Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Summer Movies 2013

Summer Movies 2013 (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2013, 04:57 PM
 
Fast and Furious solely for the facts that a lot of it is shot in London, which makes it a bit different, and the blue Mk 1 Escort RS which is the coolest car in the series ever. Fact
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2013, 05:00 PM
 
I imagine that the rise in popularity of Science Fiction is closely linked to the removal of Science from the fiction. Nearly all popular SciFi is really just fantasy. Even venerable Dr Who is pretty much just straight up science fantasy now. The writers throwing any old hokum into the mix in order to drive the story forward. Trek always had at least a semi hard science edge to it but the new Trek is just eye candy in space.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2013, 08:45 PM
 
Actually the traditional Trek was more than semi hard science. They had NASA advisors and stuck to real science as closely as they possibly could.

I agree though that anything vaguely realistic, scientific or thoughtful these days seems to be unsuccessful and the stuff that gets popular is entirely fantasy or borderline nonsense. Eureka and Warehouse 13 are great examples. I like those show but any science in either is utter bollocks. This is especially poor in Eureka as it was a show about scientists.
( Last edited by Waragainstsleep; May 19, 2013 at 09:34 PM. )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2013, 03:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Fast and Furious solely for the facts that a lot of it is shot in London, which makes it a bit different, and the blue Mk 1 Escort RS which is the coolest car in the series ever. Fact
Psshhh, the best is the `70 Challenger R/T R-code in 2F2F, while the `67 Mustang in TD and the GT40 from FF come in 2nd and 3rd (the DT Pantera GT5-S gets honorable mention).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2013, 10:23 AM
 
Either my memory is faulty or Star Trek is getting a lot less recognition this time round. Sure, the story is hilariously shit compared to the first one, but the core is equally Star Trek free yet I don't recall such a loud opposition back in 2009.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2013, 01:02 PM
 
I see this as the "those movies you made before Star Wars" effect.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2013, 01:06 PM
 
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2013, 01:10 PM
 
Hey... that's me!
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2013, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Psshhh, the best is the `70 Challenger R/T R-code in 2F2F, while the `67 Mustang in TD and the GT40 from FF come in 2nd and 3rd (the DT Pantera GT5-S gets honorable mention).
Nice options

For me the
1) '70 Chevelle (Fast and Furious 4)
2) '70 Challenger (The Fast and Furious)
3) '72 Gran Torino (Fast and Furious 4)
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2013, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm glad we've recovered from those dark days.

2009 thread (695 posts over ~497 days) = 1.39 posts / day
2013 thread (61 posts over 16 days) = 3.81 posts / day

2.7x the posting rate. Now if only the movies would improve too.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2013, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I'm glad we've recovered from those dark days.

2009 thread (695 posts over ~497 days) = 1.39 posts / day
2013 thread (61 posts over 16 days) = 3.81 posts / day

2.7x the posting rate. Now if only the movies would improve too.
Yeah, but when does anybody ever talk about a movie (esp. not a particularly good one) 400 days after a thread has been created? The better comparison would have been 16 days vs. 16 days.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2013, 04:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I'm glad we've recovered from those dark days.

2009 thread (695 posts over ~497 days) = 1.39 posts / day
2013 thread (61 posts over 16 days) = 3.81 posts / day

2.7x the posting rate. Now if only the movies would improve too.
Here's where I point out that was 13 pages for one movie. This is two pages for all summer movies.

(Also, I believe the other thread was started early and then brought back to life)
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2013, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Psshhh, the best is the `70 Challenger R/T R-code in 2F2F, while the `67 Mustang in TD and the GT40 from FF come in 2nd and 3rd (the DT Pantera GT5-S gets honorable mention).
ha ha . You're funny, 'cos you're wrong.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2013, 05:28 PM
 
http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkne...-faq-508927844

 
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 02:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I'm glad we've recovered from those dark days.

2009 thread (695 posts over ~497 days) = 1.39 posts / day
2013 thread (61 posts over 16 days) = 3.81 posts / day

2.7x the posting rate. Now if only the movies would improve too.
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The better comparison would have been 16 days vs. 16 days.
2009 thread (86 posts over 16 days) = 5.38 posts / day
2013 thread (61 posts over 16 days) = 3.81 posts / day


Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Here's where I point out that was 13 pages for one movie. This is two pages for all summer movies.
Bingo.

Nobody ever mentions my legendary sexual prowess.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 03:50 AM
 
To be fair, the reboot was probably more important than every movie getting released this summer put together, and looked like it was going to be horrid. Shitting on things brings out the post-count in all of us.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
ha ha . You're funny, 'cos you're wrong.
Outdated Cossie nostalgia, must be a British thing.


The new Trek didn't suck, it was an entertaining popcorn flick. Karl Urban was great. 2.5/4 stars.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Outdated Cossie nostalgia, must be a British thing.


The new Trek didn't suck, it was an entertaining popcorn flick. Karl Urban was great. 2.5/4 stars.
Karl Urban is always great. He was Dredd, he is Bones McCoy. Without urban how many stars does it loose?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 12:57 PM
 
Karl Urban was one of shining moments from '09 for me. He channeled DeForest Kelley well, threading the line between homage and parody.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To be fair, the reboot was probably more important than every movie getting released this summer put together...
I don't know, this Man of Steel reboot is just as important as Star Trek 09 or Batman Begins. If this movie bombs, it's pretty much it for Superman movies.

Nobody ever mentions my legendary sexual prowess.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 03:51 PM
 
I don't think Superman has the fan base to be as popular as Batman. It could beat Star Trek easily, I imagine.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 04:07 PM
 
There have been too many superman reboots. There is not as much antici






pation.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 04:12 PM
 
I don't expect Man of Steel to out perform Avengers, Iron Man 3 or Dark Knight in the box office. I just want the movie to give this character some justice like Batman Begins did for Batman.

Nobody ever mentions my legendary sexual prowess.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
There have been too many superman reboots. There is not as much anticipation.
Which reboots are you referring to? (The TV show Smallville doesn't count.)

1978 - Superman The Movie
1980 - Superman 2
Let's pretend Superman 3 & 4 didn't happen.
2006 - Superman Returns

Superman Returns was a vague sequel (and a crappy one at that) to Superman 1 & 2.

Nobody ever mentions my legendary sexual prowess.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 05:48 PM
 
2006 wasn't a sequel. Didn't it have the origin? Or maybe I've blocked it out.

The previews for the new movie also seem to be an origin movie, down to Russell Crowe doing his best Brando impression. Maybe it'll be good, it has to be better than 2006... but I already know this story. Don't I? Same reason I felt little need to see the new Spiderman. Done within the last decade = too soon for a reboot.

Where dark knight was interesting, was that it expanded the "gets mad skills" part of the batman origin, and therefore felt fresh.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
2006 wasn't a sequel. Didn't it have the origin? Or maybe I've blocked it out.
It was supposed to be a sort-of sequel to Superman 2. Hence Luthor knowing all about him and kryptonite, Lois knowing his identity, and of course the child.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 06:22 PM
 
I turned Superman Returns off when he slowed down the plane by grabbing the tip of the wing.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2013, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I turned Superman Returns off when he slowed down the plane by grabbing the tip of the wing.
Not a "just the tip" guy?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2013, 05:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I turned Superman Returns off when he slowed down the plane by grabbing the tip of the wing.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Not a "just the tip" guy?

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2013, 11:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stogieman View Post
I don't know, this Man of Steel reboot is just as important as Star Trek 09 or Batman Begins. If this movie bombs, it's pretty much it for Superman movies.
I disagree. Star Trek had never been rebooted, at least in the traditional sense.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2013, 12:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Not a "just the tip" guy?
Not that way.

Owie.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2013, 04:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I disagree. Star Trek had never been rebooted, at least in the traditional sense.
I see it as a diverging thread of probability, nothing more.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2013, 06:27 AM
 
Sure, except the point of divergence is the 60's TV show.

Picking something up 40 years later is, for all intents and purposes, a reboot.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2013, 09:10 PM
 
Not necessarily. Picking up something and changing its core, is a reboot. Picking up something and running off a tangent is adding to the core. This is what SHOULD be done instead of reboots, IMO.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2013, 09:20 PM
 
This is going to go down the semantic rabbit-hole here, but the core of a reboot is the original players get old.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2013, 09:27 PM
 
No, my point is you ditch the original cast and move on keeping the core establishment intact. The original cast is old and should be nothing more than reference with your new material.

i.e Star Trek: TNG (same ship and core... new crew), Star Trek DS9 (new ship, same core, new crew), Star Trek: Voyager (new ship, same core, new crew) All Star Trek, no reboot.

JJ Abrahams goes and F**ks it all up with changing timeline and content killing off all connection with the last 40 years but uses the same crew. <-- reboot

Pervious Star Treks were expansions of the core material. None of them are reboots even though they are decades apart.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2013, 10:48 PM
 
I gotcha.

I thought you were saying the Abrams wasn't a reboot.

For better or worse, the fact he (they) did reboot it was what made it such a big deal. If it had been part of the old canon, I don't think it would have made the splash.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2013, 11:43 PM
 
As I said before, I see it as a different probability, like comparing Marvel Earth-616 to Earth-811. Keeps everything nice and tidy.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2013, 01:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If it had been part of the old canon, I don't think it would have made the splash.
I think it would have given him more freedom without killing everything from the past in the process. Kinda like when DS9 took a leap. It was the first Star Trek not on a Starship with a new cast, new alien races. It even allowed crossovers with the other characters from TNG and Voyager. I like that approach as new direction to take without cutting ties to everything before it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2013, 07:02 AM
 
Except when DS9 started to get stale, they gave them a ship to go adventuring with.

I too would have preferred more canon rather than a rewrite. Reboots undermine the originals which is fine under some circumstances (The 60s Batman TV series was very childish and rather camp and silly, the 90s movie was dark and awesome, then that movie series eventually ended up camp and silly again so we got another reboot) but in other circumstances it is not.

With Batman, they were happy in the last series to use different actors which at least let them tell different stories. Now it seems like if they have to change cast or even director, they reboot the whole thing and go back to the start again like Spiderman. Its dull rehashing the same original story over and over.

Star Trek really had too much material to go and undermine, not to mention the have undermined the core of it too. It was supposed to be thoughtful and tell human stories among the exciting adventures in new and unusual surroundings, now its a by-the-numbers action movie series and people will only watch it for the big name guest star baddies and SFX set pieces. It also seems like the set pieces are driving the story rather than being required to tell it.

I haven't seen the new one yet, and in a way I enjoyed the 2009 version but I loved the old stuff and I hate that its lost all its original identity and become ordinary alongside the other forgettable blockbusters. The more I think of it, the more I think Abrams for Star Wars is not going to end well.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2013, 10:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by exca1ibur View Post
I think it would have given him more freedom without killing everything from the past in the process. Kinda like when DS9 took a leap. It was the first Star Trek not on a Starship with a new cast, new alien races.
They lasted two whole seasons without a starship.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2013, 10:58 PM
 
Which is fine, my point is they had new characters, story, all with the same core of the series.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2013, 11:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Star Trek really had too much material to go and undermine, not to mention the have undermined the core of it too. It was supposed to be thoughtful and tell human stories among the exciting adventures in new and unusual surroundings, now its a by-the-numbers action movie series and people will only watch it for the big name guest star baddies and SFX set pieces. It also seems like the set pieces are driving the story rather than being required to tell it.
This is all I am really trying to say as well.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2