Upcoming Films of Interest

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I really don't think they cast pasty faced Cumberbatch to play Khan.
Although that was certainly 'leaked' out at one time.
A lot of the geek chatter I've read thinks it's a derivation on the character Gary Mitchell. Although I doubt they'd use the same name. GARY! Now that's a name that makes you tremble. Watch out for GARY!

Personally, I think it's a unique villain to the ST canon and they are doing the typical Bad Robot 'fuck with our fans' shit.

Or he's playing Khan and the casting - in this day and age - is abominable, if not downright offensive. Especially to those huge audiences in India.

Really? Sherlock Holmes is playing an East Indian Sikh?
I mean, Montalban 30 years ago...okay. Whatever. But in 20 fucking 12?

Especially considering the Bad Robot guys (Abrams and Lindelof) had Eastern Indian Naveen Andrews (Sayid) on LOST. Like he couldn't play a villain. Then again, Sayid was supposed to be Iraqi...so whatever.

Well, there's supposed to be a lengthy preview before The Hobbit, so I would think that might answer the question. It's the still the prevalent rumor. If it is him, they might have to re-invent the character in more ways than one, since the timeline for Khan's backstory doesn't quite work now.
 
LENS FLARE! Yeah, evidently they went after him for the same role (villain) that went to Cumberbatch. Although I am not entirely convinced that is accurate. Once again, I think JJ Abrams like to do that kind of shit, misdirection, but maybe I am giving him too much credit. LENS FLARE!!

The early reports were that they tried to cast Del Toro, failed and then another Latino actor whose name escapes me. So supposedly that played into the Khan rumors, I guess. LENS FLARE! You know, because...brown skin = Khan, evidently, at least to brainiacs on the net.

Personally, I think if you're going to do a 'remake' of Khan, you put it right in the fucking title. Star Trek: Khan or whatever. Hey, another LENS FLARE!

They also released the synopsis and it doesn't sound like a Khan movie to me.
I am no Trek expert or anything but I am curious to see if this move is a little smarter than the last. Although it was fun and action packed, it was a little light in the loafers. I am not a huge fan of Abrams but I still like Lindelof (only because of LOST), even with Prometheus. Especially after reading his initial script, which I think made some more sense. And Orci and Kurtman are...well, they are decent. Fringe, while it has its virtues, is kind of a mess.

Lindelof over Abrams? Fringe being a mess but Lost not a mess? DOES NOT COMPUTE

Also Abrams is no lover of Star Trek lore, I doubt he's doing a remake.
 
Lindelof over Abrams? Fringe being a mess but Lost not a mess? DOES NOT COMPUTE

Also Abrams is no lover of Star Trek lore, I doubt he's doing a remake.

Does not compute? Sounds like your computer needs an upgrade, PH. It's not even close. Fringe violated its own canon more than once. All LOST did was leave certain things open ended. I can explain LOST rather easily. Some answers are "we don't know". Which is a far cry from "that literally doesn't jibe with what we saw previously in the story". And I am talking before the timeline shenanigans. The stuff with Peter and Reiden Lake and...it's just a mess.

In fact, the showrunners on Fringe have admitted they had to retcon some shit. Wasn't that one of the premises for the timeline stuff? Whereas most LOST critics don't know what the fuck they are talking about. That's not to speak of critics of the sheer quality of the writing (dialogue, creative choices) - that is entirely subjective - I mean those plot criticisms which are most common, which actually aren't problems at all. It was not a mess in terms of story. It is a consistent story. It was serialized and confusing - and required some investment. Fringe is more episodic and still couldn't get the shit right.

Anyhow, calling Fringe a mess is a reflection on Orci and Kurtzman and the folks that ran the show after they let loose of it, Pinkner and Wyman?
 
Does not compute? Sounds like your computer needs an upgrade, PH. It's not even close. Fringe violated its own canon more than once. All LOST did was leave certain things open ended. I can explain LOST rather easily. Some answers are "we don't know". Which is a far cry from "that literally doesn't jibe with what we saw previously in the story". And I am talking before the timeline shenanigans. The stuff with Peter and Reiden Lake and...it's just a mess.

In fact, the showrunners on Fringe have admitted they had to retcon some shit. Wasn't that one of the premises for the timeline stuff? Whereas most LOST critics don't know what the fuck they are talking about. That's not to speak of critics of the sheer quality of the writing (dialogue, creative choices) - that is entirely subjective - I mean those plot criticisms which are most common, which actually aren't problems at all. It was not a mess in terms of story. It is a consistent story. It was serialized and confusing - and required some investment. Fringe is more episodic and still couldn't get the shit right.

Anyhow, calling Fringe a mess is a reflection on Orci and Kurtzman and the folks that ran the show after they let loose of it, Pinkner and Wyman?


Sounds like a rational explanation to me.

I enjoy Fringe, but I've totally given up trying to straighten out any of it in my head.

With LOST, it was certainly frustrating, but I always felt like I was given enough pieces to connect most of the dots in a sensible fashion.
 
I'm not going to argue with you on the retconning, losing their mainstream audience when Fox fucked with their timeslot led the showrunners to say to hell with even trying to placate audiences anymore, but I still really enjoy the mythology and characters more than I did with the latter half of Lost, and I say this as someone who liked Lost all the way through, I just didn't find the character development as interesting or in-keeping with what they had established in the first few seasons.
 
Aesthetically is seems a move away from the first film and more towards dominating Bay-esque blockbustery, plus a whole heap of boring distaster bullshit. Movie could be fantastic, but meh all over this trailer. Only cool thing is the enterprise coming out of the water (??)
 
A less buffed the fuck up Thor, but, yeah.

I'm not sure if I ever told you this, but I figure you'd appreciate it. My son, 3 now, LOVES Thor. All he talks about. He has 3-4 Thor hammers, talks about Odin and Asgard and Bifrost. His favorite thing in the world is to play Mighty Battle, which is basically just him beating the shit out of others with a foam hammer.

Anyway. At Disney over the summer, we went to some Princess dinner thing and then gave him a sword, which he friggin loved. We asked him what he wanted for dinner, pizza or chicken. After asking him the third time, he made this pissed off face, pointed his sword at us and bellowed, "CHICKEN NUGGETS...MORTALS!" It was my proudest moment since he picked up a toy mourning star at like 18 months and knew exactly how to use it.
 
I'm not sure if I ever told you this, but I figure you'd appreciate it. My son, 3 now, LOVES Thor. All he talks about. He has 3-4 Thor hammers, talks about Odin and Asgard and Bifrost. His favorite thing in the world is to play Mighty Battle, which is basically just him beating the shit out of others with a foam hammer.

Anyway. At Disney over the summer, we went to some Princess dinner thing and then gave him a sword, which he friggin loved. We asked him what he wanted for dinner, pizza or chicken. After asking him the third time, he made this pissed off face, pointed his sword at us and bellowed, "CHICKEN NUGGETS...MORTALS!" It was my proudest moment since he picked up a toy mourning star at like 18 months and knew exactly how to use it.

You did not tell me this. I know you didn't because as senile as I am, I'd never forget it if someone told me the best fucking story ever. Amazing. Pretty obvious which parent he takes after.
 
I just feel like, where's all the space, man?

Agreed, but Abrams never likes to reveal much of his movies before hand, I don't remember being particularly excited by the trailers for the first one, but the movie was awesome. I have faith.

Also the Khan thing, I'm guessing that's a fake out.
 
Aesthetically is seems a move away from the first film and more towards dominating Bay-esque blockbustery, plus a whole heap of boring distaster bullshit. Movie could be fantastic, but meh all over this trailer. Only cool thing is the enterprise coming out of the water (??)

Don't fret too early, we've only seen a minute of footage in quick slash cuts. At least wait to pass judgement until next week when the first 9 minutes or so of the movie will be revealed, :wink:.
 
Don't fret too early, we've only seen a minute of footage in quick slash cuts. At least wait to pass judgement until next week when the first 9 minutes or so of the movie will be revealed, :wink:.


Oh I've passed no judgement. Just disappointed in what we've been shown at this point.
 
Understood. As for me, I'll let Cumberbatch's scenery chewing make up for any aesthetic deficits in that trailer.
 
Cumberbatch is a cat whose act I like to catch. Sherlock? Yes. Tinker Tailor....yes. Parade's End?....yes. The Last Enemy?...yes.

I like British TV, fools.
 
Hm. This is someone I haven't heard of. However Sherlock was just recommended to me last weekend. So I might look into that.
 
Starter for 10, Amazing Grace, Atonement, Danny Boyle's Frankenstein play, he's been in a lot of cool things. Especially Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy which was my 2nd favorite film of 2011.
 
It's a role so skin-crawling you want to be able to forget it, "The Chocolate Factory Rapist" as I like to refer to him in that movie.
 
Back
Top Bottom