Jump to content

Sci-fi Fans

Saint J 77

By Saint J 77,
in The Arts

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
It will be good to finally find out who it is. Hopefully put to rest all the rumours about a female doctor!

 

I really, really hope it's Malcolm Tucker. Can you imagine... "You Daleks had better f**k off back where you came from, or I'll shove this f**king sonic screwdriver straight down your f**king eyesocket!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
He is the first actor to play Doctor Who whom I have honestly never heard of. :blush:

 

Careful now. People, possibly including myself, will accuse you of having no taste, or at the very least, utterly ignorant to the genius of one of the UK's best shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted

The TNG S4 Blu Rays arrived last week. I've been very careful to consume the episodes sparingly. This is, after all, one of the best seasons of Trek ever. So far, I've watched three episodes, all of them corkers. I actually waited for the cliffhanger of Best of Both Worlds, so naturallly, that was first up. What I'd forgotten was the excellent episode "Family", the most un-Trek episode of Trek ever, and quite groundbreaking at the time. One of the guiding mantras of Trek before then was "single episode shows", the notion that 99% of the time, a new viewer could tune in and enjoy the plot regardless. Not so with Family. It's really the unofficial third part of Best of Both Worlds, dealing with the aftermath of Picard's Borgification, and once again, Patrick Stewart nails it. Even the sub-plot, Worf's adopted parents turning up on the Enterprise, requires some prior investment. The prime reason for them being there is related to Worf's S3 exit from Klingon society.

 

With the exception of S2, which Paramount farmed out to an outside supplier, the Blu Rays are magnificent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
I dont think it is. Doesnt it have Pulaski instead of Crusher in it ?

 

It was on the S3 Blu Rays when I watched them (and wrote about it here :D). You're talking about the episode where Data builds a kid, right? S3 if so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Yep. Could have sworn that old bag was in the episode, but you are of course correct.

 

Beverley Crusher all day long, Alps :)

 

I think you're probably thinking about Measure of a Man, which was a very good episode, in which Pulaski argues that Data is Starfleet property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
Posted
Beverley Crusher all day long, Alps :)

 

I think you're probably thinking about Measure of a Man, which was a very good episode, in which Pulaski argues that Data is Starfleet property.

 

I thought that was Cmdr Bruce Maddox, aided by some bitter old squeeze of Picards who was serving as JAG ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
I thought that was Cmdr Bruce Maddox, aided by some bitter old squeeze of Picards who was serving as JAG ?

 

Alps, meant to get back to you on this days ago. I've been otherwise engaged.

 

Sir is of course, correct. In disgust, I have torn a stripe from my geek uniform and will be sending it to Austria forthwith.

 

I only hope that it, and this delightful piece of starship porn, will placate you after my shocking faux pas. (Pulaski is in it, tho')

 

523.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Looking back, it wasn't actually that great.

 

At least the other two were original.

 

Final Frontier is a self-indulgent piece of arse that is exactly what I'd expect from seeing Shatner in the director's chair. It features possibly the worst single moment in all of Trek, Uhura's Dance.

 

It is still better than Into Darkness. Insurrection is MILES better, perhaps the only TNG film which was true to the characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
Final Frontier is a self-indulgent piece of arse that is exactly what I'd expect from seeing Shatner in the director's chair. It features possibly the worst single moment in all of Trek, Uhura's Dance.

 

It is still better than Into Darkness. Insurrection is MILES better, perhaps the only TNG film which was true to the characters.

 

I personally thought that was the worst of the 4 TNG films. The plot was rubbish and the terrible attempts at humour made me cringe in places. Despite popular opinion and it's obvious failings, I genuinely thought Nemesis was a better film, though First Contact was probably the best of the four.

 

As for The Final Frontier, what an awful pile of ar$e-gravy that was. I still haven't seen Into Darkness yet, and given everything I have read about it I'm not sure I want to. It was bad enough in the 2009 film that Abrams had torn up 40-odd years of Star Trek tradition and sullied the franchise name with a big, dumb space action movie. All the evidence suggests he has taken that one step further with Into Darkness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted (edited)
I personally thought that was the worst of the 4 TNG films. The plot was rubbish and the terrible attempts at humour made me cringe in places. Despite popular opinion and it's obvious failings, I genuinely thought Nemesis was a better film, though First Contact was probably the best of the four.

 

As for The Final Frontier, what an awful pile of ar$e-gravy that was. I still haven't seen Into Darkness yet, and given everything I have read about it I'm not sure I want to. It was bad enough in the 2009 film that Abrams had torn up 40-odd years of Star Trek tradition and sullied the franchise name with a big, dumb space action movie. All the evidence suggests he has taken that one step further with Into Darkness.

 

The plot was internally consistent, and unlike the other TNG films, no real attempt was made to Kirkify Picard. Feels more like a double episode than movie though.

 

 

Structurally, there's not much to separate Nemesis from WoK. Major character dies, character hellbent on destroying the Captain. The first real attempt to riff on WoK in the movies.

 

Into Darkness is fkn terrible Trek. Made allowances with first film. Hate this one. Works as big dumb action movie though, but f*ck, it's dumb. That ain't Trek.

Edited by pap
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CHAPEL END CHARLIE

CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Posted
Posted (edited)

Doctor Who - Terror of the Autons (1971)

 

My occasional immersions in the strange world of old Who has now progressed sufficiently to reach a era that I'm quite old enough to actually remember! The plastic fantastic Autons proved to be a big success in Jon Pertwee's first story - Spearhead From Space - especially those unforgettable scenes when shop window mannequins suddenly come alive and go on the rampage. So not for the first (or last) time they were brought back to terrify a unsuspecting nation all over again.

 

But this story is perhaps best remembered for the introduction of two new characters. 'Jo Grant' (Katy Manning) signed on as the Doctor's latest young assistant and I must say she and Pertwee immediately form a sweet and convincing pseudo Father/Daughter relationship that is a pleasure to see. Just as significantly Roger Delgado makes his debut as the charming, but utterly evil 'Master'.

The producers had come to realise that Pertwee's Doctor resembles Sherlock Holmes in some ways, so it was but a short step from there to conclude that this Holmes-like Doctor needed a equally intelligent Moriarty like figure to challenge him. The resulting partnership of these Ying/Yang Timelord's made would form a cornerstone of the earthbound 'UNIT era' Doctor Who - a period in the shows long history that is still fondly remembered by this fan.

 

As for this story, cheap and unsophisticated compared to todays TV of course, but judged by the more innocent standards of the day Terror still has plenty of genuinely good moments I thought. In particular the hideous toy doll the Master employs to kill off a stroppy businessman and the scene when the Auton Policemen abduct the Doctor and Jo being especially memorable. This series also greatly benefits from BBC management at last agreeing to reduce story length from a unwieldy seven episodes, down to a much more audience friendly four ...

 

... oh and beware the Masters comfy chair!

 

Edited by CHAPEL END CHARLIE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint J 77

Saint J 77

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Simon Pegg to 'Star Trek Into Darkness' haters: 'F**k you'

 

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a508961/simon-pegg-to-star-trek-into-darkness-haters-fk-you.html

 

I think he is being a bit of a hypocrite here as one of the comments below in the article says...

 

Strange how Simon Pegg is supporting the remake/reboot of ST when he got angry about the remake of 'Spaced' in 2007.

 

He said in a statement: "It is this flagrant snub and effective vote of no confidence in the very people that created the show that has caused such affront. If they don't care about the integrity of the original, why call it Spaced?"

 

Simon Pegg angry over 'Spaced' remake http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a90647/simon-pegg-angry-over-spaced-remake.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Simon Pegg to 'Star Trek Into Darkness' haters: 'F**k you'

 

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a508961/simon-pegg-to-star-trek-into-darkness-haters-fk-you.html

 

I think he is being a bit of a hypocrite here as one of the comments below in the article says...

 

Strange how Simon Pegg is supporting the remake/reboot of ST when he got angry about the remake of 'Spaced' in 2007.

 

He said in a statement: "It is this flagrant snub and effective vote of no confidence in the very people that created the show that has caused such affront. If they don't care about the integrity of the original, why call it Spaced?"

 

Simon Pegg angry over 'Spaced' remake http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a90647/simon-pegg-angry-over-spaced-remake.html

 

Hehe. I love his defence of that movie. "A lot of people worked very hard". Presumably not the scriptwriters? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintmatt

saintmatt

Posted
Posted

I love how Star Trek teaches open-mindedness and the infinite diversity in infinite combinations mantra yet many of it's supposed hardcore fans have adopted something of an opposite stance for STID...

 

Ah well, haters gonna hate (didn't Spock say that once?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
I love how Star Trek teaches open-mindedness and the infinite diversity in infinite combinations mantra yet many of it's supposed hardcore fans have adopted something of an opposite stance for STID...

 

Ah well, haters gonna hate (didn't Spock say that once?)

 

Nowt to do with that.

 

Lot of people love Star Trek. It's been off the telly for years, so to have to put up with the crap of Into Darkness is a bit disappointing.

 

Abrams and co really don't get it either. It's like someone has given them an outline of what the characters are supposed to say, some old plot lines and told them to make something with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted

 

"Star Trek Into Darkness is the most successful Star Trek movie ever made," he said, "It is, in terms of what it took at the box office and how many people went to see it.

 

"More people saw that film than any iteration of Star Trek that existed before..................".

 

Would this have happened if they had made a 'proper' Trek movie ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
"Star Trek Into Darkness is the most successful Star Trek movie ever made," he said, "It is, in terms of what it took at the box office and how many people went to see it.

 

"More people saw that film than any iteration of Star Trek that existed before..................".

 

Would this have happened if they had made a 'proper' Trek movie ?

 

There was an ongoing theme in Spaced about Pegg's character Tim holding anger towards George Lucas for 'selling out' with The Phantom Menace, which led to him getting sacked from his job at the comic store for shouting abuse at a young kid who had come in wanting to buy a Jar-Jar Binks toy. His entire argument seemed to be that Lucas had totally ignored the apparent wishes of the die-hard fans of the original trilogy and made a film that was solely intended to make huge amounts of money at the box office.

 

And now, fast-forward to 2013. The very same man is defending a sci-fi film he has appeared in based purely on the box-office takings, and issued a foul-mouthed insult to the die-hard fans of the franchise whose affinity for it made it possible for Abrams to make this blockbuster in the first place. Shame on you Simon. I used to have a lot of respect for you and your comedy writing, but the hypocrisy you have shown in this instance is quite unforgivable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
There was an ongoing theme in Spaced about Pegg's character Tim holding anger towards George Lucas for 'selling out' with The Phantom Menace, which led to him getting sacked from his job at the comic store for shouting abuse at a young kid who had come in wanting to buy a Jar-Jar Binks toy. His entire argument seemed to be that Lucas had totally ignored the apparent wishes of the die-hard fans of the original trilogy and made a film that was solely intended to make huge amounts of money at the box office.

 

And now, fast-forward to 2013. The very same man is defending a sci-fi film he has appeared in based purely on the box-office takings, and issued a foul-mouthed insult to the die-hard fans of the franchise whose affinity for it made it possible for Abrams to make this blockbuster in the first place. Shame on you Simon. I used to have a lot of respect for you and your comedy writing, but the hypocrisy you have shown in this instance is quite unforgivable.

 

Great post.

 

Playing devil's advocate a little bit, Tim is just a character, albeit one that Pegg provided the words for. There's no guarantee his opinions are aligned with those of his character. Regardless, he was choosing to capitalise on geekdom's inherent wish for authenticity, especially with Star Wars, and has always presented himself as a geek. Though it's illogical to say so, you can't have your cake and eat it.

 

He owes most of his career to the sort of people he's dissing. I don't think your justifiable nerd rage will be unique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
"Star Trek Into Darkness is the most successful Star Trek movie ever made," he said, "It is, in terms of what it took at the box office and how many people went to see it.

 

"More people saw that film than any iteration of Star Trek that existed before..................".

 

Would this have happened if they had made a 'proper' Trek movie ?

 

Not really the point. Star Trek isn't meant to be for everyone, and it certainly isn't supposed to be a space-bound showdown between two antagonists. It does have its more exciting moments, but that is complemented with a lot of episodes that stimulate the brain or delve into the motivations of the characters.

 

The other Star Trek films worked because the audience already knew the characters. The original series cast were a joy to watch. The chemistry between them is difficult to beat, and they had scope - II,III & IV are a trilogy - and work much better for it.

 

I liked the first reboot, but with Into Darkness the direction, if you can call it that, became clear. They want as many people in the cinema as possible, so they're going to reboot on every film. Within 10 minutes of Into Darkness, Kirk's not fit to be captain again. FFS, I watched an entire film that was dedicated to getting him into that f**king chair. Why on Earth would I want to see him solve that problem again?

 

Without the background, the only thing that Abrams is going to do is create more of these flash-bang action movies that move at a hundred miles an hour, thus by default, never allowing the characters to develop. We're therefore reduced to characters spouting fan service soundbites and nowt else.

 

As I said, I liked the first movie. At its conclusion, Kirk sat in the chair with the captain swagger going on, I was very optimistic. They could take this thing anywhere. What they did was strip the carcass of a 30 year old movie and do a worse job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
Great post.

 

Playing devil's advocate a little bit, Tim is just a character, albeit one that Pegg provided the words for. There's no guarantee his opinions are aligned with those of his character. Regardless, he was choosing to capitalise on geekdom's inherent wish for authenticity, especially with Star Wars, and has always presented himself as a geek. Though it's illogical to say so, you can't have your cake and eat it.

 

He owes most of his career to the sort of people he's dissing. I don't think your justifiable nerd rage will be unique.

 

Tim was a character that Pegg himself wrote. Given his very public admissions of sci-fi nerdness in the past, I think it is fair to assume that Tim's opinions were very much those of his creator.

 

Pegg has sold out. I wonder just how defensive he would be about the two Abrams films had he not been paid handsomely to appear in them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Tim was a character that Pegg himself wrote. Given his very public admissions of sci-fi nerdness in the past, I think it is fair to assume that Tim's opinions were very much those of his creator.

 

Pegg has sold out. I wonder just how defensive he would be about the two Abrams films had he not been paid handsomely to appear in them?

 

As I said, devil's advocate. Think you're probably right. It's disappointing, and he'd be sh!tting on those films from a high height if he wasn't personally involved.

 

I'm just glad they put all that stuff in its own timeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm just glad they put all that stuff in its own timeline.

 

Which is why, IMO, putting too much effort into lambasting it in comparison to TOS / TNG, etc, is pointless. I'm a big fan of TOS and most of TNG/DS9/Voyager, and the related films, but my issue with Into Darkness isn't based on childhood recollections of Bill Shatner et al, it's just a lazy film that falls into the current "big chase scene ? - check, CGI suitable for 3D ? - check, large expolsions and over-loud sound effects ? - check; OK let's make lots of money" school of filming, that doesn't naturally follow on from the reboot.

( Will I buy the DVD ? - yes )

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted

Well, I enjoyed STID.

 

I will also enjoy watching it maybe 8 or 10 times more when it comes onto Satellite TV here and there is sod all else to watch.

 

It has been a success, the Reboot got people's interest and made YOUNGER PEOPLE who live around the world INTERESTED in the characters of Kirk, Spock et al.

 

STID was a very dangerous film. It HAD to expand the market base (FFS most original trekkies could be dead in 10 years or 3 movies time!)

 

It made a whole truck load of money, and it made the Studio happy (in a year of Mega Bombs - Lone Ranger anyone) happy to continue the Franchise.

 

How do you reboot from here? We all know that Kirk had his 5 year mission. How does Abrams et al now re-visit that? We know the Borg are out there, we know the Delta Quadrant off by heart & The Dominion.

 

How will the paradoxes of the time line changes affect things now?

 

Enterprise was the Federations' exploration vehicle to discover places the Vulcans had not reached. But what is the motivation now? Vulcan has gone.

 

The road map seems pretty clear, Earth has lost a major friend, it has to open up new routes (and war movies) with the Klingon Empire, the Romulans, and who knows who from the TNG/Voyager et al would now try and colonize our part of space?

 

Star Trek as we know it died the day we watched a 2 hour arrival of VEE GER in ST1. It developed and gave us more depth and quality of characters and history of a future universe.

 

While b1tching about STID just ask how many of the original series back stories of exploring the Universe could actually have different characters/depth/endings?

 

I SERIOUSLY hope that they now go off into a REAL different tangent completely and STOP trying to pay clever homage to Tribbles & the old timeline. It's gone, move on to what has changed in the dynamics of the ST Universe and exploit those. There are SO many new opportunities, the Franchise is a success and even IF they create a new Klingon War or whatever, the paying punters will now go to see the New Crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Which is why, IMO, putting too much effort into lambasting it in comparison to TOS / TNG, etc, is pointless. I'm a big fan of TOS and most of TNG/DS9/Voyager, and the related films, but my issue with Into Darkness isn't based on childhood recollections of Bill Shatner et al, it's just a lazy film that falls into the current "big chase scene ? - check, CGI suitable for 3D ? - check, large expolsions and over-loud sound effects ? - check; OK let's make lots of money" school of filming, that doesn't naturally follow on from the reboot.

( Will I buy the DVD ? - yes )

 

Pretty much exactly why it needs lambasting then. Didn't buy the first reboot and won't be getting Into Darkness. I honestly won't entertain watching another one in the cinema, and I reckon a lot of fans will feel the same. Then you'll just be left with the people looking for an action movie, thinking this is Trek.

 

Watching TNG after watching that was like being in the second year of University again ;)

 

Completely agree with the checklist complaint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted
Pretty much exactly why it needs lambasting then. Didn't buy the first reboot and won't be getting Into Darkness. I honestly won't entertain watching another one in the cinema, and I reckon a lot of fans will feel the same. Then you'll just be left with the people looking for an action movie, thinking this is Trek.

 

Watching TNG after watching that was like being in the second year of University again ;)

 

Completely agree with the checklist complaint.

 

Trouble is Pap, while I agree with your sentiment, when I saw STID there were about 8 people in the full IMax cinema about my age.

 

NOBODY else was over 30, yet the place was full.

 

And on the way out? THEY all loved it.

 

The world has changed, the new audiences are raised on PS3 & XBox.

 

Us old Dinosaurs have to take thoughtful Scifi where we can get it..

 

Which brings me to Looper

 

A few holes in the editing but thoughtful SciFi

 

Only made $110 million though

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted

Yeah, but the funny thing is, in the world Roddenberry created - in which excellence, not commercial consideration was the primary motivator, Into Darkness would have been laughed out of the Federation Film Board :)

 

They can do what they want with Sh!t Trek. Just give me a new series and they can get on with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted
Yeah, but the funny thing is, in the world Roddenberry created - in which excellence, not commercial consideration was the primary motivator, Into Darkness would have been laughed out of the Federation Film Board :)

 

They can do what they want with Sh!t Trek. Just give me a new series and they can get on with it.

 

Weeeeellllll.......

 

If the Marvel Comics franchise Iron Man Thor & The Avengers et al can create a new "highly anticipated" TV Series..........

 

Damn, where's the fingers crossed smiley thingy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
Posted (edited)

Been put off seeing Into Darkness because of the way they've changed the ethinicty of Khan.

 

Personally, the worst ST film in my opinion was Nemesis. Sh*te rip off of Wrath of Khan, and the reason for the main protagonists beef with Picard and humanity is not even explained.

 

The only really good ST films were Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country and First Contact.

Edited by alpine_saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
Been put off seeing Into Darkness because of the way they've changed the ethinicty of Khan.

 

Personally, the worst ST film in my opinion was Nemesis. Sh*te rip off of Wrath of Khan, and the reason for the main protagonists beef with Picard and humanity is not even explained.

 

The only really good ST films were Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country and First Contact.

 

You mean apart from him being a clone of Picard and needing his blood/DNA to prevent his premature and imminent death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
You mean apart from him being a clone of Picard and needing his blood/DNA to prevent his premature and imminent death?

 

Shinzon should have just replicated the actual Picard a few times. Once you've got them in your transporter buffer it's trivial, innit? If they managed to pull Scotty out of a transport buffer, sure they can make a few copies. Patrick Stewart is great at playing tormented. I'm sure he'd have loved a crack at playing a series of decreasingly coherent clone Captains being harvested for spare parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...