 |
|
I must admit I liked the original startrek. I also liked some of the settings of the later series (DS-9, Voyager), but I also never truly bothered to follow the series (chronologically or complete), because I got ultimately bored after a dozen eps or so, when nothing of the potential conflict in the setup between characters and surrounding was even remotely addressed or put to use.
The same goes actually for many of the sciencefiction series brought to tv or cinema in the last twenty years. Get me right: I *love* StarWars IV (and its potential), but that was *before* the rest of the saga; I love Eureka with its all nonsense take on scientists, and a few more (notably the original Battlestar Galactica and Bab-5, but again, "it's the setting, stupid." (to misquote Bill Clinton)).
However, when was the last time you saw a believe scientific and social different world set up on tv? The only thing I can spontaneously come up with is StarGate for a series, and even there it's mostly the original seasons with the earlier being the better, the Atlantis part lost most (if not all and then some) of its flavor, and Blade Runner as a movie.
SF author Charles Stross posted about the shortcomings of sciencefiction shows and movies in his online diary that brings these issues to a very clear point in terms of scientific and social world building for spellbinding scifi stories. His example is Startrek:TNG, and even if you don't agree with me (or like TNG to death), have a look at the quoted script excerpt for one of its eps, before the technical helpers filled in the gaps. It's a thought-provoking read.
This entry has  comments here on Dreamwidth.
Please comment there using OpenID.
| Memories | Tell a Friend | Link |
I love watching catastrophe movies. I really do. They're great entertainment.
Mostly because I always lmao about how much scientifically impossible rubbish can be squeezed into an average of two hours. (Few exceptions exist, most notably "Dante's Peak", which went to lengths displaying what was then state of the knowledge about a Plinian eruption. I specifially name it, because that was *such* a positive surprise in the cinema back then.)
It looks as if Emmerich's 2012 will not be such an exception.
I'll better do more midriff exercises before watching that one...
This is not the official trailer. This is a "documentary" about the improbabilities already found in the trailer.
This entry was originally posted at http://akk.dreamwidth.org/237010.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
| Memories | Tell a Friend | Link |
When the movie 300 came into the cinemas 2007, I was not tempted to watch it (ditto at the DVD release later that year). The topic wasn't that interesting to me.
However, since then the movie managed to be called (in no specific order & no assumption of completeness): fascist, racist, communist, (+ a lot more -ists), inhuman, violence-glorifying, historically incorrect and politically incorrect towards the elderly, the disabled, artisans, craftspeople, women, African people, Asian people - and it pissed off the entire nation of Iran.
All that while still getting a cinema rating of FSK-16 (roughly an "R") in Germany. Wow.
Let's say, I was intrigued. Today I sat down and watched it. And found that I liked it. A lot.
( So what is 300? )
| 2 Replies | Comment | Memories | Tell a Friend | Link |
|
