Old Films , New Films Discussions

[gmd3d]

I have moved these posts from "Amy Adams cast as Lois Lane" thread as the conversation was departing from the
intent of the thread. Here was can continue as we please ....



you blow up your home planet, you have to face the consequences! :lol:

but yes, i admire quality of comic book movies by Batman Begins. A great intro story, with a more or less believable character, a more or less believable superhero, and simply an all around quality piece of work. I saw the first 2 supermans; they were great, but they had that distinguished 70's cheese-charm to them. Im a product of my generation. *shrug*

looking forward to this one!

I think that batman as a character (apart from the suit) was always more
believable. vigilantes come in all sorts of shapes and er costumes .... (that guy in Seattle).

I like that 70 charm ... I miss that in the modern film (I am a product of my generation) ..

but times have changed and I wonder what the generation in 30 years time will have to say about Batman Begins. I think every generation
goes through the "They don´t make films like the use to "" stage .

it will be interesting to see how "Superman" turns out ...

[Jedman67]

Hey, I saw "7 Days in May" - it had cheesy moments, but for a cold-war era film; just wow! I don't really watch movies or shows from that period; im too young too appreciate it :D and i prefer movies from my time. But once in a while, you find a real treasure that stays classic and timeless BECAUSE it's a product of its time. The original Richard Donner superman films were great, no doubt due to a talented director and good acting. As a product of its time it retains a level of cheese which, in my "professional" opinion gives it more of a dated 'charm' rather than timeless. But nonetheless, my kids probably wont be able to understand why people used to watch movies on 2D-only screens instead of full-surround 3D holograms :lol:

[gmd3d]

But nonetheless, my kids probably wont be able to understand why people used to watch movies on 2D-only screens instead of full-surround 3D holograms :lol:

that's for sure.......

But I am an old film buff ... I like films from the 1940s to the present ... but to be honest if I had to choose which, I would take the older ones for better
acting and production value . "just my opinion".

and we could dance back and forward discussing it to.. but this is not the thread to do it...... for that we can open another on :) :D

[evil_genius_180]

I love some old films also. The oldest I have is King Kong from 1933. I also have a lot of Sci-Fi movies from the '50s and '60s (including the Godzilla movies) and Bond films and Westerns and stuff like that. To me, the time a movie was made or the time it takes place (for period pieces) makes little difference, I love films for the stories and acting.

In fact, the movie I've seen Amy Adams in is Catch Me if You Can, which takes place in the late '60s. (and is based on a true story) I freakin' love that flick. :D

[gmd3d]

I love some old films also. The oldest I have is King Kong from 1933. I also have a lot of Sci-Fi movies from the '50s and '60s (including the Godzilla movies) and Bond films and Westerns and stuff like that. To me, the time a movie was made or the time it takes place (for period pieces) makes little difference, I love films for the stories and acting.

In fact, the movie I've seen Amy Adams in is Catch Me if You Can, which takes place in the late '60s. (and is based on a true story) I freakin' love that flick. :D

Yes ...sounds like my own collection.

:)

[arrowhead42]

I'm in my 40's, but I've only recently begun to get a real appreciation for older films. I still like a lot of the westerns from when I was a kid, with John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, but I honestly wasn't a big Godzilla fan.... nor King Kong for that matter. They were good, but just not my thing.
Recently I was in Office Depot, and they had a DVD rack right by the checkout stand and it had a DVD with a bunch of old black and white Batman and Robin serials from the 1940's. I bought it, and it's really great to watch them. Even though special effects and such were almost non-existent back then, the old B & W stuff has a nice feel to it.
I also bought a DVD with 1940's era superman cartoons on it, and those are great, too!

[gmd3d]

Here we can discuss the films of old and new films .....

[gmd3d]

I'm in my 40's, but I've only recently begun to get a real appreciation for older films. I still like a lot of the westerns from when I was a kid, with John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, but I honestly wasn't a big Godzilla fan.... nor King Kong for that matter. They were good, but just not my thing.
Recently I was in Office Depot, and they had a DVD rack right by the checkout stand and it had a DVD with a bunch of old black and white Batman and Robin serials from the 1940's. I bought it, and it's really great to watch them. Even though special effects and such were almost non-existent back then, the old B & W stuff has a nice feel to it.
I also bought a DVD with 1940's era superman cartoons on it, and those are great, too!

I like these old films . like in black and white there is a greater feel of suspense and the shadows really add atmosphere that colour never competed with.

I have seen the batman series from the 40s ,,,, FUN stuff :) and another I like was called "King of the Rocket men"... a early Rocketman .

I love watching John Wayne films or Errol Flynn films .

[arrowhead42]

I've seen a few of the old Rocketman serials... I'd like to find those on DVD sometime. Along the same lines, but a tad more updated, I loved the Disney movie "The Rocketeer". It was really good, but didn't get the credit it deserved.

[Jedman67]

In fact, the movie I've seen Amy Adams in is Catch Me if You Can, which takes place in the late '60s. (and is based on a true story) I freakin' love that flick. :D

thats a sick movie! One of the few Dicaprio movies i truly enjoy; he totally rocked in that role!

As for old movies, i have "Judgement at Nuremberg" sitting in my dropbox, its one of william shatners first movies. I need to find an opportune 3 hours to watch it.
I like period movies, but not so into noir. more modern movies in period settings, if you will (like Peter Jacksons King Kong, for example)

[evil_genius_180]

Yeah, having a thread for this is a great idea. :)

I have both King Kong movies with the same basic plot, the '33 one and the Jackson Remake. I like one or the other better in certain spots. I don't have the "modernized" Kong from the '70s with Jeff Bridges, though I really should get that one. (DS9 fans should note that Odo is in it. ;)) And, of course, I have King Kong VS Godzilla. (I'm a bit of a Kong fan :D)

I still have yet to see those old '40s Batman serials. Though, as much of a Batman fan as I am, I really should pick those up. I do, however, have the '40s Superman cartoons. Those are sweet.

[gmd3d]

thats a sick movie! One of the few Dicaprio movies i truly enjoy; he totally rocked in that role!

As for old movies, i have "Judgement at Nuremberg" sitting in my dropbox, its one of william shatners first movies. I need to find an opportune 3 hours to watch it.
I like period movies, but not so into noir. more modern movies in period settings, if you will (like Peter Jacksons King Kong, for example)

"Judgement at Nuremberg" is a very good film, and a great cast.

Spencer Tracy was vary good and enjoy all the films I see him in.

[Jedman67]

havent seen it yet. Also waiting to be watched is crimson tide and hunt for the red october.
Oh, and of course, for classics theres the original Absent-Minded Professor (flubber).

And for sheer cheesy-awesomeness, theres always the back to the future trilogy. man, christopher lloyd is one helluva actor

[arrowhead42]

Yeah, I really liked Christopher Lloyd as "Kruge" in Star Trek III The Search for Spock. He made a really good Klingon, I thought.

[evil_genius_180]

I just watched STIII again last week. I don't know why people criticize the "odd numbered" Trek movies, that's a great flick. (so are the other odd numbers, even Generations) Plus, gotta love Christopher Lloyd as a Klingon.

I love me some Back to the Future. I was 6-years-old when the first one came out, so I more or less grew up with those movies. Speaking of classics, I saw recently where they're going to start making the DeLoreans again. :D

[arrowhead42]

Yeah, Back to the Future is a great series..... cheesy, but oh so cool! I live here in NW Florida and there's a Delorean I see cruising around town every now and then..... it's even got the "OUTTA TIME" license plate! How cool is that?!

[evil_genius_180]

That's so freakin' cool. I always wanted a DeLorean as a kid and now that they're going to make them again, I have my chance (not that I can afford one but it's a nice dream.)

[gmd3d]

Why cheesy.

still cannot get my head around the term when applied to films, old or new. :)

Back to the future was a great fun film, with a great cast and a great car.

Star Trek 3 gave us some great moments and our first views of a number of new starship designs ....... and that great space dock .... what is not to like :)

[evil_genius_180]

I don't think Back to the Future is cheesy either, but to each his/her own.

Yeah, you've gotta love the design explosion in STIII. The Grissom, Excelsior, Spacedock, Bird of Prey and the merchant ship are some of the best models in Trek and they all went on to be used many more times in the late series, especially the merchant ship. That thing was modified into lots of alien ships for TNG, DS9 and Voyager.

[gmd3d]

I don't think Back to the Future is cheesy either, but to each his/her own.

Yeah, you've gotta love the design explosion in STIII. The Grissom, Excelsior, Spacedock, Bird of Prey and the merchant ship are some of the best models in Trek and they all went on to be used many more times in the late series, especially the merchant ship. That thing was modified into lots of alien ships for TNG, DS9 and Voyager.

exactly. The Grissom I like and a fun design and of course the Excelsior .
I always liked the merchant ship

[Darrell Lawrence]

Define "cheese".

[gmd3d]

Define "cheese".

A dairy milk-based food product.. what it has to do with films .....

I can only think that its means based on other other shows

Hair Styles of period
Sets perhaps of cardboard construct
Visual Effects of the time
Script and dialogue.

thats all I can think of at the moment .......

no cheese anywhere :rotfl::rotfl:

[arrowhead42]

I think that cheesy, as I understand it relating to movies, songs, etc, etc, is when something is just so corny, and or silly. I suppose that Back to the Future doesn't really fit that definition, because while it was silly fun, it wasn't so blatantly over the top with it's goofiness. Sure the whole time travel thing was hard to believe, but it was meant to be silly... that's what made the whole thing fun. When a movie is just so dang goofy, but it's not meant to be - it wants to be serious - then I think that's a good definition of cheesiness.

[Darrell Lawrence]

If that's the case, then a good 90% of movies made, old OR new, are "cheesy".

"Cheesy" is a term that is so easily thrown around by people that just simply didn't like a particular movie or series, IMO.

I saw "Batman Begins" up there. It's just as cheesy as the original Batman was- The origin is basically the same in both. So if it's corny in one, then it's corny in the other. If it's unrealistic in one, then it is in the other as well.

I've seen people call the original BSG "cheesy" and the remake "cool". Why? The remake had VERY unrealistic characterizations.

A Cylon and a human having a kid? One is a machine, the other a human. Now THAT is "cheesy".

"We need to start making babies." An actual line from the remake mini. That on top of all the "sexualizations" in the series.

No... a more realistic line is: "We need to make sure the human race doesn't die out."

Then there is Star Trek. Many call the original cheesy. Why? It's no more unrealistic than "Enterprise" or, hell, even the latest, greatest SciFi flick.

[evil_genius_180]

A dairy milk-based food product..

Dang! You beat me to it. ;)

If that's the case, then a good 90% of movies made, old OR new, are "cheesy".

"Cheesy" is a term that is so easily thrown around by people that just simply didn't like a particular movie or series, IMO.

I saw "Batman Begins" up there. It's just as cheesy as the original Batman was- The origin is basically the same in both. So if it's corny in one, then it's corny in the other. If it's unrealistic in one, then it is in the other as well.

I've seen people call the original BSG "cheesy" and the remake "cool". Why? The remake had VERY unrealistic characterizations.

A Cylon and a human having a kid? One is a machine, the other a human. Now THAT is "cheesy".

"We need to start making babies." An actual line from the remake mini. That on top of all the "sexualizations" in the series.

No... a more realistic line is: "We need to make sure the human race doesn't die out."

Then there is Star Trek. Many call the original cheesy. Why? It's no more unrealistic than "Enterprise" or, hell, even the latest, greatest SciFi flick.

Yep. If one movie is cheesy, they all are. (I guess that means I like cheesy)

[Jedman67]

I just watched STIII again last week. I don't know why people criticize the "odd numbered" Trek movies, that's a great flick. (so are the other odd numbers, even Generations) Plus, gotta love Christopher Lloyd as a Klingon.

I gotta say, ST:I and V were terrible, IMO. IX was passable. So of all the odd numbered movies, only III and VII were any good. And Christopher Lloyd in ANYTHING = awesome

A dairy milk-based food product.. what it has to do with films .....

I can only think that its means based on other other shows

Hair Styles of period
Sets perhaps of cardboard construct
Visual Effects of the time
Script and dialogue.
not quite. I think the definition would be where something tries to take itself seriously, but cant move beyond the constraints of the show - i.e. Star Trek was truly classic and groundbreaking, but the cheap sets, cheap effects and ultimately (again, in my opinion) saddled with unrealistic dialog. Corny speech, unbelievable characterizations, and a tendency to trope. Any movie can be dated; its whether the production brings us past it - like in Star Wars IV and V - or hampers it - like in TOS and TNG's early seasons. Yes, TOS outgrew its cheesiness on some level, on another it helped make it extremely popular.

I think that cheesy, as I understand it relating to movies, songs, etc, etc, is when something is just so corny, and or silly. I suppose that Back to the Future doesn't really fit that definition, because while it was silly fun, it wasn't so blatantly over the top with it's goofiness. Sure the whole time travel thing was hard to believe, but it was meant to be silly... that's what made the whole thing fun. When a movie is just so dang goofy, but it's not meant to be - it wants to be serious - then I think that's a good definition of cheesiness.

yup. or anything with william shatner! :lol:

[arrowhead42]

My whole concept of good and bad, right and wrong, wonderful and awful.... it's all..... just so...... destroyed. *gasp*
I never saw the re-made Battlestar Galactica, so I can't comment on that, but....

"Batman Begins"? Cheesy?!?!
"Star Trek" (TOS)? Cheesy?!?
Anything with William Shatner?!?

Oh.... up must be down, sideways is forward, yesterday is next week.... my reality has been lost!

Aaaaoooaaaoooaaa! (<---- that's the sound of me wailing).

Just kidding. I guess this all means I like cheese, too! :)

[evil_genius_180]

Shatner cheesy? I think not. ;)

Seriously, he has his moments. He also has moments of brilliance. The scene in Star Trek III where he finds out David is dead and stumbles back and falls in front of his command chair is just brilliant. I don't think he's ever done a better job of conveying emotion than he did in that scene. (meanwhile, "KHAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNN" is just plain cheesy. :D) Plus, he's friggin' hilarious in Airplane II: The Sequel. :D

I like cheesiness in films. Without it, you'd just have documentaries and boring dramas. Cheesiness = fun. http://evilgenius180.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/party0006.gif Now, corniness is another matter, I can take or leave it.

[gmd3d]

Star Trek TMP is perhaps my favourite Trek Movie if I base it on the amount of times I have watched it over the others.... it suffered for a story and a ending during the making and the crew lacked the familiarity of the old series.

Star Trek 5, suffered from the same thing and was closer to the old series than most which I think Shatner wanted to do. but again the story did not live up to to
it for a Movie.

Star Trek 2, 4 and 6 where the best in the sense of been closer to the original show.

Shatner I would also agree is no where cheesy .. the Death of Spock and the catch in the voice over the torpedo casing holding Spock body and the already mentioned
David death in Star Trek 3....

Star Trek 2 and the death of Spock was the only film I ever cried and I think that was in no small part to Shatner´s performance and Nimoy´s too.

[gmd3d]

not quite. I think the definition would be where something tries to take itself seriously, but cant move beyond the constraints of the show - i.e. Star Trek was truly classic and groundbreaking, but the cheap sets, cheap effects and ultimately (again, in my opinion) saddled with unrealistic dialog. Corny speech, unbelievable characterizations, and a tendency to trope. Any movie can be dated; its whether the production brings us past it - like in Star Wars IV and V - or hampers it - like in TOS and TNG's early seasons. Yes, TOS outgrew its cheesiness on some level, on another it helped make it extremely popular.


Well for the time the sets where not cheap "(at least not the Enterprise sets )" Star Trek was always meant to be serious and began that with The Cage.

I think that a vast majority of the Trek stories hold up well.
the Characters are some of the best in TV or Film esp in the original Trek.
I always found it intelligent and above all entertaining.
I think the word realistic is pressing in here. as most of the shows now made are filmed or apparently film with that in mind.

I also will say that the only TREK film I have found weakest was the newest trek film on a few levels.

[gmd3d]

(meanwhile, "KHAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNN" is just plain cheesy. :D) Plus, he's friggin' hilarious in Airplane II: The Sequel. :D


I like that "KHAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNN" scene.... :) don´t tell me that
you never been annoyed by someone and never yelled at them ,,,,,,,

:rotfl:

[evil_genius_180]

Star Trek 5, suffered from the same thing and was closer to the old series than most which I think Shatner wanted to do. but again the story did not live up to to
it for a Movie.

ST5 was a doomed movie. There was a writers' strike in 1989, which is why TNG's 2nd season has 4 less episodes than the others. That strike greatly affected ST5. Plus, you had Shatner as a first time director and they couldn't use ILM due to a scheduling conflict, so they had to use a new effects house. Add to that the fact that Paramount kept slashing Shat's budget and wouldn't let up on their deadline and that spells disaster. There are whole scenes, especially towards the end of the movie, that didn't make it in due to budget and time constraints. It's amazing that he was able to do with it what he did. I like it, it's a darn good film, IMO, made even better when you know what he went through just to get it made. Though, it would be interesting to see the film as he envisioned it VS what was released and see which is better.

[evil_genius_180]

I like that "KHAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNN" scene.... :) don´t tell me that
you never been annoyed by someone and never yelled at them ,,,,,,,

:rotfl:

Don't get me wrong, I love that scene. But it's corny as hell. It's a good corny, though. :D

I could just see Nicholas Meyer off screen telling Shatner "OK, do it one more time, but this time make it bigger." (and repeating that until it was over the top :))

[arrowhead42]

I liked him screaming Khan's name too - I thought it was a good show of his rage. But IMO, one line could have made the final showdwon between Khan and Kirk sooooo much better.
When Kirk says
"Khan, we tried it once your way. Are you game for a rematch?"
No response.
"Khan. I'm laughing at the 'superior intellect'."

Right there.... right in that exact spot, Kirk should have looked right at the viewscreen and said

"Khan, you're a fool." Then ended the transmission, and left Khan to chew on that.
To me, that would have really ground salt into Khan's massive, damaged ego.

[gmd3d]

ST5 was a doomed movie. There was a writers' strike in 1989, which is why TNG's 2nd season has 4 less episodes than the others. That strike greatly affected ST5. Plus, you had Shatner as a first time director and they couldn't use ILM due to a scheduling conflict, so they had to use a new effects house. Add to that the fact that Paramount kept slashing Shat's budget and wouldn't let up on their deadline and that spells disaster. There are whole scenes, especially towards the end of the movie, that didn't make it in due to budget and time constraints. It's amazing that he was able to do with it what he did. I like it, it's a darn good film, IMO, made even better when you know what he went through just to get it made. Though, it would be interesting to see the film as he envisioned it VS what was released and see which is better.

I agree. I read this in Shatner books ......

[gmd3d]

Don't get me wrong, I love that scene. But it's corny as hell. It's a good corny, though. :D

I could just see Nicholas Meyer off screen telling Shatner "OK, do it one more time, but this time make it bigger." (and repeating that until it was over the top :))

lol ...... I can almost see that myself :D

[gmd3d]

I liked him screaming Khan's name too - I thought it was a good show of his rage. But IMO, one line could have made the final showdwon between Khan and Kirk sooooo much better.
When Kirk says
"Khan, we tried it once your way. Are you game for a rematch?"
No response.
"Khan. I'm laughing at the 'superior intellect'."

Right there.... right in that exact spot, Kirk should have looked right at the viewscreen and said

"Khan, you're a fool." Then ended the transmission, and left Khan to chew on that.
To me, that would have really ground salt into Khan's massive, damaged ego.

that would be good :)

[arrowhead42]

I lost count.... which one was ST5?

[evil_genius_180]

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Kirk and company are called back from shore leave when there's a hostage situation on the "Planet of Galactic Peace" (Nimbus III) in the neutral zone. There are other ships available but no experienced commanders, so Admiral Harve Bennett (in his only cameo appearance in the 4 ST films he produced) "needs Jim Kirk." It's a very TOS-ish over-the-top type of story where Spock's long lost half brother commandeers the Enterprise (thanks mostly to her skeleton crew) and takes it to the center of the galaxy, followed closely by a Klingon Bird of Prey. Personally, I think it's a great movie. :)

[Darrell Lawrence]

ST5... the magical, unknown half-brother of Spock!

[evil_genius_180]

ST5... the magical, unknown half-brother of Spock!

Yeah, he is pretty magical. Especially since he is not only the only known Vulcan who can use telepathy on someone without touching them (or touching a wall they're leaning against) but also is the only one who can apparently conjure up telepathic imagery for people to see. Of course, this can all be explained late in TNG by the fact that the Vulcans don't use all of their telepathic powers because of the dangers. Sybok and his mother were outcasts (according to the book) and tapped into some of their other abilities using techniques that were "frowned upon" by other Vulcans (even though no self respecting Vulcan would frown.)

[arrowhead42]

Oh yeah, I remember that one. I didn't much care for it, but that's because it felt like so much more could have been done with it. It just felt.... lacking, and I could never put my finger on exactly what it was. I didn't know it was because of budget constraints that Shatner had to deal with.
He must have been really ticked off that he couldn't make the movie the way he envisioned it

[evil_genius_180]

Yeah, it's safe to say that the Shat was pretty peeved with Paramount after that mess. They screwed him over big time and basically forced the movie to flop. Due to the writers' strike, they wanted to have something to release, ready or not, and they paid the price for that.

[Jedman67]

Shatner cheesy? I think not. ;)
(meanwhile, "KHAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNN" is just plain cheesy. :D) Plus, he's friggin' hilarious in Airplane II: The Sequel. :D
the SHAT is cheesy. but awesome-cheesy! he also has great films, i felt that STVI really captured the essence of his character, for example.
And Denny Crane, Ham-extraordinare. Of course he's cheesy - its why we love him!

(even though no self respecting Vulcan would frown.)
more like a severe, emotionless stare. But on a vulcan, we call it frowning. Disbelief if he's raising an eyebrow ;)

Well for the time the sets where not cheap "(at least not the Enterprise sets )" Star Trek was always meant to be serious and began that with The Cage.

I also will say that the only TREK film I have found weakest was the newest trek film on a few levels.
The sets were brilliant, considering the budget available (or lack thereoff). But the age shows. And the primary colors were ghastley!! :blush: brilliant for its time, but still very much a part of its time.
ST 2009 wasn't cheesy, but it was a failure. The sets were amazing, the character and plot had holes you could drive a truck through. But i would watch that again and again rather than see ST:V again :P

[evil_genius_180]

All of the Star Trek films have huge plot holes. A few examples:

*Who is still transmitting images after the Klingons and Epsilon 9 are destroyed?
*Why is Enterprise always the only starship in the quadrant, especially when the quadrant is the one that contains Earth?! (basically, Earth is all but defenseless)
*Why is Khan suddenly at least 20 years older than his followers, all of whom were around his age in Space Seed?
*Why didn't Spacedock just lock a tractor beam onto Enterprise and stop Kirk and company from stealing it?
*How were aliens (presumably) from another galaxy listening to whales on Earth?
*When did Enterprise get 78 decks?
*Why did the Klingons only build the one Bird of Prey that could fire when cloaked? Was someone stupid enough to have the blueprints aboard the ship when it was launched?
*Why didn't Soran just fly into the Nexus with a ship? It worked out well for him before.
*Why did the Borg send 1 cube to Earth to assimilate it with the backup plan being an elaborate plot to go back in time and do it then? Why not just send a fleet of cubes to Earth?
*The Son'a were clearly criminals with chips on their shoulders, why did they even conspire with Starfleet before trying to mine the Baku planet's rings?
*Why didn't Picard have hair when he was at the academy?

That's just a small taste of the plot holes. Not that we care, we love the films anyway. Besides, if that's not the 1st JJ Abrams film you've seen, you know he's more about big action sequences and special effects than worrying about things like plot holes. Hell, some people can make lots of money and become living legends making films full of plot holes (Steven Spielberg, for one.)

[Auditor]

Kahn is the best of the Star Trek movies. I love all the series. The movies were hit and miss.

Next Generation was a great series. None of there movies were great. Would have liked to see a good one. So many of the series episodes were better than the movies.