Comments -

All karas1's Comments

Showing items 2,851 - 2,860 of 3,179
<<  <  283 284 285 286 287 288 289 >  >>  

CW Reveals 2009-2010 Pickups (Article) - 5/25/2009 5:40:17 AM

You guys can watch a show due to an actress had big boobs and it's OK but if a woman wants to watch a show due to the fine beefcake on display it's somehow disreputable?  You can't have it both ways guys.

If young women are watching Supernatural because they liked the actors in other roles, then they are being exposed to wome fine genre fiction and  might develop a taste for it.  You should rejoyce.

Kara S

Enjoy the Nostalgia Before Will Ferrell Craps on it (Article) - 5/25/2009 5:01:40 AM

A few years ago I bought a DVD collection of 1 episode from each of the Sid & Marty Kroft shows.  Most of the shows were much as I remembered them and entertaining enough in their Saturday Morning way.  (Though whoever thought up Lidsville was on serious drugs).

But the Land Of The Lost episode was really terrible.  I mean, really, really terrible.  If that was a representative episode, you can keep it.  I'll be watching The Bugaloos.

CBS Reveals 2009-2010 Pickups (Article) - 5/21/2009 4:11:32 AM

Does anybody else think that NCIS Los Angeles looks a lot like Mission Impossible?

Fox Reveals 2009-2010 Line-Up (Article) - 5/19/2009 12:28:10 PM

HudsonTaco, I watched and enjoyed Fringe all season and I've never seen an episode of Grey's Anatomy.  And I'm all female and everything. 

Fringe being on at 9:00 on Thursdays bothers me though.  That will put it up against Supernatural.


ANGELS Nearly Stunned by Trek (Article) - 5/19/2009 11:56:36 AM

Hobbs, I know.  As much as I bitch it isn't going to change things.  They are going to churn out some uninspired eye candy and call it Star Trek and the new generation of fans whom Abrams is courting will eat it up and not know or care what they are missing.

I doubt that they will wait for 2012 to release another ST film.  They will want to strike while the iron is hot.  I expect it Christmas at 2010 or maybe summer of 2011.  It is unfortunate that the world won't end first...

WhiteKnight, if this movie had been about some other starship full of people in some other franchise or even some other ship in Starfleet with some other crew I could enjoy the movie for what it is, silly science fantasy that's no better than it should be.  Unfortunately, this is Kirk and The Enterprise and it should have been, could have been so much more.  How bad are things when the best you can say about a film is it wasn't as bad as it could have been?


ANGELS Nearly Stunned by Trek (Article) - 5/19/2009 4:30:26 AM

Hobbs, more mainstream doesn't have to mean moronic.  You can make an excellent film that has the slam bam action and cool effects and ALSO has a coherent plot and makes sense.  Look at the original Terminator film.  There was a really good scifi/action film that had a really GOOD time travel paradox at it's heart.  T2 was the same.  Look at the original Matrix film.  There was non stop action and cool FX AND the story meant something and had something to say about the human condition.  Star Trek used to be like that too.  This new version had the wiz and the bang but not the heart or the sense, like a supermodel who looks great but has a IQ of 40 and no conversational skills.  It may not cause the end of civilization but it's a big symptom that it's coming.

Byzarro, I am an OLD Trekkie.  It kills me that Wessmith's kid's friends think that this is Trek.  I don't want the ST franchise to die.  I want it to live forever.  But not at the price of becoming mindless pablum.  You say it had a great story?  What great story are you talking about?  It was a mindless retread of The Wrath Of Kahn without the sense or history that that film had.

chemikillgod, as I said to Hobbs, I have no problem with ST being popular or cool.  I just insist that it is also smart.  I still don't see why it can't be both.  Is the ordnary movie going public really so stupid that they won't go to a movie if it has a coherent plot without holes and errors in sense and logic?

And don't dis Trekkies.  We are not a little cult.  We are legion and we are doctors and lawyers and we work for NASA.  We invented the cell phone so that we could have our own communicators.  We are the people who like to watch movies that make us THINK rather than just go ohh ahh at the pretty colors.

But we are also getting old and are no longer the target demographic for adds for soda and fast cars.  So we don't count any more.  They'd rather make movies for teenagers who spend their days at the mall engaging in conspicuous consumption than the parents who have jobs and fund this orgy of spending.

BSG did the reboot concept right.  I have issues with the new BSG but it was a good show and it WAS about something and it did make you think.  It was about answering the question of what it is to be human and the morality of war and how we conduct ourselves under stress.  It was about hope in the face of incredible odds.  If the new ST had even half the intelligence of the new BSG I would have been overjoyed.  Unfortunately, it didn't.

And BTW, spock was ALWAYS hot. 

This Star Trek movie is new and hot and everybody still has the high they felt coming out of the theater.  In 6 months everybody will take a look back at it and realize that it was an incredibly ordnary movie.  Star Trek shouldn't be ordnary.  It was extrodinary for 40 years, now it is mundane.

ANGELS Nearly Stunned by Trek (Article) - 5/18/2009 10:51:16 AM

Yes Hobbs, it burns me.  They replaced good storytelling and science fiction that was actually about some form of science with a big budget FX spactacurlar that didn't make any sense.

Think back to the various TV series.  While I'd never say the science was %100 acurate there was at least some attempt to make it look real and many of the plots did hinge on actual science.  There was often some sort of point or moral to the story.  And characters had, well, character, personalities that frequently grew and changed like real people do during their lives.

This new movie had nothing resembling real science anywhere.  The moral was, mass murdering psychopaths are bad.  Did we really need a movie to tell us this?  And what personality the characters had was a parody of the actual characters that we loved for years.

It burns me that audiences would rather watch things go boom than an actual story that means something.  It's the death of our culture where people with no attention span watch slack jawed as the bright lights flicker over their faces and no thought passes through their brains.

This Star Trek film would be instantly forgettable for me if I weren't so busy counting up it's flaws.  It's a hollow empty shell of a movie that means nothing.  If that's all the original ST had been it would not have lasted for 40 years.  And I ache with sadness that anybody would prefer this zombie of a movie to the franchise that I grew up on that had intelligence and wit and heart and put forward the message that the future would be a wonderful place.

What is Genre Programming? (Article) - 5/18/2009 4:18:57 AM

It's a long Scifi tradition not to show anything interesting on holiday weekends.  They expect everybody to be a a BBQ for Memorial Day so why waste anything which might attract viewers?

Instruction Manuals for the U.S.S. Enterprise (Article) - 5/18/2009 3:59:36 AM

You think that JJ Abrams version is less goofy?  Unbelievable.

ANGELS Nearly Stunned by Trek (Article) - 5/18/2009 3:58:27 AM

I'm finding it throughly disappointing how popular the Star Trek film is.  I guess special effects will win out over an intelligent script every time.  Why write interesting dialogue or a plot that doesn't look like swiss cheese when you can watch a planet implode?  It's sad.


Date Joined: October 3, 2006