Sign In

Random Thoughts — Page 299

Author
Time

Just be careful. Sometimes when you gays on the brain, the brain gays back onto you.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

I just found out that Warner Bros. and MGM are going to team up to do a reboot of Stargate in the form of a film trilogy directed by Roland Emmerich.

While I do think the Stargate franchise needs to be rebooted (I am NOT fond of how Stargate SG-1 and its spinoffs interpreted the universe), I don't believe for a second that Emmerich should be the one handled the reigns to it. He may have co-created the original film, but it was heavily flawed and, frankly, he doesn't have the talent or the vision to do the potential of the Stargate universe any justice.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well there is no way I will be watching any reboot that tries to undo SG-1 and Atlantis.  So the fans support the shows for more then a decade and the studio makes a bunch of money off of them and how does the studio thank these loyal fans? They say "That show was crap and you were an idiot for watching it and it never happened!",that's just great.

You know I am getting sick of reboots,why bother watching a story when you know in a few years the studio is going to say it never happened?  Whatever happened to seeing stories play out and building on what came before? Stop retelling the same stories over and over again and give us something new Hollywood.  Just because something has been gone for a while doesn't mean you have to start over,just look at Doctor Who,one of the reasons it is so popular right now is that it didn't start over and it built on what came before and it was off the air for 16 years and was the butt of jokes about bad cheap tv for most of that time and yet look at it now.

Still I guess if it keeps Emmerich away from Foundation that would be something.

Author
Time

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Well there is no way I will be watching any reboot that tries to undo SG-1 and Atlantis.  So the fans support the shows for more then a decade and the studio makes a bunch of money off of them and how does the studio thank these loyal fans? They say "That show was crap and you were an idiot for watching it and it never happened!",that's just great.

You know I am getting sick of reboots,why bother watching a story when you know in a few years the studio is going to say it never happened?  Whatever happened to seeing stories play out and building on what came before? Stop retelling the same stories over and over again and give us something new Hollywood.  Just because something has been gone for a while doesn't mean you have to start over,just look at Doctor Who,one of the reasons it is so popular right now is that it didn't start over and it built on what came before and it was off the air for 16 years and was the butt of jokes about bad cheap tv for most of that time and yet look at it now.

Still I guess if it keeps Emmerich away from Foundation that would be something.

This smacks too much of the EUphiles and their anger towards the ST. Since it's all fiction, it never really happened anyway. And besides, all those DVDs and Blu-rays of Stargate SG-1 and co. are still going to be produced and sold; a reboot isn't going to cause them to magically vanish from the face of the Earth.

Also, when you get right down to it, SG-1 was basically a reboot in and of itself. 

Author
Time

Yeah I guess it's just when given the choices between the two I would rather see what came before built on.  Over all I like the NuWho and Sg-1 approach where you don't keep everything exactly the same but the events still happened and you are still building on them. For all the changes SG-1 made the foundation was in the movie and they never said the movie didn't happen.

I don't know maybe I am just sick of reboots in general.  I was really hoping that they would bring in a new director and writer and our next Batman movie would be about Robin from TDKR but now that's not happening and then they had one Spiderman movie with problems and that was enough for them to go back and make us watch the origin story all over again,I guess I am just sick of it in general. It seems like origin stories do better at the box office so now everything is a reboot.  Maybe I am being unfair because most people seem to like these movies but I am just burnt out on reboots.

Author
Time

Same here. As much as I like some of these films, and the reboots are often improvements over the originals, or the previous reboot, or the seven previous reboots before that, I want to see something new. Why must all the superhero movies be based on the comics? Why can't we build on the story the comics established rather than reusing the comics' ideas and telling the same story over and over again with new actors? Invent some new superheros and villains already.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RicOlie_2 said:

Same here. As much as I like some of these films, and the reboots are often improvements over the originals, or the previous reboot, or the seven previous reboots before that, I want to see something new. Why must all the superhero movies be based on the comics? Why can't we build on the story the comics established rather than reusing the comics' ideas and telling the same story over and over again with new actors? Invent some new superheros and villains already.

 Yeah for instance when I was a kid Spiderman and Marry Jane were a married couple I would love to see a movie that explored that but not in the way the comics did.  Like have Mary Jane be worried but also have her be able to pick Peter's spirits up when he is down. Maybe even give them a kid.  I assume having the child of a Spider mutant would be more dangerous then having a normal baby,why not show that?  Have Eddy Brock be an ex Boyfriend if you really want to go the soap opera route that the movies and the comics seem to have gone in recent years and then have him out to get Marry Jane as much as he is out to get Peter.  Show Peter having fun being Spiderman like there is a whole other side to his personality that he only lets out when the mask is on and instead of having him giving up on being Spiderman all the time because that was one of the most popular issues of the comics why not show him continuing because it is the only way to protect his family,so not only does he enjoy it but he has a good reason for going one.  Outside of The Incredibles we have yet to see a family of Superheros on the big screen and I think we have done as much with the high school drama as we can with Spiderman,do something new that no live action movie has done yet.  of course this is just an idea off of the top my head I am sure some people hate it and a real writer could come up with something better but still it's an example of something new they could do that wouldn't require a reboot and wouldn't follow the comic book. I think the time has come for super hero movies to start blazing their own trials instead of just remaking the same story lines for the 60s-80s over and over again.

Oh and right on about the new characters.  The fresh take on "Robin" in TDKR,the popularity of Harely Quinn and Agent Coulson,and the fact that the modern Mr.Freeze has nothing in common with the classic version proves that well written characters created in other mediums can make the cross over.  They have people with a huge amount of talent working on these movies,it's time to let them spread their wings and do something new and bring some fresh blood into these stories.

Author
Time

I'm sick to death of reboots and retconning as well.  Batman Begins and Casino Royale are fantastic movies, and their franchises badly needed new life breathed into them, but pretty much everything else that has tried it has been crap.  Hollywood is using it as an excuse to remake old stories over and over without bothering to be creative or do anything new, and it has become very tiresome.

Author
Time

Truth be told, I'm just not fond of the Nolan Batman and I'm not sad to see that version's story come to a end.

Of course, that doesn't mean that I think that whatever comes after it will be any good. It'll probably be worse if anything.

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Corrective eye surgery shouldn't be something a person has to pay for.

 ^This but I would expand on this.

Defending your country, repairing the damage caused by unexpected disasters, the emergency services etc. These things shouldn't be reliant on an individual having money to hand to pay for them. They should be funded by a scheme of some kind giving speedy if not instant access to the service needed universally, regardless of wealth.

There may be different models of service, regional, state, corporate etc but the principle of universal cover should be the imperative.

So yes corrective surgery of any kind should not be something you need to pay up front for if it's needed. I'd include corrective cosmetic surgery in that as scars or skin damage caused by some incident in life can have as much a detrimental effect on quality of life as a diminishing senses.

I'd probably draw the line on things like wanting to look like a lizard or botoxing all means of facial expression for the sake of removing evidence of prior use though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Dp2OfIT_M

Author
Time

You know if your biggest problem in life is that you can't reproduce and you don't want people to know this fact,maybe calling yourself The Mule isn't that bright an idea.

Author
Time

The number of people tweeting this, thinking it's real...

...makes me realize I could dupe an insane amount of people using the Lucasfilm stationery I have from the original fan club era. But I'm not that evil. ;)

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

sean wookie said:

Umm, hi guys.

Hey there!

Also, those D-Day photos were pretty amazing.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)

Author
Time

To be fair that does seem like the sort of think Kubrick would say.  We are after all talking about the man who burnt all the props,sets,and blueprints for the first movie to keep a sequel from being made.

Oh and I have never gotten the hate for 2010. Yeah it is a completely different kind of movie but if you ask me when you take it on it's own it is still a decent Sci-Fi film.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

That story was actually a tad exaggerated. And it was to avoid them being used in a low budget SF film, as had happened with Forbidden Planet. An ape head still got stolen and used in the Joan Crawford movie Trog, and some spacesuit backpacks popped up on Doctor Who.

Many key costumes and props are still very much around. Some Kubrick kept hidden away at his estate. They have been touring the world as part of the Kubrick Exhibition. I saw them with my own eyes in L.A. last summer.

In any case, a 2001 sequel was not being contemplated in 1970. Arthur C Clarke didn't even pen a book sequel until the early 80's. And Stanley didn't mind the 2010 movie, either.

Five minutes in google reveals there is an MGM building at that address, that was built in 2009. ;)

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Anybody ever keep tabs on the visitor stats at the bottom of the main forum page? We had over 500 people at one point today. I don't think I've ever seen it that high before.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

I would love to change my name and get rid of that dreaded space.

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

That story was actually a tad exaggerated. And it was to avoid them being used in a low budget SF film, as had happened with Forbidden Planet. An ape head still got stolen and used in the Joan Crawford movie Trog, and some spacesuit backpacks popped up on Doctor Who.

Many key costumes and props are still very much around. Some Kubrick kept hidden away at his estate. They have been touring the world as part of the Kubrick Exhibition. I saw them with my own eyes in L.A. last summer.

In any case, a 2001 sequel was not being contemplated in 1970. Arthur C Clarke didn't even pen a book sequel until the early 80's. And Stanley didn't mind the 2010 movie, either.

Five minutes in google reveals there is an MGM building at that address, that was built in 2009. ;)

 I always thought those things looked like they came from 2001 but I dismissed that idea because I always heard the story about Kubrick destroying everything.  Good to know that didn't happen.

That bit about the building was pretty funny.

Cool story about the exhibition.