TV/Movies Megathread

[Syt]

This Netflix show kinda reminds me of Transmetropolitan ...

[Sheilbh]

The Guardian zero star review of that was fun

[viper37]

So far the dessert west seems to have been populated by one Mexican and no whites.

anyway, that was on purpose, no whites, because many western movies of the past had no blacks, modern cinematographers feel compel to go in the total opposite direction.  Plus, it appeals to critics just by doing that, there isn't even a need to have a compelling soundtrack.

Next on your screen: women outlaws meet in the old west, in a world where men stay at home to raise kids.

I've not seen the film but the trailer has lots of white guys.

I read a review saying there were no white people in the movie.  Haven't seen it either.  I wanted to, but now that Yi has talked about the soundtrack, I'm disinclined to.

[Eddie Teach]

There was a company of white soldiers on a train. And white customers at a bank that got robbed. No important parts though.

[The Minsky Moment]

Haters gonna hate I suppose.

Does seem to be what you're doing, true.

Hate what?

Good taste?

[Sheilbh]

Last Night In Soho.

I get the feeling the critics have been a bit mixed/sniffy about this - but I enjoyed it a lot. Great soundtrack and visuals as you'd expect from Edgar Wright. But I think it also holds up as it veers from a nostalgic retro-fest to almost giallo levels garish and psychological horror - which are all things I enjoy. I'm also very pleased that Diana Rigg had a good last role and one it looks like she enjoyed.

[celedhring]

I was a bit upset by the reviews being so mixed, the trailers made me furiously want to like this. Will check it out when it opens down here.

[Berkut]

2010

One of my favorite Sci-Fi movies. It holds up reasonably well.

Both 2001 and 2010 would be great to be re-done, IMO. Update the story a bit, and re-imagine it re-based on Clarks novels....

[celedhring]

2001 the novel is an adaptation of the film and not the opposite, you know...

I read the novel ages ago, so my memory is hazy, but I recall that it made explicit and concrete a lot of stuff that the film left unexplained (like the visions at the end, or what made HAL malfunction). I remember liking the film more, in that regard.

And I like 2010, too. I think the film is unfairly maligned because it's a sequel to one of cinema's masterpieces.

[Maladict]

2001 the novel is an adaptation of the film and not the opposite, you know...

I read the novel ages ago, so my memory is hazy, but I recall that it made explicit and concrete a lot of stuff that the film left unexplained (like the visions at the end, or what made HAL malfunction). I remember liking the film more, in that regard.

And I like 2010, too. I think the film is unfairly maligned because it's a sequel to one of cinema's masterpieces.

Clarke and Kubrick wrote the novel and movie script at the same time iirc. Some later changes in the screenplay didn't make it into the book, but the basic story was a collaboration.

[celedhring]

Oh, and if we're talking Arthur C. Clarke I'd much rather have somebody adapt Childhood's End (I refuse to acknowledge the SyFy version).

[celedhring]

2001 the novel is an adaptation of the film and not the opposite, you know...

I read the novel ages ago, so my memory is hazy, but I recall that it made explicit and concrete a lot of stuff that the film left unexplained (like the visions at the end, or what made HAL malfunction). I remember liking the film more, in that regard.

And I like 2010, too. I think the film is unfairly maligned because it's a sequel to one of cinema's masterpieces.

Clarke and Kubrick wrote the novel and movie script at the same time iirc. Some later changes in the screenplay didn't make it into the book, but the basic story was a collaboration.

The book, afaik, is largely based on the early drafts of the script, which they developed together. Clarke didn't agree with some of the later revisions to the story (plus some of the stuff was cut due to length/budget concerns).

[grumbler]

2001 the novel is an adaptation of the film and not the opposite, you know...

I read the novel ages ago, so my memory is hazy, but I recall that it made explicit and concrete a lot of stuff that the film left unexplained (like the visions at the end, or what made HAL malfunction). I remember liking the film more, in that regard.

And I like 2010, too. I think the film is unfairly maligned because it's a sequel to one of cinema's masterpieces.

Yeah, 2010 was a decent straightforward SF film, with none of the mysticism from the first movie.  Somewhat ironically, the movie competed in the theaters with Starman, which did have those mystic overtones (and, I thought, was a better movie).

[Berkut]

2001 the novel is an adaptation of the film and not the opposite, you know...

I did not know that! Interesting....

I read the novel ages ago, so my memory is hazy, but I recall that it made explicit and concrete a lot of stuff that the film left unexplained (like the visions at the end, or what made HAL malfunction). I remember liking the film more, in that regard.

And I like 2010, too. I think the film is unfairly maligned because it's a sequel to one of cinema's masterpieces.

I did not even know it was all that maligned....it is a very different kind of movie from 2001, for sure.

It's kind of like how Aliens is a very different movie from Alien, but they are both great.

[Syt]

Apparently there's a Rocky IV Director's Cut that restores 40 minutes worth of scenes?