What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 ... 195
Online now: Bing (sucks), Google [Bot], juice, maurvir, Séamas, Yori
Post Reply
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
I don't know if i can watch The Human Centipede, although, i am so curious to see it. LOL!

I watched Finding Nemo this morning. :D
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
justine posted:
I don't know if i can watch The Human Centipede, although, i am so curious to see it. LOL!

I watched Finding Nemo this morning. :D


I'm pretty sure I can't. Mental image filters don't work nearly as well when you are actually seeing images...

Finding Nemo, on the other hand, was great. I loved that movie.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
I'd rather watch all the Faces of Death series followed by Saw I-XII before I'd watch the Human Centipede. Hell, I'd even watch Titanic.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
Metacell posted:
I'd rather watch all the Faces of Death series followed by Saw I-XII before I'd watch the Human Centipede. Hell, I'd even watch Titanic.


Wow, it can't be that bad, can it? :eek:
arkayn Aaarrrggghhhh
User avatar
Metacell posted:
I'd rather watch all the Faces of Death series followed by Saw I-XII before I'd watch the Human Centipede. Hell, I'd even watch Titanic.


I think I can agree with this sentiment!!
I finally watched Star Trek Into Darkness and Iron Man 3. Fine as general entertainment, but....

Both movies are examples of the adage that in Hollywood with success you aren't allowed to do better, you only can do MORE.

I think that Iron Man 3 suffers from being a bit...um, formulaic. The plot is something of a mishmash with plot points coming out of nowhere. The attack on Tony Stark's mansion on the cliffs over Malibu is a visual highlight but it left me with a lot of questions like: where did the attacking helicopters come from? It might have been explained with a short scene at an airport where some officials ask why the helos were being so loaded, only to be explained that they are for a movie shoot ("Pretty neat, huh?" "Awfully realistic"). Then after the attack: where do the crews aboad those helos go? That they were all destroyed during the attack doesn't explain what was supposed to happen next--most people don't to into such expecting a suicide mission.

Which leads me to another question: what are the motivations of the group behind the Mandarin? It is insufficient to explain that a developer got slighted by Tony Stark back on New Year's Eve, 1999: that might explain him alone, but what are the motivations behind the mountain of personnel backing him? There are hundreds if not thousands of people who involved with the Mandarin, but why? In this way Iron Man 2 was similar but the climax of that movie was due to that lone developer highjacking the machinery created using his work by a large corporation in competition with Stark Industries. It seems to me that the only motivation for most of the evil people in Iron Man 3 is only that they ARE evil people.

+++++

STID as science fiction has a lot of problems. There are many things which don't much if any sense.

Leaving aside the differing needs for a spaceship vs. a submersible, submerging the Enterprise for the opening sequence might be explained if you view the Federation's Prime Directive as paramount (no pun intended): anyone who has seen the International Space Station pass overhead after sunset (or before sunrise, if you are so inclined) can now realize that a mostly white starship with about 9 times the cross-section of the ISS would be glaringly obvious from the ground, and any primitive society would be much more sky-observant than a more technological one since they would be very dependent upon weather and the cycle of the seasons. Well, if they had bothered to explain this...(perhaps such footage is on the editing room floor, metaphorically speaking).

There is still the problem of Kirk and McCoy swimming their way to an airlock in the engine section of the Enterprise. That is a long way to swim downward even for a trained swimmer (though I suppose that could be explained as part of Federation Academy training). They couldn't have used an airlock in the saucer section except as an excuse to display the Enterprise?

In the climatic fight between Spock and Khan, it is quickly explained that the Enterprise cannot get a transporter lock on them. Such has been an on-going problem ever since ST:TOS though it involves an extended explanation. While the Enterprise could "park" itself over a given location of planet by running its impulse engines, the relatively energy-free way to place a starship above a planet is, of course, to put it into orbit. Given that this particular scene takes place in San Francisco, we can use real numbers: to orbit around the Earth the Enterprise would be travelling almost 18,000 MPH or a bit less than 5 miles per second. The Earth itself is rotating, so we have to compensate for the rotational speed at San Francisco (about 810 MPH) which likely will be moving in a different vector from the Enterprise's orbit. Given these complications, for some reason the transporter wasn't able to lock on to people on a vehicle which, presumably, is travelling along a predictable path at MUCH lower speeds than either of the above numbers? And I am leaving aside the fact that the Enterprise at the moment of this fight scene was "using its thrusters"--really?--to avoid crashing into the Earth since this makes this particular situation even simpler than the typical transporter situation.

+++++

So, both movies are OK as eye candy but they left me feeling rather empty. I likely will see the next movies in both series but I do hope for a bit more story substance.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
I assume the motivation for Mandarin's henchmen and hirelings is the same as for any James Bond villain's: money and power.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
I finally watched Star Trek Into Darkness and Iron Man 3. Fine as general entertainment, but....

Both movies are examples of the adage that in Hollywood with success you aren't allowed to do better, you only can do MORE.

I think that Iron Man 3 suffers from being a bit...um, formulaic. The plot is something of a mishmash with plot points coming out of nowhere. The attack on Tony Stark's mansion on the cliffs over Malibu is a visual highlight but it left me with a lot of questions like: where did the attacking helicopters come from? It might have been explained with a short scene at an airport where some officials ask why the helos were being so loaded, only to be explained that they are for a movie shoot ("Pretty neat, huh?" "Awfully realistic"). Then after the attack: where do the crews aboad those helos go? That they were all destroyed during the attack doesn't explain what was supposed to happen next--most people don't to into such expecting a suicide mission.

Which leads me to another question: what are the motivations of the group behind the Mandarin? It is insufficient to explain that a developer got slighted by Tony Stark back on New Year's Eve, 1999: that might explain him alone, but what are the motivations behind the mountain of personnel backing him? There are hundreds if not thousands of people who involved with the Mandarin, but why? In this way Iron Man 2 was similar but the climax of that movie was due to that lone developer highjacking the machinery created using his work by a large corporation in competition with Stark Industries. It seems to me that the only motivation for most of the evil people in Iron Man 3 is only that they ARE evil people.

+++++

STID as science fiction has a lot of problems. There are many things which don't much if any sense.

Leaving aside the differing needs for a spaceship vs. a submersible, submerging the Enterprise for the opening sequence might be explained if you view the Federation's Prime Directive as paramount (no pun intended): anyone who has seen the International Space Station pass overhead after sunset (or before sunrise, if you are so inclined) can now realize that a mostly white starship with about 9 times the cross-section of the ISS would be glaringly obvious from the ground, and any primitive society would be much more sky-observant than a more technological one since they would be very dependent upon weather and the cycle of the seasons. Well, if they had bothered to explain this...(perhaps such footage is on the editing room floor, metaphorically speaking).

There is still the problem of Kirk and McCoy swimming their way to an airlock in the engine section of the Enterprise. That is a long way to swim downward even for a trained swimmer (though I suppose that could be explained as part of Federation Academy training). They couldn't have used an airlock in the saucer section except as an excuse to display the Enterprise?

In the climatic fight between Spock and Khan, it is quickly explained that the Enterprise cannot get a transporter lock on them. Such has been an on-going problem ever since ST:TOS though it involves an extended explanation. While the Enterprise could "park" itself over a given location of planet by running its impulse engines, the relatively energy-free way to place a starship above a planet is, of course, to put it into orbit. Given that this particular scene takes place in San Francisco, we can use real numbers: to orbit around the Earth the Enterprise would be travelling almost 18,000 MPH or a bit less than 5 miles per second. The Earth itself is rotating, so we have to compensate for the rotational speed at San Francisco (about 810 MPH) which likely will be moving in a different vector from the Enterprise's orbit. Given these complications, for some reason the transporter wasn't able to lock on to people on a vehicle which, presumably, is travelling along a predictable path at MUCH lower speeds than either of the above numbers? And I am leaving aside the fact that the Enterprise at the moment of this fight scene was "using its thrusters"--really?--to avoid crashing into the Earth since this makes this particular situation even simpler than the typical transporter situation.

+++++

So, both movies are OK as eye candy but they left me feeling rather empty. I likely will see the next movies in both series but I do hope for a bit more story substance.


You think too much.

besides, the transporters couldn't get a lock on them because they were moving.
^what he said.

In every Star Trek show/movie the people have to be standing still for the transporter to get a lock.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Except when they are plummeting through the sky of Vulcan.
Chekhov was manually compensating for falling. Spock and Khan were running all over changing directions constantly. :shrug:
obvs Social Distancing Grandmaster
Send private message
Warm Bodies.

It was an interesting idea. It seems original. I don't know of anything similar.

It was an okay movie. Not bad, not really wonderful.
j_tso posted:
Chekhov was manually compensating for falling. Spock and Khan were running all over changing directions constantly. :shrug:

If the transporter has trouble tracking a person moving erratically at running speed then how can it compensate for a ship in orbit moving at 5 miles per second relative to the planet's axis?

Sorry, but the real problem with Star Trek transporters ever since TOS is that most of the time they do not work when called for by the plot, not for any logical physics reason.
Metacell posted:
I assume the motivation for Mandarin's henchmen and hirelings is the same as for any James Bond villain's: money and power.

You can assume that if you like, but evidence for that motivation is completely lacking in Iron Man 3. Perhaps it got edited out because one of the studios which co-produced the movie is based in mainland China.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
But that kind of evidence is usually lacking in any James Bond movie or most other action movies as well. Unless it's a character study in crime and corruption, cronies are just cronies wherever they may be. It's a safe assumption that they are general reprobates and that they're being paid more than Wal*Mart workers.

FWIW, with comic book movies, I'm not expecting realism.
jkahless Custom Title
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
Leaving aside the differing needs for a spaceship vs. a submersible, submerging the Enterprise for the opening sequence might be explained if you view the Federation's Prime Directive as paramount (no pun intended): anyone who has seen the International Space Station pass overhead after sunset (or before sunrise, if you are so inclined) can now realize that a mostly white starship with about 9 times the cross-section of the ISS would be glaringly obvious from the ground, and any primitive society would be much more sky-observant than a more technological one since they would be very dependent upon weather and the cycle of the seasons. Well, if they had bothered to explain this...(perhaps such footage is on the editing room floor, metaphorically speaking).


Sci Fi is full of examples of space ships going underwater. Must be part of the design spec. :p

Quote:
There is still the problem of Kirk and McCoy swimming their way to an airlock in the engine section of the Enterprise. That is a long way to swim downward even for a trained swimmer (though I suppose that could be explained as part of Federation Academy training). They couldn't have used an airlock in the saucer section except as an excuse to display the Enterprise?


If you watch them as they swim, it's obvious that they're not swimming, but being propelled by some sort of mechanical aid, probably strapped to their ankles.

Quote:
In the climatic fight between Spock and Khan, it is quickly explained that the Enterprise cannot get a transporter lock on them. Such has been an on-going problem ever since ST:TOS though it involves an extended explanation. While the Enterprise could "park" itself over a given location of planet by running its impulse engines, the relatively energy-free way to place a starship above a planet is, of course, to put it into orbit. Given that this particular scene takes place in San Francisco, we can use real numbers: to orbit around the Earth the Enterprise would be travelling almost 18,000 MPH or a bit less than 5 miles per second. The Earth itself is rotating, so we have to compensate for the rotational speed at San Francisco (about 810 MPH) which likely will be moving in a different vector from the Enterprise's orbit. Given these complications, for some reason the transporter wasn't able to lock on to people on a vehicle which, presumably, is travelling along a predictable path at MUCH lower speeds than either of the above numbers? And I am leaving aside the fact that the Enterprise at the moment of this fight scene was "using its thrusters"--really?--to avoid crashing into the Earth since this makes this particular situation even simpler than the typical transporter situation.


It's been a while, but I seem to recall that it wasn't that they couldn't get a lock, but it was that the transporters were damaged and could only beam out, not in.
Rush

I liked it. Good drama and character development, and then there's old school F1 racing. There's a lot of timeline jumping in the first two thirds since it's a biopic.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
j_tso posted:
Rush

I liked it. Good drama and character development, and then there's old school F1 racing. There's a lot of timeline jumping in the first two thirds since it's a biopic.


I saw "F1s greates rivals", made by the BBC, and I liked it a lot. Do I want to see this? not sure. Maybe I will.
jkahless posted:
[snip]
It's been a while, but I seem to recall that it wasn't that they couldn't get a lock, but it was that the transporters were damaged and could only beam out, not in.

Nope. From the movie's script:
Quote:
Sulu (in the captain's chair): Can you beam them up to the ship?

Chekov: Ah--they keep moving. I cannot get a lock on either of them!

Uhura: Can you beam someone down?

Now, remember that Spock and Khan are fighting on top of a vehicle which was certainly moving faster relative to the ground than they could sprint. Surely THAT vehicle's movement should have been the bigger problem when trying to get a transporter lock on them except, of course, had that been the problem then Uhura couldn't have been beamed down to save Spock.

The writers could have done something like: Khan--knowing that transporters could remove him from wherever he may be--carries a device which prevents him from being transported when he turns it on (so this would involve inserting an scene earlier in the movie where such is demonstrated). So Chekov's line above could have been altered to something like: "Spock, yes; but not Khan--he has blocked the transporter!"
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
Transporters were always the ugly Deus Ex Machina of Star Trek, and they would have done better to eliminate them. I can't begin to count the number of times the writers used "transporters" to beam their way out of massive plot holes.

The only reason they existed at all was that Roddenberry didn't want to waste time showing them going down to the planet in the shuttle.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
radarman posted:
Transporters were always the ugly Deus Ex Machina of Star Trek, and they would have done better to eliminate them. I can't begin to count the number of times the writers used "transporters" to beam their way out of massive plot holes.

The only reason they existed at all was that Roddenberry didn't want to waste time showing them going down to the planet in the shuttle.


Not what I've heard. I believe it was because it was cheaper than building the shuttle models.
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
radarman posted:
The only reason they existed at all was that Roddenberry didn't have the budget to show them going down to the planet in the shuttle.

FTFY.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
"Our teleporter was just Christmas tree lights!"
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
radarman posted:
Transporters were always the ugly Deus Ex Machina of Star Trek, and they would have done better to eliminate them. I can't begin to count the number of times the writers used "transporters" to beam their way out of massive plot holes.

The only reason they existed at all was that Roddenberry didn't want to waste time showing them going down to the planet in the shuttle.


True. but there were even BIGGER massibve plot holes that were resolved by ...

You guessed it! Going back in time to fix the problem before it begins!
ukimalefu posted:
radarman posted:
Transporters were always the ugly Deus Ex Machina of Star Trek, and they would have done better to eliminate them. I can't begin to count the number of times the writers used "transporters" to beam their way out of massive plot holes.

The only reason they existed at all was that Roddenberry didn't want to waste time showing them going down to the planet in the shuttle.


Not what I've heard. I believe it was because it was cheaper than building the shuttle models.

You both are right. After all there were shuttles even in TOS, but it was cheaper in both money and screen time to film the transporter scenes (even with its primitive--though expensive for TV--special effects) than to show a sequence of the away team getting aboard a shuttle, settling in, launching the shuttle from the Enterprise (which alone probably would have cancelled the transporter special effects budget), the shuttle landing on the ground, then the away team leaving it. After the series had established that such a system existed then they didn't even have to show the away team standing on a transporter deck, just merely show them beaming into the scene or even just play the sound effect and have the locals react to these people appearing off-screen (a common ploy late in the seasons of TOS).
Gravity in IMAX 3D. Holy fiddlesticks, what a spectacular film. Loads of plot holes, but so amazingly beautiful and chaotic. This is probably one of the first films I would actually buy into the "you must see it on a big screen for full effect" argument. The wife was not nearly as enchanted as I was.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
jkahless posted:
[snip]
It's been a while, but I seem to recall that it wasn't that they couldn't get a lock, but it was that the transporters were damaged and could only beam out, not in.

Nope. From the movie's script:
Quote:
Sulu (in the captain's chair): Can you beam them up to the ship?

Chekov: Ah--they keep moving. I cannot get a lock on either of them!

Uhura: Can you beam someone down?

Now, remember that Spock and Khan are fighting on top of a vehicle which was certainly moving faster relative to the ground than they could sprint. Surely THAT vehicle's movement should have been the bigger problem when trying to get a transporter lock on them except, of course, had that been the problem then Uhura couldn't have been beamed down to save Spock.

Not necessarily, all motion is relative. Everything in the universe is moving at an astronomical rate of speed relative to something. It's not their actual velocity which was the issue, but that their movement was unpredictable.

(Disclaimer: haven't seen the movie, don't plan to. The reboot is an abomination.)
Metacell posted:
DEyncourt posted:
jkahless posted:
[snip]
It's been a while, but I seem to recall that it wasn't that they couldn't get a lock, but it was that the transporters were damaged and could only beam out, not in.

Nope. From the movie's script:
Quote:
Sulu (in the captain's chair): Can you beam them up to the ship?

Chekov: Ah--they keep moving. I cannot get a lock on either of them!

Uhura: Can you beam someone down?

Now, remember that Spock and Khan are fighting on top of a vehicle which was certainly moving faster relative to the ground than they could sprint. Surely THAT vehicle's movement should have been the bigger problem when trying to get a transporter lock on them except, of course, had that been the problem then Uhura couldn't have been beamed down to save Spock.

Not necessarily, all motion is relative. Everything in the universe is moving at an astronomical rate of speed relative to something. It's not their actual velocity which was the issue, but that their movement was unpredictable.

(Disclaimer: haven't seen the movie, don't plan to. The reboot is an abomination.)

The relative frame of reference was the point in my next-to-last paragraph of my first post on Star Trek Into Darkness. The problem with the failure for transporters to lock in every version of Star Trek is that compared to everything that is usually going on, a person moving himself unpredictably vanishes into insignificance. It is just a plot device that simply doesn't make any sense.
Friendly Persuasion, 1956.

Garbage. Gary Cooper just sort of grinned his way through this dreck. I'm not surprised if it seemed he couldn't take the script very seriously.
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
I watched the first third of Now You See Me. Can't wait to see the rest of it!
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
World War Z

I really liked it. But I'm still not a fan of "fast zombies".
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
Dredd. A perfect piece o'crap movie for me to watch while my lovely lady was at work.
chikie The same deviled egg
User avatar
Pithecanthropus posted:
Dredd. A perfect piece o'crap movie for me to watch while my lovely lady was at work.

It amused me to think about how much better it was than the Judge Dredd movie that was made in the 90s with Stallone.
dv
User avatar
Yeah, I rather enjoyed Dredd 2012.
TOS
User avatar
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
I think both Judge Dredd movies went too far in their respective directions, one campy, the other ultra-violent. If they could somehow be morphed together, they'd actually resemble the comic book. Or if they could have just done a time-warp and switched the leads.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
-Pacific Rim

Most impressive CGI (haters gonna hate and say it still looks fake and it rips off Ultraman, or something)

Story is on par with any american action movie from recent years. Monsters, robots, explosions, boy fights the bully, nerds solves the problem, they kill the bad guys, boy gets the girl.

Sorry, did I spoil that for you? too bad. :p

But I do think it looks amazing.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
-Silent Running

If you keep in mind that this is an early 70s movie, it's not bad. I just wish they had filmed the original script.

SPOILERS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Running

Still, I wonder how the last creepy little robot and his forest are doing now.

Last edited by ukimalefu on Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:29 pm.

user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
I saw that one in the theatre with dad. Loved the Joan Baez title song. I have SR on dvd and IIRC, there's an extensive documentary about how they filmed it on an old ship and scenes showing the amputee actors who played the robots.

I think that the script that they filmed is very poignant.
Incubus (1966)

William Shatner speaking in Esperanto in a battle with the devil.

Saw half of it Saturday night on TCM, it was groovy and freaky.

Trailer link
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

What was the last movie you saw?

Page: 1 ... 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 ... 195