Right, but the point was, Star Wars is based on a handful of Asian pictures, not on their western/Western siblings. Although now I have a vision in my head of Clint Eastwood with a sword, and that is entertaining.
Star Wars is such a mishmash though. It certainly is based on Samurai films (both C-3PO and R2D2 have specific precedents), but the end of the movie is taking from a WW2 movie about a bombing attack by uhm, Doolittle? (DXM?) And Han Solo is from the kind of adventure serial/pulp adventure that would be refined with the Indiana Jones movies. There are also some Knights in Armor movie bits, plus Prisoner of Zenda and like that.
I dunno. The scene where Drac stares at Winona across the street and whispers, "See me." makes me come over all swoony.
Heh. See, all my friends are sort of the same way, Beej. They all go all swoony at the "romance."
I'm just baffled at the part where you all gloss over the fact that it's a REALLY BAD MOVIE!
But as evidenced above, I have my own list of VERY BAD MOVIES that I love, so take my opinion on that for what it's worth.
My God. They made a sequel to Baby Geniuses.
From IMDB's studio briefing:
Critics are suggesting that Bob Clark's SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 may vie with Clark's original 1999 film Baby Geniuses for one of the worst films of all time. (Dave Kehr in the New York Times points out that the original ranks No. 7 on Metacritic.com's worst-film list.) Indeed, Kevin Crust in the Los Angeles Times writes that the movie "may quite easily put an end to any discussion of what is the worst theatrical release of 2004." Lou Lumenick in the New York Post calls it "spectacularly awful, way worse than you'd expect from a supposed family film being dumped into Hollywood's version of the Bermuda Triangle: a late-August release by a studio (Columbia) resorting to an alias (Triumph)." And Mike Clark in USA Today refers to it as "a late-August dog-days atrocity from the 'aren't farts funny?' school of filmmaking."
My God. They made a sequel to Baby Geniuses.
If you value your eyes, you will NOT WATCH THE TRAILER, because the only way to make the pain stop will be to poke them out.
If you value your eyes, you will NOT WATCH THE TRAILER, because the only way to make the pain stop will be to poke them out.
Poor, blind Jessica. You had such pretty eyes....
Oh, they grew back. (Being about to see Thunderbirds made it all a bit more bearable, because I could think "Well, at least I'm not seeing this.")
I was just surprised that Star Trek 2: The Wrath Of Khan wasn't on there. The ONLY Trek film to have any real cinematic integrity, as opposed to just being for the fans.
Edited: Because "Wratch" isn't a word.
Agreed, Gandalfe, it should have been there.
An overactor says what?
I don't wish to start a kerfluffle.
Uh oh. If I sounded kerfuffly it was completely unintentional. On re-read, I think I sound snootier than intended, because my reaction was basically "Oooo, I have a half-formed thesis about this in my head and you have given me an opportunity to mention it, goody!" Your question was totally reasonable; "western in space" is thrown about a lot. I think it's thrown around incorrectly, but I'm not all, "How dare you!" about it. If anything, I was curious to see how quickly someone would pick a hole in what I'd said. 'Cause that's fun.
Anyway, my apologies if you thought I was snapping at you (or just snapping, period). I should have said something to distinguish the part that was actually in response to you from the part that was just pontificating.
