Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

no, No, NO, NO!!!, NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!

And as for teh j00z who run Hollywood? Fuck 'em, it's a fact. Look it up. The men at the head of every single major studio? Jewish.

Now that's not a condemnation, it's just a statement of fact. Know where the condemnation comes from? It comes in reaction to the way they treat people who reveal that fact.

Hint to my kosher friends: If you don't want the goyim to yell that you blacklist them? Stop fucking blacklisting them! Oy!
 
I'll need to disagree with you on a couple things
1. Star Trek: It remained SOMEWHAT faithful to the original in terms of the personalities. I thought the McCoy character was spot-fucking-on. There is the problem of Abrams re-writing all of Trek history in order to turn it into his personal cash cow to be milked for many sequels to come, I'm sure, but the basic feeling was there. And Vulcans have always been smarmy bastards, I'm not sure what Star Trek you've been watching.

2. A-Team...you know, I liked the show and I liked the movie. The 'feel' of it was right. Wasn't great and I agree they weren't quite as undercover as maybe they should have been, but I guess that's another case of re-written history/cash cow. I just don't know if I could sit through another one without the van.

3. Predators. Never seen it, but always meant to. Not too bad, you say?

Last but not least, I think it's important to keep in mind that these were made with today's audience in mind. The world is a much different place now than it was in the early 80's, certainly different than it was in the late 60's. Still doesn't excuse the garbage they've churned out with beloved horror franchise labels.
 
I'll need to disagree with you on a couple things

Which only makes you wrong. But go ahead. Go right on ahead and be wrong.

1. Star Trek: It remained SOMEWHAT faithful to the original in terms of the personalities.

Did it? Oh, wait... no. It turned Kirk into a juvenile delinquent, and no, I don't mean in the tween flashback, I mean from there all the way up until he takes command of the Boobyprize.

I thought the McCoy character was spot-fucking-on.

Because Urban's performance was the only one that showed even the slightest scrap of respect to the source material. Not one of the others did.

There is the problem of Abrams re-writing all of Trek history in order to turn it into his personal cash cow to be milked for many sequels to come, I'm sure, but the basic feeling was there.

Where? Where was it anything beyond a dimwitted, generic "sci-fi ad-vent-yor!!!"?

And Vulcans have always been smarmy bastards, I'm not sure what Star Trek you've been watching.

The pre-Enterprise Star Trek, where the Vulcans were portrayed as, if not genuinely logical, at least a vastly superior approximation of it.

2. A-Team...you know, I liked the show and I liked the movie. The 'feel' of it was right. Wasn't great and I agree they weren't quite as undercover as maybe they should have been, but I guess that's another case of re-written history/cash cow. I just don't know if I could sit through another one without the van.

The fact that it was the van and not the characters that served as the lynchpin connecting that piece of pablum to anything you remember as the A-Team? That reinforces my point.

3. Predators. Never seen it, but always meant to. Not too bad, you say?

Not too bad at all, as far as stale, boring reboots/remakes go. At least it presented a superficial illusion of being something fresh.

Last but not least, I think it's important to keep in mind that these were made with today's audience in mind. The world is a much different place now than it was in the early 80's, certainly different than it was in the late 60's. Still doesn't excuse the garbage they've churned out with beloved horror franchise labels.

Then they should have created, not recycled.[/i] If they can't do justice to the source material, they should leave it the fuck alone.
 
Hellboy.
Watchmen.
(comics, I know)

LOTR series - an example of a book adaptation done right.

All good movies, and derivative of successful material, but NOT of pre-done movies (The Hobbit excepted).

REALLY original sci-fi: District 9. Note where it was made and who made it....

Probably one of the few "Remakes" that was well done: King Kong. Flawed, but well done none the less and far better than the 70's remakes. Also they gave the franchise a good long "rest".
Again...look who made it...
 
Did it? Oh, wait... no. It turned Kirk into a juvenile delinquent, and no, I don't mean in the tween flashback, I mean from there all the way up until he takes command of the Boobyprize.
Kirk was known for being a hothead in his younger days. That's just Trek history. As to the specifics, very few were given during the show, this movie simply played out a relatively plausible scenario in that regard.

Because Urban's performance was the only one that showed even the slightest scrap of respect to the source material. Not one of the others did.
How so? Urban played an insane Romulan. Romulans are assholes, but generally not insane. I was speaking of McCoy and whoever played him. Kirk was well done - I remember the barfight scene after he gets popped in the mouth, the look on his face immediately afterwards was as close to Kirk as anyone outside of Shatner could ever come. He's rash, brash and unprincipled at this point which I think is a fair approximation of how the young Kirk would have been.
Scotty...alas, they fucked up there. I think Simon Pegg is an excellent comedic actor, loved him in everything else I've seen him in, but this wasn't the role for him. Way off base.
Spock was pretty good, but his nose was too big. New Spock, not Spock the first.

Where? Where was it anything beyond a dimwitted, generic "sci-fi ad-vent-yor!!!"?
It's all in the characters, man.


The pre-Enterprise Star Trek, where the Vulcans were portrayed as, if not genuinely logical, at least a vastly superior approximation of it.
And how was this not displayed properly in the movie? Vulcans have always been stuck up snobby pricks. Spock is half-human, and that comes through in the movie as it has in the TV shows.

The fact that it was the van and not the characters that served as the lynchpin connecting that piece of pablum to anything you remember as the A-Team? That reinforces my point.
The van. Easily the most instantly recognizable piece of the A-Team. That's right, not seeing them roll in that beast was a bit of a slap in the face.
Now, this is a group of 4 guys who, episode after episode, at the urging of a pretty lady will concoct an impossible plan to defeat a group of bad guys who usually outnumber them by at least a few to 1, improvising all the way with the tools and environmental components around them. And then they do it. So how was the movie different? Minus the van, I mean.


Not too bad at all, as far as stale, boring reboots/remakes go. At least it presented a superficial illusion of being something fresh.
Then I'll keep it in mind next time I stop by TPB.


Then they should have created, not recycled.[/i] If they can't do justice to the source material, they should leave it the fuck alone.
There are certainly movies out there with which to better illustrate your point than the ones you've chosen here.
 
Sir Sacrifyx said:
Urban played an insane Romulan. Romulans are assholes, but generally not insane. I was speaking of McCoy and whoever played him.

Karl Urban played McCoy. You are FAIL. You go home now.
 
Top