|
That lady is about two inches of fabric away from overalls.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
Ravane posted:I don't deny that there aren't undiscovered classics like the ones you have listed, but considering that they have not made it into mainstream fame like the original Star Wars and the new Star Trek films, they're considered unsuccessful in my opinion. I've never even heard of those movies. Aren't you the guy who didn't know who Alfred Hitchcock was? Maybe you shouldn't pretend to be the world's leading authority on what is and isn't part of popular cinematic history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
What are you even trying to do, Ravane? You already pulled out the whole puppetmaster thing, you're not fooling anyone. e: ^ Really not helping my case, dude
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:you're not fooling anyone. Word? 'Cause it looks like a whole bunch of people are arguing with him in earnest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Into Darkness was a rushed clusterfuck of a production thanks to studio meddling. Whether or not this excuses a bad half-finished product depends entirely on whether or not the person who got screwed over is somebody the hivemind likes or dislikes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
zoux posted:Word? 'Cause it looks like a whole bunch of people are arguing with him in earnest. I assumed people could remember that far back. I was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
I like the original Star Trek show because it had giant Abraham Lincoln in space and stupid time travel episodes. I know people who like the newer shows and I do not understand why. They are loving boring. And Data is a dumb character. Patrick Stewart wasted so many years on that poo poo.  e: it would be like if Sir Ian McKellan had been on 9 seasons of Stargate or something
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Into Darkness was a rushed clusterfuck of a production thanks to studio meddling. Whether or not this excuses a bad half-finished product depends entirely on whether or not the person who got screwed over is somebody the hivemind likes or dislikes. I don't care about Abrams one way or the other, I just think that movie sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Into Darkness didn't suck. It just wasn't as good. I like Abram's movies (lens flare and all), but Into Darkness was my least favorite of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
I liked Into Darkness and all my friends did and so did critics and audiences in general and it made a poo poo ton of money and the only people I've seen bitch about it are internet dorks on these here fora.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Like, I guarantee you that if Rian Johnson put out a clunker of a sci-fi blockbuster thanks to having to shoot without a finished script and losing the actor who played the villain it would be nothing but back-patting apologism. But people who are still bitter that JJ Abrams didn't give a rational scientific explanation for why the magic island on Lost was magic aren't going to let an excuse to make lensflare jokes get away that easily.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
It's times like these when i'm glad I never watched a single episode of Lost. It sounds like it was more trouble than it was worth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
precision posted:I like the original Star Trek show because it had giant Abraham Lincoln in space and stupid time travel episodes. I know people who like the newer shows and I do not understand why. They are loving boring. And Data is a dumb character. Patrick Stewart wasted so many years on that poo poo. You mean it would have been really super awesome and good? Because Stargate and TNG were both really super awesome and good, well, not so much the replicators and Tasha Yar. But you take that poo poo back about Data. Also Q owns so hard how can you not like Q?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Gonz posted:It's times like these when i'm glad I never watched a single episode of Lost. It sounds like it was more trouble than it was worth. Only when you read/post on a message board about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Gonz posted:It's times like these when i'm glad I never watched a single episode of Lost. It sounds like it was more trouble than it was worth. Lost was fine it just ruined internet TV discussion forever and ever. IRQ posted:You mean it would have been really super awesome and good? TNG is like half good episodes and DS9 is 75% good episodes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Like, I guarantee you that if Rian Johnson put out a clunker of a sci-fi blockbuster thanks to having to shoot without a finished script and losing the actor who played the villain it would be nothing but back-patting apologism. But people who are still bitter that JJ Abrams didn't give a rational scientific explanation for why the magic island on Lost was magic aren't going to let an excuse to make lensflare jokes get away that easily. People make plenty of excuses for why Elysium sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
TNG has maybe 20 total "good" episodes and most of them involve Q and also holodecks so they barely count as Star Trek episodes since they're cheating to do Sherlock Holmes In The Holodeck or Film Noir In The Holodeck or whatever. Maybe more bad shows should have a holodeck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
DS9 is the only Star Trek I can stand. I only like 4 episodes of TNG. Riker is a creep and I loving hate Wesley.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Everyone hated Wesley, although Riker was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
zoux posted:Lost was fine it just ruined internet TV discussion forever and ever. I wonder how well-regarded Lost would have been if it aired in the 90s. No show- past or present has been as heavily scrutinized as Lost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
The only reason why Lost got the attention that it did is because it was one of the first genre shows that somehow managed to attract a mainstream audience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:DS9 is the only Star Trek I can stand. I only like 4 episodes of TNG. Riker is a creep and I loving hate Wesley. Riker is the only man I know who looks equally bad with and without a beard. His face just can't win. He always looks like a smug rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:The only reason why Lost got the attention that it did is because it was one of the first genre shows that somehow managed to attract a mainstream audience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Sober posted:Even if you wanna argue Lost got mired in "mysteries that create more mysteries and answers that just post more questions" at least it didn't get mired in stupid sci-fi technobabble. That stuff scares mainstream audiences away. I don't think there's anything particular about Lost that kept it from scaring the audience away. I think it just happened to be at the right place at the right time and they introduced the supernatural elements of the show slow enough that people got invested in the show and didn't want to stop watching.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Or "audiences hate sci-fi" is wrong and people actually like fantastic elements in their movies/tv shows, which would explain the success of Avatar, Gravity, The Big Bang Theory, Superhero movies and Game of Thrones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
I agree with Joe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:Or "audiences hate sci-fi" is wrong and people actually like fantastic elements in their movies/tv shows, which would explain the success of Avatar, Gravity, The Big Bang Theory, Superhero movies and Game of Thrones. Point of fact, every example you gave (barring the broad category of Superhero movies) was post Lost, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. There have always been scifi blockbusters and there have even been high rated genre tv shows before. Let's boil this down a bit more. Lost was the first high profile scifi/fantasy show in the post internet era that gathered a mainstream audience. That led to much more widespread discussion and media exposure. There wasn't anything special about it that made it a mainstream success and there's nothing that really warrants the level of discussion that surrounds it compared to other shows. It just happened to show up at the right place at the right time to embed itself in the culture. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jul 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
I'd say "heavy serialization" was a bigger factor in its success than "genre".
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
zoux posted:I'd say "heavy serialization" was a bigger factor in its success than "genre". That's what I figured. Lost seemed like one of the first network shows to take full advantage of serialization in the DVD age, and that's what initially attracted people. Cable shows had been doing it, but cable shows had much more limited reach.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
24? Came out 3 years before Lost. I know it's the first show that I ever binge watched. I felt crappy but it was so addicting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
zoux posted:I'd say "heavy serialization" was a bigger factor in its success than "genre". I agree as well. I wasn't saying anything about genre being a factor in the success, only about the level of discussion it raised.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
zoux posted:I'd say "heavy serialization" was a bigger factor in its success than "genre". Turns out, everyone loves a soap opera. The British figured this out decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:24? Came out 3 years before Lost. I know it's the first show that I ever binge watched. I felt crappy but it was so addicting. Yeah, 24 was another one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Like, I guarantee you that if Rian Johnson put out a clunker of a sci-fi blockbuster thanks to having to shoot without a finished script and losing the actor who played the villain it would be nothing but back-patting apologism. Dude, I want so badly to agree with your main point, but you are giving way too little credibility to people who want to be on the cutting edge. It's this simple: We build idols up, then people find reasons to knock them down, legit or otherwise. Before Abrams, it was Whedon. Now it's happening with Christopher Nolan, and it can absolutely happen with Rian Johnson, regardless of whether or not he crushes VIII.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
It would be nice if people stopped constructing idols so normal people could have reasonable discussions without a bunch of reactionaries screaming about how we're tearing someone or something down for 'street cred.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
DivisionPost posted:Dude, I want so badly to agree with your main point, but you are giving way too little credibility to people who want to be on the cutting edge. Oh Star Wars is hosed. Internet "critics" made so much hay out of skewering the prequels that they and every wannabe youtube star is slavering at the chance to be the next RLM that they are going to go after it hard no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
We don't have to worry about normal people and reasonable discussions here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Into darkness was a great summer action movie. Perfect amount of action, worth 10 bucks. I understand if you hate it because you're a longtime trek fan but your version of the franchise is long dead and nothing will ever revive it. Yes I was talking about the dragons tail stuff before, didn't realize that they were after the bombs, bummer. People who parrot RLM are the worst. RLM did to opinions what lost did to discussion. Lost still rules though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
I don't remember anything about Star Trek Into the Moon. I think San Francisco blew up and Sherlock pretended to be some other guy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
I distinctly remember Heroes Chat being quite a bit worse than LOST Chat. Then again, people who like comic books are terrible and broken as a general rule.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2014 21:14
|
|