Bork Laser Posted April 4, 2012 If you like Aaron Sorkin's writing then you'll be interested in this upcoming series on HBO wC8ovJYAU3U I've been watching through the West Wing for the first time and I'm in love with it. This looks like something that I'll love, as well. It looks like a TV adaptation of Network and I am perfectly fine with that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gwardinen Posted April 4, 2012 Definitely looking forward to that myself. I'm a bit of a Sorkin fanboy, and truly loved both Sports Night and Studio 60, which were TV shows of his that never became as popular as the West Wing. Hopefully this one survives longer than one season! If it deserves to, of course. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orv Posted April 5, 2012 So The Wrath of Khan 2: Wrath Harder was pretty good, if silly-stupid in places. (The Three Musketeers.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orv Posted April 8, 2012 Idle musings after finishing my watch-through of DS9 a few hours ago; You know, I think something people don't realize often enough about Star Trek is that Starfleet is a military organization. The final season of DS9 shows this off better than any other Trek series (with the possible exception of a few Voyager episodes, Scorpion springs to mind), but it's something worth remembering. Sisko, Picard, Geordi, Nog, Miles, Riker. They're all soldiers. Sure, most of the time we see the cushier side of Starfleet. The captains room, Ten Foward, plush quarters with replicator access. But the Federation-Cardassian War isn't some point on a timeline for Starfleet. They may have fancy laserguns, but they're still set to kill. That said, when it's not all gloom and butchery, Star Trek will always be my favorite series/universe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Moosferatu Posted April 8, 2012 Being thoroughly bored for 2 1/2 hours while sitting through The Hunger Games was completely redeemed when I over-heard this priceless comment while exiting the theatre: "Well, it moved faster than Tinker, Tailor." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted April 8, 2012 I loved The Hunger Games *shrugs* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pabosher Posted April 8, 2012 I loved The Hunger Games *shrugs* Not only is it a good film, it's a good adaptation of the source material. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bork Laser Posted April 9, 2012 I loved The Hunger Games *shrugs* Yeah, I'm not its target audience, but it held my attention and I really can't complain at all about it. Direction was pretty solid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orv Posted April 9, 2012 Really? No-one was bothered by the atrocious shaky-cam? I normally quite enjoy that, this one almost made me nauseous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigJKO Posted April 9, 2012 Really? No-one was bothered by the atrocious shaky-cam? I normally quite enjoy that, this one almost made me nauseous. Yes. I was sitting quite close, so it was a bit too much for me at times. I sort of got used to it about a third way through, though. But! I really enjoyed the movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bork Laser Posted April 9, 2012 Honestly, shaky cam barely ever registers with me. People complain about it all the time but it really never bothers me that much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigJKO Posted April 9, 2012 It's probably something with my brain/eye. Heavy panning of camera is even worse for me when it's in 3D(!). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted April 9, 2012 Shaky cam bothers me as it's a dumb mechanic, it doesn't make sense. There's only 1 reason why you would have a shaky cam, and that's that there's a character present through which you observe the action. In most movies, it's not a character, it's just a floating camera. If that's the case, then why would it shake? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nappi Posted April 9, 2012 Shaky cam bothers me as it's a dumb mechanic, it doesn't make sense. There's only 1 reason why you would have a shaky cam, and that's that there's a handheld camera present through which you observe the action. Corrected. Shaky cam running, for example, is quite unlike how I observe my surroundings while running. Also, if I tilt my head 90 degrees, this text doesn't become vertical. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orv Posted April 9, 2012 Shaky cam bothers me as it's a dumb mechanic, it doesn't make sense. There's only 1 reason why you would have a shaky cam, and that's that there's a character present through which you observe the action. In most movies, it's not a character, it's just a floating camera. If that's the case, then why would it shake? Is there anything about modern cinema you like? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toblix Posted April 9, 2012 There's only 1 reason why you would have a shaky cam Actually, I believe there are at least three. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted April 9, 2012 Shaky cam is modern cinema? What makes things modern cinema? (when is the cutoff point where modern cinema starts?) There have been a lot of movies from the past 10+ years that I really liked. But I'm not sure if they qualify as modern cinema. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted April 9, 2012 (when is the cutoff point where modern cinema starts?) 1993. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted April 9, 2012 No, that's Grunge Cinema. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheLastBaron Posted April 9, 2012 Shaky cam has never bothered me in ANY movie I've ever watched, but in Hunger Games it was terrible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orv Posted April 9, 2012 Sorry, modern cinema was a poor way to frame it. DO YOU LIKE MOVIES AT ALL?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vimes Posted April 10, 2012 I had a weird double feature on Sunday Night: The Lorax followed by A Dangerous Method. The 1st one is very forgettable beside half a dozen perfectly timed Chuck Jones moments and very nice animations for the mostly hidden Once-ler. I thoroughly enjoyed the 2nd one, because it painted Jung and Freud as very flawed characters while letting me decide who to get behind depending on which of these flaws I was more willing to forgive. For me, it was Freud, despite his rigidity, his manipulative patriarchism and thinly veiled jewish communitarism. Knightley is quite amazing in it even if inconsistent: she really carries well the sense of self loathing and how it can lead to the physical symptoms she displays; but from time to time, she does get into overacting territory. Overall, I think it's the best Cronenberg movie of the post-Spider era. Then, tonight, I watched The Honey Pot by Mankiewicz for the second time ever; and Jesus, there's no school like old school! Mankiewicz's writing is delectable - nobody blend farce and character development quite like him - the direction is inventive, the structure is griping and the acting is fantastic. Maggie Smith was disturbingly attractive at the time. And the original posters were pretty cool. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orv Posted April 10, 2012 Huh, I didn't know A Dangerous Method existed, I'll have to give that a watch. I have a question. Is liking professional wrestling wrong? I don't like the sport itself, there's no grace or point to it. But I love the spectacle. I love these bizarre pre-fight dramas and tune out during the actual fighting. It's like the worlds worst Hamlet adaptation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted April 10, 2012 Sorry, modern cinema was a poor way to frame it.DO YOU LIKE MOVIES AT ALL?! Only on days that are a prime number. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites