The Martian- Trailer/Discussion

Discussion in 'Movies & Televison: Reviews, Discussions & Debate' started by Panchyprsss, Jun 9, 2015.

Page 3 of 3
  1. Anthony

    Anthony Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    24,770
    Likes Received:
    6,007
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motherfucker
    Location:
    -49.330540, 68.950885
    2001 was garbage.
     
    Anthony, Oct 13, 2015
    #61
  2. Panchyprsss

    Panchyprsss Clogg's LORD PROTECTOR

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    31,574
    Likes Received:
    863
    Gender:
    Male
    :Laugh102: :ant:
     
    Panchyprsss, Oct 14, 2015
    #62
  3. Panchyprsss

    Panchyprsss Clogg's LORD PROTECTOR

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    31,574
    Likes Received:
    863
    Gender:
    Male
    Guess who is the biggest fan of '2001: A Space Odyssey'? Yup. Ridley Scott. When he made 'Alien" who couldn't kept his mouth shut praising Kubrick's film and how much he wanted the setting of his film to look like it belonged to the same future as '2001'. In fact Scott has been dying to make a '2001" sequel, but the box office failure of '2010: The Year We Made Contact' (a film Scott was interested in doing, but he was committed to 'Legend' at that time) kind of killed any sequels plans.

    BUT he will be executive producer of a SYFY miniseries based on the last Arthur C. Clark novel in the series '3001: Final Odyssey'. If done right and not at typical 'Sharknado' level, this could be a mindboggling epic tv event.

    http://www.cnet.com/news/ridley-scott-to-produce-3001-space-odyssey-sequel-miniseries/

    [​IMG]
     
    Panchyprsss, Oct 14, 2015
    #63
  4. Anthony

    Anthony Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    24,770
    Likes Received:
    6,007
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motherfucker
    Location:
    -49.330540, 68.950885
    Scott would probably do a better job. Even tho i love Kubrick, i thought 2001 was a complete mess. Being artsy just for the sake of it and really really having a direction in many scenes. 2010 the year we make contact was actually a better movie IMO
     
    Anthony, Oct 14, 2015
    #64
  5. Panchyprsss

    Panchyprsss Clogg's LORD PROTECTOR

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    31,574
    Likes Received:
    863
    Gender:
    Male
    :palm: Forgive him Father for he doth not know what he said.
     
    Panchyprsss, Oct 15, 2015
    #65
  6. lb 4 lb

    lb 4 lb Fightbeat Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,040
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Gender:
    Male
    Possibly, I'll let you know when I see it, although I'll probably be one of the last ones on here.

    Here's a sci-fi fact you guys probably don't know. I read that George Lucas thought Spielberg's Close Encounter's film would do much better then his Star Wars film so both guys agreed to pay the other 4% of their film's grosses for life. Guess who got the better end of that deal?
     
    lb 4 lb, Oct 15, 2015
    #66
  7. Anthony

    Anthony Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    24,770
    Likes Received:
    6,007
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motherfucker
    Location:
    -49.330540, 68.950885
    No forgiving here. 2001 was a shit movie, plain and simple.
     
    Anthony, Oct 15, 2015
    #67
  8. Nobleart

    Nobleart Narwhal King

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    28,920
    Likes Received:
    2,341
    Occupation:
    Poking the Beast
    Location:
    Insert Clever Metaphor Here

    It was a fine piece of art and a technical marvel for its time (hell, it's practical effects still blow away some of the CGI we have today)...but yes, as a movie it was pretty shit.
     
    Nobleart, Oct 15, 2015
    #68
  9. Anthony

    Anthony Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    24,770
    Likes Received:
    6,007
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motherfucker
    Location:
    -49.330540, 68.950885
    Well that's the thing. At the time, im sure it was beautiful. It still is in terms of effects. But people who were children then, that watch it now, need be honest. It's some bullshit when you get down to it. I applaud your honesty.
     
    Anthony, Oct 15, 2015
    #69
  10. Panchyprsss

    Panchyprsss Clogg's LORD PROTECTOR

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    31,574
    Likes Received:
    863
    Gender:
    Male
    Like the case with Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 2001: A Space Odyssey needs to be experienced at a movie theater big screen rather than a smaller medium like a television where it loses most of its impact. 2001 is considered a masterpiece, one the greatest movies ever made. Its impact and influence can still be seen and felt in not only movies but many aspects of our modern culture. The film is unique: there was nothing like it before and there has never been anything like it after. You might dislike the film, find it slow and boring, but your opinion will not change the fact that this movie raised the bar for all the scifi flicks that came after.
     
    Panchyprsss, Oct 15, 2015
    #70
  11. Anthony

    Anthony Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    24,770
    Likes Received:
    6,007
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motherfucker
    Location:
    -49.330540, 68.950885
    Nothing you said here makes it a great movie with great content.
     
    Anthony, Oct 15, 2015
    #71
  12. Nobleart

    Nobleart Narwhal King

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    28,920
    Likes Received:
    2,341
    Occupation:
    Poking the Beast
    Location:
    Insert Clever Metaphor Here

    Close Encounters is a classic no matter what format you watch it in, because it was a compelling story and is barely dated by the time it was filmed in. You could watch it on your motherfuckin' flip phone and be entertained by it. Can't really say the same for Odyssey, which was more of a technical feat then anything.

    I do agree with your assessment, that some movies do need to be seen on a big screen to fully enjoy them. "Gravity" is a film that definitely fits in that category. In IMAX 3D it was mindblowing. On a small screen it's probably no great shakes.
     
    Nobleart, Oct 16, 2015
    #72
  13. Anthony

    Anthony Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    24,770
    Likes Received:
    6,007
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motherfucker
    Location:
    -49.330540, 68.950885
    Pretty much dead on balls accurate review of 2001.



    [SIZE=+2]A Space Idiocy: '2001' Revisited[/SIZE]
    I'm Sorry, Dave, but I'm Afraid It's Just Stupid
    [SIZE=-1] By Stephen Hunter
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, November 2, 2001
    [/SIZE]

    What a widiculous movie!
    Over time, has any film veered more toward kitsch than Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" of 1968? Now, seen in the actual 2001, it's less a visionary masterpiece than a crackpot Looney Tune, pretentious, abysmally slow, amateurishly acted and, above all, wrong.
    Earth to Stanley Kubrick: Gee, Stanley, up there in movie god heaven, you know what, Pan Am didn't get the space shuttle franchise and zoom us up to the orbiting wagon-wheel stations in sleek ships complete with stewardesses in super beehive hats and Velcro slippers so the zero grav wouldn't set them afloat. Here's who got the franchise: nobody. Stanley, read my lips: Commercial space flight is dead, unless you're a zany dot-com millionaire.
    And, Stanley, guess what else: You know, aliens probably didn't plant electronic devices on earth 4 million years ago that emitted a beam that tickled our clumsy ape brains into mutating toward cognition, self-awareness and irony. But that's really what the movie ever so earnestly argues, and what was an amusing trope in a minor Arthur C. Clarke short story seems portentous misanthropy when blown out to epic length.
    Or maybe it's just that I wasn't high this time when I watched it.
    At any event, Kubrick's film, thankfully only reprinted and not reinflated with any kind of "director's cut," is on view on the Uptown's giant curvy screen, and kids, don't try this at home. Sit in the second half of the house, not the first, elsewise the action will bend through your peripheral vision and give you a bellyache.
    The movie is an annoyance wrapped inside of an enigma as constructed by a cosmic ego that had been praised so much he believed it. "Dr. Strangelove" was his great film, and "Paths of Glory," "A Clockwork Orange" and "Full Metal Jacket" his near-great ones. The rest were overblown, self-indulgent and silly, but "2001" has to be the stupidest.
    The monkey stuff is okay, if you buy the premise, which I don't, and if you like seeing people in hair suits jump around going uck-uck and, yes, that wondrous moment when a million years of human history is summed up in the nanosecond transfiguration of a thrown bone into a spacecraft. The second stage of the story – in which stiffs who would never act professionally again pretend to deal with the emergency of the discovery of a new sentinel on the moon – is endlessly dreary, with its obsession for showing what were then spectacular special effects and today seem only cheesy. Kubrick overdosed on people walking upside down, which isn't that interesting after the first two steps. At least when Fred Astaire went upside down, he danced.
    The third part is by far the best: Heroic if underacted astronauts Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood deal with a rebelliously neurotic computer. It has actual narrative gripping power, instead of inert spectacle.
    The final part remains visually stunning if intellectually vaporous. Evidently astronaut Dullea finds, beyond a Jovian moon, a stargate, by which he short-circuits the universe and discovers an unknowable and superior alien life form. So, er, Stanley, are you sure you want to stand on this one? The space beings, having listened to too much German music by too many composers who had themselves read too much Nietzsche, send him back to Earth, born again, as a planet-size embryo. What's he going to do when he reaches 15th and K: drip amniotic fluid on everyone? If he's that big, how's he going to get into Morton's?
    Oh, kids, go ahead and see it, if for no other reason to learn how silly your parents were at your age.
    2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (G, 139 minutes) At the Uptown.
     
    Anthony, Oct 16, 2015
    #73
  14. Panchyprsss

    Panchyprsss Clogg's LORD PROTECTOR

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    31,574
    Likes Received:
    863
    Gender:
    Male
    That is the most moronic review I have ever read. So the guy trashes the movie because it was prophetically inaccurate as the events in the film didn't materialized in the year 2001? has George Orwell being trashed because his '1984' had the same problem...or lots of scifi classics that commits the sin of putting dates on their stories? (praise George Lucas for avoiding this trap by setting his story 'a long time ago in a galaxy far far away'). This reviewer apparently had no idea what a freaking close-up is as he thought that Bowman's Star-Child was planet size when in fact he is just fetus toddler size! :rolleyes: what an imbecile!


    uh...wait a second...is that bed planet size?

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    close-up from Star Child point of view angle, NOT that he is a freaking GALACTUS!!!

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2015
    Panchyprsss, Oct 16, 2015
    #74
  15. Panchyprsss

    Panchyprsss Clogg's LORD PROTECTOR

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    31,574
    Likes Received:
    863
    Gender:
    Male
    In other Scott news, it looks like Alien: Paradise Lost could have its lead in Rebecca Ferguson, who we last saw kicking butts in M.I.: Rogue Nation. Panchy approves this casting as she was awesome in that film.

    [​IMG]
     
    Panchyprsss, Oct 16, 2015
    #75
  16. Rich ´Money´ Mustard

    Rich ´Money´ Mustard DIE!

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    Messages:
    24,176
    Likes Received:
    3,128
    2001: A Space Odyssey
    96% Rotten Tomatoes
    8.3 / 10 IMDB

    I think a lot of its praise could be connected with the Space Race at that time - the USA's Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions had gripped the USA and science-fiction was a very popular genre.
    Also you can factor in the 'Whole Earth Star-Child-Humanity' aspect.
    Interestingly. science-fiction writers had mixed-reviews about '2001'
     
    Rich ´Money´ Mustard, Oct 16, 2015
    #76
  17. Nobleart

    Nobleart Narwhal King

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    28,920
    Likes Received:
    2,341
    Occupation:
    Poking the Beast
    Location:
    Insert Clever Metaphor Here
    The Martian - Excellent film. Seamless from beginning to end. Covered a fairly lengthy time period, without seeming like it left a lot of information out of it. Got right into the story without any knuckle dragging, or emotional histrionics at the beginning or the end.

    It would have been hard to guess this was a Ridley Scott movie, if you didn't already know he made it. A few years ago he tried to emulate his brother Tony Scott's stylistic vision when he made "The Counselor". That was an abject failure. This time he was going more for a Ron Howard/Robert Zemeckis mash-up, and pulled it off pretty elegantly. Not an entirely original piece of work, as I'd say this was pretty much "Castaway" meets "Apollo 13", but those were both pretty good stories to emulate IMO. Whether that was a function of Scott's directing or the original source material of the book, I do not know.

    Solid 3 act story-line that pretty much flew right by. It is not an over-dramatic, hand-wringing, lots of tears type movie if that is what you are looking for. It's more of a paint by numbers, this is the problem, this is how we solve the problem, let's move on to the next problem to solve, so we don't fucking die on Mars. Pretty straight forward shit. Not too complicated and no unnecessary twists. Just tell the story.

    The special affects were solid, as they always are with Ridley Scott movies.

    I would not label it a "classic", as it doesn't quite have the ambition to put itself in that category, but maybe qualifies as a "minor classic" within the science fiction genre.

    8/10
     
    Nobleart, Oct 18, 2015
    #77
  18. Panchyprsss

    Panchyprsss Clogg's LORD PROTECTOR

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    31,574
    Likes Received:
    863
    Gender:
    Male
    Is Robinson Crusoe on Mars minus Friday.

    [​IMG]
     
    Panchyprsss, Oct 18, 2015
    #78
  19. Rich ´Money´ Mustard

    Rich ´Money´ Mustard DIE!

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    Messages:
    24,176
    Likes Received:
    3,128
    :bears:

    So, fuck you pancho
     
    Rich ´Money´ Mustard, Oct 18, 2015
    #79
  20. His_Royness

    His_Royness "Twinkle Toes" McJack

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    6,760
    Likes Received:
    15
    Saw it this week. Was pretty solid and entertaining. I don't believe this patching it up with plastic wrap works in any of the cases shown in the movie, but okay I am not a NASA engineer. :lol:
     
    His_Royness, Oct 18, 2015
    #80
Page 3 of 3

Share This Page