Sci-fi Fans

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Loved Aliens , maybe even more than Alien others were awful.

 

 

For me trying to decided which you prefer between Alien and Aliens, Ridley or Cameron, is akin to wondering which of your children you love the most - IE it's well nigh impossible. I just loved how we managed to fight back against this apparently invincible foe in Aliens, but if you twist my arm THAT scene set in the ventilation pipes between Captain Dallas and the alien may just tip my vote for Ridley.

 

The back story of the making of these two epic films is nearly as fascinating as the films themselves. When the young James Cameron arrived in England to shoot 'Aliens' at Pinewood the clash of cultures that soon arose between this ambitious (and workaholic) American Director and his old school 'tea breaks and going home on time' British crew became intense. The suspicion that the British crew loved Ridley and resented this US upstart probably didn't help. Never mind, director and crew got there in the end and a wonderful film was made - but not without a few bruises being incurred along the way I think.

 

By the way, my all time favorite example of movie trivia is that Veronica Cartwright (the unfortunate 'Lambert' character in Alien) stared as a child actor in the 1963 Hitchcock masterpiece 'The Birds' - where she survived a beastly attack. The same women staring in two of the best films I've ever seen. And remember that fearsome armoured personal vehicle the 'Space Marines' use to such effect in Aliens - well the exterior was actually one of those low aircraft tractors they use to tug jumbo jets around dressed up to look the part, while the interior was a (completely separate) set. When edited together you just can't see the join can you?

[pap]

Is District 9 any good? - missed it due to offspring

 

I loved it. Watched it with no expectations, and not much of a clue as to what it was about. It starts off masquerading as one type of film, but ends up being something completely different. It's greatness kinda skulks up on you. Right. Don't want to overhype it. Watch and hopefully enjoy.

[pap]

I have been rewatching Battlestar Galactica. Right now, I'm toward the end of the second series, which arguably contains on of the best unofficial three-parters in sci-fi. Like many of the stories in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica, this took cues from the original show. "All this has happened before, and will happen again" is one of the show's mantras, and so it does.

 

For the uninitiated, Battlestar Galactica centres on the last known mass of humanity to exist following a huge attack by the Cylons, an artificial race created by humanity itself. The reimagined show doesn't really pull any punches. This is existential threat, almost every week. The rag-tag fleet has had to do some horrible things, like blowing up a civilian ship because they suspected it was hostile. They have not got to this point morally unscathed.

 

Which is kinda why the Pegasus episodes are so fantastic. The Galactica finds another Battlestar that has survived, but the contrast in how each ship has survived could not be more marked. Galactica's mission is to escort a civilian fleet to Earth and save humanity. The commander of the Pegasus will happily strip civilian ships of parts and personnel before leaving them stranded.

 

With two such differing approaches, no peace can last amongst the respective commanders. Edward James Olmos plays Commander Adama, and is always good value for money. His adversary is played by the excellent Michelle Forbes, who has appeared on our screens as Ensign Ro and also did a stint as a big bad in True Blood. "Intense" doesn't really do this, or the series justice.

 

It''s all now there. Re-imagined show, prequel show and a couple of movies to fill in the gaps. Go seek, if you haven't already. So say we all.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I've just enjoyed again what is I think by far the best joke ever seen in the entire history of Star Trek. The incurably infuriating ''Q'' has been (temporarily alas) reduced to mortal status aboard the Enterprise. When he asks what can do to convince a skeptical Captain Pickard of his new reduced circumstances Worf replies: ''die''. Quick as a flash Q counters with the repost: ''Ah Worf ... eat any good books lately''

 

The lesson here is that it is unwise for comparatively primitive warrior types to attempt to match wits with someone who has a IQ of over 2000.

 

Edited 23 April, 2015 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Years behind everyone else on here no doubt, but I've just seen Ridley Scott's sci-fi epic 'Prometheus' for the first time last night. I am in fact a (very) big admirer of the first two 'Alien' series films, however no Ripley and the generally 'so-so' reviews this latest addition to the franchise received from the critics put me off seeing it at the cinema. This was a mistake on my part because although it could never possibly rival the impact of 'Alien' and 'Aliens' had on me, it still proved to be decently entertaining anyway. Prometheus may not be a truly great film, but Ridley Scott doesn't know how to make a bad one.

 

Unlike the first two (relativity simple) ''the monster is coming to get us'' films, 'Prometheus' has the ambition to ask some more profound questions about where mankind comes from and why we are here. This type of grand ambition is common enough I suppose, but rather less common is this film's success in avoiding the old trap of becoming overly pretentious in the answers it comes up with to those questions.

 

Few actors I suppose would dare turn down the chance to work with Ridley Scott, so it is no surprise then to see such a great cast assembled here, led by the likes of Idris Elba, Charlize Theron and Noomi Rapace from 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo'. I especially enjoyed Michael Fassbender's performance as the obligatory android crew member ''David'' - a character who merges the child-like innocence of Data from Star Trek with something far more sinister. Guy Pierce is here too - although you'd never know it under that remarkable make-up. Like all modern big budget science fiction efforts this film looks absolutely spectacular, it is beautifully shot/lit and of course the special effects are utterly flawless - but they always are now aren't they?

 

And there in lays the root of the problem, not just with this film but with all modern Sci-Fi perhaps. The audience for films like this has seen so many spectacular high concept and visually stunning productions in recent years that it is almost impossible now for film makers to generate a 'wow factor' the like of which Ridley and James Cameron most certainly did with the first two films. Modern Sci-Fi is the victim of its own success and we are just so jaded now that a 'golden age' may be over - or is that just me?

 

PS, it turns out that mankind is the creation of a alien species called here ''The Engineers'' - a race previously known to fans of the series as the ''The Space Jockey'' as seen in the first film. Those who are familiar with H.R. Giger's original ''Space Jockey'' concept, which was a veritable giant of a creature, may wonder why this life form has suddenly become so curiously man-sized ...

 

Edited 11 May, 2015 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[pap]

Bwah. Prometheus. Looks good, but is an insult to the intelligence. Found it impossible to get through the first viewing without several moments of disbelief, over stupid stuff too.

 

Here is a good summary of that movie's massive capability to blunder.

 

http://whatculture.com/film/prometheus-20-blunders-that-ruined-the-film.php

 

LOST's Damon Lindelhof handled script-writing. The entire LOST writing team are all f**king hacks, imo.

[Jonnyboy]

Agree with Charlie and a little bit Pap too: the film would be a classic apart from some godawful script.

[pap]

Agree with Charlie and a little bit Pap too: the film would be a classic apart from some godawful script.

You just know the new Star Wars film is going to be full of stupid characters making inexplicable, plot friendly decisions.

 

The only saving grace was that Lucas messed the last ones up so badly, anything is going to be better. Hopefully Laurence Kasdan has still got it, and will prevent JJ Abrams from just having each and every cast member say "I've got a bad feeling about this".

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Well 'Prometheus' may not have impressed everyone, but Ridley Scott it seems is pushing ahead with plans for a squeal that starts where the first film ended - IE with (the decapitated) David and Dr Shaw seeking to find the answer to the key question of why the 'Engineers' attempted to destroy mankind after they had gone to so much trouble to created us:

 

http://www.dayherald.com/prometheus-2-cast-plot-new-aliens-and-much-more-a-fun-package-due-to-release-in-2016/2781/2/

 

I'm looking forward to this film with some sense of anticipation.

[Jonnyboy]

I love it when Ridley squeals!

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

My Mistoke!

 

The record shows that my ongoing struggle with the English language has become the stuff of legend on here - indeed I can't even promise that such an embarrassing display of rank incompetence would happen again alas.

 

[dubai_phil]

Filming on the new Star Trek movie is continuing apace in Vancouver. Written by Simon Pegg (and others no doubt) it appears Idris Elba is involved in it.

 

I picked all this up in the past few days, as it was announced about 6 weeks ago that outdoor filming would take place in Vancouvr and Dubai. So that got all of us fans interested!. The logic on Dubai is that they wanted "A Vertical City".

 

In the past week the town has been excited to hell & back as the local It involved lots of hanging around, filling in forms and then having mug shots done before going for a costume fitting. The age range they need is from 5 to 70 so I was processed at about midway through the recruitment as #383.

 

http://www.timeoutdubai.com/knowledge/news/65525-time-out-auditions-for-star-trek-%E2%80%93-you-can-too

 

As a result of all this, anyone here who pinged any info has been stalked incessantly on Twitter by Trekkie groupls, but it has been interesting to see their forums and some of the actual behind the scenes stuff starting to emerge:-

 

http://trekcore.com/blog/2015/08/did-a-federation-starship-crash-land-in-vancouver-for-star-trek-beyond/

 

It's also good to see many of the comments pages on these sites debating the whole ST Prime vs ST Reboot arguments. Those forums have their own versions of MLG & The9, not to mention their own Fashion guru versions of Turkish

 

Anyway, I won't do a whole golf story thing on it, I'll just pass on any news or snippets we pick up and IF I actually get through or can work on the filming dates I'll see if I can sneak (or copy from local press) any of the reports.

 

[Mr Biscuits]

The thing is with the new Star Wars that you must remember is that it's not written for the Star Wars fans- like every other film it's written for the mass market and thus has to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

 

The problem is that, the lowest common denominator these days is positively subterranean because our younger generation are used to having everything handed to them on a plate. So you can't expect a script that is going to challenge.

[Batman]

Sure I heard on Sky News that apart from the 3 sequels for Star Wars, they are planning to make 3 spin-offs. A Han Solo Film, Buba Fett film and one other (I think)

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Hay! a forthcoming sci-fi film that isn't some kind of sequel

 

[percy windham]

But is based on a book. So hold off on those originality points!

[Colinjb]

Solaris is on Syfy right now. Just wanted to share this information, love that film.

[Whitey Grandad]

Solaris is on Syfy right now. Just wanted to share this information, love that film.

 

I saw the 1972 version years ago. How does this one compare?

[Colinjb]

I saw the 1972 version years ago. How does this one compare?

 

I was never able to get through the original. Didn't have that problem with the modern remake, which as far as I can tell thanks to my youth induced ADHD is faithful the the themes of the original and it's production. George Clooney does an exceptional job.

[percy windham]

Comparing the first 5 minutes of each film is enough to tell you the remake is junk. The remake focuses on Clooney, it's all we see, this is a George Clooney vehicle, no other is acceptable! Put this up against the slow dream like state of the opening to the original. No contest.

[Colinjb]

Comparing the first 5 minutes of each film is enough to tell you the remake is junk. The remake focuses on Clooney, it's all we see, this is a George Clooney vehicle, no other is acceptable! Put this up against the slow dream like state of the opening to the original. No contest.

 

Considering that the film focuses on the back and forth between Clooney and McElhone's characters does that surprise you? I couldn't get on with the first film because it was unfocused. This version of Solaris is slicker, very clearly a Steven Soderbergh feature, a film made for 2002, but still excellent in it's own right.

[Whitey Grandad]

I've missed the start of this showing so I've programmed to record the next showing on Wednesday. Thanks for bringing my attention to it.

[Colinjb]

I've missed the start of this showing so I've programmed to record the next showing on Wednesday. Thanks for bringing my attention to it.

 

Good man. Look forward to your perspective.

[Whitey Grandad]

The apparition of someone who you knew very well has a resonance with me. Twelve years ago my business partner who I had known for nearly thirty years died from lung cancer so I had to buy his half of the business from his widow and made several rearrangements. For several years I had a recurring dream where he had come back, seemingly from the dead, and I was annoyed that all my changes would have been in vain and that I would have to share the business with him again. Because I knew him well and knew all his mannerisms I could talk to him and he would respond as I expected. He was very real. Gradually I learned to adjust, firstly by arguing that I had seen his death certificate, then later that I had bought out his share anyway. Gradually the dreams receded until they stopped but for the few years that they continued they were very real and disturbing. When you have a model in your head of how someone behaves your mind can recreate them in a very realistic fashion and it can be very unsettling.

[sadoldgit]

Interesting story Whitey. I worked with someone for 22 years. We both worked our way up to management positions and he eventually made me redundant. We are our families had been friends but I haven't seen him since this happened 15 years ago. I still have work related dreams in which he features though. Strange the way the subconscious works.

[mcjwills]

Just seen on Mutts Nutts they have a new Star Trek film Star Trek Renegades anyone seen it?

[Wrensup]

Just seen on Mutts Nutts they have a new Star Trek film Star Trek Renegades anyone seen it?

 

Fan made it is.

[Colinjb]

Fan made it is.

 

Consider when watching this, it cost the same to make as a semi detached property in Fair Oak.

 

 

It's serious unpolished, but pretty spectacular as fan fiction goes. The cast for a production of this sort is a marvel.

Edited 9 September, 2015 by Colinjb

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I saw Ridley Scott's latest big budget Sci-Fi spectacular 'The Martian' at the cinema yesterday, and I'm pleased to say that I greatly enjoyed it.

 

 

Boiled down to its basic elements, the plot is a admirably straightforward one. A future NASA manned Mars mission has to hurriedly evacuate the planet when an approaching storm threatens to topple their rocket off its base - with obviously disastrous consequences. In the process of the (rather panicky) evacuation one Astronaut - played by Matt Damon - is accidentally left behind by his departing comrades. The rest of the film is the story of his struggle to survive alone, with grossly insufficient supplies available, and NASA's attempts to mount a rescue mission before he inevitably succumbs to the Red Planet's unremittingly harsh environment.

 

Unlike so many other sci-fi films much of the science featured seemed plausible enough (to my unscientific mind anyway) and the special effects on offer are yet again very impressive indeed - we should never take what cinema can do now not for granted. If I were to be hyper critical, then our hero was inordinately fortunate on occasion I thought and I did wonder why Mars has such violent weather when the Martian atmosphere is so very thin. I might also add that Matt Damon, while perfectly adequate here to be fair, leaves the cinema goer with the impression that he is 6ft of regulation (vanilla flavour) Hollywood leading man. Watching his various films over the years I often find myself wondering if very much is going on inside that oh-so handsome head of his.

 

But make no mistake this is a damn good movie that I dare say will entertain anyone interested in space travel. I might also add that what a treat it is to see a optimistic future for Humanity portrayed again in the cinema - a near future where for once not everything to come is some grim dystopian nightmare we see predicted so frequently in film.

Edited 21 October, 2015 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[badgerx16]

Consider when watching this, it cost the same to make as a semi detached property in Fair Oak.

 

 

It's serious unpolished, but pretty spectacular as fan fiction goes. The cast for a production of this sort is a marvel.

 

Well, that is certainly better than "The Final Frontier" or "Insurrection".

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Despite being distinctly unimpressed with what has come before, being a masochist I've just gotten around to seeing the concluding episodes of the 9th series of Doctor Who (BBC 1 Saturday). The penultimate episode, penned by series producer Steven Moffat himself, is entitled 'Heaven Sent' and to summarise the plot after the rather moving death of his assistant Clara in 'Face of the Raven' the Doctor is transported by the Time Lords to his own personal version of hell where - literally for millennia - he is endlessly tortured in a effort to force our hero into revealing the secret of the Hybrid - a supposed mix of two warrior races that will one day stand in the ruins of Gallifrey apparently.

 

So millions of years of pain for the Doctor then, but it was also 55 minutes of pure suffering for the viewer too because this one story represents just about EVERYTHING that has gone wrong with Doctor Who under Moffat's leadership. Remember that what Doctor Who was originally founded back in 1963 to be a relatively simple adventure series aimed primarily at a (child centric) tea-time family audience. Although that concept was to provide a solid foundation that has served the series well for many decades it has now entirely disappeared from view to be replaced by a incomprehensible piece of inward-looking 'fan fiction' that no modern child could possibly be expected to endure - my 9 year old has certainly lost all interest in it at a age when I loved it beyond all reason. Without any hyperbole, imagine the Tardis has landed inside the head of Ingmar Bergman somehow and you will have a pretty good idea of what watching this dismal crapola was like. But see for yourself - if you dare:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06rhv99/doctor-who-series-9-11-heaven-sent

 

Admittedly Doctor Who has had its fair share of low points over the years (Bonnie Langford comes to mind) but I've seldom seen such pretentious bilge generated in its name before. Moffat obviously wants to invest the series with a level of epic/mythic grandeur that interests him personalty. What a pity it is that in striving so earnestly to achieve that ambition of his he has lost sight completely of what this lovely old series has always been about. Worst of all I understand that, despite its apparent decline in the ratings, this producer is signed up for another series for some reason. Can my beloved Who possibly survive yet more of this I ask myself and why can't anybody at the BBC act to save it before it is too late?

 

PS - I see that the terminally annoying 'River Song' character will return for the Christmas Special. That'll be good then...

[Batman]

Anyone seen the new Star Wars yet?

off tomorrow in Southampton to see it.

 

Mate has seen it and said it is very good.

[miserableoldgit]

Just seen it. Brilliant. Couldn't really fault it.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[skintsaint]

Anyone seen the new Star Wars yet?

off tomorrow in Southampton to see it.

 

Mate has seen it and said it is very good.

 

Thought it was a 6/10 type film, very overhyped. Missus liked it though, but then again she has a certain skill to like poor films. Worth watching in the flicks though for the effects/sound.

[Batman]

Just seen the new Star Wars

 

Very good IMO

 

If you are a fan of Star Wars, you won't be disappointed at all. Many themes from the original 3 seen here and a fair bit of action.

 

Won't give anything else away

Edited 19 December, 2015 by Batman

[badgerx16]

Watched Galaxy Quest again this afternoon. A comedy sci-fi film, starring Tim Allen, Sigourney Weaver, and Alan Rickman; based on the pretext of an alien civilisation believing that a 1970s TV series is in fact a documentary program, and that the 'crew' of a fictional space ship can save them from a genocidal enemy.

 

Have seen it several times, and it is such an enjoyable parody of programs such as Star Trek that at one 'Trekkie' convention in 2013 it was actually voted the 7th best Star Trek film - beating ( in order ) Generations, the Original Motion Picture, Nemesis, Generations, The Final Frontier, and Into Darkness.

[Whitey Grandad]

Watched Galaxy Quest again this afternoon. A comedy sci-fi film, starring Tim Allen, Sigourney Weaver, and Alan Rickman; based on the pretext of an alien civilisation believing that a 1970s TV series is in fact a documentary program, and that the 'crew' of a fictional space ship can save them from a genocidal enemy.

 

Have seen it several times, and it is such an enjoyable parody of programs such as Star Trek that at one 'Trekkie' convention in 2013 it was actually voted the 7th best Star Trek film - beating ( in order ) Generations, the Original Motion Picture, Nemesis, Generations, The Final Frontier, and Into Darkness.

 

Great film. Worth catching the out-takes to see how Sigourney gets her uniform ripped.

[dinger]

You just know the new Star Wars film is going to be full of stupid characters making inexplicable, plot friendly decisions.

 

This turned out to be quite an astute prediction. Not the stupid characters, but the inexplicable, plot-friendly decisions. Not that it spoiled the film for me, there were just a few times where it felt a bit rushed and nobody had really explained why we were in this situation, or why this was happening now.

 

Won't post any examples as I know many won't have seen it yet. Suffice to say that, a few minor gripes aside, it was everything I wanted from a Star Wars film and I'm going to go back for another screening.

 

A solid 8/10, rising to 9.5 for that unbeatable thrill of just being with those characters again.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I too have just gotten around to seeing the much anticipated 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens'. This is yet another of those films that left me feeling rather ambivalent towards it because, despite its manifest popularity and the widespread critical acclaim it has received, I for one left the cinema experiencing a distinct sense of disappointment. The main problem with this movie I think is that it comes so perilously close to being scene-by-scene remake of George Lucas's original 1977 Star Wars film - now known to all and sundry as Episode IV 'A New Hope' of course. We even end up with a climatic attack on a another (very 'Death Star' like) planet destroying war machine that absolutely everyone in the audience, be they young or old, must have been eerily familiar with. Could they not have thought of something more adventurous than that?

 

So it seems to me then that 'The Force Awakens' doesn't really make much of a effort to move the story on from its 1970's origins. Instead the extent of the Disney Corporation's ambition appears to be limited to recouping their substantial financial investment and to 'reset' the story so that we can all go on the same (highly profitable) ride yet again. Yes I well know that nearly all films are designed to exploit the audience to some extent, but I for one feel that Disney have gone too far down that 'safe' commercial route here and that the more demanding Star Wars fans have been short-changed.

 

Now I'm not saying that 'The Force Awakens' isn't a enjoyable entertainment because it certainly is. While the script may be something a humour-free zone, the outstanding special effects, the utterly epic physical sets and the performances on offer from the cast are all impressive enough - indeed just like the 1977 film it is a enjoyable space romp within its (self imposed) limits. However, I can't help but think that history will rate JJ Abrams as little more than a competent director of commercially successful action films, rather than a truly visionary film maker to be mentioned in the same class as James Cameron or Ridley Scott for instance. Indeed, on reflection perhaps all this time and money might have been better spent on a more ambitious concept that might have dared to risk showing the audience something new, rather than simply ushering us all right back to the beginning of the very same 'ride' again.

 

I might even go so far as to say that the 3 'prequel' Star Wars films are actually better movies I think - if only Pap were still here how enraged that statement would make him ...

 

7/10.

Edited 30 December, 2015 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[hypochondriac]

Couldn't disagree more. For me this was about showing that they could do star wars right again. This film says that star wars is in safe hands going forward and isn't going to be ruined like it was in the prequels. With this fact established, I now expect the next film to give us something different (and with the director we have I think that is what will happen.)

 

I'm confident they won't now do a remake of empire but if they do I will be marking it down accordingly. This film was about setting up a new legacy with a new generation of characters and it succeeded for me in that respect. I'd be more inclined to give it an 8 or 9 with the caveat that I will mark it down if they do decide to remake empire next.

[sussexsaint]

Agree hypo

 

The problem with Star Wars original trilogy is its a golden albatross, it has become so much more than the mere substance of the three films and left to marinade in the minds of obsessives like me for 30 or more years. My childhood was Star Wars, first film I ever saw in the cinemas and then stood in the playground draped in a binliner waving a loo roll around.

 

Watched it at the Odeon Leicester square and chatting to others there the main feeling pre film aside from excitement was anxiety that the film wouldn't meet the ludicrous levels of our expectations.

 

The fact that everyone I saw leave did so with a broad smile on their face and a tear in their eye is testament to a herculean task. JJA managed to please the majority of star wars fans and lay solid groundwork for the franchise going forwards. I'd have been less optimistic if the stand out characters had been the old crew but Finn and Rey were superb ( not only because she is the spit of Keira Knightly) BB8 was also a masterpiece of practical effects, to see him walking down the tavern steps was remarkable, and his 'thumbs up' to Finn got a very big laugh in the theatre I was in.

 

Seen it again since and it still stands up. I'm a happy customer so far and my kids hav watched them all now as well - it was great to be able to share that with them

[revolution saint]

Saw 'The Force Awakens' yesterday at Harbour Lights and enjoyed it. It is very similar to 'A New Hope' but that's not such a bad thing and was different enough to merit the praise it has received. Overall I liked the fact that it didn't drown in CGI and end up looking like a computer game, and I especially liked that it didn't disappear up its own arse with a complicated back-story and become too interested in its own mythology. Neither is it too moody and mysterious. Compare it to what Dr Who has become now and it's a breath of fresh air - a lot could have gone wrong with this film but they've done a good job (I think).

 

Only downside for me was the Kylo Ren character who I thought was pretty poor. Nowhere near scary enough - I'd rather they'd got some old actor capable of hamming it up to do the job (I know it wouldn't work with the plot but would have made a better baddie). The rest of the new characters were decent, the action and special effects were all good and it was great seeing some brilliant tie fighter and x-wing aerial duels again. Ultimately a very good kids film that'll work well with adults. A million times better than the prequels anyway.

[badgerx16]

I agree that Kylo Ren isn't really nasty enough, and when did Gollum take over the galaxy ?

 

And as for the 'nods' to the geeks, "2187" has a neat resonance.

[Wrensup]

I too have just gotten around to seeing the much anticipated 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens'. This is yet another of those films that left me feeling rather ambivalent towards it because, despite its manifest popularity and the widespread critical acclaim it has received, I for one left the cinema experiencing a distinct sense of disappointment. The main problem with this movie I think is that it comes so perilously close to being scene-by-scene remake of George Lucas's original 1977 Star Wars film - now known to all and sundry as Episode IV 'A New Hope' of course. We even end up with a climatic attack on a another (very 'Death Star' like) planet destroying war machine that absolutely everyone in the audience, be they young or old, must have been eerily familiar with. Could they not have thought of something more adventurous than that?

 

So it seems to me then that 'The Force Awakens' doesn't really make much of a effort to move the story on from its 1970's origins. Instead the extent of the Disney Corporation's ambition appears to be limited to recouping their substantial financial investment and to 'reset' the story so that we can all go on the same (highly profitable) ride yet again. Yes I well know that nearly all films are designed to exploit the audience to some extent, but I for one feel that Disney have gone too far down that 'safe' commercial route here and that the more demanding Star Wars fans have been short-changed.

 

Now I'm not saying that 'The Force Awakens' isn't a enjoyable entertainment because it certainly is. While the script may be something a humour-free zone, the outstanding special effects, the utterly epic physical sets and the performances on offer from the cast are all impressive enough - indeed just like the 1977 film it is a enjoyable space romp within its (self imposed) limits. However, I can't help but think that history will rate JJ Abrams as little more than a competent director of commercially successful action films, rather than a truly visionary film maker to be mentioned in the same class as James Cameron or Ridley Scott for instance. Indeed, on reflection perhaps all this time and money might have been better spent on a more ambitious concept that might have dared to risk showing the audience something new, rather than simply ushering us all right back to the beginning of the very same 'ride' again.

 

I might even go so far as to say that the 3 'prequel' Star Wars films are actually better movies I think - if only Pap were still here how enraged that statement would make him ...

 

7/10.

 

I concur.

[Jonnyboy]

I've never hated the 3 new films as much as true geeks seem to. Even got a little emotional when Darth Vader-to-be got created in the third one.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Well I for one thought that the last series of Doctor Who was pretty excruciating at times. So news that series producer Steven Moffat has finally quite the show comes as something of a welcome relief.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/12116843/Doctor-Whos-Steven-Moffat-quits-role-as-lead-writer.html

[mcjwills]

Just watched the first episode of the X Files reboot and it looks like it's going to be a good series all the usual conspiracies in it.

[LVSaint]

Just watched the first episode of the X Files reboot and it looks like it's going to be a good series all the usual conspiracies in it.

 

Yes, it works well and is a lot of fun. Fans will love it for the nostalgia, although there are so many other conspiracy series around these days that the original X-Files helped spawn.

(BTW Second episode was better than the first and here's hoping the third episode will be as good or better)

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Anton Yelchin, Star Trek's new 'Chekov' killed by his own car.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36572649

[Sheaf Saint]

Very rarely watch any TV these days, but I have just finished binge-watching The Expanse on Netflix on a recommendation from a friend.

 

For those that aren't familiar it is set about 200 years in the future where humans have colonised the solar system, and the core theme of the series is the political tensions between the governments of Earth, the Mars colony, and the 'Belters' - who inhabit the mining colonies in the asteroid belt. It's a very well-paced program without being too over the top or corny with the action sequences, and they have obviously researched the science side of things very well to make it believable.

 

I have to say it's probably the best sci-fi series in many, many years, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing the second series which is currently being aired in the US and will be available on Netflix in the next couple of months. As is often the case with such things, I gather that the budget has increased massively after the success of the first series. I just hope the producers haven't used this as an excuse to rely more heavily on effects and ridiculous set-pieces to generate appeal, as is the case with a lot of sci-fi these days.