K_Kinnison Posted October 8, 2001 Share Posted October 8, 2001 how can you say a movie that is over 20 years old "sucks" Whould that mean "The right stuff" sucks to? or "2001" sucks also? how about King Kong? I wish you would use a more intelligent and descriptive term, or even sentances to explain your dislike for a VERY well done movie, instead of using the term that is used for when an infant is fed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted October 8, 2001 Author Share Posted October 8, 2001 OK, they took 15 minutes of story and tried to make it into two hours. And it wasn't even a GOOD story. It was the slowest paced celluloid abomination I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. LET US STAND IN AWE AS THE BALD CHICK SAYS V'GER FOR THE ELEVENTY MILLIONTH TIME. And what the hell was with those uniforms? They looked more suited to a tennis court than anything in space ever. Plus those ridiculous Federation Stormtroopers or whoever those guys in the brown that I never saw in any other movie were..uh..ridiculous. I daresay that Star Trek IV was better, simply because of the parts where Spock does the VULCAN DEATH GRIP OR WHATEVER IT'S CALLED on the punk rocker on the bus and everyone cheers and the when they decloak the ship right in front of the whaling ship. Is that better? PS The Right Stuff and King Kong also "suck" because I didn't find them entertaining. 2001 was an EPIC WORK OF CINEMA. I don't see how my intense hatred of ST: TMP was translated into hatred of old movies. Quite a few of my favorite movies came from before the 1960s. [This message has been edited by Nute Gunray (edited October 08, 2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted October 8, 2001 Share Posted October 8, 2001 I have to agree with Nute on this one. ST:TMP was just uninteresting and uninspired. It looked great for the time, but the story just draaaagggged. Roddenberry covered EVERYTHING in that movie in the hour long "Nomad" episode of TOS, and did it better back then. [This message has been edited by edlib (edited October 08, 2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Kinnison Posted October 9, 2001 Share Posted October 9, 2001 2nd question Are you comparing ST:TMP 2001 and King Kong to the standered of todays movies? If you look at each of those films, they were incedibly well done for their time. Yea ST:TMP spent 15 usless minutes flying aroudn the V'ger ship, but man, when you get to see it on a large screen that whole scene is jsut mind boggling in its buety and detail. Seeing it on a small screen does not do the movie any justice... in fact TV makes it appear so much worse i rather not watch it on a small screen. Same thing with King kong, 2001, and the right stuff. Comparing it to the times, and what they were able to do, these movies were the Hottest ticket in their time. Jurrasic Park had terrible acting, a bad plot, but yet is still is one of the top grossing moives of all time. Does that make a movies suck? Each one ofhte movies metioned had State of the art special effects that were used to tell a story. Now think what would happen with those movies if we could use todays special effects. would they still suck? i ahve a hard times saying no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted October 9, 2001 Author Share Posted October 9, 2001 The SFX has little to do with what I deem entertaining. Jurassic Park was entertaining because dinosaurs were running around eating people and Ford Explorers and stuff. 2001 was entertaining because of HAL. My opinion of a movie is entertainment value. King Kong just doesn't entertain me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted October 10, 2001 Share Posted October 10, 2001 2001 is arguably the greatest, and un-arguably the most realistic, sci-fi movie ever made. But it's also a great story. IMHO the book of 2001 is even better than the movie. I also read the novelization of ST:TMP by the way. I felt that it too was better than what ended on film. It made clear some things that were only hinted at in the movie. These are both stories you have to really think about, because they both question our place in the universe and what exactly it means to be a sentient being. But 2001 does it MUCH better in my opinion. The Star Trek movie never made me ponder those issues the way that 2001 did, or even it's own novelization of it did. I have never sat thru either of the King Kong films, so I'm not qualified to judge. The Jurassic Park films were OK, if you checked your mind at the door and want to participate in some mindless entertainment, otherwise they are really bad for all the reasons you pointed out and full of HUGE plot holes. Lots of pretty FX though. Again, the books were better, but only by a little bit this time. [This message has been edited by edlib (edited October 09, 2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted October 10, 2001 Author Share Posted October 10, 2001 The book Jurassic Park didn't seem to have any real holes in the story (except that dinosaurs DID get off the island and that we never heard anything about them ever again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold leader Posted October 10, 2001 Share Posted October 10, 2001 The book "The lost world" BTW is IMO approximately 1563297 times better than the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted October 10, 2001 Share Posted October 10, 2001 I thought The Lost World was a great book. It really made me look forward to the movie. The movie was not like the book in the slightest, however. It was pretty bad, overall. It might have been OK if they had ended it about a half hour sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.