Subject:
|
Re: Monday Morning Diversion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:58:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1687 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> > And after puzzling out that you meant The 5th Element...there was a deep
> > philosphical message?
>
> There was an attempt at one (that's the whole point of the way the ending played
> out, and the name of the movie itself), though it fell pretty flat.
I think it is a matter of perception. You regard it as a deep philsophical
message, and perhaps that is a fair depiction of it, but I regarded it simply as
a step back from trivializing it. The movie was uneven all the way through, so
this was not a break or make item for me.
>
> > MST3Ked? Why do I get this feeling you have to be an Uber-Geek to get the
> > reference? One of these days I'm going to have to learn to seak "Initial"...
>
> MST3K = Mystery Science Theatre 3000. They take all of the worst movies that
> they can get their hands on and ridicule them from beginning to end.
Whew. I don't have to withdraw the "Uber-Geek" comment. I take it using an
obscure set of initials for an obscure program is an Uber-Geek identity test,
kinda like that secret sigh my Grandfather used to detect fellow Shriners?
(jusssssssssst teasing)
:-)
>
> > You shot off your mouth through the entire movie?
>
> No. I (along with others, including the owner's then-girlfriend) made several
> witty comments and cutting observations during the entire original Robotech
> series, which a small group of us were watching in the lobby of our dorm. I
> kept my observations to myself during the entire WC movie because I was sitting
> right behind friends who had paid money in the meager hopes of actually enjoying
> that movie in its own right. If it had been anyone else, we probably wouldn't
> have been sitting right next to each other (I don't think there were more than
> 10-20 people in the entire theatre...on opening night...at an evening show) and
> we could have torn into it with no remorse, knowing that there were enough
> vacant seats around us that we would be able to do so without anyone else
> caring.
Of course, I failed to mention the ultra-cheap revival house I frequented in
college (you had to bring disposable shoes) where it was standard form to yell
things at the screen (but you had to be funny, or the audience yelled at you).
They cleaned it up finally and quadrupled the price and it wasn't fun anymore.
>
> > No VI - they should have all retired.
>
> I liked it a lot. Probably something to do with the fact that the Klingons were
> so much better than Doktir Em'et B'roun from The Search For Plot.
It was okay. It was a better way to end the original cast than the awful V.
But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone except a Trekkie. II had a plot that
addressed the years that had passed, that philosphically loped back on itself
and tied together extremely well. The ending to VI felt forced and artificial.
Honestly, Trek makes for better TV than Cinema. It's designed for television.
Certainly Frakes directed his forays with the pacing and writing of an extended
TV episode.
>
> > I think that will change. There needs to be a little distance in time to get
> > perspective.
>
> Maybe it will, and maybe it won't. Batman will still hold weight as the first
> serious comic book movie, and it could receive an associative status boost from
> Batman Begins.
I'm not saying that Batman will not still hold a place, just that it was been
eclipsed.
>
> > I'm stunned that you even ask.
>
> Really? Granted, it's not Shakespeare,
No matter how much Plummer quoted the Bard. :-)
> but in my experience, those who really
> feel that the OT dialogue didn't work are those who didn't like the OT movies
> much at all.
Original Trek? Off-Topic? Odurous Trivializations? Overly-cryptic
Televison-initials?
-->B<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Monday Morning Diversion
|
| (...) No, I regard it as a failed attempt at a deep philosophical message. (...) I think that in this case it has more to do with how long and clumsy the title is. I've only watched a couple eps myself (not having access to Comedy Central, or (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Monday Morning Diversion
|
| (...) There was an attempt at one (that's the whole point of the way the ending played out, and the name of the movie itself), though it fell pretty flat. (...) MST3K = Mystery Science Theatre 3000. They take all of the worst movies that they can (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
