What's keeping me out of the theatre....

[Brutal Strudel]

I'd love to see Bond done as a late fifties/early sixties period piece, like Mad Men with guns and Russians.

(Truth be known, I'd love to see Trek done as a meta-period piece, like Mad Men with phasers and Romulans.)

 

[ria 75]

I'm disappointed that the elements I like in TOS I've found in other things that aren't Trek related. Like SF literature or shows like Babylon 5, Stargate and first season Earth Final Conflict and films like Master And Commander.

I'm at least 6 weeks late here, but...
Imitation is the highest form of praise. Why shouldn't elements from Star Trek be found elsewhere? And how do you know they were invented for Star Trek? (Unless you're talking about props or something.) Nothing is ever new in storytelling.

Well, you didn't say Craig is Bond, so there might still be hope for you.

Oh no, more new-kid hatred. James Bond is originally a series of books. Who's playing the part, and how, is subject to interpretation. We are all change-resistent, but being a replacement doesn't necessarily mean someone is less good that who came before.

And, glad to see I'm not the only Dalton fan. Good points in the latest posts.

 

[ST-One]

I'm the same way with Alien. That movie is on a par with 2001, Blade Runner, eXistenZ*, The Man Who Fell to Earth and a select few others as my idea of "serious" SF. As much as I can enjoy Aliens as an action flick, I think it is a woefully unworthy sequel to the original--a silly, comic book smash 'em up that remakes the original's sublime and elegant beast into a weird and disturbing (and not in agood way) hybrid of a termite mound and the Viet Cong. In short, I think it's a stupid movie. It does not follow, however, that I think those who like it--even those who prefer it the original--are stupid as well, just that they look for different things in SF movies.

If you'd ask me, you'd be insulting Alien and eXistenZ (which I sadly have only seen once) by putting them on the same level as 2001 and Blade Runner. I you'd ask me.

Both 2001 and BR are in my opinion boring and do not manage to get their point or story accross.
A Space Odyssey, while technically flawless, has, in its overly artistic ambition, not an ounce of entertainment value; it doesn't even make you think (except for wtf and when will this end - that is, if you haven't dozed off before the end - which happened more than once to me).

I wouldn't call Aliens stupid. Sure it doesn't have the same... gravitas as Alien but it doesn't even make that claim. It's a much more straight-forward action-movie that doesn't have the same advantage that Alien had: the shock-effect the unknown. That first film was able to build up tension until it almost wasn't bearable for the audience anymore. This wouldn't have worked a second time as effectively (even with a new alien).

*eXistenZ is far more serious and, paradoxically, far more playful examination of the Phildickian "what is real?" conundrum than the much more celebrated original Matrix movie, released around the same time. It bombed at the box office, got a lukewarm critical response and it is one of my all-time favorite films.

I really need to see this film again. Thank you for reminding me of it.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Wow. This movie has done wonders for my internet people skills: here I am having polite exchanges with you, Dennis and Number6.

Perhaps Trek's image of an idealized future where once-mortal enemies become friends is not so outlandish after-all.

 

[ria 75]

^^LOL. There is always something people can agree on.


ExistenZ is unsettling, both visually and for some of its ideas, hence the lack of box-office success.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Damn right it's unsettling--it's David Croenenberg!

I'm fine with stuff I like being a little out of the mainstream so long as I can get to it.

 

[number6]

Nothing says "David Croenenberg" more than Naked Lunch.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

How that movie did not receive an NC-17 I'll never ever ever know!

 

[number6]

How that movie did not receive an NC-17 I'll never ever ever know!

I haven't seen it in years..

 

[Brutal Strudel]

It's a good movie but I ruined it for myself when I watched it high with some friends and realized that, at its heart, it reflected Croeneberg's unease with homosexuality and his difficulty in coming to terms with WSB's homosexuality; the fim constantly puts Bill's homosexulity onto other characters and presents it as something predatory and evil. Meanwhile, the only sex we see Bill engage in is with the dead ringer (pun intended--an excellent movie, btw) of the beard of a wife he killed. I felt like grabbing Croenenberg and shaking him and saying, "Dave, Burroughs is gay! Get over it!"

Having said that, the movie's portayal of creative and drug-induced altered states of consciousness is incredible and Croeneberg is perhaps my favorite "auteur." The only mature period Croeneberg film (post Videodrome--everything before that is promisng schlock) I don't like is Crash.

 

[number6]

What I loved about that film was that instead of doing a movie version of the Burroughs book, he goes inside the writer's psyche and creates a pastiche of Burroughs life and experiences leading to the writing of his book. I'm almost afraid to see it now. I saw Videodrome on cable a few weeks back and thought it was pretty dated (though still pretty engaging), and I worry that Naked Luch may not have aged well.. But who knows..

 

[Brutal Strudel]

It's much more polished than Videodrome or even The Fly. It's also funnier--Roy Scheider steals the movie at the end.

Videodrome is a transitional work--it looks like the schlock that went before it but achieves a whole lot more.

In my book, what makes Croeneberg a true artist is that he understands that existential horror is best served with a strong dose of absurdism. There's a light touch in his best work that only underscores the heaviness of the ideas he traffics in. It's the same reason, btw, I rate Philip K. Dick as my all-time favorite author.

 

[number6]

It also has Debby Harry looking hotter than a spitting volcano on acid.

(That also made no sense whatsoever.)

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Makes sense to me! Mmmmm, Debby Harry...

 

[number6]

Of course now she looks like my mom and I feel shame everytime I get an erection.

Such is the burden of being me.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Hey, it sounds like that short-lived Saturday morning cartoon, Eddie Puss & his Freudian Friends.

(Or did I imagine that while tripping on bug powder?)

 

[trevanian]

I'd love to see Bond done as a late fifties/early sixties period piece, like Mad Men with guns and Russians.

I know of only two attempts (both not from the authorized Eon Broccoli camp) of doing Bond period 50s ... one was the very first pass on what eventually was made as NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. I used to have a copy of the script, called JAMES BOND OF THE SECRET SERVICE, written by Connery and Len Deighton and another guy. It was a terrible script (first draft), but it did have some handwritten notes on an early page about 'done as period - 1958?' which suggests there was some serious consideration.


The other was QT's take for doing CASINO ROYALE. Apparently he wanted to do it with either Clooney or Brosnan, with Uma Thurman as Vesper. And it would have been 50s as well, a one-off shot fast and cheap for 40 mil. Of course Eon couldn't surrender control or even give him a meeting, the bozos.

 

[Praetor]

What I think it comes down to, ST-One, is that everybody draws a different line as to how much "silly" they'll tolerate and where they'll tolerate it. TOS purists tend to think of TOS as those 30 or so episodes that stand up as serious SF adventure, discounting the so-so outings and the duds. That's what I do when I'm feeling very "pure" (and with my history of drug use and whoremongering, TOS is about the only thing I get to feel pure about these days ). That's why my positive reaction to this new movie has been qualified by statements that, taken on their own, make me sound as if I hated it and, sadly, as if I'm insulting guys like you, who have a different take on TOS than I do. I think that's what's happening here with trevanian--he takes Bond more seriously than we do because he came into it from a more serious entry point. By contrast, he'll enjoy "silly" elsewhere--Action Jackson or Battle Beyond the Stars, for example.

I'm the same way with Alien. That movie is on a par with 2001, Blade Runner, eXistenZ*, The Man Who Fell to Earth and a select few others as my idea of "serious" SF. As much as I can enjoy Aliens as an action flick, I think it is a woefully unworthy sequel to the original--a silly, comic book smash 'em up that remakes the original's sublime and elegant beast into a weird and disturbing (and not in agood way) hybrid of a termite mound and the Viet Cong. In short, I think it's a stupid movie. It does not follow, however, that I think those who like it--even those who prefer it the original--are stupid as well, just that they look for different things in SF movies.

*eXistenZ is far more serious and, paradoxically, far more playful examination of the Phildickian "what is real?" conundrum than the much more celebrated original Matrix movie, released around the same time. It bombed at the box office, got a lukewarm critical response and it is one of my all-time favorite films.

While my tastes don't exactly line up with yours (I, too, am bored to tears by "2001" as technically brilliant as it may be) I think there's a lot of truth in what you're saying here.

If you'd ask me, you'd be insulting Alien and eXistenZ (which I sadly have only seen once) by putting them on the same level as 2001 and Blade Runner. I you'd ask me.

Both 2001 and BR are in my opinion boring and do not manage to get their point or story accross.
A Space Odyssey, while technically flawless, has, in its overly artistic ambition, not an ounce of entertainment value; it doesn't even make you think (except for wtf and when will this end - that is, if you haven't dozed off before the end - which happened more than once to me).

I wouldn't call Aliens stupid. Sure it doesn't have the same... gravitas as Alien but it doesn't even make that claim. It's a much more straight-forward action-movie that doesn't have the same advantage that Alien had: the shock-effect the unknown. That first film was able to build up tension until it almost wasn't bearable for the audience anymore. This wouldn't have worked a second time as effectively (even with a new alien).

I'm with you on "2001" but I do like "Blade Runner." "Aliens" I can't make up my mind on. It's definitely not quite as heady as "Alien" but I can't decide if it's because it wasn't trying to be, or if it's simply because it's a sequel and the unknown was not so unknown.

I can't help but think that both might be hampered by the techniques and style of their time as TOS is?

Of course now she looks like my mom and I feel shame everytime I get an erection.

Such is the burden of being me.

Ever see DH in "Spun?" That might cure you.

And, for the record, I really like Pierce Brosnan's Bond. It's just a shame his movies weren't so out-of-gas. (This coming from one casual Bond fan who prefers Connery.)

 

[Cyrus]

I like all the actors that have played Bond but Connery is still the favorite and will always be the real James Bond for me. The least favorites are Lazenby & Moore but that could be because I still wasn't quite used to a non-Connery Bond when their movies came out.

 

[ST-One]

I'm with you on "2001" but I do like "Blade Runner." "Aliens" I can't make up my mind on. It's definitely not quite as heady as "Alien" but I can't decide if it's because it wasn't trying to be, or if it's simply because it's a sequel and the unknown was not so unknown.

Is 'Alien' even heady?
'Aliens' is essentially the last few minutes of 'Alien' stretched over two hours - the fight against and flight from the alien(s).