 |
|
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
archangelm
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 49
Location: Ohio
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: Tin Man = Crap |
 |
|
For lack of anything better to watch, I have this waste of time and money on the Sci-Fi Channel. It sucks ass, the acting sucks ass and balls, and the writing is the unholy discharge that results. I must track down the producers who thought making this abominable miniseries a good idea, and make them pay by forcing them to watch every single Pauly Shore movie ever made.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The whole setup was awful. I tried watching it for 20 minutes and just couldn't stand it anymore.
The dialog sucks.
The acting sucks.
I couldn't even tell what the plot really WAS it was so filled with technological fripperies that seemed totally inappropriate for something related in any way to Oz.
The effects suck--it was about Dr. Who level.
The soundtrack REALLY sucks--it sounded like a generic sci-fi thriller.
The lighting sucks. They used every cheesey sci-fi movie gimmick in the book to make things look stressful.
The cinematography sucks--or at least--it wasn't anything to write home about, okay, it was mediocre--at least it wasn't home-video-camera style.
I couldn't find a single redeeming quality about the show.
I agree with you completely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
archangelm
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 49
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | The whole setup was awful. I tried watching it for 20 minutes and just couldn't stand it anymore.
The dialog sucks.
The acting sucks.
I couldn't even tell what the plot really WAS it was so filled with technological fripperies that seemed totally inappropriate for something related in any way to Oz.
The effects suck--it was about Dr. Who level.
The soundtrack REALLY sucks--it sounded like a generic sci-fi thriller.
The lighting sucks. They used every cheesey sci-fi movie gimmick in the book to make things look stressful.
The cinematography sucks--or at least--it wasn't anything to write home about, okay, it was mediocre--at least it wasn't home-video-camera style.
I couldn't find a single redeeming quality about the show.
I agree with you completely. |
What really sucks is that the lead actress, Zooey Deschanel, is really cute and was in the Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy movie and I liked that one.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the only thing that made the new HHGTTG any good was the fact that they had such a brilliant book to loosely base it on.
If you compare that movie with the 1981 BBC adaptation, which does get a bit dull at times and has TERRIBLE effects, the new one is still a joke in contrast. There are so many things that were not gone into. So many concepts that weren't delved into. Then they had to change the plot entirely by mixing something from an alternate reality from a later book into the main plot of the first. I just thought the BBC production was superb, whether or not it was borderline silly at points.
The movie even left out the part about the scientists that would make these devices that would make people's undergarments jump several feet in one direction, using hyperspace to go through the objects. Then it even left out how the infinite improbability drive was created. There were just too many things left out of that movie.
Sorry, I'm tearing apart things really bad right now. There are some movies I feel really strongly about. A lot of people tore apart I Robot because it didn't match to the book--but I liked it because I hadn't read the book. If they had made a movie previously that represented the book much better but looked like crap, I'd be able to relate a little more.
If there hadn't been a BBC production of the movie already, I would have really thoroughly enjoyed the new movie version of HHGTTG.
If you haven't seen the BBC production of it, go rent it or buy it. It's well worth the 5 hours.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
archangelm
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 49
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | I think the only thing that made the new HHGTTG any good was the fact that they had such a brilliant book to loosely base it on.
If you compare that movie with the 1981 BBC adaptation, which does get a bit dull at times and has TERRIBLE effects, the new one is still a joke in contrast. There are so many things that were not gone into. So many concepts that weren't delved into. Then they had to change the plot entirely by mixing something from an alternate reality from a later book into the main plot of the first. I just thought the BBC production was superb, whether or not it was borderline silly at points.
The movie even left out the part about the scientists that would make these devices that would make people's undergarments jump several feet in one direction, using hyperspace to go through the objects. Then it even left out how the infinite improbability drive was created. There were just too many things left out of that movie.
Sorry, I'm tearing apart things really bad right now. There are some movies I feel really strongly about. A lot of people tore apart I Robot because it didn't match to the book--but I liked it because I hadn't read the book. If they had made a movie previously that represented the book much better but looked like crap, I'd be able to relate a little more.
If there hadn't been a BBC production of the movie already, I would have really thoroughly enjoyed the new movie version of HHGTTG.
If you haven't seen the BBC production of it, go rent it or buy it. It's well worth the 5 hours. |
I agree that the two hour movie left a crapload out, but then they were trying to condense the whole series into a cinema-length feature. So I understood the necessity of the cuts. I too think the BBC adaptation is far superior, as was the BBC adaptation of The Lion, the Witch And the Wardrobe.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| archangelm wrote: |
I agree that the two hour movie left a crapload out, but then they were trying to condense the whole series into a cinema-length feature. So I understood the necessity of the cuts. I too think the BBC adaptation is far superior, as was the BBC adaptation of The Lion, the Witch And the Wardrobe. |
Hmm... I haven't seen that yet. I assume it's as easy to get as HHGTTG.... I'll have to check that out. How long is it? I generally have liked BBC's productions--some of their war programs have been a bit hard to deal with, but I generally don't like war movies--they're a reminder of what's wrong with war, something I don't need any reminding of because I'm already an anti-war kind of guy.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jen
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I could not agree more. I was so bummed. I actually was looking forward to having a mini-series to watch. ( I normally love the damned things.) Not this time. Though I did watch the whole thing, I was highly disappointed all around. 
_________________
" The feeble tremble before opinion, the foolish defy it, the wise judge it, the skillful direct it." Jeanne-Marie Roland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure what's with the Sci-Fi Channel, but they sure have a lot of crappy shows.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
technocrat
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most Sci-Fi Channel originals suck. They probably do them low-budget so they can crank out a lot of the suckers. The sad part is they often cancel good shows because they are too expensive given the viewing base.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
archangelm
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 49
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: | | I'm not sure what's with the Sci-Fi Channel, but they sure have a lot of crappy shows. |
The network sold out and went corporate a long time ago. Hence the decline in quality. It's still a halfway decent vehicle for older shows such as the Twilight Zone and the Outer Limits, but beyond that its original programming tends to suck ass. And when they agreed to host WWE, that was the real killer for me. Now I only watch Sci-Fi Channel for Eureka! and Doctor Who.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I still don't get the whole WWE thing. What the hell does that have to do with Sci-Fi?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
| |
|
