 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 4, 2016 - 9:34 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
But I don't take it personal.
personally.
And I also don't get offended when my grammer is corrected, unlike someone who put me on their ignore list when I made a joke about their punctuation mistake. Believe me, I was on the floor over that one.
Gee, thxs for dragging me into this. I put you on ignore for 15 minutes and got over it. How about you do the same?
I did, I'm kidding you. I love the Solium. I think you make smart comments, and I knew it wouldn't be long before you saw that. So.... what's new? Got anything to say about Buck Rodgers in the 25th Century?
Oh yeah, I just remembered something. You guys want to hear something funny? I'm currently, for one week, banned, yes BANNED from the message boards at Blu-ray.com. Why? Because I had the unmitigated gall to crack a sarcastic joke about the upcoming Blu-ray boxed set release of all the seventies AIRPORT movies (I think there's four of them).
What was my posting? I said only this: "I think this release is great! Great for the C.I.A.
They can put these films on continuous repeat play mode in HD and force captured terrorists to watch them "Clockwork Orange" style. Who needs waterboarding?" And that was it.
Not the greatest joke, but I thought it might amuse somebody in the thread, because I mean come on, those are some awful movies.
Well, you would have thought I'd called the Pope, the Virgin Mary, and Jesus Christ himself all child molesters! To say that some in the thread weren't amused is to put it mildly. So one narced on me to the moderator -- whoever the hell that is -- and I got banned for one week for "trolling." This was last Wednesday.
I was killing time while I waited to go to work and I was just goofing off. Now, say what you will, that the joke was obnoxious or not very funny, but was it directed at anyone? Do I really want to say to these people, "You have terrible taste because you like these movies? What's wrong with you?" No, not at all.
I was just being honest about my opinion of them and doing it, I thought, rather harmlessly by making fun of them (the MOVIES!), because if you go look at what the critics have to say about the Airport movies, it ain't exactly good. Even the 1970 original. Go look it up at Wikipedia and scroll down to the "Critical Response," and you want to know the irony... I already own the first AIRPORT movie on Blu-ray. Yeah, there's things I like about it such as the score, which I also have on CD.
So, am I crestfallen that I'm banned from Blu-ray.com until Wednesday. Hell, no! I couldn't care less. Those people over there are mostly kids, which for me now are people under the age of 35. But I'll bet those that went ape over my joke were "old farts." You know, people who saw the Airport movies when they first came out, and have cherished memories of when Daddy and Mommy took them to it. I just pissed all over their beloved memories. And I made the mistake of thinking at least some could laugh at their affection for what really is pop culture junk. You know, like the "Buck Rodgers in the 25th Century" TV show.
Oh well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 5, 2016 - 12:31 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
Would you believe that I just watched BENEATH this morning? Weeeeeeell, it's true. I was in the mood for it, and because I now consider it kind of a kiddie movie, Saturday morning is a good time to give it a rewatch.
I like a lot of things in it, but the whole just doesn't gel. It needed a better script and a stronger director, but mostly it's an unnecessary sequel. What I don't enjoy about it is that it's not as good as the first film, and I don't think it compliments it and is really a downer. As bleak as the original seems, I don't find it a downer.
The classic original film is complete unto itself.
Off topic I know, but as a huge POTA fan myself, I actually think Beneath is pretty damn great. Sure, it isn't in the same league as Schaffner's movie, and it is massively lacking in many areas - mainly due to budget restrictions - but from a concept point of view, I think it is a fantastic continuation to the first film. Heck, I like it so much I even give it a pass over Nova having Taylor's dog tags!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 5, 2016 - 11:14 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
I think you're quite right in that last sentence there, LC.
What I mean by "camp" is this:
“Camp” n. or “Campy” adj. refers to intentionally exaggerated thematic or genre elements, especially in television and motion picture mediums. “Camp” style willfully over-emphasizes certain elements of the genre or theme, creating an almost self-satirical milieu.
I think BENEATH has a much different sensibility than the original, though in all honesty the first film does have it's "campy" elements in things like the "human see, human do" type puns, and the orangs striking the three wise monkeys pose, which are things I wish weren't in the movie.
But, BENEATH is a much more bizarre film and I just think it needed something more to bring it all together, to "gel" as I said before. I think the movie is literally "half-baked," and that's because they went with a script that could have stood another or maybe several rewrites.
And that's not just my opinion. Listen to what director Ted Post has to say in the featurette on the Blu-ray about the movie. (And I hope everyone here who expresses love for the movie has the Blu-ray!)
I've also read someplace that "camp" can mean "something that aspires to a certain artistic level, but fails to reach that level almost disastrously." BENEATH is in a way the ultimate disaster movie -- the world is destroyed at the end! -- but I also think it's a disaster in the way I care about -- that it should have been a sequel as good as, or even better than, the original. I just don't think it was the sequel that the first movie deserved, and it even spoils the ending to the first movie -- even in one of its trailers! What was up with that?
I wish BENEATH had never been made, and that's been my opinion since July of 1970!
And now here comes the emoji so you know I'm not trying to put anybody else's opinion down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 5, 2016 - 6:38 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Last Child
(Member)
|
RoryR, you must live in the Bizarro version of my world because to me "Beneath" is the best of them to date, and a prove that, like "Aliens", a sequel can be superior to the original.
D.S.
I dunno if I'd say BENEATH is better, just as ALIEN and ALIENS are really from different genres and shouldnt be ranked together.
But back to Rory's opinion, you havent provided any strongly objective reasons why BENEATH is allegedly so bad. And frankly, the original isnt as good as you claim. The script is often embarrassing, and it has alot more Apisms (Ape-ified human aphorisms), and I'm sure there's commentary from the filmmakers involved who had qualms about it. BENEATH isnt any worse, even if you think the mutants are a step too far.
The one statement that does justify your POV is you've hated the film since you saw in 1970, so it's become a personal vendetta of yours. Whether or not you can stand people liking the movie, you're gonna make sure people know it traumatized you back in the day. That's my 5 cent analysis. 
I dont know what you expected in 1970 for a sequel, given the downer ending of the first movie. The Apes living happily ever after? Taylor has a family and starts a revolution? Boring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 5, 2016 - 8:11 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
Ok, first off... everybody don't blame me... He's asking me a question and I feel obligated to answer, but I was tired of posting in this thread earlier today and was ready to watch it sink beneath the planet of the apes, but I come home after many hours and take a look just before getting ready to watch "Game of Thrones" and I find this thread back on top. Oh, my!
Last Child, if you want to debate with me the worth of BENEATH, let's do it in another thread.
I suggest this one:
http://filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=47661&forumID=7&archive=0
Please re-read the thread and all that you'll find argued there, then rewrite your "attack" on me -- you big meanie -- in a new post. I'll debate this with you until Doomsday if you want, but otherwise...
GET STUFFED!
Bringing this back to the topic of this thread, well not really, but it's related.
I remembered while I was out today that "Holy crap!" I bought Buck Rodgers on DVD! I actually bought it myself!
Now before anyone yells at me, like the Scarecrow in The Wizard Of OZ, "YOU HUMBUG!" It's the 70th Anniversary DVD set of the old Buster Crabbe BUCK RODGERS serial.
You see I'm just an old Sci-Fi nerd. What can I say? I now return this thread to the younger nerds that love the old TV series.
Oh, and Disco Stu, you're invited too to join my "Battle Beneath the Planet of the Apes" if Last Child decides to resurrect that old thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where's Roddy McDowall in "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century"? I missed that episode.
. . . as "Governor Saroyan," in the first season episode, "Planet of the Slave Girls."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
