Star Trek Premiere Gets Standing Ovation, Surprise Showing In Austin 437
MrKaos writes "Proving that science fiction can still be great entertainment, J.J. Abrams appears to have impressed Star Trek fans at the official world premiere of Star Trek, who gave the film a five-minute standing ovation at the Sydney Opera House in Australia today. Meanwhile, mere hours beforehand, flummoxed fans at the Alamo Drafthouse theater in Austin, TX, deceived into thinking they were seeing a special, extended version of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, were pleasantly surprised when a disguised Leonard Nimoy greeted them and announced they would be seeing the new film in its entirety. ILM's influence on the film is reported as visually stunning, and lucky Australian fans are scheduled to see the movie first, as it opens a day before the American release."
I hope it's better than Nemesis..... (Score:5, Funny)
.... I'd hate to see this guy [stardestroyer.net] have to do another plot synopsis ;)
Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... (Score:5, Insightful)
This post is a better movie than Nemesis.
Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... (Score:5, Funny)
"If your shirt be red, soon ye'll be dead."
Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... (Score:5, Funny)
Kirk: The away team will consist of Spock, Bones, myself and Ensign Smith.
Ensign Smith: Fuck
Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... (Score:5, Insightful)
"shields down to whatever percent"
Out of curiosity, what is wrong with that?
I've always viewed it as a measurement of intensity that is rebuilt over time. Since we aren't dealing with something as simple as magnetic fields (which would be amazing if projected to something the size of the enterprise).
I don't know exactly as I'm not really that into ST. But what's wrong with the % measurement?
Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... (Score:5, Funny)
It is amazing what a good actor can do with a single word.
To this day, William Shatner's reading of "Shields!" still sends a little chill down my spine.
Ham may he have been- he could load a word with such conviction and emotion that you believed it down to your soul.
Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... (Score:5, Funny)
It is amazing what a good actor can do with a single word.
Or sentence for that matter. I think my favorite acting moment from Star Trek was Patrick Stewart screaming "THERE.... ARE..... FOUR.... LIGHTS"
Ham may he have been- he could load a word with such conviction and emotion that you believed it down to your soul.
Denny Crane!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I prefer to call it "Star Trek: Nematode"
Somehow, it just feels right.
Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... (Score:5, Funny)
Have they broken the ST curse?
Yes, the even numbered ones suck now too ;) Oh wait, that's not what you meant.... n/m
Wait...what? (Score:5, Insightful)
When was this something that needed to be proven? I've found plenty of entertaining science fiction around. Did I miss the elitist newsletter that told us all we had to say science fiction was crap now?
Jeez, miss one meeting...
Re:Wait...what? (Score:5, Funny)
Did I miss the elitist newsletter that told us all we had to say science fiction was crap now?
No, you just didn't see Transformers.
Re:Wait...what? (Score:5, Funny)
No, you just didn't see Transformers.
What? Are you mad? Two words: Morgan Fox.
+5 insightful.
Re:Wait...what? (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot Freudian Slip Of The Day (Score:5, Funny)
Every time he thinks about Megan Fox, he thinks about his organ.
Re:Wait...what? (Score:5, Funny)
Not to be confused with Megan Freeman.
Re:Wait...what? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh God, now I'm confused, I just imagined this Megan Fox/Morgan Freeman hybrid narrating The Shawshank Transformers:
"I wish I could tell you that Optimus Prime fought the good fight, and the Decepticons let him be. I wish I could tell you that - but earth is no fairy-tale world. He never said who did it, but we all knew. Things went on like that for awhile - earth life consists of routine, and then more routine. Every so often, Optimus Prime would show up with fresh bruises. The Decepticons kept at him - sometimes he was able to fight 'em off, sometimes not. And that's how it went for Optimus - that was his routine. I do believe those first two years were the worst for him, and I also believe that if things had gone on that way, this place would have got the best of him."
Re:Wait...what? (Score:5, Funny)
Transformers was awesome.
Pure action excitement. I can't wait to see it yet again.~
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wait...what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait...what? (Score:4, Funny)
Jeez, miss one meeting...
Speaking of which, your dues are not current. Please remit $263.81 as soon as possible. We also voted you "Most likely to annoy others at the theater by leaving to go to the bathroom during a pivotal scene".
Congrats, I understand this is the 4th straight year you've won the award. ;P
Re:Wait...what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait...what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've found plenty of entertaining science fiction around. Did I miss the elitist newsletter that told us all we had to say science fiction was crap now?
Hell, did I lose the memo that said that crap scifi (or is it syfy?) can't be entertaining?
Re:Wait...what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what he meant was "Proving that science fiction can still be great pop-culture entertainment".
There's a big difference between what a sci-fi fan finds entertaining (speculation about future technology and society, viewing the problems of today through the lens of fantasy) and what the average guy on the street finds entertaining (I'm going to resist the temptation to lampoon the average guy's tastes).
Don't believe me? Look at the most popular 'sci-fi' movies in history (truly popular, not just cult classics) and think about whether or not they are really science-fiction the way you think about it. Pop-culture sci-fi uses the futuristic/technology aspects as plot devices to make a fantasy story work. What makes the new Star Trek movie interesting is that it seems to be both science-fiction as well as pop-culture science-fiction at the same time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly! Most of the Science Fiction Entertainment I get is from Sci Fi Books. I grew up reading Clarke (read 2001 when I was 9). I just read through all of Alastair Reynolds 'Revelation Space' series, I thought 'Marrow' Robert Reed was great, I've consumed most of Bear's writings. I've got boxes of Science Fiction books downstairs that I've read but haven't got around to getting
Re:Wait...what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't believe me? Look at the most popular 'sci-fi' movies in history (truly popular, not just cult classics) and think about whether or not they are really science-fiction the way you think about it. Pop-culture sci-fi uses the futuristic/technology aspects as plot devices to make a fantasy story work. What makes the new Star Trek movie interesting is that it seems to be both science-fiction as well as pop-culture science-fiction at the same time.
I've always thought that Star Trek was science fiction, while Star Wars was space opera. Star Trek usually explored some science fiction concept in each episode. You might say the ideas were crap (they sometimes were), but each episode introduced a new idea, explored it, etc.
On the other hand, you could take Star Wars and redo it as a Western without any loss of story. The space setting is merely a style. Same thing is pretty much true for Battlestar Galactica - the story is great, but it's not really science fiction in the sense of exploring new ideas. You could retell either BSG or Star Wars as Westerns or Fantasy or sword and sandals, etc.
That's not to say that Star Wars or BSG are bad, just that they are space opera - stories with the trappings of space - not science fiction. On the other hand, there are plenty of movies that are not set in space that are science fiction.
Re:Wait...what? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I agree with the analysis of Star Trek v. Star Wars, I'd argue BSG touches a lot of 'true sci-fi' topics, particularly the lines between machine and sentience, and the dangers associated with creating more and more intelligent machines.
Also I'd say its more than just a space opera because it explores the practical implications of multi-world society, and seems much more realistic than Star Wars in terms of social commentary and realism... although I realize that doesn't necessarily push it more into sci-fi rather than just being generally more substantial.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
refunds (Score:5, Funny)
It was free (Score:4, Interesting)
Well actually it was a free screening. I got there too late and was turned away because the theater was full. It would've been cool to see Nimoy. I say I would have walked out since I really wanted to see Khan, but honestly I'm sure the atomosphere was totally electric after Nimoy came out. I think all the good reviews coming out from that are more than likely colored by that fact. I'm sure I would have been caught up in it too even though I could give a crap about seeing the new one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hang on, you say that you could give a crap about seeing the new film?
Well I certainly wouldn't want to sit in your seat during the next session then!
Standing ovation -- bah (Score:5, Insightful)
First screening impressions sometimes don't mean anything.
I would like to piggy-back on your comment suggesting early reviews were coloured by the excitement (which is probably bang-on) and point out that in the theatre where I watched the first screening of Star Wars: Episode I, there was a standing ovation after the movie was over.
Later I realized there was a standing ovation BECAUSE the movie was over.
Re:Standing ovation -- bah (Score:4, Funny)
in the theatre where I watched the first screening of Star Wars: Episode I, there was a standing ovation after the movie was over. Later I realized there was a standing ovation BECAUSE the movie was over.
Meesa saw same thing!
Better than a refund, and maybe not planned (Score:5, Informative)
Those guys in Austin should demand a refund! They paid for a ticket for The Wrath of Khan, but that's not what they got. If it were me I'd be raising hell.
The story I heard via word of mouth was that they were actually going to play Wrath of Khan, with ten minutes of sneak-preview footage from the movie that hadn't been seen before as a bonus. However shortly after Wrath started playing, the old and damaged film caught fire and was destroyed. Then Nimoy revealed himself, and instead of showing the 10 minute teaser, they showed the whole film.
linky [originalalamo.com] I found on a Drafthouse blog, btw.
I can't imagine (though I guess it's possible) even Spock himself would dare show the full movie without authorization. So that may have been planned. The destruction of a print of Wrath... probably wasn't.
The last time I had a film burn up (actually it was the projector bulb that exploded, side effect was the print was destroyed) all I got was a lousy refund. Getting to watch a world premiere of a movie I'd probably be interested in, rather than having my night out ruined, is way way better than a refund.
I seriously fucking wish I had been there and I may have been but I didn't even know they were running Wrath. Why do I not check the Drafthouse web page more often?!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would they have had the entire film print there, just in case? It doesn't make sense...
Because the movie was about to be released for-reals, so they'd need to be given a print?
But you're right, I'm thinking it was planned, except that doesn't explain the film melting which the blog says the owner was surprised and upset over, or having the writers for Khan there who started an impromptu Q&A session between when the film melted and Nimoy showed up. So either this was all theatrics (certainly possible at the Alamo) with some rough execution (also possible ;), or the only intended surprise was Nimoy's visit but the owner managed to work something out.
Either way, it sounds pretty cool to me. :)
Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned (Score:5, Interesting)
It must of been planned. What better way to ensure you have a group of hard core Trek fans there than by say 'it's an extended Wrath of Khan'. The burn up must of been staged and Abrams was testing the film on the hardcore fans to gauge the reaction. Got to give it to him on knowing his market.
Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned (Score:4, Informative)
Paramount created about six minutes of brand-new Khan film that included a simulated melt/burn. This was what they played. It was all part of the show.
There had to be a reason to stop Khan and then have "dead time" to fill while the projectionist loaded the movie they intended to premiere.
Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned (Score:4, Informative)
Because the movie was about to be released for-reals, so they'd need to be given a print?
But you're right, I'm thinking it was planned, except that doesn't explain the film melting which the blog says the owner was surprised and upset over, or having the writers for Khan there who started an impromptu Q&A session between when the film melted and Nimoy showed up. So either this was all theatrics (certainly possible at the Alamo) with some rough execution (also possible ;), or the only intended surprise was Nimoy's visit but the owner managed to work something out.
Either way, it sounds pretty cool to me. :)
The problem is, the movie isnt due for release for another month - there is no reason at all for a cinema which is not doing one of the premier screenings around the world to have a full copy of the show on site a full month ahead of its release, that would be a security risk.
I don't think there can be any doubt that this was planned well ahead of schedule.
Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned (Score:5, Insightful)
"I can't imagine (though I guess it's possible) even Spock himself would dare show the full movie without authorization. So that may have been planned. The destruction of a print of Wrath... probably wasn't."
Oh, come on. What are the statistical chances of Nimoy being present when any film, let alone a Star Trek film, let alone on the day before release of a new Star Trek film, bursts into flames in the projector and they happen to have the whole new film ready to go rather than only 10 minutes of it? The odds against must be astronomical. (We'll call it the "Nimoy paradox")
It was a dramatic setup. I like it, actually. It's funny (reminds me of a trick Monty Python used to use). But the whole thing was almost certainly staged.
Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned (Score:5, Informative)
On what planet is April 7th a day before May 8th [imdb.com]?
Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned (Score:5, Funny)
The story I heard via word of mouth was that they were actually going to play Wrath of Khan, with ten minutes of sneak-preview footage from the movie that hadn't been seen before as a bonus. However shortly after Wrath started playing, the old and damaged film caught fire and was destroyed. Then Nimoy revealed himself, and instead of showing the 10 minute teaser, they showed the whole film.
Wow, that doesn't sound at all unlikely. By the way, did you know that because of a bizarre lexicographical quirk that the word "gullible" isn't actually in the dictionary?
Re:refunds (Score:5, Funny)
Leonard Nimoy in disguise? (Score:5, Funny)
visually stunning (Score:3, Interesting)
Review? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Review? (Score:5, Interesting)
It was a screening to people who would actually take time out of their lives to go see a remastered version of Wrath of Khan. Which isn't anything against those folk, that was a good movie. But in terms of objective "this was a good movie on it's own merits" reviews, do you honestly expect to see any?
This was a binary choice: either they all loved it because it was the next Star Trek movie. Meaning it didn't stink as bad as Nemesis. Or they burnt down the theater because it was the next Star Trek movie and it stunk as bad as Nemesis.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It got an ovation, great. But are they allowing anyone to release any reviews?
TFA is a review.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reviews from a clearly biased crowd -- they were there to see a 27 year old movie with an advertised 10 extra minutes of footage.
I'm not pissing on the parade, just making the point that I would not have expected a negative review, given the circumstances.
All trekkies (Score:5, Interesting)
The audience consisted of trekkies, but I'm wondering; does that make the 5min. standing ovation more, or less impressive?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All trekkies (Score:5, Funny)
Just as there are no sequels to the Matrix [xkcd.com], Insurrection is the most recent Trek movie made. That makes this the tenth, so the odd-even rule still stands...
Nemesis broke the scales of suck (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, but it's not like ignoring Nemesis would result in the Trek franchise being unsullied, so I don't see it the same as the fact that there is only one Matrix movie. There were already bad Treks, including even numbered ones, and that's just part of the series charm... I guess.
No what really happened is that Nemesis was a real movie, and a real shitty movie. Nemesis was not just an even numbered Trek that sucked, it was an even numbered Trek that sucked so hard that it dragged everything around it into itself until its huge mass of suck collapsed and formed a singularity, making a wormhole into another dimension where the old odd-even rule simply doesn't apply any more.
Nemesis broke the pattern, literally. It's busted. We're in a new world where anything can happen, including good odd-numbered Treks. Also, I think Neptune is slightly more purple in this universe.
Re:All trekkies (Score:5, Funny)
These are fans (Score:3, Interesting)
there opinion needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
I hope it is worth it.
Re:These are fans (Score:5, Insightful)
SW != ST (Score:3, Insightful)
Star Trek fans have a different mind set the Star Trek fans.
Star Wars: "You better be better then our memories of the first time we saw Star Wars bitch!"
Star Trek fans: "Alright, another Star Trek! Let's be excited for the privileged!"
Oddly enough, even people who are a fan of both have those attitudes toward the respective franchises.
I suspect it has to do with the roots of the franchise. ST was hard fought by the fans SW came out of the gates blowing people away.
Nuclear wessels (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFA:
Anton Yelchin's Russian accent in his portrayal of Chekov does get a bit annoying.
What do you expect Yelchin to do with that part, now that Koenig completely immortalized bad accents for Chekov?
Re:Nuclear wessels (Score:5, Funny)
It's sad... Walter Koenig's name doesn't make me think of Chekov anymore...
"Anatomically impossible, Mr. Garibaldi. But you're welcome to try."
Christopher Pike? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Christopher Pike? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pike would. Or is this yet another one of the billion plot holes?
If, by plot holes, you mean elements they changed as part of the *reset that this movie represents*.
Honestly, what part of "not following cannon" do you people not understand?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Christopher Pike? (Score:5, Funny)
Honestly, what part of "not following cannon" do you people not understand?
The part where you don't join us in frothing at the mouth and taking up pitch forks and torches in outcry against this heinous heresy!
Already covered (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the small snips of reviews I've read are any indication, only spoilers can explain this. So we'll have to wait and see, or not see. I'm on the fence like I was with Watchmen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I doubt it's any good (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember, this was a screening attended by trekkies and Harry Knowles-type movie dorks. These aren't people that know what a good movie is.
Hell, the trailers for the new Trek movie seem to indicate that Abrams took inspiration from - God help us - the Star Wars prequels.
It'll suck. Like almost all science-fiction movies from the past 15 or 20 years. And I'm a sci-fi fan.
Re:I doubt it's any good (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get this sentiment. If the Internet has shown us anything, it is the fans are the most critical audience. If the movie had been bad, there would have been a riot.
Of course, the article could have exaggerated or outright lied.
Re:I doubt it's any good (Score:5, Funny)
And I'm a sci-fi fan.
Don't you know? They changed the spelling to "Syfy"
clever PR move (Score:3, Interesting)
Most stuff like this gets previewed in Austin in order to buy Harry Knowles' endorsement. It's not a high barrier to entry. Studios usually just massage his ego with a visit to their set, an advance screening on his birthday, or bring him up on stage to introduce a screening [youtube.com]. As if he knows two shits about anything (that youtube link is to a video of him introducing the Star Trek premiere mentioned in TFA).
Seth
I'm not impressed (Score:3, Insightful)
"gave the film a five-minute standing ovation at the Sydney Opera House in Australia today."
The Star Trek fans did exactly the same at the end of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and that is one of the worst movies of the franchise. I suspect the applause had more to do with seeing Star Trek *return* than any relation to artistic merit.
On the other hand:
Maybe I'm just being cynical. Abrahms produces a lot of crap. Lost sucks (boring - slow as molasses), and Alias was also lousy except for the brilliant first season. I am not expecting anything from him.
Re:I'm not impressed (Score:4, Interesting)
The Star Trek fans did exactly the same at the end of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and that is one of the worst movies of the franchise.
Well, they had nothing to compare the movie to other than the series itself....
I only forsee one problem in the movie (Score:3, Interesting)
When even I look at the new Spock, I see Sylar. I'm all for actors branching out, but Sylar is just too strong a character for me to forget him quickly, no matter how good the acting is.
There is always one trekkie (Score:3, Insightful)
Duh. (Score:3, Informative)
And if it wasn't opening a day before in Australia... they wouldn't get to see it first?? (before the U.S.)
In any case, Australians are NOT scheduled to see it first, as it opens TWO days before the U.S. in Belgium, France and Switzerland.
http://www.startrekmovie.com/releasedates/ [startrekmovie.com]
Superficial? (Score:5, Interesting)
Quote from one of the reviewers:
This 11th film is easily the best looking, most expensive, best produced iteration in the franchise. This film is going to be absolutely massive. It's epic in scale, and it's easy to see where the $150 million went.
Is anyone else actually excited by this kind of thing? Who here can say they enjoyed Reloaded or Revolutions more than The Matrix? I was really hoping for reviews to tell me how compelling the acting and story were, but it really seems to be all about the expense. Am I missing something?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is how they get non-trekkies into a Trek film.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Who here can say they enjoyed Reloaded or Revolutions more than The Matrix?
What are you talking about? There weren't any sequels to The Matrix. [xkcd.com]
Re:Superficial? (Score:4, Interesting)
There was only one Matrix movie. Sequels were rumored, but WERE NEVER FILMED. Accept this fact and you can be a happier person.
Have you seen Star Trek movies before? You were really hoping to hear about compelling acting? I enjoy Trek movies as much as the next guy (well, not to the point that I go to cons with funny ears or prosthetic foreheads, but I was disappointed when they canceled Enterprise), but to say that you enjoy Trek movies for something other than the awesome special effects, thematic elements and the glimpse at a whole other reality seems disingenuous.
Wrath of Khan, factually the best Star Trek movie, was made for $11 million. Nemesis was $60 million. Of newer films, I enjoyed First Contact, which was made for less than $50 million. I think we can safely say that budget is not related to the enjoyment factor of a Star Trek movie.
Australia? (Score:5, Funny)
But that means all of the cams will have crappy Australian subtitles!
Standing ovation? (Score:3, Funny)
First they got angry with the movie, destroyed all the seats, and then started hitting and slapping each one for going to see it. In a lights out, you only see a lot of standing people and the clapping sound.
Or.. the seats were all taken by the actors, red shirts, extras, old series characters, etc, so the people that went to the cine had to be standing. The movie finished, the director said "ok, now lets go for a beer to forget this" and got an ovation.
PR always give weird twists to stories.
How jiggly are the effects shots? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a big Hollywood trend for shakey-cam shots, be it Michael Bay, the Bourne movies, Battlestar Galactica, whatever. It'd bad enough when the camera is bobbing and weaving in a conversation between two people sitting down in a comfortable room, absolutely nausea-inducing in an action scene, and seems to have made its way into space as well. Given the limitations of model work, the old Star Treks always had a sedate and stately feel. When Babylon 5 really blew the doors off the idea of using CGI for space battles, they still used admirable constraint while pushing boundaries. Some of the battles by season 5 got a bit muddled, though.
Just going from the trailers of this movie, it looks like we might almost have a Blair Witch level of confusion and nausea in the space battle. The frantic clips appeared to be a kaleidoscope of beams, explosions, and whirling pieces of ships. Does it get any better in context?
Re:New blood (Score:5, Funny)
Well, you see, the Enterprise crashes on this planet, and all sorts of spooky things happen.
Meanwhile, these aliens, called "The Others" keep harassing the crew.
And there are lots of flashbacks to just before the Enterprise crashes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I'll never get tired of seeing new Star Trek movies, you do have a point. 90% of what we see today is either a sequel, a retread, or a copycat. The fat cats are mostly interested in safe bets.
Re:Idea shortage in LA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I still think they should make a movie of Zelazny's Lord of Light. One of the best damned SF books ever written. Besides, who wouldn't watch a movie with a talking monkey.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Lord of Light would be a great movie. Amber could be a really good miniseries if done right - not a sci fi/scyfy/whatever , but a HBO Deadwood or Rome funded project.
The only book I've heard being worked on for a movie that interests me lately is Rama. Although how bad they'll screw that up I'm not sure.
Re:Idea shortage in LA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idea shortage in LA (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not fool ourselves here-- if you think Hollywood has an idea shortage because they're recycling old ideas, stories, and characters, then all of humanity has had an idea shortage for a few thousand years, at least. And I say "at least" because the writers then may have been stealing ideas, but we just don't have records of the ideas they stole.
This era of reboots is fantastic in my opinion. It's what cultures do when they have a rich culture to draw from, which is that they take the old ideas and stories, and reinvent and reimagine them in a way that makes them relevant and poignant for the time. The original series was great for its time, but yeah, it's becoming increasingly dated as a relic of the 60s. The general setup of a band of explorers and the characters themselves, however, still have relevance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh heck, if you want space opera, it would be great to see something - anything by E.E. Doc Smith turned into a movie. In order to not be downright ludicrous, it would need to be done with tongue heavily in cheek, like "Big Trouble in Little China". (How anyone could say some of those lines, keep it straight, and not crack up on the spot is beyond me.)
On the mildly more serious side of space opera, I seem to remember hearing that someone is taking on "The Foundation Trilogy".
Or for newer space opera, any
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or for newer space opera, any of Alistair Reynolds or Peter K Hamilton stuff would work well. I don't think general audiences are ready yet for Iaian Banks or The Culture.
I think Consider Phlebas would make a good movie. There's enough action and special effects to appeal to a wide audience.
Lensman movies, done right, could be great.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(Leonard Nimoy as a surprise guest [would that be an oxymoron (was he dressed in Vulcan prostitute garb?)?]?)
(loop (print (eval (read)))) ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
write your state representative and senator and get them to support Representative Dawnna Duke's economic incentive bill.
Or you could just let them succeed or fail on their own merits like every other industr...
Never mind. Apparently, that's not how we do things anymore in America (or Texas). So yeah, give 'em a handout. Just make sure it's tied to some venue tax in Austin, so I don't have to pay for it.
Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they were pissed, they are morons. They've seen Khan a hundred times already in every format imaginable. Chances are good that the real event will happen again.
I mean, if this is actually a good film, who wouldn't want to be able to tell their friends that they got to see if first? With Nimoy, no less?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I might have to turn in my slashdot id for this but, I have never seen Wrath of Kahn in any form... just never got around to it.
And I'm totally jealous of those that got to see the new movie!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)