MovieChat Forums > Erting > Replies
Erting's Replies
(Spoilers) No, he's not their son. In the scene where Ant shows Agnes the album book, the last photo showed Ant with his real family. Also, the note he passed to Agnes was written in Danish, a further indication that he was not their real son but was from Denmark and had Danish parents.
I know you're being sarcastic, but that's no comparison. You're talking about a specific object in a movie. I'm referring to entire storytelling structures clearly patterned after other TV series that were massively popular at the time or just a few years prior.
I didn't mention anything about whether they knew the raptors could get into the bunker. I specifically said they didn't know if the raptors would follow them and wait them out.
That's not my argument. What I'm saying is that he had greater box office success and consistent quality movies in the 90s than he did in the 80s and for that reason, the 90s was his best decade. The poster listed five movies of his from the 80s, two of which I agree are absolute classics (The Thing and Big Trouble in Little China). But Kurt also appeared or starred in a lot of forgettable or mediocre movies in the 80s. Movies like Winter People, The Mean Season, Swing Shift, The Best of Times, and Tequila Sunrise made no impression on either the critics or audiences and are just pretty much forgotten about these days. And as much as I love The Thing and Big Trouble in Little China, they both flopped at the box office.
Taking into account a combination of quality, acclaim, and box office success, I would say the 90s tops the 80s for Kurt.
I think Top Gun: Maverick is proof that if you make a great, critically-acclaimed crowd-pleasing blockbuster that respects its iconic lead character from an 80s movie, audiences will come out in droves for the movie.
Just a little over a year ago, I never would have guessed that a Top Gun sequel would outgross the latest Indiana Jones movie, but yet it's looking like that will be the case. I'm not even sure Dial of Destiny will gross half of Maverick.
I also loved Christopher Pike's books. I think I read over 90% of his stuff. I was pretty disappointed by this series. Trying to fit in some of his other novels as anthology short stories did ill service to some of his best books, especially See You Later. They deserved a full length treatment.
Two reasons I can think of not to do that. The first is that Alan and the kids were still out there and the remaining survivors didn't know where they were. Ellie and Muldoon would be exposing Grant and the kids more to the raptors the longer they waited to get to the breakers.
The second reason is that there's no way of knowing the raptors wouldn't just follow Ellie and Muldoon's tracks back to the bunker and wait them out.
But of course, we know that waiting them out wouldn't have worked anyway since the kids were at the Visitors Center.
I've read that seasons 2 and 3 were filmed back-to-back and that season 3 was already done filming when season 2 premiered. Given this fact, it would not shock me that season 2 turned out the way it did because Paramount gave the showrunners two seasons worth of a budget to work with and the showrunners decided they wanted to spend most of it on season 3 and that's why season 2 was a 21st century time travel story, to save on costs.
Pretty much every American/European Jet Li movie.
Good choices. My own personal choice would be to score it like James Horner's music from Krull, my favorite 1980s fantasy score. Anything other than what we got in this film!
Season 3 had five episodes with an IMDB rating of 9.0 or higher. I don't think any previous single season of Star Trek had more than two episodes with a 9.0 or more, and most those were in 20 to 26 episode seasons. Hell, not even The Expanse, the best sci-fi show of the last 15 years, had a season with that many 9.0 or higher rated episodes.
Take into account that season 2 of Picard had seven episodes rated below a 7.0 and I wonder if this is the highest jump in average IMDB rating in consecutive TV seasons ever.
If voters were allowed to give a rating for each individual season of TV on IMDB, my guess is this is how each individual season of Picard would fare:
Season 1 - 7.6
Season 2 - 6.5
Season 3 - 9.0
It was a fantastic season with one of the strongest Trek finales (though still not quite as good as All Good Things). I want some time to settle in and maybe a rewatch, but I thought Picard season 3 was in strong contention for the best single season of Star Trek ever.
I agree with this assessment. I also started watching TNG when it first aired and really enjoyed it, and I also recognize as pretty much all fans nowadays do that season 3 through 7 were vastly superior to 1 and 2. The first two seasons were definitely weaker in comparison, but I think a lot of people forget the context of what sci-fi on TV in the 1980s was like back then.
Prior to TNG, the two most prominent sci-fi shows in the previous ten years were Battlestar Galactica and V. Seasons 1 and 2 of TNG were far superior to both those shows, and those were the two that were considered relatively successful even though they were both canceled after one season! TNG seasons 1 and 2 were literally the pinnacle of sci-fi television in the 80s.
To me, one of the most endearing aspects of TNG is that you get to see it go from charming, occasionally very cheesy 1980s sci-fi in the first two seasons to some of the most dramatically powerful and thought-provoking sci-fi ever made in the 90s for its last five seasons. It's a fascinating evolution, and it just makes me love the series that much more.
I always thought it was disappointing that the movie's, nay the entire franchise's, best action setpiece was the very opening sequence that focused on a rebellion that had nothing to do with the rest of the series.
I love Star Trek Into Darkness but I really think that it would have been wiser to have made Benedict Cumberbatch one of Khan's men, perhaps even Joachim.
It's awesome how much Jurassic Park's reputation has grown over the decades. I remember when it first came out, it seemed to live in the shadow of Jaws, with a lot of critics saying it was very good but not up to par with the 1975 Spielberg classic. Audiences seemed to agree, too, as back in the late 90s, memory serves the film had an IMDB rating of around 7.2 (I distinctly remember being surprised that Scream actually had a higher IMDB rating at the time) while Jaws was around 8.3.
Now it's considered a bona fide classic and one of the ultimate summer blockbusters, and it seems to rank higher among moviegoers now on Spielberg's filmography than Jaws.
I really think that if she attempted to kill herself in the middle of nowhere with no witnesses, the entity would have taken possession of her before she could do it and then and forced her to go out into public and kill herself in front of someone, so I don't think the pattern was going to break one way or the other.
I am a huge fan of Shrek 2, one of my favorite animated movies ever, and I think Puss in Boots: The Last Wish edges it out and is overall the better movie. Shrek 2 is funnier, for sure (it's probably the funniest animated movie of all time), but Puss in Boots: The Last Wish is more dazzling, imaginative, thrilling, and emotional. There's a real sense of adventure, awe, and wonder in the film and it boasts themes that are surprisingly mature and introspective. For me, it takes Shrek 2's spot as the best of Dreamworks Animation.
I like David Harbour, but this role should have gone to either Mel Gibson or Kurt Russell, both of whom played Santa Claus in lesser movies.
It's hard for me to believe most people here have Zemeckis at fourth place. While Zemeckis has fallen on hard times recently (I've only liked two of his movies since the year 2000) I'd pretty easily take Zemeckis' top 5 over Scott's and Cameron's top 5, and that's not even meant as a slight on those two who have made some incredible movies. For a 15-year stretch from 1985 to 2000, I thought Zemeckis was the second best director in Hollywood behind only Spielberg.