Useless Long Preamble (feel free to skip down):
A recent spate of negative feedback I've received has left me with a quandary. I've always known my place here isn't in any way, shape or form related to expertise with regard to physics. My recent problems stem from an inability to articulate certain concepts clearly (i.e ... whether or not there was a "point" from which a big bang emanated ... blah blah blah it's not important here so don't go there).
That ineptitude resulted in having to retort against (from my perspective) a series of dogmatic and then insulting responses. I'm never one to back down from what I perceive as an unwarranted attack. So when that stupidity was done ... I thought ... fuckthisplace.
So I had a little internal debate ... leave this place to the nutjobs, the dogmatists and the increasingly few cordial normal folks .... OR do my best to engage in a discussion where I can contribute something interesting. The pissing off and forgetting this joint exists option was pretty palatable.
Who really wants to deal with an *** like Trout? Seriously. I admit I'd miss educating Philip386747949982 about Nachos and of course the joyousness of criticizing Yahweh for not giving us the ability to grow back severed limbs is always good for a hoot. Then I realized ... I can piss off from here at anytime. So I'll give it another shot ... who knows ... maybe Trout and his pathetic sycophants (you know who you are) will decide to piss off instead. Or they could just see what dicks they are and straighten up and fly right (never happen).
I considered what actually I've contributed here and came to the conclusion that besides occasionally skull-cracking some fundies that I'm best suited to less technical topics. So without further BS ...
Actual Proposed Discussion:
I watched a flick tonight called "FAQ's about Time Travel". It was a low budget HBO/BBC thing about three basic dorks that find themselves in a series of time travel scenarios. We've all seen movies that treat this subject with varying degrees of success. I liked the treatment the writer gave the subject in the case of this movie and it made me think about the other movies I've seen and how they addressed the difficulties associated with this fictional topic. So I'll give my list of the best movies with "Time Travel" themes and ask others to give theirs.
Let me give a sort of preamble part 2 here ... time travel is essentially not possible ok? Yes ... go near the speed of light for a while and when you get back loads of time would have passed here. But outside of that ... I don't think it's possible. Nevertheless ... it's an enjoyable topic and great for a movie.
12 Monkeys -- This film dealt realistically with so many of the classic paradoxes that occur with time travel. The world is done in by a plague that few survive. Future scientists send grunts back in time to attempt to change the past so the plague is avoided. The overriding theme is one of destiny. No matter what the characters do the present plays out the same way resulting in an identical future. This is a great movie for lots of reasons ... the acting is tremendous, the directing is great ... etc. But the whole idea that destiny determines the future is a load of tripe. But since the rest of the film is so so so very good it's on my list. I think ... If you could go back in time ... you'd certainly be able to change history.
The Time Machine -- This movie makes my list because it does something so many other movies are afraid to do. The story goes 800,000 years into the future. So many other stories limit themselves to a couple of centuries or so. I don't get that. In both the original and the relatively recent remake I particularly like the scene where the main character is in his machine and is first covered by a mountain which eventually erodes away to expose the future world. The whole underground monsters BS feeding on future human cattle ... I could do without. It's also a mistake to bring someone back from the future to a point in time where days or weeks have past since they first left. You'd come back 1 second later. No reason to do it otherwise. It's good that they stuck to the book's story I suppose. But they could have made a better movies if they hadn't.
Frequency -- In this film the main character communicates his father on a ham radio from 30 years in the past. Together they eventually solve a string of murders (one of which was the main characters mother). This is one of those happy ending ones where stupid concepts like destiny don't preclude changing things. This movie is on my list because there isn't actually any physical travel to the past (which I always have an issue with but generally can accept for entertainment purposes) but still addresses some of the realities very well. The key moment comes when the father in the past places a piece of evidence so his future son can find it. Of course, it happens instantly. And the "thriller" aspects of solving the murders is done well.
Groundhog Day -- The most purely entertaining film of the genre. Bill Murray was the perfect guy for the role. He's funny in a funny movie. It avoids a lot of the problems with the genre by simply looping one day. The best episode of the TV series Stargate SG-1 did a similar thing. I wouldn't want to heap too much praise on this film in terms of dealing with time travel issues. It was just a good flick. Maybe it doesn't deserve to be on the list? It's here though.
The Jacket -- Without explaining or speculating about how it happens a man in a mental home travels between the present, past and future and ultimately secures a potentially happy future for himself. This movie is drama without the science. It is excellent drama though. The guy we want to win, wins. I found it powerful because of the acting. In a similar way to Groundhog Day it's sort of "time travel light". But the character's interactions are really compelling. I enjoyed it enough that I watched it twice within a week.
Terminator Series -- Without the final movie this series isn't so much about time travel as it is about preventing a bad future. But the final movie was excellent. It put all the issues from the first three in their place. It resolved them all. If the 4th movie hadn't been made I wouldn't have this series on my list. If you haven't seen it but were entertained by the others ... then see it. Yes. The third movie was shite.
Time Bandits -- I'd put this in the same category as Groundhog Day. It's a wildly entertaining film. Great characters. Lots of fun stuff. And the best personification of God ever by Sir Ralph Richardson. Terry Gilliam (of Monty Python fame) directed and you can't go wrong watching any movie he's ever made.
Deja Vu -- Saw this recently. Essentially, the government has a machine that lets them see into the past. But only 4 days because of "physics limitations". That concept in the movie is lame. Ultimately, the main character travels back a couple of days and prevents a terrorist attack. The twist at the end is worth not revealing and the director/writer handled it all very well. It's on my list because of that. It's just well crafted ... other than the stupidity of sitting in front of computers and peering into the 4 day old past in "realtime" segments. Dumb.
So those are mine. There's lots of others. What makes your list? Why? What time travel movies were total crap in your opinion?
My next thread:
Which movies about the future had the most compelling vision of the future? Stay tuned ...
Primer - An ultra low-budget (but really good) look at two engineers who figure out how to time travel a few hours into the past. The catch is that they can only travel as far back as the machine has been turned on, and they have to sit in the box for the exact amount of time that they want to travel. Initially, they use this to game the stock market, but things get extremely complicated fairly quickly. You will need to watch this movie at least twice to figure it out.
As to your feedback problems, I would be wary of making any statements about science that sound crank-y. This includes stating that established science is wrong, without specific examples and proof. I think all of us crank-smashers are a little jumpy when it comes to that kind of thing, so our crank-sense is a little too sensitive. What I usually do is include a disclaimer in statements that I am not sure about, such as "Correct me if I'm wrong" etc.
(edit)
Back to time travel, IMHO time travel in the movie sense is impossible. You couldn't go back into the past and expect those changes to be reflected in your original timeline. Any changes to the past would have to be made to an alternate timeline that doesn't affect your original one. Or, the universe doesn't care about continuity and just rolls with whatever changes you make. Either way, IMHO time paradoxes are not possible. Ideally, I would prefer to use time travel just as a window to the past, not a door. E.g. You can look but you can't touch. This way, we can solve mysteries and observe historical events without screwing them up. There is probably a good reason why we have no time-travelers from the future running around. (either time travel is and will always be impossible, or there is a logistical barrier to changing the past)
As to your feedback problems, I would be wary of making any statements about science that sound crank-y. This includes stating that established science is wrong, without specific examples and proof. I think all of us crank-smashers are a little jumpy when it comes to that kind of thing, so our crank-sense is a little too sensitive. What I usually do is include a disclaimer in statements that I am not sure about, such as "Correct me if I'm wrong" etc.
(edit)
Back to time travel, IMHO time travel in the movie sense is impossible. You couldn't go back into the past and expect those changes to be reflected in your original timeline. Any changes to the past would have to be made to an alternate timeline that doesn't affect your original one. Or, the universe doesn't care about continuity and just rolls with whatever changes you make. Either way, IMHO time paradoxes are not possible. Ideally, I would prefer to use time travel just as a window to the past, not a door. E.g. You can look but you can't touch. This way, we can solve mysteries and observe historical events without screwing them up. There is probably a good reason why we have no time-travelers from the future running around. (either time travel is and will always be impossible, or there is a logistical barrier to changing the past)
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 19 2009, 01:09 PM)
Primer - An ultra low-budget (but really good) look at two engineers who figure out how to time travel a few hours into the past. The catch is that they can only travel as far back as the machine has been turned on, and they have to sit in the box for the exact amount of time that they want to travel. Initially, they use this to game the stock market, but things get extremely complicated fairly quickly. You will need to watch this movie at least twice to figure it out.
When I saw a trailer for this sometime back I was kinda turned off because the main characters seemed like the sort of greedy bastards that I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. If they get their just rewards then maybe I'll give it a look. Or if you think my initial impression was wrong and that perhaps the main characters have redeeming value then I'll give it a look.
Yea ... if I'd made any such statements then you'd be right. I didn't however. I argued for a position that was ultimately confirmed by other posters regardless of Trout's continuing assertions. Being labeled crank by him here doesn't necessarily mean one is a crank. I never have and never will espouse any particular theory other than to express that certain things make intuitive sense to me and/or I "hope" things are different.
Other quality posters have been chased away from here by Trout's antics and his blind sycophantic followers. Nobody regrets the loss of the psychotic morons that show up here and post their bullshit TOE's in their first entry. But when minds like Good Elf and others don't post anymore then perhaps Trout should do a little perception checking. 4D gives me pos's for the same reason that Geoff or Fred pile on the negs when they see Trout do it. It's ridiculous high school girl crappola.
I'm sorry I included the preamble ... I wanted to get it off my chest since I nearly didn't come back here at all (and yes .. I recognize that nobody would really care if I didn't and some people would be happy that I left).
Yea ... if I'd made any such statements then you'd be right. I didn't however. I argued for a position that was ultimately confirmed by other posters regardless of Trout's continuing assertions. Being labeled crank by him here doesn't necessarily mean one is a crank. I never have and never will espouse any particular theory other than to express that certain things make intuitive sense to me and/or I "hope" things are different.
Other quality posters have been chased away from here by Trout's antics and his blind sycophantic followers. Nobody regrets the loss of the psychotic morons that show up here and post their bullshit TOE's in their first entry. But when minds like Good Elf and others don't post anymore then perhaps Trout should do a little perception checking. 4D gives me pos's for the same reason that Geoff or Fred pile on the negs when they see Trout do it. It's ridiculous high school girl crappola.
I'm sorry I included the preamble ... I wanted to get it off my chest since I nearly didn't come back here at all (and yes .. I recognize that nobody would really care if I didn't and some people would be happy that I left).
Back to time travel, IMHO time travel in the movie sense is impossible. You couldn't go back into the past and expect those changes to be reflected in your original timeline. Any changes to the past would have to be made to an alternate timeline that doesn't affect your original one. Or, the universe doesn't care about continuity and just rolls with whatever changes you make. Either way, IMHO time paradoxes are not possible. Ideally, I would prefer to use time travel just as a window to the past, not a door. E.g. You can look but you can't touch. This way, we can solve mysteries and observe historical events without screwing them up. There is probably a good reason why we have no time-travelers from the future running around. (either time travel is and will always be impossible, or there is a logistical barrier to changing the past)
I essentially agree. As for some esoteric speculation ... I think you could imagine a scenario that included time travel into the past but that just doing so (because any seemingly insignificant change) would mean a new "slice" of the multiverse would be carved off (timeline). In that sense, perhaps we create a new "slice" with every choice we make about anything. A truly unlimited infinite number of 'verses in the greater multi-whole certainly provides the room necessary.
Future possible responses by others here:
Anyone ... Anyone?
When I saw a trailer for this sometime back I was kinda turned off because the main characters seemed like the sort of greedy bastards that I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. If they get their just rewards then maybe I'll give it a look. Or if you think my initial impression was wrong and that perhaps the main characters have redeeming value then I'll give it a look.
QUOTE
As to your feedback problems, I would be wary of making any statements about science that sound crank-y. This includes stating that established science is wrong, without specific examples and proof. I think all of us crank-smashers are a little jumpy when it comes to that kind of thing, so our crank-sense is a little too sensitive. What I usually do is include a disclaimer in statements that I am not sure about, such as "Correct me if I'm wrong" etc.
Yea ... if I'd made any such statements then you'd be right. I didn't however. I argued for a position that was ultimately confirmed by other posters regardless of Trout's continuing assertions. Being labeled crank by him here doesn't necessarily mean one is a crank. I never have and never will espouse any particular theory other than to express that certain things make intuitive sense to me and/or I "hope" things are different.
Other quality posters have been chased away from here by Trout's antics and his blind sycophantic followers. Nobody regrets the loss of the psychotic morons that show up here and post their bullshit TOE's in their first entry. But when minds like Good Elf and others don't post anymore then perhaps Trout should do a little perception checking. 4D gives me pos's for the same reason that Geoff or Fred pile on the negs when they see Trout do it. It's ridiculous high school girl crappola.
I'm sorry I included the preamble ... I wanted to get it off my chest since I nearly didn't come back here at all (and yes .. I recognize that nobody would really care if I didn't and some people would be happy that I left).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As to your feedback problems, I would be wary of making any statements about science that sound crank-y. This includes stating that established science is wrong, without specific examples and proof. I think all of us crank-smashers are a little jumpy when it comes to that kind of thing, so our crank-sense is a little too sensitive. What I usually do is include a disclaimer in statements that I am not sure about, such as "Correct me if I'm wrong" etc. |
Yea ... if I'd made any such statements then you'd be right. I didn't however. I argued for a position that was ultimately confirmed by other posters regardless of Trout's continuing assertions. Being labeled crank by him here doesn't necessarily mean one is a crank. I never have and never will espouse any particular theory other than to express that certain things make intuitive sense to me and/or I "hope" things are different.
Other quality posters have been chased away from here by Trout's antics and his blind sycophantic followers. Nobody regrets the loss of the psychotic morons that show up here and post their bullshit TOE's in their first entry. But when minds like Good Elf and others don't post anymore then perhaps Trout should do a little perception checking. 4D gives me pos's for the same reason that Geoff or Fred pile on the negs when they see Trout do it. It's ridiculous high school girl crappola.
I'm sorry I included the preamble ... I wanted to get it off my chest since I nearly didn't come back here at all (and yes .. I recognize that nobody would really care if I didn't and some people would be happy that I left).
Back to time travel, IMHO time travel in the movie sense is impossible. You couldn't go back into the past and expect those changes to be reflected in your original timeline. Any changes to the past would have to be made to an alternate timeline that doesn't affect your original one. Or, the universe doesn't care about continuity and just rolls with whatever changes you make. Either way, IMHO time paradoxes are not possible. Ideally, I would prefer to use time travel just as a window to the past, not a door. E.g. You can look but you can't touch. This way, we can solve mysteries and observe historical events without screwing them up. There is probably a good reason why we have no time-travelers from the future running around. (either time travel is and will always be impossible, or there is a logistical barrier to changing the past)
I essentially agree. As for some esoteric speculation ... I think you could imagine a scenario that included time travel into the past but that just doing so (because any seemingly insignificant change) would mean a new "slice" of the multiverse would be carved off (timeline). In that sense, perhaps we create a new "slice" with every choice we make about anything. A truly unlimited infinite number of 'verses in the greater multi-whole certainly provides the room necessary.
Future possible responses by others here:
QUOTE
What? You don't have Back to the Future on your list? What a crap list!
Anyone ... Anyone?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 19 2009, 09:06 PM)
When I saw a trailer for this sometime back I was kinda turned off because the main characters seemed like the sort of greedy bastards that I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. If they get their just rewards then maybe I'll give it a look. Or if you think my initial impression was wrong and that perhaps the main characters have redeeming value then I'll give it a look.
I wouldn't say that they were extremely greedy per-se. They used their invention to game the stock market, but their real problems start when they try to 'fix' something in their own lives. The confusing part of the movie is the fact that it has a non-linear plot, REALLY non-linear.
I wouldn't trust the trailer.
Ebert's review
I agree, Trout can be overzealous. I haven't really done anything to provoke him... yet.
I agree, Trout can be overzealous. I haven't really done anything to provoke him... yet.
What? You don't have Back to the Future on your list? What a crap list!
Those were my favorite movies as a kid
Science-wise, you might as well be watching Bill & Ted.
I wouldn't say that they were extremely greedy per-se. They used their invention to game the stock market, but their real problems start when they try to 'fix' something in their own lives. The confusing part of the movie is the fact that it has a non-linear plot, REALLY non-linear.
I wouldn't trust the trailer.
Ebert's review
QUOTE
Yea ... if I'd made any such statements then you'd be right. I didn't however. I argued for a position that was ultimately confirmed by other posters regardless of Trout's continuing assertions. Being labeled crank by him here doesn't necessarily mean one is a crank. I never have and never will espouse any particular theory other than to express that certain things make intuitive sense to me and/or I "hope" things are different.
I agree, Trout can be overzealous. I haven't really done anything to provoke him... yet.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yea ... if I'd made any such statements then you'd be right. I didn't however. I argued for a position that was ultimately confirmed by other posters regardless of Trout's continuing assertions. Being labeled crank by him here doesn't necessarily mean one is a crank. I never have and never will espouse any particular theory other than to express that certain things make intuitive sense to me and/or I "hope" things are different. |
I agree, Trout can be overzealous. I haven't really done anything to provoke him... yet.
What? You don't have Back to the Future on your list? What a crap list!
Those were my favorite movies as a kid
Science-wise, you might as well be watching Bill & Ted.
Best time travel movie: Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. End of discussion.
Most scientific time travel movie: Primer.
Most scientific time travel movie: Primer.
Thats a great list youve got there.
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Its the story of a guy who's "unstuck" in time.
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Its the story of a guy who's "unstuck" in time.
I would like to submit "Star Trek: The Voyage Home" as the second most quotable time travel movie ever (after Bill & Ted).
"Take me to your nuclwear wessels!"
"Double dumbass on you!"
"Dialysis? What is this? The dark ages?"
"Computer? Hello computer?"
"A keyboard, how quaint!"
Also, I would like to submit the TARDIS as the best time machine ever.
"Take me to your nuclwear wessels!"
"Double dumbass on you!"
"Dialysis? What is this? The dark ages?"
"Computer? Hello computer?"
"A keyboard, how quaint!"
Also, I would like to submit the TARDIS as the best time machine ever.
QUOTE (occidental+Oct 20 2009, 02:10 AM)
Thats a great list youve got there.
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Its the story of a guy who's "unstuck" in time.
Glad you mentioned a book from my favorite author. I didn't include the movie on my list even though I think it was really quite true to the novel.
Vonnegut can be considered both science-fiction and not science fiction at the same time. I think this story and Cat's Cradle are both good examples of that. I think the "science" parts in both stories (as well as a lot of his other work) is really there for exposition for imagination. Similarly, Cat's Cradle uses a similar tactic with the concept of Ice-9. It's a vehicle to examine humanity. (I know all good sci-fi is exactly that).
In Slaughterhouse Five's case Billy Milligan only travels through time in his mind (my personal opinion). It's a story technique that allows Vonnegut to weave the story of Billy's life without doing it event by event. Vonnegut makes Billy himself aware of his "travellings" yet (if I'm not mistaken) the only time Billy mentions traveling through time is when he's on Tralfamadore (which I'd guess is really his life-after-death).
So anyway ... Slaughterhouse Five is relevant for the list ... and it's not. LOL. I chose not for minor reasons entirely.
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Its the story of a guy who's "unstuck" in time.
Glad you mentioned a book from my favorite author. I didn't include the movie on my list even though I think it was really quite true to the novel.
Vonnegut can be considered both science-fiction and not science fiction at the same time. I think this story and Cat's Cradle are both good examples of that. I think the "science" parts in both stories (as well as a lot of his other work) is really there for exposition for imagination. Similarly, Cat's Cradle uses a similar tactic with the concept of Ice-9. It's a vehicle to examine humanity. (I know all good sci-fi is exactly that).
In Slaughterhouse Five's case Billy Milligan only travels through time in his mind (my personal opinion). It's a story technique that allows Vonnegut to weave the story of Billy's life without doing it event by event. Vonnegut makes Billy himself aware of his "travellings" yet (if I'm not mistaken) the only time Billy mentions traveling through time is when he's on Tralfamadore (which I'd guess is really his life-after-death).
So anyway ... Slaughterhouse Five is relevant for the list ... and it's not. LOL. I chose not for minor reasons entirely.
Some great films. My kids liked "Time After Time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_After_Time_(1979_film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_After_Time_(1979_film)
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 20 2009, 02:25 AM)
I would like to submit "Star Trek: The Voyage Home" as the second most quotable time travel movie ever (after Bill & Ted).
"Take me to your nuclwear wessels!"
"Double dumbass on you!"
"Dialysis? What is this? The dark ages?"
"Computer? Hello computer?"
"A keyboard, how quaint!"
Also, I would like to submit the TARDIS as the best time machine ever.
I certainly included the Star Trek movies for the list.
But honestly, don't you think several Voyager TV episodes did a better job than any of the movies that included it thematically. Specifically the episode where Kurtwood Smith (Red Foreman of "That 70's Show") was the Captain of a Time Ship that was trying to restore a timeline that would include his wife being alive. It was a two-parter if I recall correctly called "The Year of Hell". It was very similar (conceptually-wise but not treatment-wise) to the Stargate Episode that I mentioned where a 10 hour time loop is created by a guy trying to do the same thing i.e... bring his wife back to life. That's the SG1 episode where O'Neill realizes there are no repercussions to any actions he takes while in the loop and starts doing anything and everything that he wouldn't otherwise consider.
Interestingly, Kurtwood Smith was the main character in a Showtime "30 Minute Movie" in 1990 called "12:01" in which a 59 minute loop started and he was the only one to notice. It must have been the inspiration for Groundhog Day though it wasn't comedic. I don't remember 12:01 that well except to say that he finally figured out a way to get to a physicist that had predicted the loop might happen at 12:01 ...
"Take me to your nuclwear wessels!"
"Double dumbass on you!"
"Dialysis? What is this? The dark ages?"
"Computer? Hello computer?"
"A keyboard, how quaint!"
Also, I would like to submit the TARDIS as the best time machine ever.
I certainly included the Star Trek movies for the list.
But honestly, don't you think several Voyager TV episodes did a better job than any of the movies that included it thematically. Specifically the episode where Kurtwood Smith (Red Foreman of "That 70's Show") was the Captain of a Time Ship that was trying to restore a timeline that would include his wife being alive. It was a two-parter if I recall correctly called "The Year of Hell". It was very similar (conceptually-wise but not treatment-wise) to the Stargate Episode that I mentioned where a 10 hour time loop is created by a guy trying to do the same thing i.e... bring his wife back to life. That's the SG1 episode where O'Neill realizes there are no repercussions to any actions he takes while in the loop and starts doing anything and everything that he wouldn't otherwise consider.
Interestingly, Kurtwood Smith was the main character in a Showtime "30 Minute Movie" in 1990 called "12:01" in which a 59 minute loop started and he was the only one to notice. It must have been the inspiration for Groundhog Day though it wasn't comedic. I don't remember 12:01 that well except to say that he finally figured out a way to get to a physicist that had predicted the loop might happen at 12:01 ...
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 20 2009, 02:58 AM)
Some great films. My kids liked "Time After Time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_After_Time_(1979_film)
I liked that film too and it got consideration for my list. H.G. Wells chasing Jack The Ripper through time? Cool idea ... it has a love interest too. Overall certainly entertaining. Not too convoluted or full of paradoxes.
Thinking of it always reminds me of "Somewhere In Time" with Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour that came out about the same time as "Time After Time". Freaking Hollywood and the whole idea stealing shite competition ... lol.
Time After Time and Somewhere In Time ...
E.T. and Starman ...
Deep Impact and (the worst movie ever made) Armageddon ...
and plenty of other examples that don't come to mind at the moment.
I remember being so offended and insulted that Armageddon did so much better than Deep Impact. Armageddon was trash. Deep Impact was 10 times the movie ... it had some science issues but nothing like the "Asteroid" (sic) in Armageddon ... PUHLEASE ... *** were those Glass-Like spires supposed to be? It wasn't like in 1988 we had no ideas about the surface of Asteroids. Thinking about that movie makes my head hurt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_After_Time_(1979_film)
I liked that film too and it got consideration for my list. H.G. Wells chasing Jack The Ripper through time? Cool idea ... it has a love interest too. Overall certainly entertaining. Not too convoluted or full of paradoxes.
Thinking of it always reminds me of "Somewhere In Time" with Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour that came out about the same time as "Time After Time". Freaking Hollywood and the whole idea stealing shite competition ... lol.
Time After Time and Somewhere In Time ...
E.T. and Starman ...
Deep Impact and (the worst movie ever made) Armageddon ...
and plenty of other examples that don't come to mind at the moment.
I remember being so offended and insulted that Armageddon did so much better than Deep Impact. Armageddon was trash. Deep Impact was 10 times the movie ... it had some science issues but nothing like the "Asteroid" (sic) in Armageddon ... PUHLEASE ... *** were those Glass-Like spires supposed to be? It wasn't like in 1988 we had no ideas about the surface of Asteroids. Thinking about that movie makes my head hurt.
You've got some good points. But if we're just talking about great movies in general, then Martin Scorsese's "The Departed" should be considered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Departed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Departed
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 19 2009, 10:03 PM)
Specifically the episode where Kurtwood Smith (Red Foreman of "That 70's Show") was the Captain of a Time Ship that was trying to restore a timeline that would include his wife being alive. It was a two-parter if I recall correctly called "The Year of Hell".
Interestingly, Kurtwood Smith was the main character in a Showtime "30 Minute Movie" in 1990 called "12:01" in which a 59 minute loop started and he was the only one to notice. It must have been the inspiration for Groundhog Day though it wasn't comedic. I don't remember 12:01 that well except to say that he finally figured out a way to get to a physicist that had predicted the loop might happen at 12:01 ...
That was the single best episode of Voyager ever made. The entire time I watched it, I kept thinking "This is why you don't kill a scientist's family, dumbass!"
"Window of Opportunity" was the episode.
"Window of Opportunity" was the episode.(Teal'c and Col. O'Neill are standing in front of the activated Stargate in full golf clothing, holding drivers. Teal'c shoots a golf ball into the gate.)
Col. O'Neill: Nice! That'll play...How far is Alaris, anyway?
Teal'c: (As he tees up a ball for O'Neill to shoot) Several billion miles, O'Neill.
Col. O'Neill: That's gotta be a record.
Gen. Hammond: Colonel O'Neill, what the hell are you doing?!
Col. O'Neill: In the middle of my backswing?!
Interestingly, Kurtwood Smith was the main character in a Showtime "30 Minute Movie" in 1990 called "12:01" in which a 59 minute loop started and he was the only one to notice. It must have been the inspiration for Groundhog Day though it wasn't comedic. I don't remember 12:01 that well except to say that he finally figured out a way to get to a physicist that had predicted the loop might happen at 12:01 ...
That was the single best episode of Voyager ever made. The entire time I watched it, I kept thinking "This is why you don't kill a scientist's family, dumbass!"
QUOTE
It was very similar (conceptually-wise but not treatment-wise) to the Stargate Episode that I mentioned where a 10 hour time loop is created by a guy trying to do the same thing i.e... bring his wife back to life. That's the SG1 episode where O'Neill realizes there are no repercussions to any actions he takes while in the loop and starts doing anything and everything that he wouldn't otherwise consider.
"Window of Opportunity" was the episode.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It was very similar (conceptually-wise but not treatment-wise) to the Stargate Episode that I mentioned where a 10 hour time loop is created by a guy trying to do the same thing i.e... bring his wife back to life. That's the SG1 episode where O'Neill realizes there are no repercussions to any actions he takes while in the loop and starts doing anything and everything that he wouldn't otherwise consider. |
"Window of Opportunity" was the episode.(Teal'c and Col. O'Neill are standing in front of the activated Stargate in full golf clothing, holding drivers. Teal'c shoots a golf ball into the gate.)
Col. O'Neill: Nice! That'll play...How far is Alaris, anyway?
Teal'c: (As he tees up a ball for O'Neill to shoot) Several billion miles, O'Neill.
Col. O'Neill: That's gotta be a record.
Gen. Hammond: Colonel O'Neill, what the hell are you doing?!
Col. O'Neill: In the middle of my backswing?!
QUOTE (Derek1148+Oct 20 2009, 03:22 AM)
You've got some good points. But if we're just talking about great movies in general, then Martin Scorsese's "The Departed" should be considered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Departed
A well crafted film. Scorsese is of course a genius.
Edit: Anyone watching Stargate Universe?
So far I'm liking it. It's not as episodic as the other Stargate series so it doesn't move to fast. If anyone is watching it then here's my prediction for the next episode ...
The "Destiny" appears headed for doom on a path into some star with zero power other than life support. However, I'm betting it's going to kipe some plasma from that star to repower itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Departed
A well crafted film. Scorsese is of course a genius.
Edit: Anyone watching Stargate Universe?
So far I'm liking it. It's not as episodic as the other Stargate series so it doesn't move to fast. If anyone is watching it then here's my prediction for the next episode ...
The "Destiny" appears headed for doom on a path into some star with zero power other than life support. However, I'm betting it's going to kipe some plasma from that star to repower itself.
There is a time-travel plot in Girl Genius (online & on-paper mad scientist serial comic, now in something like 8 volumes) but not much has happened yet -- no idea who invented the time machine or what purpose it is being used for when it shows up from time to time....
I'm watching Primer right now ... or I should say I'm waiting for the Megavideo "timeout" to pass so I can finish watching it.
Yes. I'm watching a streaming free version online. I don't feel bad about watching a movie posted online that probably involves copyright infringement. I suppose I should but I don't. I don't infringe on the copyright by watching it. I didn't upload it.
Here's a steaming linky ...
I can't watch animated movies or read comic books (online or otherwise). I dunno why. I suppose I'm missing out on that part of our culture but I just can't bring myself to it. Maybe it has to do with all the animated stuff I watched and read with my daughter when she was a tyke. I guess I had my fill?
Yes. I'm watching a streaming free version online. I don't feel bad about watching a movie posted online that probably involves copyright infringement. I suppose I should but I don't. I don't infringe on the copyright by watching it. I didn't upload it.
Here's a steaming linky ...
I can't watch animated movies or read comic books (online or otherwise). I dunno why. I suppose I'm missing out on that part of our culture but I just can't bring myself to it. Maybe it has to do with all the animated stuff I watched and read with my daughter when she was a tyke. I guess I had my fill?
Finished "Primer" ... just now. My immediate impressions are ...
Needs remade ... professionally. It has a less than appealing look and feel. Nothing wrong with the acting necessarily. But the cinematography is badly flawed. Also because it's convoluted (not necessarily a bad thing) the editing could be more audience friendly. The ending sucked mostly.
I can understand why it won some awards. But the revelations come so late that there is little time to absorb them and really understand the point. The characters actually are jerking themselves around and I don't know that everybody would "see" that. You think you're watching the same two guys but instead you're watching various versions of them in different "frames". It's compelling still though. If I was giving it a 5 star rating I'd definitely give it a 3.5 (for reference ... the best of the movies I originally listed would go 4.5 stars). A remake with a clever director and a good editor shot by someone that had some cinematic experience could easily turn it into a 5. You'd need about another 15 minutes of length probably. Cut out some of the BS near the beginning and do a slower reveal at the end. I don't know if it's possible to follow the same two "variants" from beginning to end but if you could that continuity would be nice. I felt a little manipulated. I could see that whole movie as the first 20 minutes of something "bigger" too.
As for the physics/science ... I suppose it was as good as any I listed. I'm not sorry I watched it. But the two characters were basically self-absorbed jerks.
I'm acutely critical ... I know.
Needs remade ... professionally. It has a less than appealing look and feel. Nothing wrong with the acting necessarily. But the cinematography is badly flawed. Also because it's convoluted (not necessarily a bad thing) the editing could be more audience friendly. The ending sucked mostly.
I can understand why it won some awards. But the revelations come so late that there is little time to absorb them and really understand the point. The characters actually are jerking themselves around and I don't know that everybody would "see" that. You think you're watching the same two guys but instead you're watching various versions of them in different "frames". It's compelling still though. If I was giving it a 5 star rating I'd definitely give it a 3.5 (for reference ... the best of the movies I originally listed would go 4.5 stars). A remake with a clever director and a good editor shot by someone that had some cinematic experience could easily turn it into a 5. You'd need about another 15 minutes of length probably. Cut out some of the BS near the beginning and do a slower reveal at the end. I don't know if it's possible to follow the same two "variants" from beginning to end but if you could that continuity would be nice. I felt a little manipulated. I could see that whole movie as the first 20 minutes of something "bigger" too.
As for the physics/science ... I suppose it was as good as any I listed. I'm not sorry I watched it. But the two characters were basically self-absorbed jerks.
I'm acutely critical ... I know.
For laughs i like to watch terrible 'b' grade 60's sci fi's that have fallen out of copyright on google vide etc. 
there's lots of em.
though some of the far out sci-fi stuff can sometimes amaze me even now. recommended.
But apart from the 12 monkeys, none really 'good' ones come into mind. I will watch 'Primer' in a few days as time allows. Thanks for the link.
there's lots of em.though some of the far out sci-fi stuff can sometimes amaze me even now. recommended.
But apart from the 12 monkeys, none really 'good' ones come into mind. I will watch 'Primer' in a few days as time allows. Thanks for the link.
For those of you that also liked Primer and Twelve Monkeys:
Stalker (1979, Tarkovsky)
Not actually a time travel movie (I think...) but a very interesting Sci-fi movie. Or at least I think it's a sci-fi movie, that's debatable. It's easy to find on the public tracker sites for those of you who use torrents.
Stalker (1979, Tarkovsky)
Not actually a time travel movie (I think...) but a very interesting Sci-fi movie. Or at least I think it's a sci-fi movie, that's debatable. It's easy to find on the public tracker sites for those of you who use torrents.
If anyone hasn't seen primer, here is a good illustrative example of relative plot complexities:
XKCD 657
XKCD 657
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 19 2009, 11:56 PM)
Edit: Anyone watching Stargate Universe?
Here, here. I'm liking it a lot, myself, too. At the end of the first episode, I was thinking "So it's SG-1 ripping off Battlestar Gallactica," but by the end of the latest, I'm seeing the Stargate-ness in it.
My only complaints are:
1. The lack of a strong title scene and theme (DS-9 managed to bring a similar level of intellectual and dramatic quality to the Star Trek universe without sacrificing a strong title scene and theme), and the muted music throughout the show. They should have payed more attention to the music, and allowed the cinematography and writing to set it apart from the other series. I'd have been fine with less music than the other two series, but not as much less as they're currently doing.
2. The lack of a strong antagonist, central to the plot or otherwise. Conflict is what drives a good story, be it in the form of military combat, legal maneuverers in court, manipulation of others, etc. So far the only conflict is between members of the crew, and is relatively minor. I'm not asking for a central villain like the Wraith or the Goa'uld or the Ori, just someone with whom the crew can come into conflict every couple of episodes, even if it's a different antagonist each time.
3. I think they should have included one of the characters from Atlantis in the show. Col. Sheppard or Ronan would have been great characters to include in this sort of serious setting. Alternately, Woolsey (sp?) or Dr. Keller would have done well, too. I don't think any of the other cast members would have worked though.
Don't get me wrong though, I love the show. It's my fav show on television right now.
Here, here. I'm liking it a lot, myself, too. At the end of the first episode, I was thinking "So it's SG-1 ripping off Battlestar Gallactica," but by the end of the latest, I'm seeing the Stargate-ness in it.
My only complaints are:
1. The lack of a strong title scene and theme (DS-9 managed to bring a similar level of intellectual and dramatic quality to the Star Trek universe without sacrificing a strong title scene and theme), and the muted music throughout the show. They should have payed more attention to the music, and allowed the cinematography and writing to set it apart from the other series. I'd have been fine with less music than the other two series, but not as much less as they're currently doing.
2. The lack of a strong antagonist, central to the plot or otherwise. Conflict is what drives a good story, be it in the form of military combat, legal maneuverers in court, manipulation of others, etc. So far the only conflict is between members of the crew, and is relatively minor. I'm not asking for a central villain like the Wraith or the Goa'uld or the Ori, just someone with whom the crew can come into conflict every couple of episodes, even if it's a different antagonist each time.
3. I think they should have included one of the characters from Atlantis in the show. Col. Sheppard or Ronan would have been great characters to include in this sort of serious setting. Alternately, Woolsey (sp?) or Dr. Keller would have done well, too. I don't think any of the other cast members would have worked though.
Don't get me wrong though, I love the show. It's my fav show on television right now.
By far, the most currently entertaining Sci-Fi series IMHO has to be Fringe - This show absolutely rocks ... a little like X-files on acid.
My favourite character has to be Walter Bishop (played with utter genius by John Nobel).
If you've not watched it yet, please do so! ... you're in for a real treat.
My favourite character has to be Walter Bishop
(played with utter genius by John Nobel).If you've not watched it yet, please do so! ... you're in for a real treat.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 2 2009, 01:15 PM)
Here, here. I'm liking it a lot, myself, too. At the end of the first episode, I was thinking "So it's SG-1 ripping off Battlestar Gallactica," but by the end of the latest, I'm seeing the Stargate-ness in it.
I started out wanting to like it, but it hasn't impressed me so far.
1. The characters are as flat as paper. Many of them seem to be little more than (nerd, soldier, scientist) stereotypes. SG:A had Shepherd and McKay, SG:1 had, well, everyone.
2. The characters make me want to hate them.
3. Fix the god-damned spaceship. I want to see space battles.
4. No humor.
5. More 90210 than Stargate.
6. The expedition leaders are anything but inspiring.
Everett Young = boring as hell
Nicolas Rush = angry mad-scientist stereotype (no ethics, puts scientific progress ahead of human lives, no people skills)
Of course, my opinion is subject to change, especially if they bring in the Furlings.
I started out wanting to like it, but it hasn't impressed me so far.
1. The characters are as flat as paper. Many of them seem to be little more than (nerd, soldier, scientist) stereotypes. SG:A had Shepherd and McKay, SG:1 had, well, everyone.
2. The characters make me want to hate them.
3. Fix the god-damned spaceship. I want to see space battles.
4. No humor.
5. More 90210 than Stargate.
6. The expedition leaders are anything but inspiring.
Everett Young = boring as hell
Nicolas Rush = angry mad-scientist stereotype (no ethics, puts scientific progress ahead of human lives, no people skills)
Of course, my opinion is subject to change, especially if they bring in the Furlings.
De gustibus non est disputandum
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 2 2009, 02:54 PM)
I started out wanting to like it, but it hasn't impressed me so far.
1. The characters are as flat as paper. Many of them seem to be little more than (nerd, soldier, scientist) stereotypes. SG:A had Shepherd and McKay, SG:1 had, well, everyone.
2. The characters make me want to hate them.
3. Fix the god-damned spaceship. I want to see space battles.
4. No humor.
5. More 90210 than Stargate.
6. The expedition leaders are anything but inspiring.
Everett Young = boring as hell
Nicolas Rush = angry mad-scientist stereotype (no ethics, puts scientific progress ahead of human lives, no people skills)
Of course, my opinion is subject to change, especially if they bring in the Furlings.
I'd like to respond to these points...
1. We are only 3 episodes in. Give them time to develop. Most characters in dramatic serials are very thin at first, as they don't tend to have deep back stories or over-the-top mannerisms,
2. Why?
3. Damn skippy! I'm with ya on this one.
4. There's humor, just not as much, and mainly stemming from 1 character.
5. Yeah, I suppose there's already been a little too much "who's-boinking-who," in the episodes, but what do you expect in a situation like this? To me, that's just sacrificing some excitement time for some 'believable story' time.
6. I dunno about Col. Young, but Rush certainly isn't inspiring.
Young might be boring, but that's only because he plays a character type that's overused. If he's done right, I don't have a problem with that.
Rush is good, but only because you never know whether he's completely selfish or just so incredibly objective that he sometimes comes off that way.
I'm with you on the Furlings.
1. The characters are as flat as paper. Many of them seem to be little more than (nerd, soldier, scientist) stereotypes. SG:A had Shepherd and McKay, SG:1 had, well, everyone.
2. The characters make me want to hate them.
3. Fix the god-damned spaceship. I want to see space battles.
4. No humor.
5. More 90210 than Stargate.
6. The expedition leaders are anything but inspiring.
Everett Young = boring as hell
Nicolas Rush = angry mad-scientist stereotype (no ethics, puts scientific progress ahead of human lives, no people skills)
Of course, my opinion is subject to change, especially if they bring in the Furlings.
I'd like to respond to these points...
1. We are only 3 episodes in. Give them time to develop. Most characters in dramatic serials are very thin at first, as they don't tend to have deep back stories or over-the-top mannerisms,
2. Why?
3. Damn skippy! I'm with ya on this one.
4. There's humor, just not as much, and mainly stemming from 1 character.
5. Yeah, I suppose there's already been a little too much "who's-boinking-who," in the episodes, but what do you expect in a situation like this? To me, that's just sacrificing some excitement time for some 'believable story' time.
6. I dunno about Col. Young, but Rush certainly isn't inspiring.
Young might be boring, but that's only because he plays a character type that's overused. If he's done right, I don't have a problem with that.
Rush is good, but only because you never know whether he's completely selfish or just so incredibly objective that he sometimes comes off that way.
I'm with you on the Furlings.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 2 2009, 05:57 PM)
I'd like to respond to these points...
1. We are only 3 episodes in. Give them time to develop. Most characters in dramatic serials are very thin at first, as they don't tend to have deep back stories or over-the-top mannerisms,
2. Why?
3. Damn skippy! I'm with ya on this one.
4. There's humor, just not as much, and mainly stemming from 1 character.
5. Yeah, I suppose there's already been a little too much "who's-boinking-who," in the episodes, but what do you expect in a situation like this? To me, that's just sacrificing some excitement time for some 'believable story' time.
6. I dunno about Col. Young, but Rush certainly isn't inspiring.
Young might be boring, but that's only because he plays a character type that's overused. If he's done right, I don't have a problem with that.
Rush is good, but only because you never know whether he's completely selfish or just so incredibly objective that he sometimes comes off that way.
I'm with you on the Furlings.
Don't get me wrong, I'm probably still going to watch it, but my hopes for this show being as awesome as its predecessors are fading fast.
btw, most of my hatred is focused towards the "good-ol-boy" Matthew Scott. His first move is to steal nerd-boy's girlfriend. Not cool.
1. We are only 3 episodes in. Give them time to develop. Most characters in dramatic serials are very thin at first, as they don't tend to have deep back stories or over-the-top mannerisms,
2. Why?
3. Damn skippy! I'm with ya on this one.
4. There's humor, just not as much, and mainly stemming from 1 character.
5. Yeah, I suppose there's already been a little too much "who's-boinking-who," in the episodes, but what do you expect in a situation like this? To me, that's just sacrificing some excitement time for some 'believable story' time.
6. I dunno about Col. Young, but Rush certainly isn't inspiring.
Young might be boring, but that's only because he plays a character type that's overused. If he's done right, I don't have a problem with that.
Rush is good, but only because you never know whether he's completely selfish or just so incredibly objective that he sometimes comes off that way.
I'm with you on the Furlings.
Don't get me wrong, I'm probably still going to watch it, but my hopes for this show being as awesome as its predecessors are fading fast.
btw, most of my hatred is focused towards the "good-ol-boy" Matthew Scott. His first move is to steal nerd-boy's girlfriend. Not cool.
Does anyone else think that it was Rush who tipped off the Lucian Alliance about the Icarus base's existence?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 2 2009, 05:47 PM)
btw, most of my hatred is focused towards the "good-ol-boy" Matthew Scott. His first move is to steal nerd-boy's girlfriend. Not cool.
I know. And he's supposedly the main character, the one all us sci-fi watching nerds* identify with.
*It's been my experience that those who are fans of the Stargate franchise tend to be more in touch with their inner nerds than other sci-fi fans.
I know. And he's supposedly the main character, the one all us sci-fi watching nerds* identify with.
*It's been my experience that those who are fans of the Stargate franchise tend to be more in touch with their inner nerds than other sci-fi fans.
QUOTE (TheDoc+)
Does anyone else think that it was Rush who tipped off the Lucian Alliance about the Icarus base's existence?
You mean to force them to dial the new address? That would make sense, except Rush would have had to know it was going to work long enough before figuring it out to get word to the Lucian Alliance. Plus, Rush would have had to be confident of his ability to get that address dialed, instead of earth.
I don't think so, unless he's going to be portrayed as much much smarter than he appears to be, so far. (So far, I'm placing him just behind McKay as the smartest scientist in the Stargativerse [Yay! I coined a new word, hehe].)
I don't think so, unless he's going to be portrayed as much much smarter than he appears to be, so far. (So far, I'm placing him just behind McKay as the smartest scientist in the Stargativerse [Yay! I coined a new word, hehe].)
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 2 2009, 11:31 PM)
You mean to force them to dial the new address? That would make sense, except Rush would have had to know it was going to work long enough before figuring it out to get word to the Lucian Alliance. Plus, Rush would have had to be confident of his ability to get that address dialed, instead of earth.
I don't think so, unless he's going to be portrayed as much much smarter than he appears to be, so far. (So far, I'm placing him just behind McKay as the smartest scientist in the Stargativerse [Yay! I coined a new word, hehe].)
If McKay was on the Destiny, they would have all been home after the first episode.
I don't think so, unless he's going to be portrayed as much much smarter than he appears to be, so far. (So far, I'm placing him just behind McKay as the smartest scientist in the Stargativerse [Yay! I coined a new word, hehe].)
If McKay was on the Destiny, they would have all been home after the first episode.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 2 2009, 11:15 PM)
If McKay was on the Destiny, they would have all been home after the first episode.
No, no, no. The first episode was 2 hours long. They'd have been home halfway through it, then back with a fully equipped team of volunteers by the end.
...Only to discover that the only source of vitamin C in their supplies was oranges and lemons.
No, no, no. The first episode was 2 hours long. They'd have been home halfway through it, then back with a fully equipped team of volunteers by the end.
...Only to discover that the only source of vitamin C in their supplies was oranges and lemons.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 3 2009, 12:26 AM)
No, no, no. The first episode was 2 hours long. They'd have been home halfway through it, then back with a fully equipped team of volunteers by the end.
Along the way, McKay would inevitably destroy 3 galaxies and rid two more of evil parasitic species.
NOOOO!!! Damn you citrus!
Along the way, McKay would inevitably destroy 3 galaxies and rid two more of evil parasitic species.
QUOTE
...Only to discover that the only source of vitamin C in their supplies was oranges and lemons.
NOOOO!!! Damn you citrus!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 2 2009, 11:41 PM)
Along the way, McKay would inevitably destroy 3 galaxies
At least. I'd say 1 per season, bare minimum.
At least. I'd say 1 per season, bare minimum.
QUOTE
and rid two more of evil parasitic species.
From where I sit, this would happen regardless of McKay's presence. The entire SG program seems to be getting to be an old hand at killing off evil parasitic species.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and rid two more of evil parasitic species. |
From where I sit, this would happen regardless of McKay's presence. The entire SG program seems to be getting to be an old hand at killing off evil parasitic species.
NOOOO!!! Damn you citrus!
NOOOO!!! Damn you citrus!
Or more along McKay's usual verbage..
"I'm gonna die. I'm gonna die a slow, painful death from scurvy, while the rest of you sit around laughing at me. This is so typical of military foresight. They've thought far enough ahead to include plenty of birth control for our female members, but it never occurs to them that the single most important member of this expedition might be DEATHLY ALLERGIC TO CITRUS!!!"
Now picture him with that exasperated, flushed, puppy-dog-eyes look he gets whenever he rants.
EDIT: Here's something very close to that look...
User posted image: User posted image
PS. While looking for this image, I came across something absolutely hillarious. Will share via PM at request, as it involves (censored) nudity.
"I'm gonna die. I'm gonna die a slow, painful death from scurvy, while the rest of you sit around laughing at me. This is so typical of military foresight. They've thought far enough ahead to include plenty of birth control for our female members, but it never occurs to them that the single most important member of this expedition might be DEATHLY ALLERGIC TO CITRUS!!!"
Now picture him with that exasperated, flushed, puppy-dog-eyes look he gets whenever he rants.
EDIT: Here's something very close to that look...
User posted image: User posted image
PS. While looking for this image, I came across something absolutely hillarious. Will share via PM at request, as it involves (censored) nudity.
I think it's definitely been a good start but perhaps a little slow. I like that it's a continuing story versus being episodic. My favorites in previous Stargates were always the ones that continued the main story lines while the episode based ones seemed more like filler (though several were excellent in their own right).
There is definitely more character development already. I'm not big on caring too much about "back stories" though. Give me a little bit of that and I'm fine but too much is boring. I could give a shite about Col. Young's selfish whiney wife back on Earth. I think his boring rigidity is purposeful in tha it allows the other characters to be contrasting.
I'd agree that Scott isn't much likable either. Hopefully, the Senator's daughter gets some treatment ala "River" from Serenity. Maybe a chick fight with Scott's buxom storage room boinkee? Never anything wrong with chicks fighting.
The Rush character interests me the most but I'm already wishing he'd be more forthcoming with what he knows just so I don't have to listen to Young's paranoia. A little bit of personality ala his "Trainspotting" character would be ok. Let's see him bust a mug full of ale over Young's noodle while using the "C" word eh?
There seems to be very little McKay/Carter tech explorations/explanations. I don't know yet if that's a good thing or a bad thing but I would like to hear more about Destiny's technologies and/or capabilities. I'd like to learn a little bit more about where exactly they are as well. Are we talking about a neighbor (local cluster) galaxy? Or are they crazy far out there? Hopefully, they are scared to say, "Hey ... we're in M-87" or wherever.
And it would be ok once if they solved a problem early in the show.
My favorite character so far is definitely Lt. Johansen because she's hotness and I'm pretty sure hormone-boy Scott wouldn't be able to sully her. I know the Ming-Na character is a lesbian ... so I'm also hoping for some "Asian/Nordic - Dark Meat/Light Meat" action between those two.
Greer is interesting for his unedited unreasoned toughness/anger though so hopefully we'll get to see him smack around a few more twits.
And from what I understand we're not going to see any English speaking humanoid aliens. That's a good thing. And I know the producers said no furlings.
And oh yeah ... I predict that Eli ain't getting laid on this show EvAH.
There is definitely more character development already. I'm not big on caring too much about "back stories" though. Give me a little bit of that and I'm fine but too much is boring. I could give a shite about Col. Young's selfish whiney wife back on Earth. I think his boring rigidity is purposeful in tha it allows the other characters to be contrasting.
I'd agree that Scott isn't much likable either. Hopefully, the Senator's daughter gets some treatment ala "River" from Serenity. Maybe a chick fight with Scott's buxom storage room boinkee? Never anything wrong with chicks fighting.
The Rush character interests me the most but I'm already wishing he'd be more forthcoming with what he knows just so I don't have to listen to Young's paranoia. A little bit of personality ala his "Trainspotting" character would be ok. Let's see him bust a mug full of ale over Young's noodle while using the "C" word eh?
There seems to be very little McKay/Carter tech explorations/explanations. I don't know yet if that's a good thing or a bad thing but I would like to hear more about Destiny's technologies and/or capabilities. I'd like to learn a little bit more about where exactly they are as well. Are we talking about a neighbor (local cluster) galaxy? Or are they crazy far out there? Hopefully, they are scared to say, "Hey ... we're in M-87" or wherever.
And it would be ok once if they solved a problem early in the show.
My favorite character so far is definitely Lt. Johansen because she's hotness and I'm pretty sure hormone-boy Scott wouldn't be able to sully her. I know the Ming-Na character is a lesbian ... so I'm also hoping for some "Asian/Nordic - Dark Meat/Light Meat" action between those two.
Greer is interesting for his unedited unreasoned toughness/anger though so hopefully we'll get to see him smack around a few more twits.
And from what I understand we're not going to see any English speaking humanoid aliens. That's a good thing. And I know the producers said no furlings.
And oh yeah ... I predict that Eli ain't getting laid on this show EvAH.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Nov 3 2009, 12:20 AM)
I think it's definitely been a good start but perhaps a little slow. I like that it's a continuing story versus being episodic. My favorites in previous Stargates were always the ones that continued the main story lines while the episode based ones seemed more like filler (though several were excellent in their own right).
I tend to agree, although I should point out that I found that later seasons of SG-1 and pretty much the entirety of Atlantis managed to strike that perfect balance between the serial and episodic formats. Each episode has a definite plot in and of itself, but there were these 'loose threads' that could be resolved by watching them all in order.
I tend to agree, although I should point out that I found that later seasons of SG-1 and pretty much the entirety of Atlantis managed to strike that perfect balance between the serial and episodic formats. Each episode has a definite plot in and of itself, but there were these 'loose threads' that could be resolved by watching them all in order.
QUOTE
I'd agree that Scott isn't much likable either. Hopefully, the Senator's daughter gets some treatment ala "River" from Serenity. Maybe a chick fight with Scott's buxom storage room boinkee? Never anything wrong with chicks fighting.
Judging from the most recent episode, I'd say that it's going to be either that, or they get all buddy-buddy and turn against Scott.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'd agree that Scott isn't much likable either. Hopefully, the Senator's daughter gets some treatment ala "River" from Serenity. Maybe a chick fight with Scott's buxom storage room boinkee? Never anything wrong with chicks fighting. |
Judging from the most recent episode, I'd say that it's going to be either that, or they get all buddy-buddy and turn against Scott.
The Rush character interests me the most but I'm already wishing he'd be more forthcoming with what he knows just so I don't have to listen to Young's paranoia. A little bit of personality ala his "Trainspotting" character would be ok. Let's see him bust a mug full of ale over Young's noodle while using the "C" word eh?
The Rush character interests me the most but I'm already wishing he'd be more forthcoming with what he knows just so I don't have to listen to Young's paranoia. A little bit of personality ala his "Trainspotting" character would be ok. Let's see him bust a mug full of ale over Young's noodle while using the "C" word eh?
Personally, I liked Robert Carlyle's character in 28 Weeks Later the best. He does a good job at portraying that deeply-flawed-yet-well-meaning-guy-wracked-with-guilt-over-his-own-weaknesses. I can see hints of this in Rush, and I think that bringing this out would be great, not only for the sake of acting, but to make the character a little more understandable.
QUOTE
There seems to be very little McKay/Carter tech explorations/explanations. I don't know yet if that's a good thing or a bad thing but I would like to hear more about Destiny's technologies and/or capabilities. I'd like to learn a little bit more about where exactly they are as well. Are we talking about a neighbor (local cluster) galaxy? Or are they crazy far out there? Hopefully, they are scared to say, "Hey ... we're in M-87" or wherever.
I'm sure that's coming.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There seems to be very little McKay/Carter tech explorations/explanations. I don't know yet if that's a good thing or a bad thing but I would like to hear more about Destiny's technologies and/or capabilities. I'd like to learn a little bit more about where exactly they are as well. Are we talking about a neighbor (local cluster) galaxy? Or are they crazy far out there? Hopefully, they are scared to say, "Hey ... we're in M-87" or wherever. |
I'm sure that's coming.
My favorite character so far is definitely Lt. Johansen because she's hotness and I'm pretty sure hormone-boy Scott wouldn't be able to sully her. I know the Ming-Na character is a lesbian ... so I'm also hoping for some "Asian/Nordic - Dark Meat/Light Meat" action between those two.
Greer is interesting for his unedited unreasoned toughness/anger though so hopefully we'll get to see him smack around a few more twits.
My favorite character so far is definitely Lt. Johansen because she's hotness and I'm pretty sure hormone-boy Scott wouldn't be able to sully her. I know the Ming-Na character is a lesbian ... so I'm also hoping for some "Asian/Nordic - Dark Meat/Light Meat" action between those two.
Greer is interesting for his unedited unreasoned toughness/anger though so hopefully we'll get to see him smack around a few more twits.
Greer is my hands down favorite. I wouldn't always agree with this guy if we were friends, but Goddamn do we agree on the best way to make an idiot do the right thing...
QUOTE
And from what I understand we're not going to see any English speaking humanoid aliens. That's a good thing. And I know the producers said no furlings.
I love the first idea. I'm okay with the second.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And from what I understand we're not going to see any English speaking humanoid aliens. That's a good thing. And I know the producers said no furlings. |
I love the first idea. I'm okay with the second.
And oh yeah ... I predict that Eli ain't getting laid on this show EvAH.
And oh yeah ... I predict that Eli ain't getting laid on this show EvAH.
At least not by anything human and non-malevolent. I could see him scoring with an alien succubus.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 3 2009, 06:28 AM)
At least not by anything human and non-malevolent. I could see him scoring with an alien succubus.
As long as I don't have to see some queer Cephalopod-variant multi-reach around with dirty-sanchez finishing action then I'm happy for him.
As long as I don't have to see some queer Cephalopod-variant multi-reach around with dirty-sanchez finishing action then I'm happy for him.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Nov 3 2009, 11:19 AM)
As long as I don't have to see some queer Cephalopod-variant multi-reach around with dirty-sanchez finishing action then I'm happy for him.
Lies.
Lies.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Nov 3 2009, 11:25 AM)
Lies.
Have I been outed?
OK OK ... so I'd sneak a peak ... who wouldn't?
Have I been outed? OK OK ... so I'd sneak a peak ... who wouldn't?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Nov 3 2009, 12:53 PM)
OK OK ... so I'd sneak a peak ... who wouldn't?
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Arnold Schwarzenegger
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.