# Rate Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow



## Krug (Sep 17, 2004)

So what did you think?


----------



## LightPhoenix (Sep 17, 2004)

I put it at a seven, for reasons I listed in the other thread.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 17, 2004)

I'll be seeing it today.  Here's Ebert's very positive review, for those curious.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 17, 2004)

I gave it an 8, though bordering on 7, for the reasons I mentioned in the other thread.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Sep 17, 2004)

I get the distinct impression that all movies get around seven on these boards.


----------



## Krug (Sep 18, 2004)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> I get the distinct impression that all movies get around seven on these boards.



At least maybe. RotK got mostly 9 or 10s.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Sep 18, 2004)

I had the pleasure of seeing this movie today, and on the company's dime, no less. I have to say that it was a memorable and enjoyable movie overall. This isn't really a movie that stands up well to dissection, but that's part of the universe that they construct for this film. 



Spoiler



I mean, I find it interesting that they would equip a plane designed for dogfighting with grappling hook, or a bomb that is designed to bounce. What about the fact that the plane can fly from New York to Asia without having to refuel. Normally I'd say something like "But aside from these problems, I really liked it." but in this case these aren't problems, they're part of the genre.


 
I gave it a seven, but I think it may have deserved higher.


----------



## D+1 (Sep 18, 2004)

Saw it last night.  It was a late show, I was tired, and I got pretty bleary toward the end.  I gave it an 8 as a result to be generous, but honestly I don't think it was all that.  The pacing was off.  Too slow, lack of tension, and not enough shooting up giant robots with P40's.

There was also a bit of a hole in the story development.  I mean, giant robots FILLED the skies but what did they really DO?  Tore up a few streets and step on a few cars.  I just thought it needed a little bit more to generate care and concern from the viewer for the protagonists.  Character introductions and development got pretty short shrift too - but that's a fairly "old-fashioned serial" thing so I can write it off as being a style decision.

Visually fantastic, though I'd have preferred either more color or less - the light colorization was actually a bit distracting for me.  Should have actually been sepia-tone as was (IIUC) the original intent.

Not as great as I really wanted (especially after waiting through the interminably delayed release), but I want a sequel.


----------



## Conaill (Sep 18, 2004)

Very good movie, for a first attempt. Would be a _great_ match for a Grim Tales campaign!


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 18, 2004)

A 9. Absolutely fantastic, every moment.


----------



## Gomez (Sep 18, 2004)

Just saw it and loved it. I give it a 9! Very nice and pulpy!


----------



## ssampier (Sep 19, 2004)

I like the movie. The visual effect were absolutely stunning. I learned today the movie was filmed entirely on blue screen. I normally hate blue screen. I can tell where blue screen is used and it annoys me to no end. In this movie, I hardly noticed (the most noticeable was the "dinosaur island" of the evil doctor).

The plot holes are more noticeable. Namely 



Spoiler



Polly Perkins held the vials that was the key to the Doomsday Device, why didn't she destroy them? Also, if the scientist could create mass robots why didn't simply replace the human race with them? You wouldn't need a massive rocket full of animals. Robots have no feelings, no wars, no conflicts (other than what they were programmed to).



Overall a B-. If I was expecting a pulpy, comic-book style movie, an A-


----------



## Teflon Billy (Sep 19, 2004)

I gave it a 10. I thought it was marvelous pretty much from beginning to end. It's _look_ was magnificent


----------



## Gunslinger (Sep 19, 2004)

I gave it a 4.  

I thought the movie was pretty bad overall. Visually it was very interesting, but the story was awful and nonsensical. Also, the dialogue had me wincing in many parts.  I didn't pay $9.25 to listen to awfully scripted lovers' quarrling for 2 hours.


----------



## Trainz (Sep 19, 2004)

Gunslinger said:
			
		

> I gave it a 4.
> 
> I thought the movie was pretty bad overall. Visually it was very interesting, but the story was awful and nonsensical. Also, the dialogue had me wincing in many parts. I didn't pay $9.25 to listen to awfully scripted lovers' quarrling for 2 hours.



 Well, that's part of the genre. Those old pulp sci-fi movies were like that. It kinda annoyed me too, but I won't score it down for it: it's faithful to the media.

 I gave it a 6. Visually perfect, but with screenplay flaws. Lucas can make visually perfect movies too, but I think he has more than demonstrated that fancy images do not a film make.

 I quite enjoyed Polly's conendrum with her camera. Especially with the final punch.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 19, 2004)

I gave it a 5, maybe I could have made it an 6 but the movie just did not do much for me.  I think it tryed to put too much into into it, from every pulp source and lost something.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Sep 20, 2004)

I love it, it was great, and no,I am NOT drunk..._ahhhhh...._it brings back the memories of the ole' black & white serials on TV back then.

10... "Just shake it!"  ZZZZZZZzzzapppp.....YEAH


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 20, 2004)

ssampier said:
			
		

> Overall a B-. If I was expecting a pulpy, comic-book style movie, an A-



Uhh, what _were_ you expecting, then?


----------



## haiiro (Sep 20, 2004)

9 from me -- I loved it.

It managed to be predictable in the right ways, and still surprise me from time to time, and the look was fantastic. Jude & Gweneth worked very well as the leads, and the humor was thoroughly enjoyable.


----------



## gregweller (Sep 20, 2004)

I gave it a six, the look of it was just wonderful, but for me that's all there was. As I was watching it, I was thinking of stuff that I watched when I was a kid in the 50's--things like 'Commando Cody', and I realized that one of the things that nostalgia does is make us forget just how bad that stuff really was. I had the same feeling when I got done watching Van Helsing. I guess what I'm saying is that 'I'm old. I demand irony!'. And I was thinking that the only thing possibly worse than a movie with Gwenth Patrow and Jude Law would be one with Jude Law and Nicole Kidman ...oh wait...


----------



## ssampier (Sep 20, 2004)

*I wasn't expecting anything*



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Uhh, what _were_ you expecting, then?




Honestly nothing; standard Sci Fi movie, I suppose. I only seen the  commercials. I went to the movie on a whim, since I was bored and my relatives wanted to go.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 20, 2004)

Hm.  I've only seen a couple of commercials too (didn't get out to see the movie after all this weekend; I'll try today...) but based on them, I completely expect a 30's, pulp, serial-like Buster Crabbe Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon-esque movie.  And, heck, didn't you see the title before you saw the movie?


----------



## diaglo (Sep 20, 2004)

finally found a movie worse than the D&D Movie.

man this is more hokie than the Hokies of VT.


----------



## Arnwyn (Sep 20, 2004)

Gave it a 9. I found it to be a freakin' awesome movie - never seen anything like it. Pulp adventure with 21st century special effects? Wow.

And heck 



Spoiler



an all-female amphibious squadron? That's worth an 8 right there!


----------



## Greatwyrm (Sep 20, 2004)

I really liked it.  I have to agree with some comments I heard on the way out of the theatre that the promo material (posters, previews, etc.) didn't really do it justice.


----------



## Gomez (Sep 20, 2004)

ssampier said:
			
		

> Honestly nothing; standard Sci Fi movie, I suppose. I only seen the  commercials. I went to the movie on a whim, since I was bored and my relatives wanted to go.





Didn't the name of the movie give you a hint as to what type of movie it was going to be???? Come on. _Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow_! should have rang a couple of bells.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 20, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> finally found a movie worse than the D&D Movie.



So, you've never seen the Street Fighter movie, then?


----------



## ssampier (Sep 22, 2004)

I claim ignorance. 

I don't know who Flash Gordon is. Buck Rogers I only vaguely remember.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 22, 2004)

Well, _I_ liked it. It hit a bunch of nostalgia buttons, plus I am running an OGL Steampunk game right now and I couldn't help but try to fit the characters to the classes and vocations in the game...)

The Auld Grump, not generally a giant robot fan...


----------



## David Howery (Sep 22, 2004)

I thought it was a good idea that badly needed a rewritten script.  The whole AH pulp fiction '30's style was pretty neat... but the story was damn near incomprehensible.  The ending was a letdown.... I was hoping for a big aerial battle between all those Brit hover carriers and some other mechanized foe.


----------



## Mark Plemmons (Sep 22, 2004)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> I gave it a 5, maybe I could have made it an 6 but the movie just did not do much for me.  I think it tryed to put too much into into it, from every pulp source and lost something.




Unfortunately, I had the same reaction (and vote).  Although I have to say that Sky Captain's last line was excellent, and might even bump the movie up to a 7 or 8 by itself.


----------



## Mark Plemmons (Sep 22, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> finally found a movie worse than the D&D Movie.




Let's not get carried away.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 22, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> finally found a movie worse than the D&D Movie.
> 
> man this is more hokie than the Hokies of VT.




I am sad to say that I have seen a _lot_ of movies that were worse than the D&D movie...

(The Flesheaters... They Saved Hitler's Brain...Invasion of the Starpeople...The Monolith Monsters...Wing Commander...The Deadly Mantis...Red Planet...Mission to Mars...Gog...The list I fear goes on...) 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Laurel (Sep 22, 2004)

*Finally saw it last night*



			
				Krug said:
			
		

> So what did you think?



I gave it a seven.

I thought they really pulled off the feel of a time gone by. 
The coloring, the dorky little sayings, and the use of contrasting shadows and light.

What pushed it down for me was the acting. It wasn't academy awards performace, but it got the job done. And it had to be none to easy to work off bluescreens the entire time!

Did anyone else stay through the entire credits hoping there would be that one last zing?..... No?..... I guess we were the only ones.....


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 22, 2004)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> I am sad to say that I have seen a _lot_ of movies that were worse than the D&D movie...
> 
> (The Flesheaters... They Saved Hitler's Brain...Invasion of the Starpeople...The Monolith Monsters...Wing Commander...The Deadly Mantis...Red Planet...Mission to Mars...Gog...The list I fear goes on...)



Well, what do you expect if you're gonna hang around B-movies...

Although I really enjoyed both _Red Planet_ and _Mission to Mars_ -- they were like the kind of old-fashioned hard science fiction I used to read a lot of as a kid.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 22, 2004)

Laurel said:
			
		

> Did anyone else stay through the entire credits hoping there would be that one last zing?..... No?..... I guess we were the only ones.....



Was there?


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Sep 22, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Was there?



 Nope. I waited around as well, but nothing. 

 I give it a 7. I really liked the visuals, but found the acting not up to the quality that these actors are usually at. I did enjoy finding the little in-jokes and references to other pulp and comic icons throughout the movie.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 22, 2004)

I gave it an 8, although I could also have given it a 9.  It was an imcomparable moviegoing experience to me; I think that if I'd seen _Star Wars_ in its initial theater run, that might've given me the same feeling, the same desire to shout "Gee whiz!" at the screen over and over.

Complaining about the lack of characterization in a movie like this feels like complaining about the lack of ray guns in _Garden State_.  All the same, the movie's sparkling dialog didn't sparkle quite as much as I would've liked, and Polly was far more annoying than necessary, and it wouldn't have totally broken genre conventions if the plot had hung together just a little bit better.  

Fix these shortcomings, and I would've given it a 10.

Still and all, this was a flawed masterpiece of a movie IMO.  And this Kerry Conran or whoever has a staggering vision, and I'll definitely be watching for his second movie.

Daniel


----------



## Gomez (Sep 23, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Still and all, this was a flawed masterpiece of a movie IMO.  And this Kerry Conran or whoever has a staggering vision, and I'll definitely be watching for his second movie.
> 
> Daniel




 It looks like his second movie will be Edgar Rice Burroughs, _A Princess of Mars! _ I cannot wait!


----------



## Gomez (Sep 23, 2004)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> I am sad to say that I have seen a _lot_ of movies that were worse than the D&D movie...
> 
> (The Flesheaters... They Saved Hitler's Brain...Invasion of the Starpeople...The Monolith Monsters...Wing Commander...The Deadly Mantis...Red Planet...Mission to Mars...Gog...The list I fear goes on...)
> 
> The Auld Grump




 Hey I liked The Monolith Monsters and The Deadly Mantis!


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 23, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Well, what do you expect if you're gonna hang around B-movies...
> 
> Although I really enjoyed both _Red Planet_ and _Mission to Mars_ -- they were like the kind of old-fashioned hard science fiction I used to read a lot of as a kid.




No, no they weren't hard SF. They were soft SF with the trappings of hard SF, but the science was just plain bad...

Contact was hard SF. Moontrap was hard SF (though absolutely horrible...), 2001 and 2010 were both hard SF, they all made an attempt to base themselves on solid science. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 23, 2004)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> No, no they weren't hard SF. They were soft SF with the trappings of hard SF, but the science was just plain bad...
> 
> Contact was hard SF. Moontrap was hard SF (though absolutely horrible...), 2001 and 2010 were both hard SF, they all made an attempt to base themselves on solid science.



The science was no worse in the two Mars movies than it was in those other movies that you say are hard SF.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 23, 2004)

You want me to start going over the physics and bio with you? Trust me, yes, they were better, even in the case of Moontrap which was otherwise a really bad movie.

Biochem - which direction is the energy flow between converting carbon and oxygen to CO versus the opposite? (Or in other words changing CO2 into oxygen and carbon requires energy, creating CO2 from carbon and oxygen releases (not creates) energy. It is easier to burn than to 'unburn'.)

Noise in space.

The names given the little green hoppy things was not even in the right family. 

Where did the mass come from?

This is alll highschool science...

Did you bother watching any of these with an eye to science, or did you just like them all about the same?

The Auld Grump, who wants to be rather snippy about this, but will stop here...

*EDIT* I should mention that it is lack of notice that folks in general have toward basic physics that has me snippy, not any person in particular.

In the movie Contact (and the book as well) there was a distinct ambivelance as to whether what she perceived was what happened. In both Moontrap and the 2001 movies there was no sound in space and in Moontrap the hero used a submachine gun as a reaction drive to push himself back to the ship. (In Mission to Mars the nit wit could have saved himself by throwing something away from the ship pushing him back towards it.)


----------



## hero4hire (Sep 23, 2004)

I gave it an 8.

The look of the movie was great and they captured the feel of the genre wonderfully.

I was disappointented however by the wooden performances from Law and Paltrow and thier lack of chemistry. (Which suprised me because I consider them fine actors)


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 23, 2004)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Did you bother watching any of these with an eye to science, or did you just like them all about the same?



I didn't really, no, and it's been a long time since I've seen them.  However, some things (noise in space?  c'mon) are simply genre conventions that I don't even notice.  Moontrap, I haven't seen in like 15 years.


> Or in other words changing CO2 into oxygen and carbon requires energy, creating CO2 from carbon and oxygen releases (not creates) energy.



I guess they didn't teach fission in your high school physics then?  And no, there is no creation of energy in either case; that's shorthand for releasing energy.  I thought that was self-explanatory.


> The names given the little green hoppy things was not even in the right family.



What names?  What little hoppy green things?


> Where did the mass come from?



What mass?  Ironically, that's a good question for 2010, which you call a good science hard SF.  You do realize that in order to ignite nuclear fusion, a stellar mass needs to be 80 times the mass of Jupiter?  I mean, sure, there were all those replicating monoliths, but like you said, where did the mass come from?


> In the movie Contact (and the book as well) there was a distinct ambivelance as to whether what she perceived was what happened. In both Moontrap and the 2001 movies there was no sound in space and in Moontrap the hero used a submachine gun as a reaction drive to push himself back to the ship. (In Mission to Mars the nit wit could have saved himself by throwing something away from the ship pushing him back towards it.)



So Contact is good hard SF because it purposefully avoids the science by making you unsure what actually happened?  I haven't see the movie, but that's not hard SF.  And I'm no firearms engineer, but some basic high school chemistry would tell you that in order to ignite the gunpowder in the shells, you need to be in an environment that features some oxygen.  Pretty sure a "hard SF" guy would catch the unrealisticness of firing a submachinegun in a vacuum.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 23, 2004)

Kwitcher hijacking of the thread, guys. Thanks.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 23, 2004)

this movie was sooo baddddd. my wife gave me a get out of free D&D the Movie purgatory.

even she said it was worse than the D&D Movie.

bad ... they should come up with a new word for this movie...

awful

lbadawfulrotten


----------



## Wombat (Sep 23, 2004)

Okay, I'll give some perspective before I announce my rating.

I have seen, and enjoyed, the old Flash Gordon serials -- very date, very cheesy, but fun.

I truly love old radio serials -- The Shadow, I Love A Mystery, Mercury Theatre of the Air, The Green Hornet, Sherlock Holmes, etc.  In many ways, I like my pulps best in radio format.  

I enjoyed the remake of _The Phantom _ with Billy Zane -- it was whopping great fun, looked right, but brought slightly modern sensibilities and timing to the genre.  There were weak points, I readily admit, but it was fun.  On top of this, everyone really got into their characters as written, not trying to make them anything other than they were meant to be.

I couldn't stand _The Shadow _ with Alex Baldwin -- while a lot of the look was right, I felt like everyone had their tongue firmly planted in their cheek and that even by the "logic" of the genre there were loopy bits (such as hiding the building).  In the end, I felt the movie made fun of the pulp genre, rather than a tribute to it.

So, with this as background, onto _Sky Captain_...

The movie looks lovely.  I mean _gorgeous_.  I am glad I saw it on a big screen because so many of the effects look best there.  The costumes were spectacular, the computer generated images magnificent, and all the rest.

OTOH, I found myself unengaged by the plot.  The acting felt as flat as the screen (with the exception of Angelina Jolie, who swaggered magnificently).  And while the build-up of the plot was pretty good, the ending fell like a bad souffle.  

In the end, I give it a 5, though I edged towards a 6 for the visual.  

To reverse the Broadway song, "Looks 10, Dance 3, that ain't it kid, that ain't it kid."


----------



## orbitalfreak (Sep 25, 2004)

Gave it a 6 myself.  A pleasent way to spend $7.50, but not something I'm going to bother renting or purchasing.

The visual effects were superb.  They really captured the look they were going for, with the muted colours, the "light band across the eyes" shots, and such.  I've not seen much of the old pulp sci-fi, but I am a big fan of the black/white Superman show; constantly reminded of that style of film.  I do think the lighting was a bit too dark overall, though.  Even though it was period-authentic like, I think they could have brightened it up a bit so that we could see a little bit more.

The acting was a bit flatter than it should have been.  It was almost as if the actors were trying to act flat, instead of it just happening.  Angelina Jolie was spectacular, definitely my favorite character.  

The plot seemed a bit rushed at the end.  The vials were what?  



Spoiler



Adam and Eve, I heard, but what does that mean in the context of the film?  A two sentence sound bite would have sufficed, especially chock-full of technobabble and false science


 
Did anyone else catch the blatant Star Wars reference?  Dr. Jenning's lab was number 1138.


----------



## teitan (Sep 25, 2004)

ssampier said:
			
		

> I claim ignorance.
> 
> I don't know who Flash Gordon is. Buck Rogers I only vaguely remember.




You have got to be pulling our legs! Flash Gordon is an icon of sci-fi adventure and a mainstay of the comic pages for 50+ years. How can you remember Buck Rogers and not Flash Gordon, even with that deliciously hoeky and intentionally bad (I'd like to think so) Topol/Sam Jones/Max Von Sydow movie from 1980 with the Queen soundtrack. I command, no DEMAND, that you go out and ask your local comic shop to gt you some non-DC Flash Gordon comics. Awesome stuff.

Sky Captain was the most fun I had at a movie in a long time. It met and exceeded my expectations and was well worth the 4 bucks admission (and not a matinee). Definite must see.

Jason


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 25, 2004)

Back to Sky Captain, since it did not try to be hard SF I did not have a problem with the movie, as I said, it hit a lot of nostalgia buttons - many of them the same ones that Rocketeer, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Star Wars hit for me. (Rocketeer being closest.)

It would be no work at all to adapt OGL Steampunk to run Sky Captain as a setting, simply borrowing the weapons from D20 Modern would suffice.

The soft focus was interesting, fitting well with the retro future look of the movie. Like I said, I enjoyed it, giving it a 7 or 8, in spite of some rather uninspired acting.

The Auld Grump - And in regards to Mr. Dyall's comments...



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I didn't really, no, and it's been a long time since I've seen them.  However, some things (noise in space?  c'mon) are simply genre conventions that I don't even notice.  Moontrap, I haven't seen in like 15 years.
> 
> I guess they didn't teach fission in your high school physics then?  And no, there is no creation of energy in either case; that's shorthand for releasing energy.  I thought that was self-explanatory.
> 
> ...




Okay from the top - it was a chemical not a nuclear reaction - not fission. (Nuclear reactions pertain to the nucleus of the atom, chemical do not, only the valances.) Did they teach you anything in school? Guess not. There is a slight difference between the two. Plants turn CO2 into oxygen and carbon with the input of energy in the form of sunlight, requiring that input of energy to sustain the reaction. Animals alllow a controlled cumbustion of carbon to take place - releasing energy. Both require fuel, the carbon/oxygen reaction relaeasing a greater amount than the slower displacement of carbon from the CO2. The photosynthesis of plants is a more complicated and multi stage process compared to the relatively simple one of basically 'burning' the carbon in animals.

The little hoppy things were called Nematodes in the movie - guess what - they aren't nematodes, therefor 'little hoppy things', which is at least something they were. What mass? The 'nematodes' were breeding faster than they were consuming, Out massing what they ate. (something actually commented on by the characters in the movie.)They were obviously highly energetic creatures despite supposedly turning CO2 into oxygen and carbon (as I said a reaction that requires an input of energy to sustain.) Look up the word 'nematode' by the way, then watch the movie again, nematodes are round worms.

And guess what - *guns can fire in a vacuum*. Goddard (you remember him, the guy who also demonstrated liquid fueled rockets?) demonstrated that back in the 1920s, the whole point of gunpowder and its replacements is that they contain the oxygenating agent in the mix. in the case of blackpowder this is suplied by the saltpeter, which also acts as the 'kindling'..

And you admit not seeing the movie Contact, yep, 'nuf said. 

Your one cogent comment was in regards to 2010, the assumption made was that the monoliths were transporting matter, not made clear in the movie, but made so in the book. 2010 was at least closer than either Red Planet or Mission To Mars, though matter transmission steps too close to magic for my tase.

Done. (with Apologies to Piratecat.)

*EDIT* Moved the portion pertaining to the subject to the top.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Sep 25, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> So, you've never seen the Street Fighter movie, then?




God help me. 
Laser sights on top of the barrels!
Personal money printed before he has the country under his thumb!
Guile a main character!


----------



## The_lurkeR (Sep 26, 2004)

Just saw it at the drive-in tonight.
It was visually inspired and ummm... that's it I guess. I don't have anything else nice to say, I gave it a 4.


----------



## The Grackle (Sep 26, 2004)

Gomez said:
			
		

> It looks like his second movie will be Edgar Rice Burroughs, _A Princess of Mars! _ I cannot wait!




Noooo!!!  They're gonna let _this_ director make A Princess of Mars?  Man, does anyone know where he lives?  I'm gonna go break his legs right now. 

I mean, Sky Captain was alrightish, but it was like watching a really long trailer.  There were robots and stuff, but it was a pretty lifeless film.  This guy's a crap director, and those were crap actors. That guy who played Dax chewed gums pretty convincingly, but otherwise- yech.  

Still, I had more fun than I thought I would. C+/B-
----
Did anyone else notice that when Sky Captain was shooting at the dinosaur with a semi-automatic, it gets knocked from his hands and in the next shot a revolver falls down the chasm.
"Oh crap, I dropped someone else's gun!"


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 28, 2004)

I gave it a 6, which is reasonably high for me. The big problem was the screenplay -- the story was so clonkily handled (and didn't need to be) and there was very little over-arcing tension. Other than the "Who's this Totenkopf cat and what's he up to?" the story largely consisted of "Encounter Dangerous/Puzzling Thing, Elude Danger/Solve Puzzle, Repeat." Which got a little tedious the third or fourth time. It needed a few tense issues that were carried along through the film, that didn't get eluded or solved on the first pass.

Big points for all three leads who did stellar jobs, the look and design of the entire production, and the sheer inventiveness of it all. I'll definitely see the next picture this guy makes -- he's good.

But stuff like, "So where is this Totenkopf anyway? And what's this staff?"

"Hm, this staff appears to somehow (never mind the details) lead us directly to Totenkopf. Phew!"

Just makes me wish the writers had worked a little harder.


----------



## ssampier (Sep 30, 2004)

teitan said:
			
		

> You have got to be pulling our legs! Flash Gordon is an icon of sci-fi adventure and a mainstay of the comic pages for 50+ years. How can you remember Buck Rogers and not Flash Gordon, even with that deliciously hoeky and intentionally bad (I'd like to think so) Topol/Sam Jones/Max Von Sydow movie from 1980 with the Queen soundtrack. I command, no DEMAND, that you go out and ask your local comic shop to gt you some non-DC Flash Gordon comics. Awesome stuff.
> 
> Sky Captain was the most fun I had at a movie in a long time. It met and exceeded my expectations and was well worth the 4 bucks admission (and not a matinee). Definite must see.
> 
> Jason




Nope I'm serious! I'm a young adult (23), so I was very little when Buck Rogers was popular. My family didn't like sci-fi much (except my father who's a Star Trek nut), so I don't remember watching it much. I've heard of Flash Gordon. I just don't know who he/she/it is and what the big deal is/was.

I should point out I'm more of a fantasy fan than sci fi buff.

Anyway, regardless, I enjoyed Sky Captain.


----------



## John Crichton (Oct 2, 2004)

That was a *damn* good time.  Pulpy, pulpy, pulpy.

Transparent story with a "twist"?  Check.

Plucky female reporter in love with the lead?  Check.

Aw, shucks leading man who always comes through in the clutch?  Check.

Awesome visuals?  Check.

10 out of 10.


----------



## Gomez (Oct 2, 2004)

ssampier said:
			
		

> Nope I'm serious! I'm a young adult (23), so I was very little when Buck Rogers was popular. My family didn't like sci-fi much (except my father who's a Star Trek nut), so I don't remember watching it much. I've heard of Flash Gordon. I just don't know who he/she/it is and what the big deal is/was.
> 
> I should point out I'm more of a fantasy fan than sci fi buff.
> 
> Anyway, regardless, I enjoyed Sky Captain.




You weren't even alive when Buck Rogers was popular. Your father and grandfather enjoyed it though!   



*Buck Rogers*


Buck Rogers first appeared as Anthony Rogers in a short space opera, "Armageddon-2419 A.D." by Philip Francis Nowlan, published in the August 1928 issue of Amazing Stories. A sequel, "The Airlords of Han," appeared in the March 1929 issue (the warlike Hans were later changed to Mongols).

Following is the introduction to the reprint of "Armageddon-2419 A.D." from the 35th anniversary issue of Amazing Stories.

The August, 1928, issue of Amazing Stories was beyond question one of the most important not only in its history but in the history of science fiction. That would have been the case if it had only presented to the science fiction public a new author named Edward Elmer Smith with the first installment of "The Skylark of Space." But its immortality was assured by introducing Anthony "Buck" Rogers to the world in a 25,000 word novelette titled "Armageddon-2419," by Philip Francis Nowlan.

Few people, either in or out of science fiction, know that "Buck" Rogers was born in Amazing Stories. Fewer still are aware that the first artist to cartoon the famous future Americans and soldiers of Han was Frank R. Paul. Breaking its policy Amazing Stories ran, in addition to two full-size illustrations, three cartoon panels which may even have given Nowlan the idea of submitting the entire package to a comic strip syndicate.

When Buck Rogers in the Twenty Fifth Century appeared as a Comic strip in the daily newspapers in 1929 it created a sensation and added a new phrase to the language. Phil Nowlan wrote the continuity about the famous characters of Buck Rogers, Wilma Deering, Dr. Huer, and Killer Kane, along with their disintegrators, jumping belts, inertron, and paralysis rays, and made them familiar to millions of people in this country and abroad. The daily adventures on radio thrilled many more. The popularity of the strip began to decline in the late thirties under the competitions of Flash Gordon, Brick Bradford and other imitators. When Phil Nowlan severed his connection with the strip there was a steady loss of readership. Today, though the strip still appears in some papers, few people are aware it still exists. When Nowlan left the strip in l939 he resumed his writing of magazine science fiction; but he died in early 1940.

"Buck Rogers" is for the world of tomorrow, future invention and the spirit of science fiction. In past years the phrase "that Buck Rogers stuff" had a derisive ring to it, but more recently atom bombs and earth satellites have changed all that.

The strangest part about this entire story is that the original Buck Rogers' stories in Amazing Stories were in no sense juveniles. They were serious, adult works based on the most plausible science of the time. They have an aura of accurate prophecy about them that cannot be erased. "Armageddon-2419" precisely described the bazooka, the jet plane, walkie-talkie for warfare, the infra-red ray gun for fighting at night, as well as dozens of other advances that are not here yet but are on their way.

The perceptive Hugo Gernsback, then editor and publisher of Amazing Stories called his shots as accurately on the quality of his stories as he did on future invention. Of "Armageddon-2419" he said: "We have rarely printed a story in this magazine that for scientific interest as well as suspense could hold its own with this particular story. We prophesy that this story will become more valuable as the years go by. It certainly holds a number of interesting prophecies, many of which, no doubt, will come true. For wealth of science it will be hard to beat for some time to come. It is one of those rare stories that will bear reading and re-reading many times."

Comic Strip 1928-1967
Radio Serial 1932-1947
Film Serial 1939
TV Series 1950-1951
Second TV Series 1979-1981


----------



## Knightfall (Oct 6, 2004)

A solid 8.


----------



## Ghostwind (Oct 8, 2004)

Just saw it tonight. I enjoyed it thoroughly. It made me think of the old serials I grew up with. Just a popcorn movie that lets you check your brains at the door and enjoy it for what it is supposed to be.


----------



## Krug (Oct 16, 2004)

6. The plot needed work, and tried too hard to throw in every sort of pulp era element in there. (Lost World etc) The action scenes were so muddied in colour they lacked much tension. I thought Jolie was great; showed who really wore the pants.


----------

