stingray

Well, the Kickstarter campaign was a success, Elite: Dangerous was funded with 52 hours to spare, tonight around 8:40pm CET. It just picked up over the last three to four days. The so-called hockey stick effect as they say. Either way, it's good to see more space games being worked on.

I'm not sure about the odds for them to get the entire sum through crowd funding, but there is an entire generation that played the originals and who are excited once again. ED isn't overly ambitious as far as I can see, except maybe for trying to find mass appeal in this day and age.

I was curious to see what the opinions were going to be here about Star Citizen and Elite: Dangerous. It's safe to say that most of us have high hopes for both projects, but the risk of getting disappointed yet again always remains. I hope Derek is wrong about this, but unfortunately he hardly ever is. At least the fund raising was quite successful for SC. All they have to do now is make it happen.

My last SH game was SH3. The mod community did a great job at making it playable. When SH4 came out I hesitated for a long time before deciding not to buy the game after all. With their new DRM scheme Ubi made that decision for me not to buy any of the products anymore. That's no way to treat your customers. I didn't even know they made you pay for patches. Microsoft would be out of business if they did that...

Very interesting read, as always. That is indeed an amazing turn of events. You probably didn't expect this going in.

There's some actual gameplay footage up on GiantBomb's website. Clip 1 (60 minutes) Clip 2 (50 minutes) Clip 3 (64 minutes) The presentation is nice, the sound effects are trekkish. Another time sink in the making.

Saw it, loved it, 'nuff said. If you don't want to know how the story ends, don't scroll down.

Yeah, I've heard someone talk about the new decade as well. I guess it can't be helped. We can't save everyone. Deal with it.

I applied but didn't get in. I got access to second-hand impressions though. I can promise now, Derek's going to enjoy tearing it to pieces.

Somehow we've all seen the new Star Trek film before... I kinda liked the movie for what it tried to do, but if you expected anything along the lines of the ST movies with Kirk, Spock and McCoy, you'll run indeed the risk of getting somewhat let down. Pros: Overall the new cast did a great job, but it somewhat lacked the charisma and experience of the veteran actors, which is understandable. The action and battle sequences were amazing, as far as I can tell, the amount of bang for the buck in scifi movies is cumulative over time. The ship design of the Enterprise is nice for the most part, with the exception of the engine room which looks like it was taken from the Wonka chocolate factory. Kirk, Spock, "Bones" McCoy, Scotty and Uhura were perfectly cast. Not sure why, but having a scene set on an ice planet is always a plus. While I liked seeing Leonard Nimoy reprise his role as Spock, he took away precious time from Nero (see below). Some funny moments. It's a roller-coaster ride all the way through that ends five minutes before the end. Cons: I thought Eric Bana's Nero was underused, it's never good for a main villain to play third or fourth fiddle (I guess he could have really used the time spent on Leonard Nimoy). Furthermore, where did they find those Mad Max Romulans?? I didn't really buy the casting of Chekov (his exaggerated faked/real accent being the least of his problems as the curly haired actor is Russian) and Sulu who acted in a too generic way and didn't really get anywhere near George Takei's personality. It wasn't the actors' fault, IMHO just the wrong choice. No Klingons, 'nuff said. Of all classic ST Aliens, except for the blue ale, the Romulans are the least interesting as they come across as just Vulcans with an attitude problem. Here they just shaved them bald and gave them facial tattoos. Talk about aliens on a budget. I know this isn't supposed to be Star Wars (see clip above), but the physical effects team didn't have much to do this time. The why-the-long-face guy at the bar was very funny though. Scotty's pet Ewok with scales not so much. Plot pot holes. The transporters have been relegated once again, if not consistently so, to magical plot devices. I have no doubt that the franchise still has a lot of life in it. Considering what came after ST: TMP, they couldn't really go wrong with this one. There is no going back to the original show and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It's a reboot, not a remake. 7.5/10

The original title of the new Star Trek film.

That's what I want to know, because I'm not a Fileplanet subscriber. Thanks for the Beta invitation anyway.

"...what can you do with Hayden Christensen? He's as close as we have to an android actor." - Wesley Morris, Boston Globe Looks like it has potential to suck... I haven't seen it yet, so I'll refrain from making any further comments about the movie at this point. On the other hand, I kinda like Summer Glau's portrayal of a good killer-cyborg in the Sarah Connor Chronicles... so playing an android isn't necessarily bad per se. But if you act like an android, make sure it's required by the script. Somehow I knew this movie was going to happen, seeing as how much fun time travel has been portrayed in Heroes, it was just a matter of time (pun intended) before some Hollywood-type would see the potential in making yet another movie about it. The topic of time travel opens up a myriad of possibilities, unfortunately it also includes the bad ones.

Rambo Movies Death Chart I haven't seen it yet, but apparently someone went through all the movies and counted all the casualties (with and without a shirt on, no less) and the results are in (you just need to scroll down on that page I linked above). Apparently this one tallies up the most kills. I only liked the first one, the two sequels were just rubbish IMHO. I'd rather watch Hot Shots 1 and 2 again. At least I'll get a few laughs out of it.

Interview with Co-Writer and Executive Producer Robert Orci I like what they are trying to do. Maybe we'll get an Enterprise reboot out of it too. (To misquote Scotty: "This is the USS Enterprise NCC-1701, with no frakkin' A, B, C, D or E."

I believe it's the other way around, you know, with the nail and the head.

You are being too harsh on yourself, you are part of that fan base too. But you probably do not belong to the other fan base that goes to the conventions and wears ST underwear. Neither do I. That's probably unavoidable to anyone who tries. But then, how many really great ST games have been made thus far? I think they can be counted on one hand and considering how long ST games get made, that's not a pretty record. I imagine it's difficult enough to get people to cooperate in games that are far less complicated. Not sure how much fun it would be anyway. ST has a tendency of making mundane tasks look glorious.

It's unfortunate that they trusted the ST franchise to some noobs, yet you have all this experience, games and dedication to the genre to show for and yet you didn't get approached. Do you think it in the realm of possibilities to get involved in such a challenging undertaking, in the ST universe? The way I see it, as soon as you go into an established universe, you are putting on a straight jacket where you have to abide by a certain predetermined framework. Would that be acceptable to you? Looking forward to the upcoming Star Trek film, there is still a lot of life left in this mature franchise and with this apparent reboot, there may very well be no end in sight. This would sure seems like a valid investment, don't you think?

Take "Red Planet" (you know, the Mars flick with Val Kilmer, for the visuals), add some "Alien" (for the second half of Sunshine), some "Event Horizon" (the claustrophobia), some "Solaris" (for the psychological drama) and salt water (the perspiration), shake and you'll get Sunshine. If there is one movie that blatantly uses recipes from popular films, this is one of them. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they plagiarized, but those involved certainly looked at the other movies and took a lot of notes. Don't get me wrong, the visual effects are exceedingly well done, there's no argument there for sure. The production values are great too, they didn't spare any expense. The Icarus II is a very plausible and nice spaceship design and every section of the ship serves a real purpose. (Why they use gold as protective coating is beyond me though?! I think there was a slight misunderstanding there. I mean, the heat shield of the space shuttle's underbelly is not made of gold... and it's also used to protect the crew from the dangerous solar radiation in orbit and you don't use a good conductor of heat to protect yourself from it in a spacesuit. But it sure looks good, so I guess they took some creative license there.) The acting is a bit dicey in some spots and the male fashion-model-turned-physicist that's supposed to save the daylight at the end is downright creepy, at best. But for the most part the cast is well chosen and doing its job as astronauts convincingly enough. The trailers are filled with spoilers of course and you'll know going in that not everything is going to go according to plan. The premise is interesting and the first half of the movie is very realistic and convincing. It's the second half where this film gets off the paved road and crashes into a tree. You don't really see any of that in the trailers, I guess they did that for a reason. Make no mistake, this is a horror flick (NOT a space opera like "2001: A Space Odyssey") by Danny Boyle, the director of "28 Days Later" (another horror flick). The movie fools you in the first part into believing that this is just another techno-thriller, with submarine hatches and blinking computer read-outs, but soon enough you'll know what you actually came for halfway through. There are quite a few movies who have used this technique of a ghost ship before, where you have a vessel that seems intact on the outside, with the crew missing inside. And you also know what to expect from those movies. It's no different here. As far as I could tell, the movie flopped at the box office, which is a shame considering all the things it does right. The movie is good but also somewhat disappointing (unless you like that sort of thing). Sacrifice isn't as engrossing as it used to be. 7/10 The Good: The first half, the visual effects, the production values, the photography, the ship design, the premise, the cast. The Bad: The second half, 'nuff said, you might as well leave after the first half, it's not like you are going to miss anything worthwhile. Another thing that bothered me, even on the Nostromo you had a glimmer of hope for the crew, I believe that's where Boyle dropped the ball here. Maybe he should have taken more notes while watching "Alien."

Imagine watching a mobster movie without the Italian mob. That's basically what you'll get when you'll go see American Gangster. That's a bit like watching a World War II movie without the Japanese or the Germans. If that sounds like being less than satisfying, then that's what you might think American Gangster to be, but surprisingly the movie doesn't turn out to be that bad. Ok, so the Mafia does get a cameo appearance, but this movie isn't really about them. Why, because this movie is about Blue Magic, the name given to cocaine smuggled directly from Viet Nam, during the time the US troops are fighting it out in the jungles over there. The mastermind behind this operation is Frank Lucas played ruthlessly by Denzel Washington. I'm faced again with the fact that an actor was cast for a role he isn't really used to playing, or at least I am not used to seeing him play. Denzel isn't playing his usual upbeat and likable character we have come to appreciate. This time around he's a bad SOB. Every time you see him do something and you think to yourself, no he's not going to do it, he just goes and does it. And it works. He didn't pull any punches in this one and I think the movie is a better one for it. The film also features Russell Crowe as detective Richie Roberts (or whatever his rank is, I didn't really catch that as he's taking an exam during the movie... which he passed, just in case you were wondering... and believe it or not, the obligatory dysfunctional marriage/family is also present.) who only later gets on Frank Lucas' back when he does get promoted to leading a drug enforcement unit. And there we have another problem right there. What happens when you couple two big-name stars in a single movie? If things turn out great you get something like... hmm... Morgan Freeman and Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby), right? Well, here you don't get that because they don't really play off of each other, everyone does his own thing, so what's the point? By the way I only saw afterwards that the movie was directed by Ridley Scott in the end credits, so I didn't really have any expectations beforehand and I can't really say that he did anything remarkable or memorable with the film that any other director wouldn't have been able to do. The whole movie takes place in Manhattan and all the sets were made to look like the late 60s or early 70s, think Dirty Harry without Clint Eastwood and not in San Francisco. Anyway, so in the end we are left with a movie that jumps through all the hoops, checks all the right boxes, dots all the i's and crosses all the tee's, but I don't feel like I saw something nearly as gripping as say, the Godfather. At about 150 minutes the movie runs also a little long. The movie is good, but not great. 7/10 The Good: Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe, Ridley Scott, Cuba Gooding Jr. (yeah, I'm asking myself the same question, I guess he had some bills to pay and they made him an offer he couldn't refuse. My guess, Robin Williams was unavailable.), some tight moments where things heat up, some bad cops (Josh Brolin is great). The Bad: The actual mob is MIA, the replacement mob isn't very convincing although Armand Assante gets the job somewhat done. One last thing, is there a shortage of beautiful women? It's almost like they didn't even try in this one....

What bothered me even more besides the casting choice, was the ending, the title of the movie makes no sense with a happy ending, at least not as far as the original author is concerned. They shoehorned a sense back by changing the story.

I must say I liked this 3rd (or so) adaptation of Richard Matheson novel "I AM LEGEND" quite a bit more than any of the previous attempts to date ("The Last Man on Earth" (1964) with Vincent Price being the first, and of course "The Omega Man" (1981) with Charlton Heston being the second). Some may also count movies like "28 Days Later" and "Children of Men" as being in the same category and I guess there are certain similarities if you disregard the events taking place on the British isles. I liked "I AM LEGEND" even better than those two. While the movie follows the spirit of the book, it doesn't really follow the story at all, too many liberties were taken to mention. The ending of course is nothing like the book, but then we knew that going in, I mean, this is Hollywood we are talking about. The wide angle shots were quite satisfying, but things got a little dicey once the sun set. The infected humans turned vampires as described in the book had little in common with those we saw in the movie who were portrayed as roaring mutant clones who just happened to be vulnerable to sunlight. On the other hand we got spared the abundant use of garlic that was so prevalent in the novel and the 1964 adaptation. The only thing that bothered me when comparing all three adaptations is that the Robert Neville character became more and more unlikely over time. Vincent Price played the part like a true white-collar geneticist, with Charlton Heston we got somewhat of a Gordon Freeman who played him as a doctor who spent his weekends hunting deer, but with Will Smith we kind of crossed the line of believability. Will Smith is not quite convincing as a gun-toting nerd. One last thing, the dog seemed like it was added just to create another link to the source material, but for those who read the novel, the interesting part, how Robert Neville came by it, is completely missing in this movie. Overall, it's a movie that can be recommended. The Good: Will Smith, some nice explosions, the suspense and desolation, the assault rifles for those who like guns. The Bad: The creature SFX were indeed iffy in places. I've seen them put to better use in "The Nutty Professor." Surprising fact, the female co-star was subdued and not very memorable, unlike the babe in "Transformers." Not close enough to the source material for some. Score: 8/10

In a way it's shocking, but then again, it's not for the simple reason that we are constantly exposed to germs, at work, on the bus, in restaurants. I mean you don't really want to know what's going on in the kitchen, do you? If it makes you feel better, keyboards connected to computers are known to contain more germs than public toilet seats. So, when you do run into another hotel glass, just rinse it thoroughly and you'll be fine.

I'm a bit confused at how much attention the ME gets while countries like China and India are slowly but surely growing into new global players and apparently doing so with complete impunity. All I'm saying is, are those "hot-spots" the media are constantly focusing on, that important? I mean, no offense, they act like the Gaza strip is some sort of navel of the world. I don't think the enemy of tomorrow is the Afghan goat herder armed with a US-made "Stinger" missile or some misguided religious nut-case with home-made explosives strapped around the waist, but the far-Eastern corporations who have been infiltrating the West for decades, while the Western brain-trust is bleeding away due to out-sourcing and cheap labor. I believe it's high time to come up with new ideas, besides beating around the bush and stop using the strategies that were already obsolete way back when the iron curtain fell. Disclaimer: I mean what I say, I don't have any links to back it up and no hidden agenda. I consider myself a libertarian and am not affiliated to any political party. I don't drink and drive, and I don't smoke anything, in case you were wondering. No anchovies where not specified.

quote:Originally posted by The Black Ghost: I like it because it isnt all space battles -which themselves become somewhat stagnant, they just sit their and shoot missiles at eachother until one of them blows up-and the pilots just get lauched to their deaths usually. They need some new kinds of action. I sort of like the character drama. they overdo it sometimes though, with people shooting their wives and stuff. Past that though, there is some good character buildup, although sometimes its pretty pointless and in the end, no one really learned anything. Baltar's lawyer was amazing, but then Baltar lived and hes just as stupid as before, you would think he would have gotten something redeeming out of it and all. Yeah, to each their own preferences, I believe that's the reason why it's not doing so great in the ratings, if I wanted to see Law and Order in space, I'd just watch Law and Order with the lights out.