Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
Youd be surprised at the lines DC will cross. There was an entire DC comics brand story arc around Sue Digby, elastic mans wife getting raped by Dr. Light (or something like that), trial fallout all that stuff. I think it was some time around Heroes in Crisis. I will say DC got a ton of flack for its handling of the storyline. I thought about looking it up to find how lawyers were involved but it was such a cringey storyline I don't really want to.Personally I'd rather not see a case about magical body snatching + sexual assault for lulz? I mean I get your point, but there are some topics I wish they'd not bother with. And instead do things like debate Maritime Laws with Aquaman regarding Atlantis and such.
As to the DC lawyer question, I think, given how often DC characters don't have double lives, at least on average as often as Marvel, they don't let them have mundane jobs? I mean several of them are literally mythic beings from other planets. You'd probably have to go to the supporting cast/sidekicks to find anyone with legal background.
I guess I should have said harvey dent or birdman defending wonderwoman in a vacuum would be funny. If they did do this subject eeh idk. It would be real touchy. Hence adult swim.
Tom Hanks still considers the cooking scene among his best work. To this day, I can't use Paprika without thinking, "you've made me the happiest spice in the world".
Documentary on Amazon Prime, "Val" regarding Val Kilmer. Lots of old personal video recounting the life of an actor that some expected to get as big as they can. He did fine I think. Good body of work. But we are reminded in it, no matter how awesome one is in their prime, we are all mortal.
Oh I don't doubt comics will do issues with horrible things in them, just look at the Carol Danvers story with that guy who mind controlled her into birthing his son/self in their dimension to escape prison, and how everyone was just fine with it in-universe. My point is I'd rather not see a comedy show like Birdman, do that type of story for laughs.
Right - but let's take a scenario where WW is with some guy she knows called Bob, wishes for Steve back, and Steve occupies Bob's body and says to WW "Hi honey, I'm home, I've just borrowed this body!" and they get to it under the covers. Well, that's arguably rape.
Scenario 2, WW wishes for Steve to come back, and Steve takes over the body of some guy WW has never seen, then finds her and says "Hi honey, I've been brought back and I fancy some luurve" and they make the beast with two backs. In this scenario, she is unaware and has no particularly good reason to think she's shagging stolen property. So, not rape.
I've not seen the film, so I don't know which scenario it is.
Seen it. Scenario 1. But once she realizes Steve ins in that body, she does see it as Steve... but knows it is actually another man (They even go to his apartment to see what taste he has in clothes). I think it is partially a homage to a great 1980s show, "Quantum Leap" where a guy's brain time travels and spends an episode in an other's body until he can solve a moral dilemma for that person and then jump to a new body next episode. He would have the limitations/aspects of that person too. Even had a baby while occupying a mom about to give birth in one episode.
So, Dianna struggles with the problem thinking, "I' keep saving the world... don't I deserve this one dispensation?"... er... using a stranger's body.
EDIT:
Technically Quantum Leap was actually Sam's body every time, he just looked like the person he was in the place of to everyone else. He didn't body snatch, he did a complete swap. The other person would be in a holding room in the distant future of 1999, and everyone would see them as Sam.
They would sometimes play with that a bit, like when he was giving birth, and the baby swapped to Sam for like a split second before he actually leaped, or when he was in the body of a person with down syndrome...or some other mental disability, they made a point to mention he was having mental issues as well. I think the logic was "some of the subject's neurons didn't leap, so you have some down syndrome in you, so you will have some performance issues. Or when he was in Lee Harvey Oswald's place, he kept having memories of Lee's, and sometimes Lee would take control for short periods. But, aside from the times they intentionally played with the established rules, it was always Sam in his OWN body, but with an illusion in place so as not to freak out the others around him.
I'd still say it was rape, though in the second scenario you could argue it was accidental? I mean we're talking about hypotheticals that have ZERO chance of happening in the real world currently, so there is no law that can really fit all of these insane scenarios into them from comics. Bottom line, however you slice it, the dude who was body snatched lost all control and agency over his actions. We consider anyone who has sex with someone just for being drunk and thus not in control of their own actions, as engaging in rape, but in that scenario the person is still THEM. They can even give drunken consent, though legally we disregard that as an informed choice. I don't see how this is any different. But, I think we've debated the sexual legalities of a middling movie long enough in a thread not specifically about that subject?
Bottom line, they should've just let him come back in a magical new body of his own, as the stone can clearly create matter from nothing, and be done with it. Removes all moral quandaries, and still lets them get nekked and smexy together. Again, as I understand it, it's partly a result of the frankenstein's monster hatchet job done to the script, where they tried to salvage some footage from opposing plot lines, and then changed course, so it's just some really iffy shit that is an unfortunate outcome of editing and rewrites. But, still ,the fact that it ever got that far without someone being like "...hey wait a second..." is a bit bizarre.
Yikes. Appears the theory is contentious but you are probably more right than I am:
Answers to Common Questions about Quantum Leap Pt 7
Essays answering 42 commonly asked questions about Quantum Leap, both factual and theoretical, written by Karen Funk Blocher et al
mavarin.com
I recall him being an old man and he can't do a karate kick cuz, he's in the body of an old man.
" Hey, who ever said that Don Bellisario, or Quantum Leap itself, always made sense? That's what makes explaining it all so much fun! "
Ah, okay. I'm taking this at the level of responsibility: did WW rape the man? If you couldn't have reasonably known you were committing a crime, you shouldn't be held accountable. So take a second-hand store owner that knowingly accepts stolen goods and sells them on to the oblivious general public: the store owner is culpable, his customers are not. So she did not.
However, you could look at the reverse and say was the man raped - i.e. forced to have sex without his permission - and you could conclude yes.
Although even then, I am not convinced. There is a key issue here - who's body is it? If Steve is in it, is it not then Steve's body? I'm aware (hence the stolen property analogy, above) that fundamentally taking someone's body off them is an injustice. But if Steve can make the man raped by having sex, then if he falls and breaks the body's arm, he has committed grievous bodily harm to the other dude. If he drinks too much beer, he's killed brain cells and let to a small amount of brain deterioration. The logical implication of this is that Steve cannot exercise any freedom, due to liability for harm to the body. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is to deny Steve normal human freedoms in order to protect the body that he is in. However, Steve is himself a person entitled to basic human rights and freedoms, and it would be an abuse of them to deny him normal rights and freedoms: particularly as his occupation of that body is not by his choice. So he has to be treated as the de facto legitimate owner.
As an analogy here, imagine a mad scientist kidnaps someone, takes that person's brain out of their body and replaces it with his dead lover's (and it works, because mad scientist genius). In the long run, irrespective of which person originally had that body, we just have to accept who has it now, and treat them as the person rather than the previous inhabitant. If that lover-in-another's-body were to commit a crime, they could not get out of jail on the grounds it would be unfair to the previous occupant's body.
Watched Star Trek (the reboot) with the family. It's everything that its detractors say it is: cliched, written purely to get from one action set piece to another, and has some really weird treatment of beloved female characters. And yet, I really enjoy this movie. I think the casting is Goddamn perfect. I'm not a Trekkie by any means, but each character was exactly what I expected them to be. The movie has great visual and audio effects, especially for a movie from 2009. It genuinely looks better than the Star Wars sequel trilogy, the same way that Iron Man is still pretty much the best the suit has looked even after a decade.
Was really sad to see the guy who played Chekov. What a terrible way to go out. He played his role perfectly, the third movie lost a lot without him.
I really wouldn't mind a fourth movie, but I doubt we'll see that happening. Even if it is slated for 2023. Probably gonna watch Into Darkness and Beyond (?) tomorrow, we all enjoyed it that much. Chris Pine has so much charisma, how he hasn't made more acclaimed movies is beyond me.
Was really sad to see the guy who played Chekov. What a terrible way to go out. He played his role perfectly, the third movie lost a lot without him.
I really wouldn't mind a fourth movie, but I doubt we'll see that happening. Even if it is slated for 2023. Probably gonna watch Into Darkness and Beyond (?) tomorrow, we all enjoyed it that much. Chris Pine has so much charisma, how he hasn't made more acclaimed movies is beyond me.
I remember Movie Bob and hardcore Trekkies hating the shit out of these movies; especially the first one. They all sold great regardless, so it really gets their panties in a bunch. I know HISHE love the reboot trilogy though. I am not a hardcore Trek fan either. I vaguely saw the first two movies, and though they were fine. JJ's lens flare effect was still a problem in the first film, but thankfully toned down a lot in the rest. Then again, I don't think he worked on the sequels.
These movies had a weird affect on me. I'm Trek down to my marrow but I was a Picard rather than Kirk fan so I figured these movies could give me a Kirk I could jive with. And the first trailer for the movie was genuinely well put together and had amazing music (Freedom Fighters by Two Steps from Hell) so I was onboard. Went and saw it with my wife. And I remember very clearly walking out of the cinema at the end and stating to my wife "I will never watch that movie again". Into Darkness was the same. So I just didn't bother with Beyond. But what's weird is I can never truly figure out why the movies didn't resonate. I mean outside of First Contact, Star Trek has never looked as good on screen as it did in the first two of these. The cast was almost genetically engineered to be perfect for who they were portraying (though I did not like Kirk's new backstory) and they give it their all. It no less short on Trek's patented technobabble bullshit than any of the other shows or films.
I mean I fault no one for liking these; there is a great deal to like. I just......I just can't.
Anyway I watched 'Romeo Must Die'. I give it 7/10. Docking points because early 2000s CGI fire does not age well, the skeleton shots showing broken bones are very out of place and lame, and even for Jet Li some of these stunts look absurd.
But other than that, fun way to spend two hours.
It was this film and Lethal Weapon 4 that made me a Jet Li fan and seek out his other movies. A 7 out of 10 is very accurate, but I still have a soft spot for this movie. I do miss Aaliyah so much.
Last edited:
As a representative of toxic trekkie fandom I would disagree on the first part (not Bob he's weird and pretentious). I do not outright hate the first reboot film. It's fine, or ok maybe, I really liked Eric Bana's villain. I think at least his anger was believable. I think the complaint is mainly around fandom being worn out on the action centric Star Trek films, after Star Trek VI it was kind of a slow roll downhill of each film feeling more and more uninspired. The crew fights some generic bad guy /end. The second film however was a super misfire. I really hated Into Darkness. It's almost of nonsensical Michael Bay version of Star Trek. Most of it makes no sense whatsoever. Third one is cool, but not quite what I think trekkies are looking for. It was still bad guy centric. We just want to see more exploration of the unknown or interesting moral conflicts. When you think about the film's in context most of them were about exploration, morality, faith, conservation, racism and xenophobia. I even thought the moral conflict in generations was kind of neat because it touched on acceptance of aging and death. Everything after VII has arguably just been pew pew splosions.
That's another reason I've hated the last two Star Trek shows they just seem all about pew pew action and no substance. It's just a waste of the IP.
I feel Hollywood is just emulating wrath of Khan over and over.
I enjoyed the first Trek reboot a lot when it first came out. But then something really strange happened for me. Due to the cluster of people in my life, and how many of them were fans of Trek, I ended up seeing that film like...at least 3, if not 4 times in the theater, in about 2 weeks. And I noticed it started to lose it's shine for me in a lot of ways. The plot started to grate on my nerves in a lot of nitpicky ways, and I couldn't get past the fact that it was pretty much exactly the plot of Wrath of Khan (which made the 2nd film trying to do the Khan angle really annoying for me, as they already did that film in the reboot). It started to drag, felt a bit longer than it should've been. There were individual scenes that I enjoyed, like the whole "let's sneak Kirk onto the ship via drug reactions, slapstick that was genuinely amusing to me, and still is." To the way they established the new Spock, and how much I fucking LOVE him as Spock. I felt he did a fantastic job in that first film, to convey how Spock still struggled with his emotions, and he did it so subtly. Like the expressions he gives the council when they talk smack about his mother, and the way he tries to make sure she knows that him taking the Vulcan training wasn't a slight against his mother, because he loves her, and he was afraid she would see it as refutation of his human side. That scene with him and Wynona Rider was genuinely touching to me. It felt really heartfelt, that this woman, who KNOWS how Vulcans are, is still being all motherly and affectionate to her son on his Big Day at School. Just, so well done. I thought his relationship with Uhura was good, and felt genuine. But the rest of the framework of the film started to fall flat for me. I can't say I'd watch it from start to finish ever again, at least not voluntarily, but if it was on in the background, I would still stop what I was doing to watch the handful of scenes that I feel are just quality cinema.
I will never forgive it for not using the RUSH song Red Barchetta during that scene at the beginning with Kirk driving a red car for the sheer sake of defiance, against flying cops. Anyone who knows that song should know my pain at a lost moment there.
Yes, very much this. That fucking trailer was epic as shit. I was super hyped from that song. I loved that song so much in fact, I actively sought out Two Steps for the first time, to hear more of their stuff. I'd never heard of them before by name anyway.
I loved the spin they put on the classic Romeo/Juliet tale with Romeo Must Die. How the two lovers are the only ones to SURVIVE the war between the families, BECAUSE of their love for each other. Plus it had some Crystal Method's Keep Hope Alive in the soundtrack, and I loved the hell out of them back then.
Funny you say that, as the plot beats for the 2009 are a straight rip of Wrath of Khan, beat for beat.
I just watched Murder on the Orient Express.
I have read the novel it is based on, and truth be told I had no idea how they would be able to fit all that much novel into one film. Other novels are more rewarding to adapt since you might find the underlying theme/emotion that carries the reader through the novel and let that guide what to cut and what to keep. Murder on the Orient Express, however, are one of those Whodunnit novels, i.e. one of the ones where the main character is allowed to be brilliant but not have much emotional depth because it is all the details that the reader is supposed to pay attention to to look for clues and potentially solve it before the protagonist. And Murder on the Orient Express is a whodunnit that introduces a whole train carriage of potential murderers, all of whom needs to be introduced to the viewer and interviewed by our hero to see what they're like and allow them to lie on screen so the viewer can feel clever if they managed to pick up on it, provided they are someone that has something to hide.
Having now seen it it seems the director agrees with me: it is not possible to fit that much novel on the screen. So instead of having extended scenes with interviews to let the viewer watch someone slip up they opted to have brief scenes with interviews where Poirot eventually says a few scenes later that "What you said earlier was a lie, I could tell because [brief tangent on details the viewer either didn't know or was so hidden that a viewer could not possibly have caught up on them]".
This disappointed but did not surprise me. Whodunnits are best suited within the pages of a novel (or possibly in video-game form), where the reader can pause for a moment and think for themselves without the novel continuing to be read while they aren't paying attention, while motion pictures try to be cinematic.
These choices meant I briefly thought the movie would end with it turning out that Poirot himself was the true culprit, since he was able to reach conclusions that based on the provided evidence on screen didn't feel warranted; if he did it then it would make sense that he would try to deflect blame.
So how well does the movie hold up if you accept that the whodunnit-aspect is out the window? Honestly, I thought there was too many details to keep track of and too many characters. And despite an attempt to make Poirot OCD-afflicted* and therefore more interesting by the time the titular murder has occurred this character detail no longer pops up.
*possibly not the right diagnosis.
I have read the novel it is based on, and truth be told I had no idea how they would be able to fit all that much novel into one film. Other novels are more rewarding to adapt since you might find the underlying theme/emotion that carries the reader through the novel and let that guide what to cut and what to keep. Murder on the Orient Express, however, are one of those Whodunnit novels, i.e. one of the ones where the main character is allowed to be brilliant but not have much emotional depth because it is all the details that the reader is supposed to pay attention to to look for clues and potentially solve it before the protagonist. And Murder on the Orient Express is a whodunnit that introduces a whole train carriage of potential murderers, all of whom needs to be introduced to the viewer and interviewed by our hero to see what they're like and allow them to lie on screen so the viewer can feel clever if they managed to pick up on it, provided they are someone that has something to hide.
Having now seen it it seems the director agrees with me: it is not possible to fit that much novel on the screen. So instead of having extended scenes with interviews to let the viewer watch someone slip up they opted to have brief scenes with interviews where Poirot eventually says a few scenes later that "What you said earlier was a lie, I could tell because [brief tangent on details the viewer either didn't know or was so hidden that a viewer could not possibly have caught up on them]".
This disappointed but did not surprise me. Whodunnits are best suited within the pages of a novel (or possibly in video-game form), where the reader can pause for a moment and think for themselves without the novel continuing to be read while they aren't paying attention, while motion pictures try to be cinematic.
These choices meant I briefly thought the movie would end with it turning out that Poirot himself was the true culprit, since he was able to reach conclusions that based on the provided evidence on screen didn't feel warranted; if he did it then it would make sense that he would try to deflect blame.
So how well does the movie hold up if you accept that the whodunnit-aspect is out the window? Honestly, I thought there was too many details to keep track of and too many characters. And despite an attempt to make Poirot OCD-afflicted* and therefore more interesting by the time the titular murder has occurred this character detail no longer pops up.
*possibly not the right diagnosis.
Last edited:
For comparison, you should watch the David Suchet version. That man played Poirot for 25 years and as far as I know aside from some of the short stories, they adapted all the novels.
My parting thought on the recent adaptation was " ok, I guess so.". It wasn't like a big reveal where I felt like there were legitimate things I should have caught if I'd watched closer. It felt kinda hallow, but as you said it was played less like a usual suspects, who done it, it was mostly just character build up so you'd also feel bad? For the actual culprits. It's been a while I think that was the big revelation. Idk. The movie did not leave any lasting impressions on me. Entertaining though I suppose.
