All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. "Mad Men" episode 5.04. And "Sherlock" episodes 2.01 and 2.02. Rewatching that show to prepare for season 4 I haven't seen yet.
  3. Today
  4. Yes I agree, it was an outstanding episode! I'm not so good at analyzing why it was so incredibly effective, but it definitely was. The plot itself on paper may have resulted in a less gripping episode I guess -- in retrospect, some of it appears rather obvious. But the execution was so brilliant that this didn't even occur to me while watching. Just everything was right: The cuts in the beginning between Billie shot and her previous talk with the Doctor about becoming a companion; that "proletarian" character that turned out to be Simm's Master in the end, the silly humor in between ("mainly the tea!" ), the SF element of different time zones on the ship, Missy's weirdness, the creepy scenery of the hospital, the associations to mental ward horror movies when the Cybermen were built ... just everything blended perfectly together IMO, it was immensely thrilling, not a single second was boring. An amazing creative firework! Amazing episode!
  5. Watched "Mad Men" episode 5.03... ... and "Doctor Who" episode 10.11 "World Enough and Time". Whoooooo! Amazing episode!
  6. Going to watch it tomorrow; we just came home from a party, so... But, I’m very much looking forward to it.
  7. The latest Doctor goodness, what an episode!
  8. Just finished up "World Enough and Time" so....AAAAHHHHHHHHH! I loved it. Every second. I had an inkling (or completely figured out) the entire time where things were heading, and yet the tension of where things were leading kept me on edge. It was creepy and unsettling, and the big cliffhanger at the end...a whopper!
  9. Yesterday
  10. You’ve given IDW a serious run for their money. Well done! As for Kirk’s surviving into the 24th century as an old man? Like you say, it’s fan fiction. Anything’s possible in fanfic.
  11. STAR TREK: BOLDLY GO #12 - Coming September 2017 Mike Johnson (W), Tony Shasteen (A/VC), George Caltsoudas (C), Cryssy Cheung (VC). The shocking conclusion of "Whom God Destroys"! Kirk and Eurydice remain trapped on the planet Antos IV, while Garth of Izar makes his move to assume command of the Endeavour in orbit above them!
  12. LOL. Was that really a high bar? No. No, it was not.
  13. Well, it took longer than expected, but the comic is finally finished! You can read the whole thing here. It only took 25 years.
  14. CBSAA launeched like 4 years ago. Everyone seems to not realize this, they have had this service available for 4 years or they aren't launching a new service with reruns and two original programs. They launched a service to provide classic reruns and there current line-up...and now they are expanding it. They are doing originals, they have added some movies, and they also have streaming access to the NFL now, so games can be streamed live...which is certain to bring in some people. I don't either, but it makes sense...part of the target audience is new fans who got in with the Kelvin films, and if they join up, enjoy the new show, having all of Trek's back catalog there for the taking is certainly a plus. I have a feeling the international deal with Netflix is the beginnings of Plan B. If CBS AA fails to take off, the show is unlikely to fail. As the international deal has essentially already turned a profit, or at the very least taken care of a lot of upfront production, then the likelihood of a second year is higher, and unless it is a huge critical disaster and fans don't watch on either Netflix (around the world) or CBS AA...then they will can it. But if it has it's fans (and what Trek doesn't?), then it will likely get a second year on CBS AA, and if that just completely becomes economically disastrous for the CBS Corp...then they will probably move it to Netflix in the US, because I think they know that no matter what, they can make some kind of money off of Trek for a bit. I think the Netflix deal was a way to use Netflix to compete with Netflix domestically, attempt to become a player in it's own right long term, and then I wouldn't be surprised if Plan A succeeds, they make plans to expand from US only to other markets around the world. If Plan A fails, then they probably shift into a deal where they hold the content rights on Trek and produce it FOR Netflix. We will see where it all lands, but I have a feeling that with Trek grabbing in one type of audience, The Good Fight attempting to lure in another type of target audience, and then the NFL being there for such a huge swath of people...they've got a fighting chance to succeed in this first year or so, and they will slowly build from there.
  15. Boa tarde - good afternoon ! SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING First Reactions Are Spectacular; "Easily The Best Spider-Man Movie Since SPIDER-MAN 2" The first press reactions for Spider-Man: Homecoming are in and you should all be very happy to learn that they're incredibly positive, with some claiming it's the MCU's best offering yet. Check it! Gus
  16. "The Twilight Zone" episode 4.17. "Homeland" episodes 1.03 and 1.04. "Mad Men" episode 5.02. And "The Leftovers" episode 2.06.
  17. I have no problems whatsoever with gender-swap castings, and in this case I liked it even more because it turned the tables so wonderfully. The men in the movie are often weak and clueless or clumsy or eye candy and the women are the competent ones in charge (there's still plenty of stuff that goes wrong tho lol) without taking things to the extreme (a la TNG's "Angel One"). I really appreciated this message most of all and can forgive a general lack of substance much more easily. Besides, Ghostbusters of ALL franchises isn't exactly one that has an incredible amount of substance in the first place, so there's that - it's four quirky people (and sometimes also a green slime ghost) hunting and catching ghosts with technobabble-ish equivalents of water guns. No one's expecting deep ethical and philosophical discussions about ghost rights and how about communication and do we have the right to trap these ghosts don't they have a right to live WITH humans instead of being hunted down, yadda yadda yadda. It's GHOSTBUSTERS, ffs, but listening to the whining dudebros one would have thought it's a TNG-ethics-discussions-level franchise that gets ruined by EVIL FEMALE ACTION HEROES OMG. And the whole "this is ruining my childhood" nonsense from the dudebros... their childhoods are still intact, no one replaced the original Ghostbusters in the original movies, I don't get what they were even whining about. How fragile must a male ego be to be cracked by a simple female re-cast? lol But... in the end, Sehlat... you'll have to watch the movie in order to form a full opinion.
  18. ^ Compelling point. It’s also one of the reasons I have such affection of TAS; it could’ve been "ST: Unchained" if they had more time and better animation resources (or if they remastered it in CGI today). Still wonderfully goofy and fun to see Kirk, Spock and Sulu outrunning pterodactyls... Nice to hear. Probably a lot of the same dummies who boycotted the excellent remake of “Battlestar Galactica” because (gasp!) Starbuck now had girlie parts, as did Boomer. IMO, the remake of BSG was (and still is) one of the finest science fiction series of all time; and far superior to the original. I don’t have that same expectation for GB (largely because I never thought the original was that special to begin with) but I’m more willing to give it a try now than I was before... But I’m not one of those ‘dudebros’ (hehe... funny!) who go all nuts when a woman is cast in an originally ‘male’ role. I also loved Helen Mirren as Prospero in the 2010 version of “The Tempest” (and Prospero was very much male in Shakespeare’s original).
  19. Nothing was lost, really. It's still Ghostbusters, easily recognizable as such, and it has many hints towards the original franchise. And yes, the dudebro snowflakes who were up in arms because FEMALES DO NOT HUNT GHOSTS were probably a big reason for it not being what it could have been at the box office. (Not saying it would have been a smashing success, it does lack the substance for something like that, but it still might have done better than it did.) And yes, a lot of people my age love the old animated Ghostbusters series. I'd still put this series over any of the movies because it's just so good - they could do a lot of stuff in it that they obviously couldn't do in a live-action movie. With a franchise that relies on weird ghosts as a major plot point, an animated series is the best way to go, IMO - you have ALL the opportunities there.
  20. I grew up a bit too early to appreciate the animated GB series (think I’d already graduated high school by then), but it does have a big cult following with your age demographic, that’s true (you’re quite a bit younger than me, you little whippersnapper... ). ... and this is the counterpoint I’ve heard as well. I’m thinking since it’s already on cable TV anyway, I need to just have my DVR do a search, find the next screening and record the thing. Decide for myself. And no, the all-female cast didn’t bother me; it was (initially) the idea behind it. It’s like they were aiming for “Bridesmaids” with proton packs. They even got Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy (both “Bridesmaids” veterans). So, while I’m not at all averse to gender swap casting (if it works), I was initially worried they were attempting to remake Ghostbusters in Bridesmaids’ image; that they would lose the spirit (forgive the pun) of the original. But... conversely, I also think the original is a tad overrated. Cute and funny, but not the classic everybody seems to think that it is; more a nice Halloween entertainment with a few good laughs.
  21. True, but AMC’s main rep at that point wasn’t original programming; it was (hence the name) classic movies. At one point, they ran them uncut... ah, the good ol’ days! So, “Mad Men” was a lot more experimental for them. If CBS-AA is just rolling out with 2 shows and a bunch of reruns, I really don’t think that’s sustainable, at least not in the beginning. AMC and Netflix have already kicked down the new content door on both of their respective services; there’s no need for CBS-AA to be so timid. Frankly, I don’t really care about ST and Twilight Zone libraries since I already own most of those on DVD and/or blu ray (and I’m guessing many DSC fans will as well). And a spinoff of “The Good Wife” (while an admirable attempt to reach other audiences) really doesn’t sound like something worth $6-10 a month for a non-Trekkie. Here’s hoping. But if CBS-AA fails (and it could, just as UPN did)? They’d be wise to just put DSC on Netflix, as they are doing for international viewers. Guaranteed wider audience overnight. I just hope that DSC doesn’t wind up failing along with CBS-AA...
  22. It isn't. Indeed, that would have been the cast I'd have gone with in its entirety, so that's not the flaw. It's an average movie. If not for the mass of melting snowflakes who didn't like the idea of it being rebooted with (gasp) girls?! and the particularly laughable notion of Sony somehow turning it into a launch point for a GBEU it would have just came and went like any other middling film.
  23. But while Original Content is down to 2-3 shows, they do have ALL of previous Trek, Twilight Zone, the original Twin Peaks...and all current CBS programming. Granted, they could use more, and they will get more. But they are starting slow on original content (a spin-off of The Good Wife already launched, and we are awaiting Trek). They are also using Netflix to compete with Netflix, which is interesting. The plan is to try to get CBSAA to be a true competitor, and yet internationally it is on Netflix, and the production of the show has been pretty much paid for by the Netflix deal. So they can have a major product that WILL bring in fans, and it hasn't been a major upfront cost for CBS itself. And to your point about Netflix and AMC both slowly rolled out their original content as well. AMC's first original drama was Mad Men, and they waited another year before Breaking Bad premiered, and another year before Walking Dead and so on. They slow rolled it out. Netflix first real launch of original programming was House of Cards, and while they did some imports and brought back Arrested Development, it took a while before they went full throttle with Orange is the New Black and several other programs. CBS has all it's primetime/daytime/late night/news content streaming, and they have three originals launching this year (The Good Fight isn't getting too much press, but it has good reviews and they also launched a Big Brother spin-off I don't care about), and they are probably already in the works for creating more original content in the next year or so, hopefully they can get some big names that can draw in subscribers (I'm certain that is the plan). Just because right now they are talking about Trek, doesn't mean that they are stopping there. I find that highly unlikely. So the big difference is the base content. AMC had regular showings of movies before they launched the very cinematic Mad Men and then Breaking Bad. Netflix was developing a huge list of subscribers because they had easy access to tons of streamable on demand content, both classic shows and movies. CBS unfortunately has their TV line-up. I don't care about most of that...but it is the #1 Network, so some folks do (they are probably just the least likely to be into streaming as of right now). But I think their rollout is no different than the approach of the Networks/Services you mentioned, it is just a matter of time before they expand.
  24. My entire Twitter timeline loved the movie, especially Kate McKinnon indeed. I'm very difficult to please and I have an eccentric sense of humor but the movie still appealed to me. So I'd say give it a shot. It wasn't a disaster at all. I've seen worse. MUCH worse. But then I've never understood the hype towards the original GB movies anyway - I prefer the old animated series.
  25. Maybe producing/overseeing two science fiction franchises is just too much. After all, he turns 80 this year. Now, my father in law is 81 and is more vital than I am any day of the week (hell, anyone is more vital than I am, come to think of it...) but I wouldn't ask my father in law to oversee two giant, uber-expensive movie series. It could simply be that Sir Ridley is just a little bit in over his head, and doesn't really have a 'master vision' for the two series as everyone seems to think. I think I could respect him more if he just said, "Sorry folks, but I'm sorta making this s#!t up as I go along...I really don't know what happens next." Disappointing, but'd be honest. Storytelling is truly hard work; it is a literal act of both will and creation. One is, like Zeus with Athena, willing something into reality from one's head. And since we humans are flawed creatures, there will be mistakes. If Scott were to quit today, I'd stil admire the hell out of him for shepherding ALIEN, Blade Runner and The Martian into being. He took these concepts from the written page (kudos again to the writers of these magnificent movies/book) and willed them into concrete reality. He'll always be a favorite for those three movies alone (in addition to "Thelma and Louise" and a few other greats).
  26. Ever since I first saw the DC of BR back in 1991 (with the unicorn dream reinserted), I always thought it was obvious that Deckard was a replicant. Gaff knew his dreams; the same way that Deckard had access to Rachel's 'memories' of the spider egg as a 'child' (that she never was). The fact that Deckard aged doesn't necessarily negate his being a replicant either. The Nexus-6 series had the 'new' innovation of a 4 year lifespan to prevent their gaining sentience (fat lot of good that did, right?) but Deckard is obviously an older model since he'd been doing this awhile, so maybe (like Rachel in the American cut) his lifespan was indeterminate. And remember that Bryant was the first person to reveal the 4 year lifespan to Deckard; if that was a standard feature, an experienced blade runner like Deckard would've (or should've) known that. So...there you go. End of nerd rant.
  27. I liked the original GB movie, but while I enjoy it as an October favorite, I always thought its legendary status was just a tad overrated. It's funny yes, but not a nonstop string of laughs like say, "Airplane" or any one of Mel Brooks' classics. It's cute and funny, and it works. And the less said about the remake known as GB2 the better. As for the new GB? I've been hearing (from about 5 people now) that it's not the disaster the negative buzz indicated, so I'm willing to give it a try. The VERY talented and extremely funny Kate McKinnon by herself is a great selling point.
  28. Its premise annoyed the Dudebros. That usually means it's a movie I will enjoy, which is why I bought the DVD now that it's reasonably priced. It has a bit of a slow start but once it gets going it also gets really good. I looooved all the references and cameos (Ozzy Osbourne LMFAO) and I liked all four Ghostbusters immensely and also much better than the originals (sorry but not sorry). It's not a masterpiece of meaningful discourse but then neither were the other Ghostbusters movies. I also loved how a guy was the eye candy and clueless assistant for once instead of giving that role to a woman like Hollywood usually does. Turning the tables, making the dudebros even more mad. Good. And I'm glad I watched the credits at the end. SIG WEAVER MY FAVE. I might have squealed. Just a bit. Or more than a bit. All in all I'm glad I got the DVD.
  1. Load more activity