ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Media Center (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Movies and TV Star Trek 12 Gets Release Date (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=221538)

mnchiefsguy 12-09-2012 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9194115)
She refused to return to Star Trek III, for sure. I hadn't heard that she was asked to return for Star Trek VI.

Wasn't she uber heavy at that point?

It wasn't that she refused to return for ST III, from what I read, Paramount was only contractually obligated to give her an offer for the sequel. For some reason, they gave her an extremely low ball offer (less than what she made for ST II), and then when her agent made a counteroffer, Paramount told him they had already recast the role. That may or may not be true.

Also, it has been said that Kim Cattrall was the first choice to be Saavik in STII, but that did not work out, and she did not want to be the third actress to do the character when they approached her for ST VI, and that, along with Gene's objections led to the creation of the new character.

I agree that Star Trek VI is one of the best of the movies. Christopher Plummer was great in his Klingon role, and it had some of the best performances from the Original Series crew. They knew it was their last film together, so they give it their best on their way out. The storyline and script was great too, the parallels to the ending of the Cold War were very well done.

Deberg_1990 12-09-2012 09:00 PM

Star Trek V was pure comedy gold.


Row, row, row your boat.......

007 12-09-2012 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9194846)
Star Trek V was pure comedy gold.


Row, row, row your boat.......

Row, row, row your boat.......

Hammock Parties 12-09-2012 10:15 PM

I love Star Trek V simply for the campfire scenes.

keg in kc 12-10-2012 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9194115)
She refused to return to Star Trek III, for sure. I hadn't heard that she was asked to return for Star Trek VI.

That's supposedly the story Nicholas Meyer tells in "The View from the Bridge: memories of Star Trek and a life in Hollywood" (2009). I've never read the book myself, so I have to go on quotes I found elsewhere:

p. 203:
Originally we had hoped to lure Kirstie Alley back to reprise her character as Saavik--her backstory from the other films would have made this especially poignant--but once again she declined.

p. 212:
As I have noted, in an ideal world Valeris should have been the stalwart Saavik, a character we had already come to love. And trust. This would have sharpened the pain of her betrayal, but absent Kirstie Alley, we decided it would be better to introduce a new character.

Hammock Parties 12-10-2012 12:47 AM

Welp, there's another book I need to read.

Shatner's ST memories books were great.

DaneMcCloud 12-10-2012 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 9195793)
That's supposedly the story Nicholas Meyer tells in "The View from the Bridge: memories of Star Trek and a life in Hollywood" (2009). I've never read the book myself, so I have to go on quotes I found elsewhere:

p. 203:
Originally we had hoped to lure Kirstie Alley back to reprise her character as Saavik--her backstory from the other films would have made this especially poignant--but once again she declined.

p. 212:
As I have noted, in an ideal world Valeris should have been the stalwart Saavik, a character we had already come to love. And trust. This would have sharpened the pain of her betrayal, but absent Kirstie Alley, we decided it would be better to introduce a new character.

Wow, that's cool!

Had Kirstie Alley remained part of the Star Trek franchise, that turn would have rivaled any villan in recent Sci Fi history and probably rank among the top Sci Fi villains of all time.

Frazod 12-10-2012 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9195814)
Wow, that's cool!

Had Kirstie Alley remained part of the Star Trek franchise, that turn would have rivaled any villan in recent Sci Fi history and probably rank among the top Sci Fi villains of all time.

Would have probably been more tragic than villainous. Saavik was half-Romulan and Alley's Saavik displayed emotion in WOK (primarily arrogance, but she cried at Spock's funeral). Had she been in love with Kirk's wimpy son, it would have been perfect motivation, and of course mirrored Kirk's own motivation for hating the Klingons. Saavik having an epic meltdown after getting busted could well have been the most poignant scene in Star Trek history. Oh well.

DaneMcCloud 12-10-2012 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frazod (Post 9195850)
Would have probably been more tragic than villainous. Saavik was half-Romulan and Alley's Saavik displayed emotion in WOK (primarily arrogance, but she cried at Spock's funeral). Had she been in love with Kirk's wimpy son, it would have been perfect motivation, and of course mirrored Kirk's own motivation for hating the Klingons. Saavik having an epic meltdown after getting busted could well have been the most poignant scene in Star Trek history. Oh well.

She was half-Romulan?

Wow, that clinches it: My Star Trek knowledge is weak at best.

:redface:

Frazod 12-10-2012 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9195853)
She was half-Romulan?

Wow, that clinches it: I don't know anything about Star Trek!

:redface:

You would have had to read the novel to pick that up - the scenes establishing her backstory were cut from the movie.

However, she acts more Romulan than Vulcan.

From IMDB:

When Sci Fi Channel aired this movie on television, Leonard Nimoy appeared on-screen during commercial breaks, explaining various memories and trivia about the film. One of the items was the character backstory of Lt. Saavik (Kirstie Alley), who was intended to have Romulan/Vulcan heritage, which would have made her more emotional than a pureblood Vulcan. Three hints at this remain in the final film: during the Kobayashi Maru simulation, she says to herself, "Damn!"; she gasps in shock when Scotty appears on the bridge with midshipman Peters' injured body; and she is emotionally moved by Kirk's eulogy.

Frazod 12-10-2012 01:42 AM

It should be noted that Nimoy's greatest failure as a ST director was ruining Saavik. Nimoy had Robin Curtis play Saavik as a straight Vulcan. She's essentially a completely different character in III, and is basically the original cast's Wesley Crusher.

Ironically, Robin Curtis played a Vulcan in a TNG episode who had gone nuts and displayed real emotion. It was a far better portrayal than her sad, wooden Saavik.

Deberg_1990 12-10-2012 01:33 PM

Drew from Hitfix has seen the 9 minute prologue already:



Spoiler!

keg in kc 12-10-2012 03:26 PM

Holy shit, please tell me they didn't put a planet called Nibiru into this. LMAO

Planet X nutjobs gonna love that.

whoman69 12-10-2012 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9194846)
Star Trek V was pure comedy gold.


Row, row, row your boat.......

By comedy gold, do you mean a steaming pile of dung?

Guitarkore 12-10-2012 07:27 PM

People of our generation are watching this load of horse $#!+ ?

Frazod 12-10-2012 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitarkore (Post 9197914)
People of our generation are watching this load of horse $#!+ ?

You can type the word "shit," Spanky. Really, it's okay.

For example, I might say, your horseshit opinion really sucks ass.

Any questions?

Deberg_1990 12-10-2012 08:56 PM

heheh......JJ is eating this shit up......NOw its being revealed that Cumberbatch is playing a character named John Harrison. Harrison was a "red shirt" guy who showed up in several TOS episodes.........Alot of diehards still think its Khan somehow.....




http://badassdigest.com/2012/12/10/c....-john-harrson


Here's an interesting development in the "Who The Hell Is Benedict Cumberbatch Playing" mystery surrounding Star Trek Into Darkness: a new still from Paramount identifies his character as John Harrison.

There is, to the best of my knowledge, no canon John Harrison in the Star Trek universe. It's been stated that Cumberbatch is playing a canon character. So what the hell?

My two thoughts:

1) The caption is a lie. I mean, he may be calling himself 'John Harrison,' but that's not who he really is. That's a name he's using for most of the film before a big reveal as to who he actually is.

2) He's Harrison, a minor recurring crew member from the original series who bounced around from assigment to assignment, variously being in a red security shirt, a technician in sickbay and a gold shirted member of the bridge crew. He's not really a character, so much as he's a background actor who keeps popping up. He's technically canon, though, and his name is certainly mentioned in the show.

I've had a number of sources tell me that Cumberbatch is Khan. I could be getting played - JJ Abrams' mystery box system involves disinformation. The IMAX prologue that played for journalists yesterday hints at Khan - Giacchino's score quotes Khan's theme, and Spock drops the 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one' line - but I guess it could all be a big game. A weird game, but a big game nonetheless.

My gut instinct is that the answer is #1. John Harrison is the name Cumberbatch's character is using. He reveals his true identity later, probably when he reveals that he wanted to get captured by the heroes (a la Avengers, Skyfall, etc - it's an old plot device, but it's been getting a lot of use lately).

A sidenote: John Harrison Suratt was one of the conspirators who was involved in the plot to kill Abraham Lincoln. His mother, Mary Surratt, was hung for her role. Surratt himself escaped the country and returned later, after the statute of limitations expired. Could this fake name be taken in reference to this historical figure? Screenwriter Roberto Orci is a HUGE conspiracy nut, so it makes some sense.

Hammock Parties 12-10-2012 09:20 PM

Seriously lulzy.

Hammock Parties 12-10-2012 09:23 PM

Quote:

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one
This has gone too far.

JJ's being a dumbass.

Hammock Parties 12-10-2012 10:54 PM

Carol Marcus confirmed.

http://www.filmthrasher.com/2012/12/...firmed-to.html

Quote:

Multiple reports from inside the conference reveal that Alice Eve will be playing the role of Dr. Carol Marcus in Star Trek Into Darkness. Marcus is a character displayed in perhaps the most acclaimed Star Trek film to date Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and was previously portrayed by Bibi Besch.

Carol Marcus not only is an important character for the role of Khan but also for Captain Kirk as well. When they were younger, most likely the years displayed within Darkness, Marcus and Kirk are in love and eventually have a child together. However when they come to the realization that they are of two different worlds with Kirk exploring the galaxy and constantly on leave, they separate.

Marcus comes back into the picture when her Genesis Device is stolen by Khan. With the ability to turn uninhabitable planets ready to sustain life once more, it's unknown whether or not we could see this plot point once more on the big screen. With a new timeline being established in the predecessor and giving significant changes to exactly what we've seen before, it's uncertain exactly what new direction the history of these characters could take.

But here's an interesting question: does Marcus' involvement mean Cumberbatch could be Khan? Yes, we understand it's quite the stretch, especially with this being the early years of the Carol/Kirk relationship.The stronger speculated villains thus far include Sybock, Gary Mitchell and Khan, the identity of Cumberbatch has been kept quiet. But according to TrekMovie's comments sections, there is in fact an Enterprise crew member "Harrison" who appeared numerous times in the original series. Given that Benicio del Toro was once in contention to play Cumberbatch's role, and del Toro has a similar appearance to Harrison, could this former redshirt be the identity of our mystery antagonist?

007 12-10-2012 10:59 PM

JFC this is going to be a long 6 months.

keg in kc 12-10-2012 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru (Post 9198831)
JFC this is going to be a long 6.

That's what she said.

mnchiefsguy 12-11-2012 12:18 AM

Here is some background on the crewmember from the TOS named Harrison:

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


Nothing spectacular, but the character was around enough that JJ could claim him as a TOS crew member, but with plenty of leeway to make him into whatever kind of villain JJ wanted.

Deberg_1990 12-11-2012 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy (Post 9199002)
Here is some background on the crewmember from the TOS named Harrison:

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


Nothing spectacular, but the character was around enough that JJ could claim him as a TOS crew member, but with plenty of leeway to make him into whatever kind of villain JJ wanted.

It says he did appear in the "Space Seed" episode with Khan:




When Khan Noonien Singh attempted to take over the ship in 2267, Harrison wore a red operations division uniform while among the crew trapped on the bridge. Kirk's captain's log noted commendations for numerous personnel, including Technician Harrison, who lost consciousness from oxygen deprivation. (TOS: "Space Seed")

Although Harrison was on the bridge, he was the only of the visually accounted for that didn't end up in the briefing room after being incapacitated.

Tribal Warfare 12-11-2012 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9198309)

Yeah It's Mitchell, JJ is just ****ing with us

Red Brooklyn 12-11-2012 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning (Post 9185061)
It's not Carol Marcus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning (Post 9198813)

:)

Red Brooklyn 12-11-2012 10:41 AM

I know all the speculation is driving everyone crazy. But I kinda love it. Maybe it's because I don't give a shit who Cumberbatch is playing. But, man!

All this fervor is awesome.

Chiefspants 12-11-2012 01:12 PM

It's kind of brilliant for J.J. to do this, had he announced the antagonist in the beginning fans would have added their two cents and waited until the Summer to see the show. This strategy has ramped up the discussion and fervent anticipation for a movie that's still over six months away.

DaneMcCloud 12-11-2012 02:14 PM

Alice Eve has been revealed as Dr. Carol Marcus...

whoman69 12-11-2012 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9200025)
Alice Eve has been revealed as Dr. Carol Marcus...

So she would have joined Starfleet if Kirk's father didn't die?

DaneMcCloud 12-11-2012 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whoman69 (Post 9200166)
So she would have joined Starfleet if Kirk's father didn't die?

Dude, who knows what Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman are thinking?

I just hope they don't **** this up.

To me, it seems like they're taking characters from the Star Trek Universe and creating back stories that have absolutely no relation to the TOS. It's almost like they're in name only.

Frazod 12-11-2012 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9200176)
Dude, who knows what Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman are thinking?

I just hope they don't **** this up.

To me, it seems like they're taking characters from the Star Trek Universe and creating back stories that have absolutely no relation to the TOS. It's almost like they're in name only.

It worked for the new Battlestar Galactica.

Of course, the original Battlestar Galactica hadn't inspired five spin-off series and 10 movies before being completely reimagined.

Tribal Warfare 12-11-2012 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whoman69 (Post 9200166)
So she would have joined Starfleet if Kirk's father didn't die?

butterfly effect

Hammock Parties 12-11-2012 04:04 PM

in related news, Shatner is 81 and looking AMAZING.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...12_cropped.jpg

Red Brooklyn 12-11-2012 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9200176)
Dude, who knows what Lindelof, Orci and Kurtzman are thinking?

I just hope they don't **** this up.

To me, it seems like they're taking characters from the Star Trek Universe and creating back stories that have absolutely no relation to the TOS. It's almost like they're in name only.

But that's the whole point/beauty of the alternate timeline/reboot concept. They aren't chained to what came previously.

DaneMcCloud 12-11-2012 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn (Post 9200369)
But that's the whole point/beauty of the alternate timeline/reboot concept. They aren't chained to what came previously.

I'm more concerned about the endings to Lost and Fringe and the abortion of a script that became Prometheus, than I am the alternate time line.

Kurtzman, Orci & Lindelof don't exactly have a great track record, IMO, with continuity or even logical thought.

keg in kc 12-11-2012 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9200394)
I'm more concerned about the endings to Lost and Fringe and the abortion of a script that became Prometheus, than I am the alternate time line.

Kurtzman, Orci & Lindelof don't exactly have a great track record, IMO, with continuity or even logical thought.

Fortunately Star Trek has never really been particularly high-concept, hard science fiction.

(I say this as a long, long time fan).

Not that it hasn't had its moments of greatness.

Red Brooklyn 12-11-2012 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9200394)
I'm more concerned about the endings to Lost and Fringe and the abortion of a script that became Prometheus, than I am the alternate time line.

Kurtzman, Orci & Lindelof don't exactly have a great track record, IMO, with continuity or even logical thought.

I just ask that it has it's own internal logic/continuity. I don't care how it ties/connects/etc to TOS. That's out the window now. This is it's own thing.

DaneMcCloud 12-11-2012 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn (Post 9200405)
I just ask that it has it's own internal logic/continuity. I don't care how it ties/connects/etc to TOS. That's out the window now. This is it's own thing.

I don't care how it ties into the TOS, either.

As I stated earlier, I hope they don't **** it up, i.e., it makes sense within the universe they've created.

Up to this point, I've lost all faith in Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof to deliver a cogent, logical and conclusive plot.

DaneMcCloud 12-11-2012 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 9200398)
Fortunately Star Trek has never really been particularly high-concept, hard science fiction.

(I say this as a long, long time fan).

Not that it hasn't had its moments of greatness.

I thought that the TOS had a fair amount of high-concept scripts and some cool, reality based science fiction.

That all went out the window when they introduced Time Travel in #4, which was used constantly from that point forward.

Once Time Travel becomes a major plot point, all bets are off and nothing truly exists, because Time Travel can erase everything.

Red Brooklyn 12-11-2012 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9200409)
I don't care how it ties into the TOS, either.

As I stated earlier, I hope they don't **** it up, i.e., it makes sense within the universe they've created.

Up to this point, I've lost all faith in Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof to deliver a cogent, logical and conclusive plot.

You said, "To me, it seems like they're taking characters from the Star Trek Universe and creating back stories that have absolutely no relation to the TOS. It's almost like they're in name only."

Which was primarily what I was responding to in my initial response to you. Your post implies that you care very much about how it relates to TOS.

Obviously, I misunderstood. My apologies.

Hammock Parties 12-11-2012 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9200409)
Up to this point, I've lost all faith in Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof to deliver a cogent, logical and conclusive plot.

LMAO

It'll be cool. Chris Pine is William Shatner 2.0.

keg in kc 12-11-2012 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9200415)
I thought that the TOS had a fair amount of high-concept scripts and some cool, reality based science fiction.

It did, but it also had some just god-awful ones too.

I think "The City on the Edge of Forever" by Harlan Ellison is still my one of favorite episodes of anything all time (and would I think have been even better without Roddenberry's typical utopian future meddling with the script but that's another discussion).

Ironically I guess, since we're talking about the foibles of time travel.

DaneMcCloud 12-11-2012 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn (Post 9200422)
You said, "To me, it seems like they're taking characters from the Star Trek Universe and creating back stories that have absolutely no relation to the TOS. It's almost like they're in name only."

Which was primarily what I was responding to in my initial response to you. Your post implies that you care very much about how it relates to TOS.

Obviously, I misunderstood. My apologies.

No, I DO NOT care how it relates to the TOS.

I care that there is a script and plot that actually makes sense, which is something I do not know if Orci, Kurtzman or Lindelof can deliver, based on their well-documented prior failures.

DaneMcCloud 12-11-2012 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 9200473)
It did, but it also had some just god-awful ones too.

I think "The City on the Edge of Forever" by Harlan Ellison is still my one of favorite episodes of anything all time (and would I think have been even better without Roddenberry's typical utopian future meddling with the script but that's another discussion).

Ironically I guess, since we're talking about the foibles of time travel.

That was certainly one of my favorites, as was "Mirror, Mirror", which is just outright silly but fun.

"City" didn't actually alter the events of time, did it? I can't remember.

keg in kc 12-11-2012 05:26 PM

Balance of Terror is another one I will always watch if it's on.

If I remember right (it's been years since I saw it...), Edith Keeler had to die to keep the Nazis from taking over the world. McCoy had changed history saving her from a car wreck and Kirk had to un-change it. Or something like that. And Kirk being Kirk...he had to hook up with her and complicate things.

On the flip side...we had Bread and Circuses...and a wide variety of episodes featuring various and sundry space hippies.

mnchiefsguy 12-11-2012 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whoman69 (Post 9200166)
So she would have joined Starfleet if Kirk's father didn't die?


What relationship did Carol Marcus have with Kirk's father?

Deberg_1990 12-11-2012 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 9200564)
Balance of Terror is another one I will always watch if it's on.

If I remember right (it's been years since I saw it...), Edith Keeler had to die to keep the Nazis from taking over the world. McCoy had changed history saving her from a car wreck and Kirk had to un-change it. Or something like that. And Kirk being Kirk...he had to hook up with her and complicate things.

On the flip side...we had Bread and Circuses...and a wide variety of episodes featuring various and sundry space hippies.

Balance of Terror was the one where they fought the Romulons ship to ship. Excellent episode.

The one you are talking about is City on the Edge of Forever with Joan Collins. Both from the 1st and "best" season of TOS. 2nd Season was decent too, but not quite as good......3rd season really blew for the most part and has some horribly dated episodes like the Space Hippies.

Deberg_1990 12-11-2012 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9200740)
Balance of Terror was the one where they fought the Romulons ship to ship. Excellent episode.

The one you are talking about is City on the Edge of Forever with Joan Collins. Both from the 1st and "best" season of TOS. 2nd Season was decent too, but not quite as good......3rd season really blew for the most part and has some horribly dated episodes like the Space Hippies.

Oh wait....duh, sorry didnt read your above posts.

Frazod 12-11-2012 06:57 PM

My favorite TOS episode is Doomsday Machine. I sure wouldn't mind them working Decker and the planet killer into a future movie.

keg in kc 12-11-2012 07:21 PM

I always liked the Doomsday Machine episode too. Maybe in part because (I think) it was a level on the Star Trek game I had on my GameBoy.

http://coolrom.com/screenshots/gbc/S...nniversary.gif http://coolrom.com/screenshots/gbc/S...%20%282%29.gif

Hammock Parties 12-11-2012 08:59 PM

I could never beat the asteroid level that had the Tholian ships coming at you at the same time...and maybe Klingons too. Enterprise always blew the **** up. I don't think I EVER beat that ****ing game.

Hammock Parties 12-11-2012 09:04 PM

JFC. Just watching this makes me want to hurl a gameboy.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/umpgN8-zsZg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Chiefspants 12-11-2012 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9200544)
No, I DO NOT care how it relates to the TOS.

I care that there is a script and plot that actually makes sense, which is something I do not know if Orci, Kurtzman or Lindelof can deliver, based on their well-documented prior failures.

One could make an argument that Abrams needs to be added to this list as well.

*Despite the plot holes, I loveloveloved the reboot.

whoman69 12-12-2012 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 9200398)
Fortunately Star Trek has never really been particularly high-concept, hard science fiction.

(I say this as a long, long time fan).

Not that it hasn't had its moments of greatness.

Its never sold itself as hard core sci-fi. Its always been a story driven work. Hard science fiction has never really had a popular audience.

DaneMcCloud 12-12-2012 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefspants (Post 9201280)
One could make an argument that Abrams needs to be added to this list as well.

*Despite the plot holes, I loveloveloved the reboot.

I never watched Alias but I heard it was a bit of a cluster**** as well. Ambiguous until the end.

I think Lindelof played a role in that as well.

Red Brooklyn 12-12-2012 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9202811)
I never watched Alias but I heard it was a bit of a cluster**** as well. Ambiguous until the end.

I think Lindelof played a role in that as well.

From what I recall he wanted to get a job writing for Alias. Met JJ and that lead to Lost. But I don't think Damon ever had any actual involvement with Alias.

DaneMcCloud 12-12-2012 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn (Post 9202832)
From what I recall he wanted to get a job writing for Alias. Met JJ and that lead to Lost. But I don't think Damon ever had any actual involvement with Alias.

You're right. He went from Nash Bridges to Crossing Jordan to Lost.

He still sucks ass.

Red Brooklyn 12-12-2012 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9202843)
You're right. He went from Nash Bridges to Crossing Jordan to Lost.

He still sucks ass.

LMAO

keg in kc 12-12-2012 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9202811)
I never watched Alias but I heard it was a bit of a cluster**** as well. Ambiguous until the end.

I think Lindelof played a role in that as well.

Alias (as I remember it) was kind of a weird bird. It actually started really strong then gradually devolved. It seemed like the more they got into Rambaldi mythos, the more the show went from "cool" to just kind of "weird". The spy stuff was good. Focusing on Sydney and her life and be a double agent was great. The davinici meets nostradamus stuff? Notsomuch. For me at least. And I'm somebody who usually eats up that kind of thing.

Red Brooklyn 12-12-2012 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 9202869)
Alias (as I remember it) was kind of a weird bird. It actually started really strong then gradually devolved. It seemed like the more they got into Rambaldi mythos, the more the show went from "cool" to just kind of "weird". The spy stuff was good. Focusing on Sydney and her life and be a double agent was great. The davinici meets nostradamus stuff? Notsomuch. For me at least. And I'm somebody who usually eats up that kind of thing.

I've only watched the first couple of episodes of Alias on Netflix. But now I'm really interested in watching it. I had no idea it got weird like that.

Interesting...

DaneMcCloud 12-12-2012 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 9202869)
Alias (as I remember it) was kind of a weird bird. It actually started really strong then gradually devolved. It seemed like the more they got into Rambaldi mythos, the more the show went from "cool" to just kind of "weird". The spy stuff was good. Focusing on Sydney and her life and be a double agent was great. The davinici meets nostradamus stuff? Notsomuch. For me at least. And I'm somebody who usually eats up that kind of thing.

I've not bothered to watch for the very reason you stated: It "devolves" into something odd.

That's why I'd never recommend purchasing the Lost DVD collection. I'd feel like a dick because the final season was a kick in the face. Why put friends and family through that?

Red Brooklyn 12-12-2012 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9202952)
I've not bothered to watch for the very reason you stated: It "devolves" into something odd.

That's why I'd never recommend purchasing the Lost DVD collection. I'd feel like a dick because the final season was a kick in the face. Why put friends and family through that?

Because maybe friends and family feel like I do, that the show as a staggering success from beginning to end? :)

Maybe they'd have a different opinion than you.

I'd prefer to let people decide for themselves. When people ask me if I'd recommend Lost, I tell them, yes. But with the caveat that a lot of people didn't like the ending. I tell them it's a character driven show, and that the ride is well worth it, regardless.

DaneMcCloud 12-12-2012 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn (Post 9203012)
Because maybe friends and family feel like I do, that the show as a staggering success from beginning to end? :)

Maybe they'd have a different opinion than you.

I'd prefer to let people decide for themselves. When people ask me if I'd recommend Lost, I tell them, yes. But with the caveat that a lot of people didn't like the ending. I tell them it's a character driven show, and that the ride is well worth it, regardless.

Sorry Dude, I'm not going to recommend to friends and family that they should spend $229 dollars on Lost Series Collection so that they can "decide for themselves" that it's a huge pile of steaming whale shit.

Red Brooklyn 12-12-2012 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9203018)
Sorry Dude, I'm not going to recommend that people spend $125 dollars on Lost so that they can "decide for themselves" that it's a huge pile of steaming whale shit.

But that's just it, maybe they won't. Maybe it'll mean a lot to them and they'll understand the show and love it.

DaneMcCloud 12-12-2012 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn (Post 9203030)
But that's just it, maybe they won't. Maybe it'll mean a lot to them and they'll understand the show and love it.

I will never try to convince someone to spend $229 dollars on that ****ing piece of shit.

If anyone ever asks me "What did you think of Lost? Should I buy it?", the answer would be a resounding NO.

**** LOST.

Red Brooklyn 12-12-2012 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9203034)
I will never try to convince someone to spend $229 dollars on that ****ing piece of shit.

If anyone ever asks me "What did you think of Lost? Should I buy it?", the answer would be a resounding NO.

**** LOST.

No one ever said you had to.

Frazod 12-12-2012 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9203034)
I will never try to convince someone to spend $229 dollars on that ****ing piece of shit.

If anyone ever asks me "What did you think of Lost? Should I buy it?", the answer would be a resounding NO.

**** LOST.

Seriously. I nearly bailed in the second season and wish now that I had. As I've mentioned before, this is why I won't watch Revolution.

DaneMcCloud 12-12-2012 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frazod (Post 9203124)
Seriously. I nearly bailed in the second season and wish now that I had. As I've mentioned before, this is why I won't watch Revolution.

Exactly. That's why I won't watch Revolution, either, or Person of Interest or Undercovers or Flash Forward. As I stated earlier, Fringe should have ended last year but no, they had to get to 100 episodes for $yndication.

The final seasons of Lost and Fringe are like Highlander 2. Everything that was so cool about Highlander was wiped out by the sequel.

And everything that was cool about Lost and Fringe were wiped out by their respective final seasons.

keg in kc 12-12-2012 07:40 PM

Person of Interest is one of the best shows on television right now. It's really, really good.

There's really nothing in the show (so far) that's reminiscent of the stuff that led to the issues with Alias and Lost. The machine that provides the numbers has been completely explained, from fairly early on, and while there are flashbacks, they don't happen every week. And when they do have them, they actually help move the show forward.

Love that show. Haven't missed an episode since it started. You're really doing yourself a disservice if you don't watch it based on previous Bad Robot missteps and I would (and do) wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone with zero reservations. It's that good.

Chiefspants 12-12-2012 09:05 PM

If anyone's interested in reading about some pretty deep flaws in Abrams' style, (ex. character development, plot holes, and his career as "Jeffrey Abrams") this article should interest you.

P.S. I do still enjoy most of his work, but he should probably not build the foundation of a TV series ever again.

http://www.nerve.com/movies/jj-abram...or-of-our-time

DaneMcCloud 12-12-2012 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefspants (Post 9203713)
If anyone's interested in reading about some pretty deep flaws in Abrams' style, (ex. character development, plot holes, and his career as "Jeffrey Abrams") this article should interest you.

P.S. I do still enjoy most of his work, but he should probably build the foundation of a TV series ever again.

http://www.nerve.com/movies/jj-abram...or-of-our-time

Super 8 was a major disappointment. Without Spielberg's involvement (which is clearly obvious), it would have been a disaster, and even with, it wasn't very good.

keg in kc 12-12-2012 09:21 PM

Yep, Super 8 was a total let-down.

Deberg_1990 12-12-2012 09:40 PM

Wow, I liked Super 8. I didn't see it until a few months ago, but I enjoyed it.
Posted via Mobile Device

Deberg_1990 12-12-2012 09:41 PM

Oh, I also really dug Mission Impossible 3.
Posted via Mobile Device

DaneMcCloud 12-12-2012 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9203793)
Wow, I liked Super 8. I didn't see it until a few months ago, but I enjoyed it.
Posted via Mobile Device

It was E.T. crossed with Cloverfield, a crappy score and an unoriginal alien.

Since Cloverfield was garbage...

DaneMcCloud 12-12-2012 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9203795)
Oh, I also really dug Mission Impossible 3.
Posted via Mobile Device

I thought it was cold, predictable and boring as ****.

HUGE disappointment.

DaneMcCloud 12-12-2012 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 9203768)
Yep, Super 8 was a total let-down.

I've stayed in Super 8 motels with more character and charisma than that POS movie.

pr_capone 12-12-2012 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 9203943)
I've stayed in Super 8 motels with more character and charisma than that POS movie.

Horse shit. I don't believe for a second that you have ever stayed in a Super 8. LOL

007 12-13-2012 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr_capone (Post 9203985)
Horse shit. I don't believe for a second that you have ever stayed in a Super 8. LOL

He's originally from Kansas City. Of course he did.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.