Sci-fi Fans

[percy windham]

I was guessing the address might be the actual address of someone from the Big Finish team who once lived in Totton, that helped set up the company and was directly responsible for keeping Doctor Who going with the audio plays during the TV wilderness years. That is just a guess though, I may well be completely wrong.

 

 

Ah yes! Could be a Bill Baggs reference?

[Saint J 77]

The new Superman film "Man of Steel" is looking very promising to me. See what you think.

 

Edited 19 April, 2013 by Saint J 77

[Saint J 77]

I was guessing the address might be the actual address of someone from the Big Finish team who once lived in Totton, that helped set up the company and was directly responsible for keeping Doctor Who going with the audio plays during the TV wilderness years. That is just a guess though, I may well be completely wrong.

 

 

Ah yes! Could be a Bill Baggs reference?

 

I recognise his name but I don't know enough about him to be sure. It was just a guess that the address could belong to a founder of the Big Finish really. It would be interesting to found out what the real reason is though. 59A ,Barnsfield Crescent, Totton, is quite a specific address to just be picked out of the air, just for the sake of it.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Although I have previously written off Steven Moffat's tenure at the helm of my beloved Doctor Who as almost a lost cause, I must say that the latest series is a distinct and welcome improvement over the last. The latest story 'Cold War' - set on a Soviet Nuclear submarine in 1983 - being a particularly strong episode. A tense and intelligent script, very good special effects, a scary monster, and the wonderful David Warner too - what more could you possibly ask for from Saturday tea time family entertainment?

 

Now if you were to think that maybe the improvement in DW's fortunes may not be entirely unconnected to the fact that its producer is now taking something of a 'back seat' as regards to writing the scripts ... well you might say that, I couldn't possibly comment.

 

I must also add that the Ice Warriors too have come on a bit since I first remember seeing them in the 'Curse of Peladon' all those decades ago.

[pap]

The new Superman film "Man of Steel" is looking very promising to me. See what you think.

 

 

That looks very good. Complete reboot, with no ties to the Donner universe - not even the iconic theme tune.

 

Looking forward to it, although I do wonder about the wisdom of trying to do the origin movie + Zod in the same movie. The originals took their time over that.

[Saint J 77]

That looks very good. Complete reboot, with no ties to the Donner universe - not even the iconic theme tune.

 

Looking forward to it, although I do wonder about the wisdom of trying to do the origin movie + Zod in the same movie. The originals took their time over that.

 

Some things get rebooted when their simply is no need. Take Star Trek for instance. That has been reduced from intelligent sci fi to dumbed down action movie in space all in my opinion of course, I'm sure many will disagree. Superman though has been crying out for a decent on screen reboot for ages. The Brandon Ruth Superman movie is almost unwatchable on a second viewing. They had some nice ideas in Bryan Singer movie but all for all the good ideas, it got a lot wrong and ended up almost being a parody of the old Christopher Reeve films. Don't even get me started about the Superman Lois Lane love child, that was a horrible idea.

 

The new film looks great, very modern. Though iconic, I agree the red underpants had to go The classic theme tune maybe gone but the new music by Hans Zimmer sounds fantastic. I am not a musical expert but I think if you listen closely that some of the notes used will pay homage to the original music from John Williams. There is a lot of rich material to draw from from the world of Superman and if they get this film right, they could be on to a winner. I wasn't really sure about Zod being in this film at first either but after thinking about it, I think it shows they are going for big stakes right from the start. I'm sure they will not make the mistake of killing Zod off in this movie as they are hoping this to be the launch of their potential Justice League and the linked DC super hero universe. So I am sure they will be thinking of the bigger picture. From what I have read I don't think they are going to spend to much time on the origin story despite the trailer showing us otherwise.

 

I think they finished making this film over a year ago but it's release was put back so it's been a long time coming, I just hope it's been worth the wait

[Saint_Jonny]

Star Trek would be completely dead in the water as a working franchise if it were not for the JJ-Reboot, it simply wasn't interesting any more to enough people (and this is coming from someone who thought Enterprise was great). Hopefully the success of the reboot will spawn a new TV series.....and then I woke up.

[Saint J 77]

Star Trek would be completely dead in the water as a working franchise if it were not for the JJ-Reboot, it simply wasn't interesting any more to enough people (and this is coming from someone who thought Enterprise was great). Hopefully the success of the reboot will spawn a new TV series.....and then I woke up.

 

It probably needed a rest. Although I think the Enterprise series was really starting to come in to its own by season 4. It should have been at least given another series after season 4. Manny Coto really understood Star Trek and was doing a great job. I think Star Trek works best on TV as a series. There have been some great Star Trek movies though and although the 2009 film was ok for a generic sci fi action movie, i don't believe the movie was worthy of destroying over 40 years of Star Trek continuity for. Plus it sometimes felt they were going for a more Star Wars feel than Star Trek. I, like you, hope we get a new series, when they are done with these movies. Preferably in the established Prime universe not the 2009 JJ verse!

Edited 22 April, 2013 by Saint J 77

[Jimmy_D]

Oh yeah. Loved it.

 

Helluva a shame that Nathan Fillion ended up being stuck in Castle while Josh Wheedon went from strength to strength

 

There are constant rumours of another Serenity movie, but Whedon is caught up with the Avengers 2 movie at the moment. An animated continuation is much more likely to be possible as it wouldn't require all the actors being in the same room at the same time, so voice acting could maybe fit around schedules better.

 

In the meantime, if you haven't seen it, watch Doctor Horrible's Sing Along Blog.

 

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on it being a shame that Fillion got stuck in Castle though, that happens to be one of my favourite shows

[saintmatt]

Few episodes into Firefly now and got to say it wasn't what I was expecting!

 

I thought the Western element would be more subtle, a la Star Trek and it's 'wagon train to the stars' beginnings and interpretations.

 

Not really big on Westerns, but got to admit I've not given them much chance.

 

That said I've enjoyed what I've seen of Firefly so far (5 episodes in), not sure it'll be the sci fi nirvana I read it was though - Star Trek's crown is safe

[pap]

Few episodes into Firefly now and got to say it wasn't what I was expecting!

 

I thought the Western element would be more subtle, a la Star Trek and it's 'wagon train to the stars' beginnings and interpretations.

 

Not really big on Westerns, but got to admit I've not given them much chance.

 

That said I've enjoyed what I've seen of Firefly so far (5 episodes in), not sure it'll be the sci fi nirvana I read it was though - Star Trek's crown is safe

 

Really kicks into gear at Ariel, imo.

[Colinjb]

Star Trek into Darkness.

 

Firstly really enjoyed it. However, the films biggest strength is also it's greatest weakness. It is a massive piece of trekkie fanservice yet this also makes the film predictable. .. and some of the more emotional moments then become curious rather then gripping.

 

Still looking forward to the Bluray release though. Would love to watch it again.

[pap]

Star Trek into Darkness.

 

Firstly really enjoyed it. However, the films biggest strength is also it's greatest weakness. It is a massive piece of trekkie fanservice yet this also makes the film predictable. .. and some of the more emotional moments then become curious rather then gripping.

 

Still looking forward to the Bluray release though. Would love to watch it again.

 

I haven't even seen the film and have a fairly good idea of what the twist will be.

[Colinjb]

I haven't even seen the film and have a fairly good idea of what the twist will be.

 

I'm not saying anymore..... you will enjoy it, just switch your brain off, enjoy the fan-service and remember that it isn't a piece of high art. I did get a few dodgy looks when I laughed during an 'emotional' moment though. This particular twist just didn't work for me.

[dubai_phil]

Star Wars VI to be made in UK and re-unite the original cast members.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2322676/New-Star-Wars-Episode-7-movie-UK-George-Osborne-used-tax-breaks-lure-Disney.html

 

Another sweetner of no tax for "Big Business" while screwing the population and Air Passengers

[Saint J 77]

I have to say, I really enjoyed Doctor Who tonight! I loved all the classic and newly shot footage of the old Doctors.

 

Oh and that ending

 

 

Great stuff, really looking forward to the 50th episode now

[sussexsaint]

Thought it was an excellent episode , Strax is hilarious and good acting all round. Richard E Grant was very good as were the

scary undertaker things

[sussexsaint]

Also heard some spoilers about where Hurt will fit in , the 50th ep is set to be really something special

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I too much enjoyed last nights Who, but just like many other Moffat written scripts what the younger children managed to made of it I don't know.

 

Nevertheless the great John Hurt as Doctor Who - fantastic!

[pap]

I'm heading toward the final episodes in Fringe season three and am enjoying it quite a bit.

 

My main issue with it is that at its heart, it's a police procedural, which just happens to deal with some really messed up stuff. Probably feel it more in the first season than any other, as for the most part, it really gets into gear in the second season, when you've got a much better idea of what it is. Abrams and co use a lot of the narrative tricks that they used in LOST. They refocus a lot, and jump around the various places they create for themselves. This means that you'll often have a cliffhanger episode which isn't resolved, or even addressed in the next episode. They've also got a neat habit of changing the title sequence to suit the location and/or time period they're covering, which is a very nice touch. I love the 80s chiptune titles.

 

That said, the central conflicts are all quite compelling and Walter Bishop is one of the best characters on telly.

 

Also, hats off to the casting department. I'm always impressed when a sci-fi show does mirror episodes. Unfailingly, they always manage to employ actors who look just like the originals. Uncanny.

[dubai_phil]

I'm heading toward the final episodes in Fringe season three and am enjoying it quite a bit.

 

My main issue with it is that at its heart, it's a police procedural, which just happens to deal with some really messed up stuff. Probably feel it more in the first season than any other, as for the most part, it really gets into gear in the second season, when you've got a much better idea of what it is. Abrams and co use a lot of the narrative tricks that they used in LOST. They refocus a lot, and jump around the various places they create for themselves. This means that you'll often have a cliffhanger episode which isn't resolved, or even addressed in the next episode. They've also got a neat habit of changing the title sequence to suit the location and/or time period they're covering, which is a very nice touch. I love the 80s chiptune titles.

 

That said, the central conflicts are all quite compelling and Walter Bishop is one of the best characters on telly.

Also, hats off to the casting department. I'm always impressed when a sci-fi show does mirror episodes. Unfailingly, they always manage to employ actors who look just like the originals. Uncanny.

 

 

Yeah but the other world Agent Dunham is WAY hotter.

[pap]

More Abrams reportage; I'm just back from seeing Star Trek : Into Darkness. It's a good movie, but it is very much a movie, and I'm starting to wonder whether that's really the best thing for Trek at the moment. Until Abrams took the reins, Star Trek was rarely all out action; always had a little space to breathe and out of budgetary necessity, had a lot of dialogue. Problem with the movie format is that apart from your leads, you don't really get enough time with the cast to get more than some stock catchphrases, no doubt designed to remind you that you are still watching Star Trek.

 

As a big dumb action movie, it works on every level. As Star Trek? I'm not so sure. This is an impressive spectacle, but Star Trek has a history of being smart and thought provoking which neither film has done a very good job of honouring.

[pap]

It has been just under 24 hours since I saw Star Trek Into Darkness. Over the course of the last day, I've had some serious nerd rage kick in. I am not happy.

 

First off, let's deal with the big twist. Should never have happened. Would have been a perfect opportunity to create something really unique and special; the actor in question is capable and might have even become a legend in his own right. Ah, ******** to that. Let's just do something utterly predictable instead that'll have facile f*cktards cooing about how clever it all is. It's not clever. Anyone can do homage. You just copy something, change it around a bit and simpletons will call your larceny "clever" if they've enough braincells to recollect and link the reference.

 

The amount of stuff that just makes no logical sense. Spoiler for opening sequence of film. The gallant crew is trying to stop a volcano from erupting. They've parked the Enterprise underwater, even though the ship can and orbit safely from space. This is important because Kirk later gets chewed out for violating the prime directive when the natives see the ship rise majestically from the water, which would not have happened if they'd parked their space ship in space. Adding insult to intelligence, instead of just beaming their volcano-neutralising McGuffin into place, Spock goes down to place the device there by hand, while the volcano is in the process erupting. Spock is eventually rescued at the absolute last second by teleporter, by the Enterprise, which at this point is sweeping majestically over erupting volcano.

 

I don't mind abandoning common sense for the Rule of Cool. I've had entire films rescued for me by one kick-ass inclusion or revelation. However, when the whole film is full of nothing but set-pieces and quips, I do find myself longing for some more modest Trek that does a little more to stimulate the grey matter. This is a f**king cartoon.

[Julian H. Cope]

Well to be fair I hated Star Trek apart from Next Gen and the JJ Abrams two. Without all the preconceptions I thoroughly enjoyed Into Darkness in IMAX 3D.

 

I am not an employee of Odeon Cinemas Uk or any other IMAX 3D supporting cinema in the UK. Although I was paid a fee to mention IMAX 3D by the IMAX 3D supporters club.

[pap]

Well to be fair I hated Star Trek apart from Next Gen and the JJ Abrams two. Without all the preconceptions I thoroughly enjoyed Into Darkness in IMAX 3D.

 

I am not an employee of Odeon Cinemas Uk or any other IMAX 3D supporting cinema in the UK. Although I was paid a fee to mention IMAX 3D by the IMAX 3D supporters club.

 

Whereas I have just ordered TNG S3 on Blu Ray to detox.

[sussexsaint]

I really want DS9 on blu ray but tbh I can't see it happening any time soon.

[pap]

I really want DS9 on blu ray but tbh I can't see it happening any time soon.

 

Keep the faith, sussex. All the TNG Blu Rays were conditional on the previous set doing well. They even did a three episode taster from different seasons. I reckon it'll follow on. If there is one thing that Paramount love more than flogging something, it's flogging it again!

[saintmatt]

***WARNING SPOILERS***

 

I'm with pap on into darkness, especially re the 24 hours of thinking time!

 

IMO it'd have been a much better film had they scrapped the reverse death scene and gone their own way with the bad guy.

 

And if they really were dead set on having who they had as the bad guy, then, as they threatened to do at one point, I think it would have been a neater twist to have kirk align himself with the bad guy to bring down the section 31 element of starfleet

 

***NOT THAT MANY SPOILERS IN HINDSIGHT***

[Julian H. Cope]

Whereas I have just ordered TNG S3 on Blu Ray to detox.

 

Make it so.

 

Although you already have.

[Sheaf Saint]

More Abrams reportage; I'm just back from seeing Star Trek : Into Darkness. It's a good movie, but it is very much a movie, and I'm starting to wonder whether that's really the best thing for Trek at the moment. Until Abrams took the reins, Star Trek was rarely all out action; always had a little space to breathe and out of budgetary necessity, had a lot of dialogue. Problem with the movie format is that apart from your leads, you don't really get enough time with the cast to get more than some stock catchphrases, no doubt designed to remind you that you are still watching Star Trek.

 

As a big dumb action movie, it works on every level. As Star Trek? I'm not so sure. This is an impressive spectacle, but Star Trek has a history of being smart and thought provoking which neither film has done a very good job of honouring.

 

I have yet to see Into Darkness, but this was almost word-for-word my criticism of the 2009 film. If you take the Trek-specs off and look at it as nothing more than a big-budget sci-fi action movie then it works really well. But the success of the Star Trek series (IMO anyway) was that despite the fact they are based on a fictional, fantasised possible human future, they all had a certain amount of realism about them. For example, the series all paid attention to maritime tradition and military command structure aboard all of the ships / stations. Yet Abrams' first film brushed all of that aside with the frankly ridiculous notion that a cadet who had been suspended, marooned and who then carried out a mutiny could then forgo the years and years of hard work and unblemished service that would normally be required to be given command of Starfleet's flagship. This is something that simply wouldn't happen in any sane organisation anywhere on Earth or otherwise.

[dubai_phil]

I have yet to see Into Darkness, but this was almost word-for-word my criticism of the 2009 film. If you take the Trek-specs off and look at it as nothing more than a big-budget sci-fi action movie then it works really well. But the success of the Star Trek series (IMO anyway) was that despite the fact they are based on a fictional, fantasised possible human future, they all had a certain amount of realism about them. For example, the series all paid attention to maritime tradition and military command structure aboard all of the ships / stations. Yet Abrams' first film brushed all of that aside with the frankly ridiculous notion that a cadet who had been suspended, marooned and who then carried out a mutiny could then forgo the years and years of hard work and unblemished service that would normally be required to be given command of Starfleet's flagship. This is something that simply wouldn't happen in any sane organisation anywhere on Earth or otherwise.

 

Go see the new one Bexy.

 

No Spoilers, but he DOES pay homage to the past and the history. (AND in a way explains why Kirk's actions in reboot 1 set him apart from a sane organisation. The NEW film carries that on and covers that angle)

 

Of the 3 mates I know who have been

 

1) Had never watched Star Trek but had to take his son (who LOVED it) Mate had no idea what was going on but was impressed

2) Mates who had seen the original series & movies more times than they care to remember. LOVED it. One is going again tomorrow. I'd go again in an instant but am a bit busy this week;)

 

I posted a review on the What films are you watching thread, still stand by it. You will either love it or hate it. BUT the clever part? Whoever follows JJ can now do Old Style OR new style. The reboot is done, the 5 year mission...........

Edited 20 May, 2013 by dubai_phil

[pap]

I dunno, Phil - if Bexy was annoyed with the cavalier attitude to military tradition, I can't really see this one doing any better on that front. Some of the decisions that Starfleet make are just barmy, and completely out of step with what we thought we knew about the org. Fair dos, you could argue that the events of the first movie have bled into the second, creating a harder Starfleet with a different outlook, and I wouldn't have a massive problem with that, except nothing else in the movie plot-wise has been thought through particularly well.

 

It's a question of priorities. After having seen both movies, it's pretty clear that the priority is for things to be AS INTENSE AS POSSIBLE AT ALL TIMES. I think deep down, even Abrams knows this ain't what Trek is about, which is why you have so many characters ( particularly Bones ) in caricature mode for the entirety of the movies. The movies it is trying to emulate ( I count at least two ) are nothing like it. They all manage to be exciting enough yet equally, all have space to breathe. I'm still of the opinion that Star Trek II, III and IV is the great unheralded trilogy of sci-fi.

 

Abrams could have been 2/3 on his way to a similar achievement. Instead, he's spent two movies box-ticking and ripping off previous content - when all the ingredients were there for him to boldly go where no-one has gone before.

[Sheaf Saint]

I dunno, Phil - if Bexy was annoyed with the cavalier attitude to military tradition, I can't really see this one doing any better on that front. Some of the decisions that Starfleet make are just barmy, and completely out of step with what we thought we knew about the org. Fair dos, you could argue that the events of the first movie have bled into the second, creating a harder Starfleet with a different outlook, and I wouldn't have a massive problem with that, except nothing else in the movie plot-wise has been thought through particularly well.

 

It's a question of priorities. After having seen both movies, it's pretty clear that the priority is for things to be AS INTENSE AS POSSIBLE AT ALL TIMES. I think deep down, even Abrams knows this ain't what Trek is about, which is why you have so many characters ( particularly Bones ) in caricature mode for the entirety of the movies. The movies it is trying to emulate ( I count at least two ) are nothing like it. They all manage to be exciting enough yet equally, all have space to breathe. I'm still of the opinion that Star Trek II, III and IV is the great unheralded trilogy of sci-fi.

 

Abrams could have been 2/3 on his way to a similar achievement. Instead, he's spent two movies box-ticking and ripping off previous content - when all the ingredients were there for him to boldly go where no-one has gone before.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. He admitted when he was contracted to make the first movie that he was never a fan of Star Trek and didn't really understand the fascination some people had with it. That's just plain wrong IMO, but Paramount made a commercial decision and it seems to have paid off for them. In giving the franchise as broad appeal as as possible, they have alienated (no pun intended) a sizable chunk of their core followers. But they have obviously made a vast profit as well, and let's not kid ourselves that there was any other reason for them to do it.

[badgerx16]

WRT Into Darkness - I think the only safe way to approach the franchise is to remember that this is a parallel timeline, rooted in the period before TOS, therefore any preconceptions derived from preceding productions are based on events that might never have happened, or at least not in the same way, in this universe. The disappointment for me was JJ just seemed obsessed with inserting as many points of homage to TREK 2 as possible.

 

Notwithstanding, as a kick-ass sci-fi effects films, it is very good.

[pap]

WRT Into Darkness - I think the only safe way to approach the franchise is to remember that this is a parallel timeline, rooted in the period before TOS, therefore any preconceptions derived from preceding productions are based on events that might never have happened, or at least not in the same way, in this universe. The disappointment for me was JJ just seemed obsessed with inserting as many points of homage to TREK 2 as possible.

 

Notwithstanding, as a kick-ass sci-fi effects films, it is very good.

 

Timeline changed with Nero's ship arrived in the first film. Events before that would have been unaffected, including a lot of stuff that was referenced and changed for this movie, including the colour of a certain person's skin. It's clear that they have no confidence in themselves when they are just retreading familiar ground.

 

JJ Abrams will be better suited for Star Wars, but if he approaches it anything like as meekly as he did this one, the whole film will be characters saying "I've got a bad feeling about this". Shame really, because the first film really did show some balls in creating its own universe. I'm still slightly floored every time I see Vulcan destroyed.

[RonManager]

I'm still slightly floored every time I see Vulcan destroyed.

 

It's only pretend, mate, Star Trek's only pretend.

[Colinjb]

it's only pretend, mate, star trek's only pretend.

 

........You WHAT!?......

 

[pap]

It's only pretend, mate, Star Trek's only pretend.

 

I find your response illogical.

[RonManager]

I find your response illogical.

 

Did you raise one eyebrow as you hit 'enter'?

[Colinjb]

Did you raise one eyebrow as you hit 'enter'?

 

His web cam also zoomed in for emphasis.

[badgerx16]

Timeline changed with Nero's ship arrived in the first film.

 

Did it ? Whilst the dates of his birth are the same, in TOS Kirk is born on Earth in Iowa, in the reboot his mother is already in labour on the USS Kelvin in deep space, just as Nero's ship appears.

[pap]

Did you raise one eyebrow as you hit 'enter'?

 

I can't actually remember. Probably.

 

Anyway, my point was Vulcan is a big deal in Trek, even if it is mostly rocks and Spock's . The first film took a creative risk by blowing it up, whereas this one just tries to hit beats of other films, at times beat for beat.

 

Decent vid review of Into Darkness here.

 

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-into-darkness/

[pap]

Did it ? Whilst the dates of his birth are the same, in TOS Kirk is born on Earth in Iowa, in the reboot his mother is already in labour on the USS Kelvin in deep space, just as Nero's ship appears.

 

I'm not talking about Kirk, rather the villain of the piece. He claims to be from hundreds of years in the past, well before Nero's encounter with the USS Kelvin.

[Saint J 77]

As a big dumb action movie, it works on every level. As Star Trek? I'm not so sure. This is an impressive spectacle, but Star Trek has a history of being smart and thought provoking which neither film has done a very good job of honouring.

 

As I have mention on this thread before, I am a massive Star Trek fan, but you have just summed up my feelings on JJ's Star Trek perfectly. I have yet to see the new film but already know a lot about it. I wasn't that impressed with the 2009 movie, it was ok as a pop corn flick but it was not proper Star Trek for me.

Watching the trailers and seeing some of the clips of Into the Darkness I have to say I have cringed a few times to some of the clichéd dialogue. "We are outmanned, outgunned" etc being right up there one of the things that made me I think Benedict Cumberbatch is a great actor and know who he turns out to be, but all I have heard and seen so far brings him a cross almost as a mousche curling villain.

 

I'm with you pap, you've pretty much summed up all my thoughts about JJ's Star Trek with everything you've said.

[badgerx16]

I'm not talking about Kirk, rather the villain of the piece. He claims to be from hundreds of years in the past, well before Nero's encounter with the USS Kelvin.

 

IMO you don't have a timeline that diverges from the point at which Nero's ship passes through the blackhole - you have 2 almost parallel timelines that diverged earlier, and ran roughly along the same lines with minor deviations. The point about Kirk's birth shows that the appearance of Nero is not the point at which this separation occurs. This can therefore also account for changes to the relative timelines of the main protaganists of Into Darkness, who meet in TOS in SD2267, but Into Darkness starts on SD2259.55.

[pap]

IMO you don't have a timeline that diverges from the point at which Nero's ship passes through the blackhole - you have 2 almost parallel timelines that diverged earlier, and ran roughly along the same lines with minor deviations. The point about Kirk's birth shows that the appearance of Nero is not the point at which this separation occurs. This can therefore also account for changes to the relative timelines of the main protaganists of Into Darkness, who meet in TOS in SD2267, but Into Darkness starts on SD2259.55.

 

That's fair enough, so I did some checking, and Nero's timeline begins in 2233. Your point about the birth of Kirk being affected by Nero is spot on, as is mine about the other fella.

 

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Nero

[pap]

As I have mention on this thread before, I am a massive Star Trek fan, but you have just summed up my feelings on JJ's Star Trek perfectly. I have yet to see the new film but already know a lot about it. I wasn't that impressed with the 2009 movie, it was ok as a pop corn flick but it was not proper Star Trek for me.

Watching the trailers and seeing some of the clips of Into the Darkness I have to say I have cringed a few times to some of the clichéd dialogue. "We are outmanned, outgunned" etc being right up there one of the things that made me I think Benedict Cumberbatch is a great actor and know who he turns out to be, but all I have heard and seen so far brings him a cross almost as a mousche curling villain.

 

I'm with you pap, you've pretty much summed up all my thoughts about JJ's Star Trek with everything you've said.

 

A lot of the blame lies at the feet of the writers too, I reckon. I've been watching TNG this week and it feels like Open University by comparison.

 

Red Letter Media's review is very good. They make the point that it's almost as if the gigantic set pieces are dreamed up first with the script merely used as an adhesive afterthought.

 

Trek needs to be on telly. It's the only format where the characters are really able to develop, the audience spends years gaining affection for them so that when they do finally get on the big screen, you not only get to see them nailing the roles, the big emotional stuff actually means something. A lot of the crap they pull in this movie makes no sense to anyone but the audience.

[badgerx16]

................ it's almost as if the gigantic set pieces are dreamed up first with the script merely used as an adhesive afterthought.

 

I find that to be a common fault with modern 'blockbusters', and suspect it's as much to do with the drive to use 3D wherever possible as any issue with a specific film.

[pap]

I find that to be a common fault with modern 'blockbusters', and suspect it's as much to do with the drive to use 3D wherever possible as any issue with a specific film.

 

Good article on the failings of modern films, and in particular Lindelof's writing on Star Trek Into Darkness. They are not letting him write Star Wars, thankfully.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2013/may/24/star-wars-trek-jj-abrams?INTCMP=SRCH

 

He does now have a record of writing really dumb sh!t for movies. Prometheus nose-dives the moment the woman says "hey, this is breathable air!". Matey takes his helmet off right there, despite the fact that they're on an alien planet, inside an alien structure, with all kinds of potential intergalactic bacterial nasties about. That's bad enough - you can chalk it up to one over-excited nutter. But then they all take their helmets off! FFS.

[Saint J 77]

Matt Smith is leaving Doctor Who

 

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/06/01/matt-smith-is-leaving-doctor-who/

 

I guess Hollywood was too big a pull to resist for Matt Smith. I think he has been a good Doctor and I would have been happy to see him do another series, I hope they get the casting right for the next Doctor.

 

Get ready for the calls from so called fans for a female Doctor

Edited 1 June, 2013 by Saint J 77