Jump to content

taksraven

Members
  • Posts

    4673
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by taksraven

  1. It looks like they are drawing from most of it, and since all of the versions of GITS are slightly different.......well..... It's actually a lot like Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy in that way. I think in the blurb for the first Dirk Gently novel it described Douglas Adams as being the "author of all of the different and wildly conflicting versions of HHGTTG".

    That's ok though.

    I predict that this will possibly be more of an "origin" story. It is Hollywood, and we know how much they like them. I also predict that there will be shitloads more exposition than any other version of GITS. Hollywood, once again.

    I don't think that this movie should have to be a slave to the previous versions of the story, that would suck. There is nothing wrong with it following it's own path. There's nothing wrong with being surprised.

  2. That particular symbol doesn't work for a bat-signal. The "points"/details are too small and fine. They'd get obliterated over distance/cloud/fog. It'd just be a "splotch signal" really.

    I think that the Nolan films gave the best representation of a bat-signal. Messy as hell and useless if you don't have clouds to reflect off.....

  3. In the canon universe Wookipedia only mentions that they are used on the X-Wing fighters to give them a wider field of firing range:

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/S-foils#cite_note-0

    That's all well and good when you are going up against a bigger target (like a capital ship), but in dogfighting you want a narrower range of attack to really get the guy right in front of you. That or X-Wings should have a central blaster down the center line of the ship to help ensure that the pilot does not miss.

    How good would it be if they used their variable capabilities the same way as Valks, constantly switching between modes. That would look great.

  4. Simple review.

    Not as bad as they say, but still riddled with problems.

    Needed more work at the scriptwriting stage (like most movies these days it looks like they started filming on a second or third draft, *sigh*) and it looks like editing is becoming a lost art.

    And despite what a lot of people say, I enjoyed the movie more when it became more serious towards the end.

  5. I think that the popularity of this game has surprised the media/general public simply due to the fact that a lot of people didn't know how popular Pokemon is.

    If you're above a certain age range the game/show means little to you and all of a sudden its popularity is being shoved in everyone's faces.

    But yeah, this is just a fad as well.

  6. There were also rumors of a remake of The Black Hole being in early development at Disney as well but I think the plug was quietly pulled on that after the Star Wars purchase.

  7. There were a lot of good and bad points to the film which is probably the best way to break it down.

    GOOD:

    * The aliens - These new CG versions have gone from looking like puppets in the original to looking fairly fearsome in the sequel. An area where new technology definitely improved things.

    * The dogfights - Still not great but a lot better than the original. The new designs for the alien ships looked a lot more streamlined but the Earth fighters were not so good.

    * Brent Spiner - Going from a minor role in the original to a pretty major role in the sequel he gave it his best. A good effort.

    * Effects in general - looked awesome. Some really good stuff.

    * Design work in the film - once again, a lot better than the original but with the really fast cuts there is little chance to enjoy how nice a lot of elements in this film look.

    * The last half hour - The best part of the film. Makes up for the weaker first 3/4 of the film.

    BAD:

    * Script - No way did it take 20 years to write this script. Looked like it had been tossed off in about 2 weeks before the film started production. Could have been better.

    * Editing - Some really bad cuts that made little sense. There was also a lot of cutting away from.......

    * Violence - A lot of the violence looked really toned down in this. Would have been nice to see Sela Wards president actually getting blown away rather than cutting away from it. The massacre in the war room could have been a great scene.

    * Pacing - Character development is important but a lot of it in this film (especially Angelbaby's character stuff) was really pointless and went nowhere. Slowed down the pacing of the film.

    * Too much like a rehash of the first - Back in the 90's there must have been some sort of preliminary work carried out on a sequel because I remember mention of "The next one taking the fight back to the aliens homeworld" and I think that would have been a more interesting film to see. They certainly made it clear that if they get a sequel then that is the direction they will go, at least.

  8. To be fair, they did try going the sciency, harder sci-fi route with TMP, and it didn't really get them anywhere. All problems aside, I still really like that movie and it's premise, but the pacing makes it hard to stay awake.

    On the other hand, they may have inadvertently invented the look of Apple screensavers for years to come. :lol:

    I don't think I agree that they were going with a "harder" SF approach with TMP, but they certainly tried a different approach. I think they got bogged down with a lot of the Special Effects which was a pity 'cause the best thing about TMP was the character interactions.

    They put out a DVD version a few years ago that added some more character interaction and tightened up a few things like elements of the special effects and that was pretty good. It's not out on Blu-Ray though because the remastered and new effects were not rendered in HD. A pity.

  9. Wow. A Star Trek Vs. The Rest Of Science Fiction debate.

    That's gonna end well.

    The thing that gave Star Trek a real boost in the really early days in the 60's was the fact that a lot of the writers they employed were proper literary SF writers, some of which had a half-decent understanding of science. That was why, for many of the episodes in the Original Series (but definitely not all) the quality of the writing was a notch above its contemporaries (Yes, I'm looking at you, Lost In Space) and it was a tradition that did hold on for a while in the more modern versions of the show, but by the time you got to DS9 and Voyager things were getting very outlandish overall.

    By the time we got to the original series of Trek films it was all completely character and action driven and the reboot/alternative universe films we are getting today are only trying to maintain that tradition. "Proper" science is completely out the window. (But don't get me wrong, I still enjoy the new films)

    While I'm mentioning Lost In Space, in some internet press all three remaining fans of that show have been whinging that 2016 is also their 50th anniversary and world couldn't give a crap apparently, LOL.

  10. The audience cares. Though it's Star Wars we still want it to feel original. Injecting a Katniss Everdeen makes it feel like pandering to a female audience or worse, desperation. Mind you this is noticeable and not just by us here in MWF. Perhaps a new trailer with some more of Forest Whitaker's character will lessen the Hunger Games comparison. Till then...

    May the Force be ever in your favor!

    "Pandering to a female audience"??

    OH, GOD FORBID, THEY ARE DEVELOPING SOME DECENT FEMALE CHARACTERS IN THE STAR WARS FRANCHISE THESE DAYS!!!!!!

    Seriously, how many female "characters" were in the original trilogy?? How many had more than one or two lines??

    And the situation was nearly as bad in the prequel trilogy.

    Now they are doing something to improve on that (not by a huge amount, mind you) and we are going to whine about it? Really??

×
×
  • Create New...