of old Trek haunts this new stuff and drags it down.

Thats always been 'Treks problem IMO, the hardcore fans who demand everything fit in and confirm to being 'trek. I like canon, but not to the extent that it damages future stories.

JJ trek was a golden opportunity to reset everything and hand trek off to a new generation and to some extent they have but I'd agree with you, they should have just let the past all go instead of the divulging timeline crap.

That said Into Darkness while watching it doesn't bother me a great deal, it's great movie apart from Kahn's super blood at the end to save Kirk.

[The Nal]

Agree PM yeah. I felt a bit cheated. Enjoyed the movie mind you but it was a bit ploddy in parts.

Back to the Future though? The most plot holes of any movie I can remember.

"Marty. What a nice name".

So nice they named their first son "Dave".

The plot holes are endless.Marty and the Doc should've been erased a load of times over the three movies.

[viberunner]

The thing you have to remember is that, along with Babylon 5, Star Trek is a big pile of shit.

[Purple Monkey]

The thing you have to remember is that, along with Babylon 5, Star Trek is a big pile of shit.

You watched either of them? Star Trek may have issues but no-one can really say it's total shit.

It's had a profound effect on culture and technology, inspired generations of people. It has plot holes and production issues but to say it's shit is to say it's worthless - that's just wrong. It's ambition and scope is still something to marvel at. So it's a bit geeky - who gives a shit? Star Trek was never about thrills but questions which is something it is sadly losing as it amps up the explosions and action.

Back To The Future - yeah I know it has plot holes - but that's from conjecture or when you start applying another film's logic to it. Most films with time travel fall down when you apply ths rules of one to another. It doesn't actually break any of its OWN rules though, which was my point.

Into Darkness did. And yeah Spock does actually ask his older self how to defeat Kahn, like consulting a walk through for a videogame.

I do still like the film, but it should have just been a completely clean reboot for a lot of these new ideas to work at their best. It's like they had two different concepts running at the same time - a reboot and a sequel - which left it feeling a bit confused.

What would be cool is if Kahn pops up again but as an ally in this reality. In this reality there is no Wrath of Kahn. Isn't Into Darkness meant to be an event which prevents the events of the episode Space Seed (and so prevents Wrath of Kahn) Maybe it'd be better if they just stopped reheating the fan-favourites and get Star Trek 3 going somewhere totally uncharted.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Purple Monkey

[The Nal]

It doesn't actually break any of its OWN rules though, which was my

I've watched all 3 over the last 2 weeks and think it does. Lots. For example once Biff changed the past Marty and the Doc should have immediately been erased or something as the Doc was committed to an asylum in the alternative reality and therefore would never have called Marty to the shopping mall carpark to test the time machine.

As there were two Deloreans in 1885 - one the Doc arrived in when he was hit by lightening and one Marty arrived in from 1955 - why didn't they just transfer the petrol from the car Doc arrived in into the one Marty arrived in - the one with the hole in the fuel tank?

When they found out Doc was killed in 1885 why didn't 1955 Doc just remember that and act differently 30 years later? Same for Doc getting shot by the Libyans. Sure he put on a bullet proof vest but to quote Dumb and Dumber "What if he shot you in the face?"

Also, Chuck Berry wrote Johnny B Goode from hearing the last verse and a big guitar jam. But still wrote the entire song word for word without ever hearing it?

Its endless. Three amazing films mind you.

[The Nal]

Pedant

Oh I could go on!

[jump]

I've watched all 3 over the last 2 weeks and think it does. Lots. For example once Biff changed the past Marty and the Doc should have immediately been erased or something as the Doc was committed to an asylum in the alternative reality and therefore would never have called Marty to the shopping mall carpark to test the time machine.

As there were two Deloreans in 1885 - one the Doc arrived in when he was hit by lightening and one Marty arrived in from 1955 - why didn't they just transfer the petrol from the car Doc arrived in into the one Marty arrived in - the one with the hole in the fuel tank?

When they found out Doc was killed in 1885 why didn't 1955 Doc just remember that and act differently 30 years later? Same for Doc getting shot by the Libyans. Sure he put on a bullet proof vest but to quote Dumb and Dumber "What if he shot you in the face?"

Also, Chuck Berry wrote Johnny B Goode from hearing the last verse and a big guitar jam. But still wrote the entire song word for word without ever hearing it?

Haven't watched them enough to comment on the other plot holes but the Johnny B Goode one has a logic to it imo, he hears some of it and then composes the rest on how he thinks it would work which matches the orginal as he wrote it.

[LondonTom]

Easily explained....

I've watched all 3 over the last 2 weeks and think it does. Lots. For example once Biff changed the past Marty and the Doc should have immediately been erased or something as the Doc was committed to an asylum in the alternative reality and therefore would never have called Marty to the shopping mall carpark to test the time machine.

Time lag, not everything changes instantly just the overall events (hence Marty's photo of his family in the first one slowly erases itself)

As there were two Deloreans in 1885 - one the Doc arrived in when he was hit by lightening and one Marty arrived in from 1955 - why didn't they just transfer the petrol from the car Doc arrived in into the one Marty arrived in - the one with the hole in the fuel tank?

If the Doc had stored the car, maybe he drained it and used it for something else before Marty got there?

When they found out Doc was killed in 1885 why didn't 1955 Doc just remember that and act differently 30 years later? Same for Doc getting shot by the Libyans. Sure he put on a bullet proof vest but to quote Dumb and Dumber "What if he shot you in the face?"

Time lag

Also, Chuck Berry wrote Johnny B Goode from hearing the last verse and a big guitar jam. But still wrote the entire song word for word without ever hearing it?

As Jump said he could have just extrapolated it, or you could think that the time travel was always supposed to happen therefore Chuck was always inspired by part of Marty's version heard

Of course most these explanations take a bit of leap of faith but its much like asking why there is talking fish in Finding Nemo

Edited September 16, 2013 by LondonTom

[The Nal]

So Doc, knowing that he was going to be shot in 1985, still went down to the carpark and still invited a 17 year old boy down to somewhere he knew there would be gunfire. At 1am?

Why didn't he just re arrange for the night before? Or a different location?

Fucks sake Doc.

Edited September 16, 2013 by The Nal

[viberunner]

You watched either of them? Star Trek may have issues but no-one can really say it's total shit.

I've seen every episode of every series. I've seen every film. My conclusion is Star Trek is a big pile of shit. I wish it wasn't, but it is.

That I can think of, there was one amazing episode in Deep Space Nine (the 30th anniversary special). One pretty good episode of Voyager (with scary, psychotic, well-acted hologram). And that's it.

Cultural impact? Eastenders and Neighbours and the Sun on Sunday have cultural impact - hardly indicators of quality.

[sifi]

You watched over five hundred episodes of Star Trek and then decided it was shit?

I think if I didn't like something I'd definitely stop after two hundred episodes.

Star Trek II rocked. And Bones is fab.

[sifi]

Big Red Barrel's podcast of Back to the Future ripped II & III to bits. Pretty much unwatchable now.

[viberunner]

That's the trouble with sci-fi TV... you had the option of watching Star Trek, or the option of watching nothing. Just one of those shows I wished, beyond reason, would somehow get better.

The 30th Special though. That was class.

[pink_triangle]

White house down, one of the best stupid brainless films I have seen in a long time.

[metallimuse]

Watched 'Flight' with the missus today and loved it.Denzel was fantastic throughout.John Goodman was brilliant as always.That guy is such an underratted actor.Even in cameos and special appearances he's awesome.

[t8yman]

Teaser trailer for new Godzilla movie, taken down off almost every site on the net.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x15ledz_new-godzilla-2014-comic-con-teaser_shortfilms

in other news, "Filth" has me really interested

Edited October 8, 2013 by t8yman

[Katster]

I haven't seen a proper decent film for far too long now...

[5co77ie]

Filth looks like a cracker