logo Sign In

JediSage

User Group
Members
Join date
22-Mar-2005
Last activity
10-Jan-2011
Posts
2,109

Post History

Post
#252466
Topic
Comics Fans
Time
Originally posted by: Han Solo VS Indiana Jones
Don't know if there are any Iron Man fans here, or anyone who would care in general, but I heard Robert Downey Jr. got cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man in the upcoming film adaptation of Marvel's Iron Man comic character.


Yes, I head this and was shocked.
Post
#251965
Topic
Comics Fans
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
You mean we haven't been since 1962?

Actually, 52, (which was Paul Levtiz's idea anyway) is one of the few things I'm consistently reading from DC.


Up until Civil War I thought DC was destroying Marvel, but now it seems things are turning around. I've got to trim my subscriptions. Got 3 DC titles I'm dumping and another that I won't be putting in their that I was considering. God help me I'm also thinking about dumping Legends of the Dark Knight as well and just sticking with the main 2 Bats titles.

Do you read anything by Dynamite? Man, I love their Highlander and Battlestar Galactica (modern) series. The art is fantastic.

Post
#251943
Topic
Comics Fans
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Thread, consider thyself bumped.

Anyone else getting the sense that Dan DiDio has no idea how to run a comic book universe?


Well, it does appear that they're not following IC up very well, doesn't it? 52 is ok. I'm in it now primarily for only 1 or 2 story-lines. I couldn't care less about Animal Man, Adam Strange, and Starfire, although it is my first experience with Lobo and I like him.

I believe we're in for a period of Marvel ascendency.

Post
#251941
Topic
Forgotten Films
Time
Originally posted by: maddog00
Anyone remember the movie where the children were locked up in an attic and they were being fed poison donuts? Can't seem to remember that one.

Flowers in the Attic?

And there was another one, although more details leave me. Main characters were a boy and a girl and I remember a mansion catching on fire.


Not sure on this one...

Post
#251940
Topic
Forgotten Films
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Originally posted by: JediSage
Anyone ever see/hear of "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid"? It was directed by Carl Reiner and stars Steve Martin. I LOVE that movie.


I've seen that one, but not my favorite Steve Martin film. Maybe it's the hair...


Just put it in my NetFlix queue. Been years and years but looking forward to it...
Post
#251731
Topic
BSG
Time
Originally posted by: starkiller
Something I have got to wonder...

Would you expect NBC/Universal, knowing what the ratings have been like, to move it to broadcast TV at some point, where it can have a truely national (US) audience?

or is it too edgy/sci-fi for them to do that?


There have been rumours of that happening for some time now. I wouldn't be surprised as it makes sense for them. I only hope that they don't screw it up to make it "nice nice" for their rotation.
Post
#251585
Topic
BSG
Time
Best thing on tv currently and the best in my memory. Absolutely riveting. I agree you should try to watch from the start. Eps are available via iTunes at about 40-50% less than DVDs at retail.

BTW: I think this show will see exponential growth in viewershp this year and may even reach the top 10 (I know it's a long shot but TNG did it at one point, even beating Monday Night Football).
Post
#251556
Topic
BSG
Time
Yes, Exodus was great. I don't think the New Caprica stuff is being completely resolved next week, is it? I thought the producers said 6 episodes, but I'm not sure. Either way I just cannot go a full week without this show. Lucy Lawless is great in her role.
Post
#251217
Topic
The Lord of the Rings (Films vs. the Books)
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen


The Scouring of the Shire was not merely a rousing bit of action, it was the demonstration of the main characters' arcs ... their growth from simple, rural hobbits to world-wise, inner-strength-filled, uber-hobbits!

Isn't that what the entire rest of the trilogy was about, though? They didn't become uber-Hobbits only because of the Scouring. Sam's growth was well chronicled when dealing with Shelob and his subsequent battle with the Orcs at Cirith Ungul (sp?), and we know what Frodo and the others did, though I thought Jackson went a little too far by having them lead the charge at the Battle of the Black Gate (second only to Aragorn), though I admit I don't remember how that was in the book. I think there were two scenes at the end that perfectly illustrated the changes they'd undergone: When they all rode into the Shire on horseback, and when they were at the Green Dragon, sitting by themselves, nobody speaking, but each knowing how things had changed. Those scenes said it all

Considering that most audiences felt the movie's ending went on and on and on (the 12 endings of Return of the King is legend in parody) ... there was certainly room for this VITAL story point in the films.


While I still debate the vitality of the showing the Scouring, I don't feel the ending was superfluous at all considering that the Grey Havens and Sam's return to Bag End are chronicled in the book. Personally, I WISH they'd fleshed out the ending and the reunion at Minas Tirith more than they did.

I am all for not simply filming the book. Changes are good. But the basics of a famous story must not be changed. That is folly.


I agree that the fundamentals of the story must be left intact. The scouring could be lopped off and Frodo would still quest to destroy the ring, the ring would still be destroyed, but you could say the same for many film adaptations. Unnecessary stuff abounds.

In any case, as I posted in the other thread, Jackson admits he had no passion for 9-out-of-10 story points in The Return of the King, and it shows. Great as the movie trilogy was, that should have been his red flag to leave this project alone. Ultimately, I consider it a failure. One great movie out of three is simply not sufficient.


Again this is all very subjective. I love the adaption, and think ROTK was the best movie of the 3, followed by FOTR then TTT. An audio-visual medium can't be judged solely on the basis of how faithful it was to the inspirational text. The production values, character development, music, acting, sets, and effects were the best I've ever seen. It suffered in no way from excluding the Scouring. The people who take issue with it are (mostly) very close to the books. If you ask Joe Sixpack about it he'd say "Huh?", and then go on to talk about what a great experience it was. I was there for the all-day screening of the first two movies (extended editions) followed by the midnight showing of ROTK and loved every minute of it.
Post
#251187
Topic
The Lord of the Rings (Films vs. the Books)
Time
Tolkien is well written, he's just all over the place. "The world's about to end, I'll be back in 17 years", "We need to leave now" *feast* *poem* *poem* *song* Death and destruction *poem* *lyric*

I've no problem with backstory and history, so long as it's pertinent to character in the context of the story. For example, if Joe is the best forensic expert in the state, it doesn't help to say something like "...and it was because his mother made him eat Tuna on white when he was a kid". It just doesn't matter. So there ARE rules to be adhered to in literature, whether we want to obey them or not. If a writer wanders too much he/she leaves themselves open to some criticism regardless of who they are.

Tolkien drew a lot of inspiration from The Kalevala and many epics: true. Do they necessarily make for good reading just because they're "epic"? No.

The problem with literary criticism is that it is very subjective. There's no hard and fast set of rules that say this must happen, but there is I think concensus on certain fundamentals, ie: Introduction - Rising Action - Complication - Resolution - Denoument. It's fair to say that Tolkien followed this, it's just that the stuff in-between is what bothers me personally (on occasion).
Post
#251137
Topic
The Lord of the Rings (Films vs. the Books)
Time
I apologize. Garbage was a strong word. However, the chapter on Tom Bombadil does nothing to advance the plot, and the "purists" were practically suicidal that it wasn't included in the movie.

One of the other things that really torqued people off from the movies was when Frodo told Sam to "...go home" after Gollum convinced him that Sam was against them. I had people sittiing next to me saying, in loud whispers: "HE WOULD NEVER SAY THAT! HE WOULD NEVER SAY THAT!!" I was like Man, wave to me on the way down after you jump.

I can't and won't argue the commercial success of the LOTR books, however IMO commercial success is not necessarily the only gauge of literary merit (how well do Shakespeare's collected works sell these days?). To each his own but one of the most noticeable problems with the stories is the meandering plot that goes on and on and on. If you really want to torture yourself read The Silmarillion.

Tolkien's strength comes from his understanding of language and the way he used it to create back story and histories for the peoples of Middle-Earth. I found myself liking the histories in the appendices more than certain aspects of the main story.

Again, don't get me wrong, I did LOVE the books, but I'm not willing to pronounce them untouchable in terms of criticism because *gasp* they're written by Tolkien. I think that the changes Jackson made for the movies made sense in terms of editing and modern audiences.
Post
#251102
Topic
The Lord of the Rings (Films vs. the Books)
Time
Tolkien was great in terms of the myth he produced, but his writing in and of itself is not that good. Jackson did a wonderful job of translating the story for the screen, making it more accessible to people who don't translate elvish for a living, and eliminated a lot of superfluous garbage, like Tom Bombadil. Also, the books had a tendency to drag, with the characters stopping to feast and sing songs every 25 pages or so on the way to try to stop the destruction of the world...it's like, let's get our priorities straight. Don't get me wrong, I do LOVE the books, but for me the movies are wonderful.
Post
#250779
Topic
The Space Program
Time
Originally posted by: Cable-X1
I agree we shouldn't wait until everything is a-okay down here....I'm just saying that we have our priorities a little messed up here.

Famine and poverty are still major issues in the world that should be dealt with first before serious effort can be thrown into space travel. We have a space station, but still have homeless people walking the streets of America. That's kinda ass backwards....


Agreed, but the amount of $$ being spent on programs like the "War on Poverty" and various social spending programs dwarfs the money being spent in the space program, and I'm sure the returns are not as good. I just hate that as a society we've got no problem spending millions on programs like "art therapy for the homeless" and midnight basketball but going to Mars is too expensive.
Post
#250764
Topic
The Space Program
Time
Earth's problems are never going to be solved by throwing money at them. If we're going to throw dollars into a black hole, let's throw them at one in space, not the Welfare state (that's a statement, admittedly that belongs in the Politics thread).

If we wait to go to space until things are hunky-dory here we'll never go...
Post
#250726
Topic
The Space Program
Time
I've been renewing my interest in the space program recently, studying up on the Mars missions past/present/future. Anyone want to talk about it? I'm quite interested in the replacement for the shuttle, called the Orion Spacecraft. It's a return to the old school, meaning more of a capsule design on top of a traditional rocket. They estimate they will be reusable several times and will be cheaper to produce.