• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Older actors/new sequels

I don't personally like the new Bond.

I was perfectly happy with Pierce Brosnan. Timothy Dalton (was that his name?) I really couldn't stand.

And, I'm sick to death of the Rocy crap already - I mean, seriously.
We gonna end up seeing Sly using a walker in his ring entrance with the entourage?

Enough is enough!


T
 
CP/M User wrote:

Michael Winslow

Strange thing that Michael Winslow was interviewed on a Where are they now programme simply called "Where are they now?" here in Australia! On that he mentioned the possibility of an Eight Police Academy movie!

Again I'm probably the only nut here which enjoys it to the standard it was set out to be in! ;-) Though 6 & 7 are a vague haze to me! :-( The movie I least enjoyed was 3 because it was merely a repeat of 1 - though it had some good moments (which every movie has).

If they were going to do an 8th Installment of Police Academy it would be interesting to see what comes from it, I'd like to see something new in this one given it's being a while since the last one came out (in the early 90s I think it was).
 
Sharkonwheels wrote:

I don't personally like the new Bond.

I was perfectly happy with Pierce Brosnan. Timothy Dalton (was that his name?) I really couldn't stand.

I liked Pierce Brosnan, though I was really turned off Bond films after the World is not Enough cause of what critics made of Die another Day. Now it seems they want to make James Bond a Hollywood character and getting behind the Ian Flemming character. A lot of effort seems to be going into these James Bond films because it's like every couple of years a new film is done, back in the 60s when Sean Connery began it was like Dr. No in 1962, From Russia with Love in 1963, Goldfinger in 1964, Thunderball in 1965. Thunderball isn't quite in the same class as the first 3 films, -BUT- it's still a great film, however Dr. No, From Russia with Love and Goldfinger are your benchmark films, to roll them off as brilliant they after year after year shows how a simple film done in the 60s can be quite effective. Nowadays there's too much emphasis and it's the complicated state of these times which demands complicated films. Sadly though you can have all the special effects and a crap film! :-(

And, I'm sick to death of the Rocy crap already - I mean, seriously.
We gonna end up seeing Sly using a walker in his ring entrance with the entourage?

Yeah I agree, I was never really a Rocky fan, did they make a new Rocky film because Clint Eastwoods film (I've forgotten the name) was heaps better (according to Critics - so I didn't say that)? Personally I don't really enjoy Boxing films it's just not my cup of tea!
 
carlsson wrote:

I don't think anyone seriously would compare Rocky with Million Dollar Baby. It is almost like comparing Star Trek with Apollo XIII.

Yeah, though people will compare anything with anything. The funny thing was I've only seen Apollo 13 once when it was at the Cinema and at when the movie had finished I heard a voice up the back saying this was heaps better than Jurassic Park!

Star Trek 2 - The Wrath of Khan & Apollo 13 are perhaps about as close as you'll get! :-D Both films having nail biting endings, though ST 2 had the Death of Spock! :-o I don't recall Tom Hanks sparing his life to save the ship! :-(
 
carlsson wrote:

Sad smiley? You wish Tom Hanks' (character) had died?

Oops - no, I was frowning because while Apollo 13 & Star Trek 2 have simular outcomes, Apollo 13 didn't (or I don't recall) have anybody dying to save the ship (not that I wanted Tom Hanks dead on arrival!). Of course everyone knows it all worked out just find for Spock! :-D Has any other series of movies ever done that?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps because Apollo 13 was based on a real event, they couldn't spice up the script too much. On the other hand, perhaps Star Trek also is based on real events, only that they will take place a few hundred years into the future so we wouldn't know. :-D
 
carlsson wrote:

Perhaps because Apollo 13 was based on a real event, they couldn't spice up the script too much. On the other hand, perhaps Star Trek also is based on real events, only that they will take place a few hundred years into the future so we wouldn't know. :-D

There was a Space film done in the late 60s which was based on a True Story which managed to throw in the death of one of the three Astronauts - the movie is called Marooned, besides that the rest of the film was pretty dull (from what I last recall) - though I'm interested to see it again because I was pretty young when I saw it and generally wanted Action within a film! :-o While I've always realised Gregory Peck was in that film, Gene Hackman was a surprise!
 
how about shatner and Nimoy comming back for Star Trek XI, this should be interesting to say the least
 
candle86 wrote:

how about shatner and Nimoy comming back for Star Trek XI, this should be interesting to say the least

I've only heard about Nimoy comming back for Star Trek XI, so does that mean that if Shatner is returning it'll be with the remaining gang (minus Doohan & Kelley)?

Will this make Kirk the better Captain Vs. Picard or does 3 Seasons of TV show make it inferior to 7 seasons of TNG! ;-)

CP/M User.
 
the story for Star Trek XI is set after The Undiscovered Country and right before Generations. A klingon goes back in time to prevent Kirk from taking command of the Enterprise, and Kirk and spock pursue him back. They have to stop the Klingon, while not affecting the timeline and ensuring that Kirk's career isnt ended before he can take command.

Young Kirk and Young Spock are being played by two unnamed actors as of yet.
 
I thought "Young Spock" had been confirmed as Zachary Quinto? I know that Chris Pine as Kirk is only a rumor at this point, but I thought the others were actually confirmed...
 
hmm, well it does seem a few more where signed on since i last checked and my news letter hasnt been updated with this info on the movie, stupid ST.com.

Simon Penn looks nothing Like Scotty.
 
candle86 wrote:

the story for Star Trek XI is set after The Undiscovered Country and right before Generations. A klingon goes back in time to prevent Kirk from taking command of the Enterprise, and Kirk and spock pursue him back. They have to stop the Klingon, while not affecting the timeline and ensuring that Kirk's career isnt ended before he can take command.

From the sounds of things, it seems a bit of a pity to make it a Klingon to go back into the past, rather than a Romulan or one of the Alien species featured in the TV show or perhaps Garry Seven which had the means of Time Travel (still I spose it's possible to do it in one of those Klingon flea traps as featured in ST IV!). I just thought Star Trek VI wrapped everything up into a neat little package, though I reserve my judgement til I see the movie. Just hope it doesn't end up as another Terminator 3 - which I felt T2 seemed to wrap up and now looks it'll move on into another movie.

CP/M User.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top