skyjedi2005

Yes the uk gets all the theatrical cuts on dvd and the us only got the trilogy set, lame.  Since i don't have blu ray i'll need to import trek VI and the motion picture for the theatrical versions on dvd.  II III And IV are on dvd here.  I would not waste the money importing trek V,lol.

Why are they forcing us to buy into blu ray here in the states when in the uk you have a choice of formats?

I hate pal speedup though there has to be an ntsc release somewhere if not that is the dumbest thing i have ever heard.

Just found the best solution for myself though i won't be able to afford it for a while.  Buy the japan region 2 1-6 box.  Costs a whopping 166 bucks versus the almost hundred dollar UK set.

It is rediculous considering for under a hundred bucks on amazon you can get the entire blu ray set.

I always said stewart should have played both Shinzon and Picard.  But that would have required a bit of difficulty to pull off.  And they could fake them being in the same scene using computer editing and cgi.  Or do the splitscreen thing they did on back to the future II i think that was the movie.

The whole thing with b4 did not work.  And ripping off spocks death in star trek II and redoing it with data was just stupid. 

The sequel would have been the search for data instead of the search for spock,lol.

Actually i find the young picard angle interesting and i wonder if they ever considered doing a prequel to star trek the next generation with Picard as Captain of the USS Stargazer.  We know they decided like Harve Bennet to do the academy days of Kirk story.  Well in JJ's movie they just graduate at the end of the film to the crew of the enterprise.

The young picard who fights the nausicans in a bar fight and gets stabbed through the heart is a lot like the rebel that Chris Pine plays in this film.  That picard was a lot like kirk in his younger days.  The Captain Picard of the Enterprise D was a thinker and diplomat before a man of action.  Though they ignored this in the films like First Contact where he was made an action hero,lol,.

They had to be conservative in terms of budget on raiders.  Once the movie was sucessful they were able to do some of the more wild and crazy ideas in the next picture temple of doom.

Lucas would challenge himself and spielberg to top their previous sucessful films.  And each indy film had to be bigger than the last and top it in terms of action and effects.  Lucas gave himself the same challenge on the prequels to top the original trilogy or at least return of the jedi.  We all know how that turned out.

They did in some ways top Last Crusade with Crystal Skull.  Still i liked crusade and hated skull.

Well i don't entirely hate skull lol.  Kingdom of the crystal skull had some moments i enjoyed.  But the slapstick was overdone imho.  Which i think Lucas started to do over the top slapstick sequences in return of the jedi.  Topping it all off with the dreadful phantom menace and jar jar and the gungans.

Some of the more jokey slapstick type things in doom and crusade i enjoyed as a kid but they annoy me to no end as an adult.  I appreciate Raiders far more because it treats the material seriously.  While the next films tried to make a fun rollercoaster ride.  Once the material is treated in camp and self mockery it no longer works.

I think Marquand himself said when directing jedi that he wanted to treat the material seriously and not campy like they did on the 1980 flash gordon.  Too bad Lucas still was allowed to put sillyness into the film.  I wish marquand stuck to his guns of playing the material straight forward and without self derision.

So Vaderisnothayden i already know what you thought of this movie in comparison to the original series movies and show.  But what do you think of the movie when measured up against star trek nemesis and the previous trek show enterprise?

Some people prefer a fresh take or regurgitation of old trek mythology over a dead rotten corpse of a horse that was flogged until it was dust by Rick Berman and company.

The old series actors are too old and they would not spend the money on them or the next gen cast is also too old and expensive.

Adding Nimoy to the film was throwing the trekkies a bone.  JJ talking about possibly having Shatner in the sequel is retarded imho.  Because he would be playing the older Chris Pine Kirk.  The real primary universe kirk died on viridian III to help save the future and the next generation crew, plus billions of lives were at stake.

Vaderisnothayden said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Right.  Lost is ending when it should.  When the story is finished.

Just like recently this year Battlestar Galactica ended.  But was not canceled it reached its conclusion.  That does not mean there cannot be direct to dvd features or a spinoff prequel.  Caprica is not called battlestar galactica but it is in the same universe.

Sort of reminds me of when enterprise was just called that enterprise. Then changed to star trek: Enterprise.

Then you have shows that are canceled with incomplete stories.  Journeyman, Bionic Woman, Flash Gordon etc.

I can name tons of sci fi shows but most of them deserved to be cancelled for being crap.

Except for Firefly, which is usually the exception to the rule.  I used to like Space Above and Beyond.  And hated when it was cancelled.  Nostalgia is dangerous,lol.  I recently went back and watched it on dvd and it was terrible.  Poorly acted in some places.  Badly written except for some standout episodes.  And the concept was interesting but the execution was flawed and the low budget fox imposed did not help things for Glenn Morgan and James Wong.  They did excellent work on the X-files.  But then went on to make that bad trilogy of final destination films.

 

Then you have shows that just stayed on the Air no matter what like E.R. that recently came to an end but should have been canceled once all the stars left the show.  The show only concluded after the author passed away.  Michael Crichton.  Which is also a main reason they won't do Jurassic Park IV.

Space Above and Beyond wasn't really well made, but it was sincere and heartfelt. Whereas Firefly is too concerned with being clever clever and hip and cool and is all flip, with insufficient real feeling and with uninvolving characters. And don't get me started on Mal Reynolds -I hate the bastard. Serenity was worse, totally crapped on everything that was good in Firefly. I've got as much issues with Joss Whedon as I have with Georgie Lucas.

Joss Whedon if you wathed Buffy which had huge amounts of star wars references and JJ Abrams is also a lucasite. 

I agree with some of your issues with firefly and serenity.  I think Whedon was trying for either a space western.  Just like Star Trek.  These days it is hardly possible for these hollywood types not to copy Lucas or Roddenberry.

Right.  Lost is ending when it should.  When the story is finished.

Just like recently this year Battlestar Galactica ended.  But was not canceled it reached its conclusion.  That does not mean there cannot be direct to dvd features or a spinoff prequel.  Caprica is not called battlestar galactica but it is in the same universe.

Sort of reminds me of when enterprise was just called that enterprise. Then changed to star trek: Enterprise.

Then you have shows that are canceled with incomplete stories.  Journeyman, Bionic Woman, Flash Gordon etc.

I can name tons of sci fi shows but most of them deserved to be cancelled for being crap.

Except for Firefly, which is usually the exception to the rule.  I used to like Space Above and Beyond.  And hated when it was cancelled.  Nostalgia is dangerous,lol.  I recently went back and watched it on dvd and it was terrible.  Poorly acted in some places.  Badly written except for some standout episodes.  And the concept was interesting but the execution was flawed and the low budget fox imposed did not help things for Glenn Morgan and James Wong.  They did excellent work on the X-files.  But then went on to make that bad trilogy of final destination films.

Then you have shows that just stayed on the Air no matter what like E.R. that recently came to an end but should have been canceled once all the stars left the show.  The show only concluded after the author passed away.  Michael Crichton.  Which is also a main reason they won't do Jurassic Park IV.

Temple of Doom and the Yound Indy series were Lucas first prequels.

He should have learned his lesson.

But he did not he went and made 3 star wars prequels films.  4 if you count the clone wars animated movie.

Still Doom was made with Spielberg.  Young Indy was not.  Young indy also did not have John Williams.  Probably 2 very big mistakes. and also no ford in young indy except for 1 episode.

As VaderisnotHayden said he prefers a bad film with the real indy harrison ford with being Directed by Spielberg and music by John Williams than young indy.  Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had all involved.   Except the most important people Douglas Slocombe who is like 90 years old or somthing the cinematographer, and no Lawrence Kasden or Jeffrey Boam as screenwriters.  Spielberg accepted the script by Darabount and was a go to shoot it.  But Lucas rejected it.

I remember the Ford in the Young Indy inserts the dialogue was pretty bad and the end scene was pretty laughable.  Also Ford looked like Richard Kimble and not indiana jones in that beard.

I still to this day wonder had river phoenix not died would they have made a Young Indy series of movies.  I know ford was happy with Phoenix playing him in last crusade.  Ford knew him from working together on the film mesquito coast.  We all know that they had to recast the younger indy with Sean Patrick Flannery.  And that it was made as a tv series.  Though shot on film and the series shot around the world and had a very film like production unit. The young indy crew is mostly who Lucas used to make the star wars prequels.  Rick McCallum being the most noted person.

Cgi is not the problem it is the fact that they are covering up their being no story by having the films full of action and cgi and pacing.  The speed and movement through the frame.

The prequels could have been good films if half the effort spent on the cgi was used in hiring writers to craft better scripts and hire competent directors who understand how to get a performance out of actors.  Someone that understands more "than faster and more intense".

If Lucas made the originals almost all on his own like he did the new trilogy it would have been just as crappy and full of garbage.  Visually stunning and action packed.  But he cannot write characters or do human stories at all those are his chief weaknesses.  And the main reason why he was drawn to tone poems, cinema verite and film juxtaposed of images that can tell a story without a wriiten narrative.

His friends and employees helped bring the human element into the equation on the original trilogy.  Why they were not included in the making of the second trilogy and the yes men were is anybodies guess.

If you want to compare two cgi creations with 2 entirely different results look at Jar Jar binks from the phantom menace vs gollum from the two towers and return of the king by peter jackson. 

In the later case Jackson's animators went for the humanity of the character as delivered by Andy Serkis and understood the nuance of a cgi character and to make him seemless with the live action actors. 

Instead in star wars jar jar was over the top slapstick and drew annoying attention to the fact that he was an out of place cgi character.

There are more examples too.  Look at the way the character of yoda is handled in the original empire strikes back and return of the jedi.  He is dignified and wise.  His lines of dialogue are short and to the point and not wasted.  The character is invested with a believable amount of humanity.  Then in Episodes II and III he is a green jumping bean.  With a lightsaber.  Becomes a comicly farciful and unbelievable character.  Not only that his character is ruined he is extremely unlikable in the prequels the exact opposite of the original films.

Also look at Jabba the Hutt the original puppet in Return of the Jedi.  There he was a slimy gangster.  Very much a cross between a don corleon character and a middle eastern sultan right out of the thosuand and one nights.    He serves as a menace and a danger to our heroes. 

And his place in the film is a minor one.  Even though he is a memorable screen villian or monster.  Then he is inserted into the special edition of star wars and is just added uncessarily and adds nothing to the story.  And don't even get me started on the way he was abused as a character in the clone wars movie.  That was ugly.

Yoda Is Your Father said:

"If Lucas Made an Indiana Jones V or VI would anyone here see them?"

Not me.  I should have learned my lesson with the prequels, but no, I still went to see Indy 4... the lesson has now been well and truly learnt. 

The funny thing is Lucas let people down four times and they still went to see the clone wars movie in theaters.

I know of people who watched all five dissapointments and will still give Lucas more chances.

Because the clone wars cartoon is not a complete pile of shit although it is cringeworthy and mediocre people see it as better than the prequels and will wait for that live action show.

I sort of liked about half of season 1 of clone wars but hated the season ending with that new over the top bounty hunter.  He's like the bad of over doing boba fett all over again.  Except this dude even has a bad accent.  I know its a kids series.  To me personally i would prefer a more adult show mini series or anthology set during misc.  time periods in the gffa.  That would be at least pg 13 level violence and sexual innuendo I know that would go against george's beliefs , theres no killing or sex allowed in star wars.  He pushed things as far as he would go in the prequels.  In the novels things are more implied still those are meant for an older audience usually than the movies.  Other than say sith which was pg 13.

Would'nt it be great if some star wars fan created a new space fantasy/ sci fi story that was like star wars except made for adults, without the violience being overly gory or the sex going into the territory of making it a porno,lol.  Like star wars but new and fresh and without all the bad cliches that the prequels played up to the nth degree. 

They do say imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.  I disagree at least as far as the prequels of star wars and indiana jones IV are concerned  they are imitations, but make a mockery out of the original films.

I already said i liked it.  That it was geeky and goofy like free enterprise or trekkies.

Although this film was better than trekkies by a very long margin.  Not sure i think its as good as free enterprise though.  And that films humor coms from the shatner dude who played kirk.  I cannot remember if fanboys had any star wars actors in it but probably not.  The closest thing to that would probably be carrie fisher and mark hamill being in jay and silent bob strike back.

And maybe someone can explain to me who kristen bell is because i've never heard of that actress.

Just like i barely remember that chick who plays the orion green skinned girl in JJ's star trek, though someone said she was in his tv shows.

Well i know i'm not young and cool enough to be in the "in crowd"  of people who enjoyed that Simon Pegg zombie film either.  So i guess who gives a frack.

I am surprised a good number of the science fiction shows on tv are not being cancelled because those are the ones usually that go first.  And they keep the 18th season or whatever of american idol and survivor,lol.

TV is hell for writers i bet. and actors too.  What happens when you are cancelled.

They should make a show just around FOX canceling shows.

24 is ironic it was renewed because its the writers and producers and showrunners of star trek enterprise in  charge of that show now.

They would not cancel family guy again since it was uncancelled. 

I remember fox canceled futurama because they were expecting it to be the simpsons in outer space.

And the Simpsons has had how many seasons and never canceled.

So basically what your saying is the second film is at least worth a netflix rental right?

I have lost track of just how many horror films i have seen on tv.

Most are forgetable and i never really remember the titles.

I don't think i have seen II because they play III on tv all the time.  and censored too.  Which is dumb. Army of Darkness i saw on vhs when it first came out.  And i thought it was the worst film i had ever seen at the time deliberately campy in a madcap sort of way.  And i saw some brilliance there in the way raimi used the cheap budget.  Never had i seen such almost documentary like style cheaply made a film.  Before i ever saw that the cheapest films i saw where bad kung fu marathons not quite bruce lee caliber and sergio leone spaghtetti westerns.

There was something bizarrely fascinating though about the movie it was so darn funny and entertaining.  Kind of like Return of the Living dead.  Which is not half the film army is.  I can almost see a bit of George Romero in the young raimi.  Like night of the living dead.

Ziz said:

I did notice one mistake where someone screwed up dates.  At one point, Kyle says he was born in 1975.

The movie takes place in 2018.  That puts Kyle at 43 years old in the film.  Kyle gets sent back to 1984 from 2029.  That means Kyle is 54 when he goes back to save Sarah.

Methinks Kyle was supposed to have said 1995.  That makes him 23 in this film and 34 when he saves Sarah.

Nah that just a stupid retcon on the part of MCG.  I think 1984 was originally used perhaps because of the novel by George Orwell, or maybe just a coindidence is likely the year the film was made.

Darth Chaltab said:

Do you even think about what you've typed before you click the reply button?

I was making a point a bit over the top perhaps that the film fanboys revolves around the prequels which destroyed star wars.  Whats so hard to understand about that.  Yeah its a funny film and i recommend it but not a really original idea sort of like the star wars version of free enterprise.  Which had nothing to do with a friend dying but was about geeking out and was irreverent.

Yes i still think the movie would have been better if like south parks free hat they rescue the negatives of star wars instead of raiders of the lost ark. Or they steal the original film prints and get them to safety before they are burned in a fire like rosebud in Citezen Kane.

Or a film that combines both the free hat episode and the notorious crystal skull episode into a movie.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

You obviously think that your opinion that Raiders is better is unchallengeable objective fact. Fine, people often think their opinions are objective fact, and sometimes they're right.

As obvious as it may seem to you, it is not the case. My opinion is my opinion and nothing more. Most certainly not unchallengeable fact.

I do believe Raiders is a better movie than the later two films, and I think there is quite a bit of evidence to support this, but I am not really interested in discussion it in detail because it will go nowhere. Your feelings are that each Indiana Jones film got a bit more Indiana Jonesy until it reach a superlative level of Indiana Jonesiness with The Last Crusade. My feeling are that a near perfect action/adventure film was made in the 80's, beautifully styled after old black and white adventure serials, and the three sequels that followed drifted away from the spirit and quality of the original, finally ending on IJATKOTCS which felt like a cheap comedy spoof of itself.

I cannot foresee you or I saying anything to convince the other to abandoned their current point of view on the subject at hand.

I agree I think Last Crusade is only marginally better than temple of doom and way better than kotcs.  But the film i love was raiders a penned by Kasden.  As was empire strikes back the best star wars film which he penned also.  2 of the finest scripts ever made in the eighties.

Temple of Doom is an awful movie with an awful script by the huycks who also wrote howard the duck and radioland murders.  The only thing good they did was graffiti and star wars.

The only good parts were cannibalized from Kasdens script.  The mine cart chase and the scene in shanghai.

Jerffrey Boams script for last crusade is very very good even if not on par with raiders.  And it is not his fault Lucas insisted on the bad jokes in the movie. 

The script for kotcs by Frank Darabount was awful and unused.  And the script they used by Koepp is also pathetically bad and only marginally better than darabount's.  Its as if Lucas wrote the script himself and had Koepp do a quick rewrite. Plus according to the complete making of indiana jones the final script used the best parts from 4 other scripts if i remember correctly. 

The only script they seemingly did not use was the abandoned indy III script by the same director as the first harry potter i think columbus?  The story of the monkey king and the lost golden city and the fountain of youth or something like that.  Wow that would have made a stupendous movie, not.  Well at least brody in it is the brody from raiders and not quite the retard he bacame in last crusade.  The worst script of all has to be the one called indiana jones and the saucer men from mars.

I heard heroes and dollhouse were renewed.

Chuck got renewed according to trekmovie.com

Night Rider went from being renewed to cancelled,lol.

Sarah Connor cancelled withour reprieve, i know sorry guys who loved the show.  When shows that jumped the shark 2 seasons ago like heroes are still on the air. Oh well.

Fringe was renewed.  I wonder if fringe’s renewal and heroes have anything to do with a certain trek film by JJ abrams that stars zach quinto.

Lost was renewed also.  The plot was “LOST”  a long time ago the show jumped the shark.  Yet it is one of those original bizarre entertainments like X-files beyond season 5 that make you go hmm.

When Heroes succumbed to the george lucas syndrome of making all the characters related i had to pull the plug and not watch it anymore.  Second season was retarded and wasted.  Third season a rehash of season 1 with some twists thrown in the plot,lame.  I only own season 1 on dvd.

I thought they already found the new ash for the remake.  Which i would not have seen anyway.  The only one i like is the jokey third film anyway since i'm not a serious horror or gore fan.

Shop Smart shop S mart,lol.

My favorite is quoting the day the earth stood still as an invocation while using the necronimicon.  Klaatu.  Barada. Nikto,lol.

Isn't Raimi busy with the sword of truth which he had redubbed the legend of the seeker.  And also busy working out the plot for spider man 4.

Speaking of sequels ghostbusters 3 is really going forward.  Lol.  I'm not kidding even a little bit.  Another 80's franchise to butcher.  They even somehow cajoled bill murrey into it.

They are also redoing robocop.  And they have a gi joe movie coming out that is supposed to be part michael bay transformers and part jj star trek, lol.

They are making a Voltron movie.  And a Robotech movie.  Not sure what other franchises they will rape.  Thank goodness those masters of the universe and thundercats plans fell through.  Ever see the awful duke of hazard remake?

Though the Jason remake already happened which was stupid friday the 13th remake.  They have another stupid sequel of the remake to halloween coming out.  And they are going forward with the nighmare on elmstreet freddy kruger remake without robert englund.

Plus some asswhole is remaking the awesome film The thing.  Already a sci fi classic.  well they ruined planet of the apes, war of the worlds. the time machine, and the day the earth stood still so why not another.

Do you think Bruce Campbell is too old for a IV ED film?

Could he get into the physical shape necesary to do the film.  And if so would they fake all the stunts with cgi like indiana jones IV to make sure the actor gets not hurt.

I am one of the people who thinks some of these dudes are too old to do these films.  I mean die hard 4, with a possible die hard 5 with bruce willis.  Arnold wants to do another 2 terminator films and supposedly also a conan the barbarian.  Sly stallone wants to do rambo V and the studio want him to do rocky 7.

Harrison Ford was almost too old to be Indiana Jones in IV and just barely pulled it off.  A fifth film would be ridculous.

Not as bad as t3 by a long shot.  Also not as bad as the critics are making out of it.

Still it is no Jim Cameron Terminator film.  It is not the masterpeice T-2 is claimed to be.  Or the low budget mind blowing thriller the original was.  But it does well what it does on its own merits.  Also a whole lot better than people thought MCG would be able to pull off.  But good actors. Supposedly good writers.  Help out quite a bit.  Also the Stan Winston studio.  R.i.P. Stan. 

Then you have the movie trying as hard as possible to remain faithful to the first 2 films and to very properly deny the existence of T3.  Also they avoided the pitfall of linking it to the now cancelled tv series. 

This film is not a complete story and does not stand well on its own.  It needs a bit of slack cut for it and the director because it is just a lead into the other 2 films in the trilogy. The cool future war with the scenes shown at the beginning of t2 is yet to be filmed. This film is at an earlier point technologically. Perhaps the 800 series is the army in the next film.  Arnold has said he would like to be in the second or third film once his career as governor is over.  I wonder if his age is a problem now though?

Still i would have preferred a Canon T3 directed by James Cameron and starring linda hamilton.  But fate denied us that.

I always thought because arnolds arm was ripped off by the t-1000 in a piece of machinery and a part of him that was not melted down.  Cyberdyne could still exist and the terminator be readiscovered.

C3PX said:

Ziz said:

Actors are only typecast in the minds of people who are too lazy or stupid to separate the actor from the character (s)he portrays.

Not really. Good way to turn it around and blame the audience, but that isn't very fair. Some actors really are typecast to certain roles. Why? Because they play the same sort of role over and over again. Is that the audiences' fault that they have a hard time imagining that actor in any other role, when that is the only kind of role they have seen them in? Hardly! If an actor doesn't want to be typecast, all they have to do is branch out a bit. You see some actors and are blow away at their ability to do different things, and then you hear Jim Carrey/Adam Sandler have a new comdey out, and decide to skip it because you have seen the last five movies he has been in and can barely distinguish one from the other.

It is not the duty of the audience to not be "lazy" or "stupid" and suspend their belief that this character played in the same way by the same actor as a character different movie are two entirely different and unique individuals. If and actor is worth his salt he will convince you of this, regardless of your level of intelligence or your incentive to work at convincing yourself.

 I agree this is a fair way to say that roles are given to certain actors who play certain types of roles.  But their are always those audience members who see Tom Hanks as forrest gump in every movie he does, or harrison ford as han solo and indiana jones in every movie he does as well.  Which is not quite fair.  But usually if an actor gets a once in a lifetime role and then flaws it so flawlessly and memorably that is the character people immediately see the actor as.  Some times directors even cast to type like lucas did for star wars.  Mark Hamill is indistinguishable from Luke Skywalker, as is Harrison Ford as Han Solo and Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia.

Anyways convincing the audience comes after they first have to convince the casting person on a movie.  And some actors regardless of talent get trapped in their roles.  Like Mark Hamill did as Luke Skywalker.  And really only got the respect he deserved after years of voice over work.  People still claim he is and was a bad actor even though he was nominated for a tony award for appearing in the broadway play amadeus as mozart. 

Without him i don't think i would be a fan of star wars.  The character he created on screen i totally bought as a kid because of the humanity of the performance and his character was the easiest for children to identify with. He made the movies real to me. 

Hayden on the other hand could not sell the concept of Anakin Skywalker and the later 2 prequel films if he even tried.  I mean i have seen him in enough other films to say imho he is an awful actor.  He might be a decent person and a nice kid as the production team said he was.  He had the physicality for the role and he had the look.  But he could not do anything except look sullen.  He even looked like he was bored.  Lucas should have involved him somehow in the creative process to at least get him into the role.

I still believe with a better character director an actors director could have gotten a good enough performance out of hayden.  Lucas "faster and more intense"  means a lot of nothing and hot air.  Wow he can do manic action.  But he can't make us care for his characters.

The first prequel film while far from perfect at least had some humanity to it and emotion.  What little there was.  The later 2 films are emotionally barren on a purely human level.  the films are sterile and without life.  But are perfect special effects reels.  Or great to splice into video games as cut scenes.

And when i say emotion i mean to get the audience involved in the story.  I don't mean the emo thing with whiny hayden.  Or the over the top music that demands you feel something in these lifeless excercises in colors, movement and sound.  Episode III missteps quite a bit but feels alive at some points but not enough it is towards the end of the film and the good parts are intersparsed with sillyness and ridculouslness on a grand scale.  Plus there were maybe one or 2 moments in episode II.  But still that is the weakest of the three films and is a dud.

Ziz said:

Actors are only typecast in the minds of people who are too lazy or stupid to separate the actor from the character (s)he portrays.

Oh i know i was just being a typical smartass as usual.  Just pointing out who the average joe thinks he is if they know of him at all.  Those browncoats seem to think he is like the second coming or something, anyhow.

Hollywood generally does not cast unknown's as leads in superhero flicks with the possible exception of a christopher reeve or brandon routhe.  Or a mostly unknown to the average popcorn flick goer Christian Bale until he was in batman begins.  But the studios had Robert Downey as Iron Man.  They cast the hulk remake with that well known actor from the fight club movie.

Okay so i pretty much proved that they usually do cast unknowns or very little known people.  Even though the studios claim they only cast stars in their films.

It really has never been a secret that the green lantern corps were a ripoff of E.E. Doc Smith's Galactic Patrol.  But then again Lucas borrowed quite liberally from that as well for the jedi in star wars.

The classic green lantern books would make a decent superhero/ sci fi movie.  Never read the moderns.  I know the originals were supposed to be science fiction.  Like magazine pulp fiction that the dime novels and comics used to do only better.

So i take it you don't like Kasden's serious take on the story crafted from old hollywood films like Casablanca?

To me Raiders is the Best of all four.  I cannot even watch doom any more it is so awful and the same with many parts of crusade.

They made Marcus into a retard in last crusade and sallah into a racist charicature.

Plus there are cringeworthy moments like indy putting a rock into one of the side cannons on the tank and it blows up in the gunners face like this was like Looney tunes and not supposed to be in real life though actually fiction.

Then you have both shortround and willy in temple of doom almost a equally annoying as jar jar binks.  If not for the mine car chase that was in the original raiders script and the shanghai scene at the beginning the film is worthless.  Then you have the raft falling out of the plane as their parachute.  Then in Indy and the crystal numbskull you have him riding through the air for three miles in a lead lined fridge.  And somehow the russians also magically outrun the blast.

I am also sure the Hindus in India appreciated the evil hindus in temple of doom, as much as indy killing the arab swordmen angers people in the middle east especially Muslims.  Can't do these type of things in a politically correct world.  I'm surprised lucas and spielberg had the stones to make the russians the bad guys.

After Spielberg made the guns into walky talkies in E.T. and Lucas had greedo shoot first.

You could if Lucky in theory survive a freefall from a plane as people have before though its like a one in a millionth chance of survival and a 99.99% surety of death.  But surviving a H bomb falling near you in a refridegerater never believeable in a million years.

My bro said this is the best star trek film ever made.

Though he has never been a trek fan except mildy of the next generation tv series a long ways ago.

In fact he is a halo 3 fanatic.  Not surprising really he likes this film.

I say its a fun action flick and nothing more.  Respects the mythology to a certain degree and all the young players seem to be playing the same characters we saw in the old star trek.  Despite the timline and backstory changes and that the enterprise looks like a video game spaceship.

To me personally this movie is kind of a glass half full kind of thing.  It is better to have a new trek intead of none, yet if this is the best they could come up with after 43 years perhaps trek should have stayed dead or at least for a while longer.  Enterprise ended in 2005 and Nemesis came out in 2002. 

If i was responsible for treks direction .  I would have let trek remain dormant for at least another decade until resurrecting it.  Plus i would have set it in the future hundreds of years after picard and crew and have it have all new characters and a brand new starship enterprise. Instead of a rehash of old trek been there done that. Or do a earth romulan wars movie set in kirks fathers era. Unlike the idea of berman to have it set in kirks grandfather's time.

The safe thing to do is what they did.  Use the old star trek which is the most relatable to older folks and spice it up just enough to get young people involved too.  If you ask me they really did not change all that much it is almost the same old star trek.  Not really boldly going where no man has gone before.

There were other stories they could have done.  The fourth and Fifth seasons of tos for instance in their first five year mission.  Or the second five year mission.  Both never told on tv or in movies.  What about the in between time when the crew goes there seperate ways leading up to the motion picture.  Or what happened in between trek 1 and 2.  Kirk goes from being an admiral to a captain in the first movie on his own decision agreed to by nogura then suddenly he is an admiral again in star trek II and spock is captain with no explanation.

If they made a movie about a crazed fan going back in time to prevent the negatives of the original trilogy from being destroyed to make the special editions and stop the prequels from being made i would see that.

But a movie to get a dying friend to see Episode 1 that is just cruel and unusual punishment.  Better off screening the person copies of the original film prints.  Instead of the last thing you see in life is jar jar binks and the star wars saga entering into a legacy of suckage and tfn fanboyism.

Too bad he is typecasted as the captain on the show firefly that was cancelled by FOX.

At least i think that is who this dude looks like to me.

What is he missing a paycheck now that serenity came out in 2005, and now its 2009.  Lol.

Maybe Whedon will give the poor guy a role on dollhouse.

I mean seeing him as the green lantern imho is as silly an idea as obi wan kenobi as a catholic priest in angels and demons, whoops i mean ewan "i'm not typecast as obi wan" mcgregor.  Maybe should have listened to his uncle Denis who said don'y do it it will do nothing for your career.  You know Denis Lawson played Wedge Antilles in the star wars trilogy,lol.

That is intresting that you say that because the young indy series was mostly the same crew.  But they also had good writers like frank darabount.  And good actors like Sean Patrick Flannery.

Also the show i believe was nomiated for emmy's i think.  And the fans generally like the young indy series but hate crystal skull.  Me i never really got that into young indy but i liked the trenches of hell episode.  And another one of them can't remember the name where he gets the girl and is a spy.  Kind of like bond,lol.

Joel Mcneely was okay as the musician and at the end of the day he did a better job than williams phoned in score on indiana jones IV. Despite the fact that the indiana jones theme was missing from the show and so was williams. So was the adventure archeologist.  It was much like making a movie about Bond before he was the james bond we all know.  The fake convoluted connection to historical events would not have been so bad if lucas did not embellish or willfully stray from what actually happened in history.  But nobody really cares because the historical stuff was only a framing device.  Much like the times in which the other indy films happen just so you can have movie serial stuff from the 30's and 40's on the screen.

To me INDY IV's biggest problem was you could see the storyteller at work manipulating things and it fealt contrived just like the prequels.  Unbelievable stuff happens just because its in the script.  And there is not so much a suspension of disbelief because the films betrayed the in universe laws.

Plus waiting so long that Ford was so old they had to set the film in the bad cold war b movie era.  Instead of the action adventure matinee serials.

Plus no respected archeologist who follows the scientific method would believe in Aliens.  Especially since real crystal skulls are not alien skulls. And archeologists study ancient earth civilizations of man.

They may also study religios artifacts.  But i have heard of no real world recspected archeologist/historian going into psedo science and fake things like aliens.  After all Indiana Jones himself says in the last crusade that archeology is "the study of fact".  Their are no alien artefacts in real life to study and even if their were they would not tell man anything about himself.  Archeology is one of the social sciences that is supposed to help us understand history ourselves and our place in it.

The Alien thing again is completely out of place in the indiana jones world, and outside of his character to believe in such sillyness.  He is not Mulder who wants to believe.  The second X-files movie should have had aliens and indy IV should have been about a lost tresure, civilization or relgious artifact.

Now not to derail the thread any further back to star wars. 

Hidden item in the prequels.  Likable characters.  Good story/plot.  I of course don't really mean hidden i mean they are not there.lol.