Porthos

Another week, another preview. Tom Baker's still got it.

To put things a different way: TV was going to kill movie theaters. It didn't. Cable was going to kill movie theaters. It didn't. VCRs were going to kill movie theaters. They didn't. Piracy was going to kill movie theaters. It didn't. Home theaters were going to kill movie theaters. They didn't. DVD was going to kill movie theaters. It didn't. The internet (and by extension streaming) was going to kill movie theaters. It didn't. The movie theater has survived 100 years of new entertainment options being thrown at it. The movie theater has survived economic upheaval and literal World Wars. The movie theater has certainly changed over the decades, but at its heart it exists because it fulfills a need: Many people like to be entertained in groups. Virtual reality will add a new wrinkle for entertainment options, yes. It'll provide something that movie theaters can't. But unless one really thinks we're all gonna plug ourselves in VR rigs 24/7, going out and having the group experience is something that people are going to want. At least for the foreseeable future. What actually gets shown in movie theaters will absolutely change as society's whims change. But going away? Especially in such a short time frame? Not a chance in hell.

Movie theatres can provide something that home theatres never ever can: The communal experience. Even 50 or 100 people in a theatre gives an experience that simply can't be replicated with a half dozen of your friends in a living room. Also (some/many) people just like going out. Home kitchens are better than ever. Cookbooks are easier to follow than ever. Getting good food to cook is simpler than ever. People still like to eat at fancy restaurants. Or even not-so-fancy ones. Going out for an 'experience' is part and parcel of, well, everything. I've been hearing about the death of the movie theatre/film for decades. And I haven't seen one whit of evidence to suggest that it's going to happen any time soon. Now it might certainly change. The age of the multiplex might be replaced by a smaller dinner-and-a-movie experience like the Alamo Drafthouse or Studio Movie Grill. But still exist? Well, theatrical stage productions still exist (and are probably thriving) despite decades of assualt from other avenues. And they range from community theatres to mulit-million dollar broadway productions. If stage theatres still exist after all this time with so many other options why wouldn't movie theatres?

"Gooood. Goooooooood. Let the hate FLOW through you."

I agree and disagree. I mean, yeah, you can't have the main cast even remotely credulous to the idea (at least not without around three or four seasons of build-up [*cough* The Sisko *cough*]). On the other hand, playing with cults (either in Starfleet or without) and looking at it from THAT direction does have some juice, IMO. That's more what I meant about the idea of a false god. WE know it's not true from within the standpoint of the series. And we know that most of the characters do as well. How they react to it, and what reprecussions might occur has more room for an interesting story. Especially if it starts off as non-threatening or helpful and only ramps up the danger as the film progresses. In other words, the drama is not, "Is this God", because as you say, we already know how the show is going to answer the question. The drama is more in "How do the characters react to the people who thinks it is and/or how to react to the Sufficiently Advanced Alien". That, I maintain, can get a decent amount of milage out of a gifted storyteller. Which, admittedly, Shatner isn't. NB: There are a few lines in the original series which points to several characters maintaining an active Christian faith. But I'm ignoring that for now.

No, we really don't. Or rather, I'll only 'defend' it when comparing it to the POS called Nemesis (which I maintain should have been on the list instead [and maybe it will! ]). I gave my reasons earlier for why it's better than Nemesis earlier, so I shan't repeat myself. But when it comes to thinking about this film? God is it terrible at times. Just horriffic. I mean. FFS: People probably already can guess what part of the vid I timestamped to. I mean, who thought crossing This Way to Eden with Who Mourns For Adonis was a good idea? HINT: It wasn't. Still, what's most depressing is that there is some decent ideas here. The Sybok/Spock rivalry. The core of the idea of a false god. That it was just horribly written, directed and executed? Well, I always maintained for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time that it was the worst ST film I could ever see. Then Nemesis happened. So, yeah. Can't fault the placement on the list, as it's a terrible flick* coming off a great one. But it isn't even the worst ST film out there. Which makes the failure of this film all the more notable in a way. * It's so terrible that it was explicitly decalred NON-CANON by the production teams. That's pretty terrible!

Pssst: (Pablo Hidalgo is a member of the Lucasfilm Story Group. And a very sarcastic one at that )

(crossposting from the Conversation Thread because it is in fact that true)

Well I'm certainly not saying Robocop 3 is a anything close to the orginial. I may have crazy opinions, but they're not THAT crazy! But, c'mon. It had Robocop fight a ninja. How can that ever be a terrible flick? To put it another way, Robocop 3 might have been schlock, but it was MY kind of schlock.

I distinctly remember enjoying Robocop 3 when I saw it back in the day. Probably more than 2. Haven't seen it in 20 years though, so who knows what I'd think of it now.

I figure babies are made in test tubes and then plugged into the Matrix/farm. Hardly something beyond the capabilities of the machine overlords. Even if one wants to drill down to the level of specific parents for specific children, I figure needles are still a thing in the future. One pair of invasive probes later and presto, new embryo ready to be put into a birthing tube.

AIUI. that was forced by the studio execs who felt that the original planned idea that the brains of all the people hooked up in the Matrix gave it the 'computational juice' to make the Matrix possible was too cerebral/people wouldn't understand it. Thus it was dumbed down to living batteries, which as you say makes zero scientific sense (using humans as batteries takes FAR more power to feed the humans/keep them alive than they could ever put out in electricity). But it's only us nerds who really cared about that, so whatevas.

(click to embiggen)

Insurrection isn't worthy of this list. It's worst sin is that it can be described as "meh". At least it has some enjoyable scenes. Nemesis is just awful though. It's been described as one giant middle finger to both ST and TNG and I find it hard to disagree. Say what you will about Final Frontier, and I have plenty to say, but at least it didn't actively hate the source material. Or at least, that's what it looks from the outside. Maybe I'm being too hard on it, or at least the motives of the people who made it. Fair enuf. Regardless, it was just bad bad bad. Final Frontier's greatest sin is that it took all the wrong lessons from TVH (Let's ramp up the comedy through the roof!!! WHHHEEE!!) and control was given to William Shatner, who.... wasn't good choice. But it too has at least one or two good scenes. The campfire scene, for one. And the central plot of the film is pure Roddenberry (even if the 'go to the center of the galaxy' idea was HORRIFICALLY stupid). In fact, even though the whole idea of getting to the center of the galaxy in the way they did to this day still makes my teeth ache, it did give a great line (What does God need with a starship). So it isn't as horrible, no. Don't get me wrong, it's far worse than Insurrection, but it isn't as bad as Nemesis The other great sin of Final Frontier was that TNG was airing weekly by then, and it suffered in comparison. That it managed to be WORSE than early TNG says something, As for this list, the drop off from IV to V is almost certainly more than either VIII to IX. Or IX to X. So that's the one which will probably make it, though X is the one that killed the franchise as we knew it, so that has an outside chance. One could look at it as the difference of going from a 5 or 6 to a -10*, if you will, opposed to going from a 10 to 3. * I MIGHT be exaggerating for effect.

"They made eight Fast and Furious movies" would have worked just as well as an answer. === I think people forget the type of movies that were popular in the span from the very late 60s to the very early 80s (call it The Seventies for simplicity). Hell, they made FOUR Herbie the Love Bug movies in that span. If that doesn't convince you, FOUR Benji movies were also made in that time span (anyone who has a bad word to say about them, BTW, can fight my childhood, thankyewveddymuch). This is also the era that gave us the wonders of John Denver (and anyone who has a bad word to say about him can ALSO fight my childhood ). Sure, the Seventies gave us The Godfather, Jaws, and Star Wars. And, sure again, it gave us things like Watergate-era thrillers and Blaxploitation (to name two disparate genres). But it ALSO gave us films like the ones first mentioned. And we liked it. That's the crazy thing.

*shrug* If the structure of the show is that oft-putting, I would say that the show probably isn't for you. I mean, I won't deny that some arcs are better than others, but for me at least what TCW sold, I was really digging. Hell, I even really like the movie*, which ought to tell how sick in the head I am. * Of course, by that point, I already had a decent introduction to the series. Don't know really what to tell you. I guess I just loved all of the focus on the various clone troopers and secondary characters. Plus, of course, Ahsoka Tano, the breakout star of the series, who I loved the second she stepped on screen. If you have Netflix what I might recommend is watching the series by 'arc' (TV Tropes has a decent breakdown of the arcs here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/StarWarsTheCloneWars). If you find you're not enjoying an arc, skip to the next one. While I love (most of) TCW to death, I absolutely realize it isn't for everyone. Not only is it pretty stylized. but telling stories in 20 minute chunks while being primarily aimed at a younger audience has inherent limitations. Even if one enjoys Rebels, the fact that TCW is a heavily arc based show makes it a different beast (along with the subject matter). So if you're not enjoying it, don't suffer through it just to be able to enjoy other novels/series. While those books will be enhanced if one has already appreciated prior stuff, a work has to stand on its own if it really wants to succeed. To put it another way, knowing the Ventress and Tano stuff is a flavor enhancer for their various novels. But the meal itself needs to be good in the first place. And, hopefully be good enough on its own if the added paprika and rosemary isn't to your taste.

It might have helped that when I watched it, I saw it in the so-called chronological order. That way I skipped around the first three seasons quite a bit. Allegedly the first couple of seasons were a bit hit-and-miss, but since I was dipping in and out of the first three seasons almost at random, I really didn't notice. OTOH, the very first episode of the series (if one doesn't count the movie as the first four episodes [which they were before Lucas decided to stitch them together]) was a Yoda episode. Watching it online convinced me that I should give the series a chance. Of course, I'm something of a Yoda fan, so that helped. But that very first episode (Ambush) told me that this was my kind of SW. Philosophical with lots of potential for character development. Plus Yoda kicked ass. I couldn't ask for much more than that.

NOTE: Even quite a few of the films that came out in 1980 and 1981 still had a lot of 70s DNA in them, so spare me the "Well, actually"'s. The dividing line is probs The Cannonball Run. At least that's one of the last successful Seventies style films that comes to mind.

Forget it, Jake, it's the Seventies.

For the same reason someone thought writing Scarlett would be a good idea.

People thought I was annoyed when AotC made the list? Well, gonna be grumpy if Reloaded does. Save one VERY unnecessary dive party scene, that was a GREAT film. Still, not my list and I really appreciate @Thegun for going through the trouble of doing this. At the very least it's driving a lot of conversation.

*shrug* Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of Christensen's acting. It's a bit too uneven for my tastes (at times, such as when he's paired with McGregor, it's excellent; other times, more than a bit forced [he said to be polite]). But it's certainly not a death sentence for my enjoyment of the films. Could the performance been much better? Sure. But it's not bad enough to sink the film, IMO.

What sealed it for me being intentional is that Padme is just as awkward and sheltered as Anakin, just in a different way. She may have a cool and collected exterior, by deign of being a politcian all her life. But when it comes to actual personal stuff? Well, she was never allowed to be a kid/teenager where she could work out that sort of thing. So she isn't able to handle the creepo stalker 'person she has feelings toward that she doesn't want to admit to herself' as well as she'd like. But, as said, probably not the thread for me to go into this in detail.

Not gonna drag the thread through a defense of AotC, BTW. Not fair to the thread or @Thegun. Just had to get my "hey, the sand scene is actually good, y'all!" opinion off my chest. Carry on, everyone.

Upon my rewatch, I decided I LIKED the "I don't like sand" scene. One of the few times Christensen actually nailed the more vulnerable side of Anakin without sounding whiny. Also showed two INCREDIBLY sheltered and dysfunctional people trying to figure out how to court, and failing miserably. Looked at through the lens that it was supposed to be awkward, I decided I quite enjoyed it.