brief linkblogging

Aug 22, 2008 12:19

Spoof trailer for Twilight, with the real movie trailer underneath.

Feminist Narrative and the Supernatural:  Waaaaaannnnnttttt!! (Which is not to be mistaken for "Buy for me!")

Stargate: Universe:  Strangely, not so sure I want. I mean, come on, why call it Stargate if it's primarily a space ship show?  And can't they leave the Ancients with a ( Read more... )

linkblogging, tv: stargate, books: twilight (snark)

Leave a comment

Comments 11

havocthecat August 22 2008, 17:40:19 UTC
*giggling* My, that Amazon link looks familiar. :)

Reply

meganbmoore August 22 2008, 17:43:02 UTC
As well it should! (Why can't it at least have a token discount?)

Reply


lesbiassparrow August 22 2008, 18:14:31 UTC
Wasn't Stargate: Universe previously known as Star Trek: Voyager? And God knows how many mortal enemies this bunch will make for the human race.

Reply

meganbmoore August 22 2008, 18:56:20 UTC
You know, in 10 seasons, SG-1 only made 3 mortal enemies. And only one was from being stupid. And they made just as many allies.

I figure Universe has a 50/50 chance of escaping suckage.

Reply


ladysaotome August 22 2008, 19:24:00 UTC
I agree with lesbiasparrow that it sounds very Voyager-ish. I think they're trying to turn Star Gate into another Star Trek (with the mass cult following, etc.) But it sounds interesting either way. I love Atlantis so I'll be very sad to see it end, though. At least they've promised us movies, too. I think they're trying to prevent Atlantis from languishing toward the end like SG1 did (to me anyway).

Reply

meganbmoore August 22 2008, 19:44:11 UTC
That they're trying to turn Stargate into Star Trek is one of my current big fears.

Reply


crumpeteer August 22 2008, 19:30:38 UTC
"He also has my Nickelback cd and I sort of want it back."

Why is that trailer so much better than the real one? Also the guy flopping around in the cardboard box amused me.

Reply

meganbmoore August 22 2008, 19:49:55 UTC
The real trailer is painful primarily, I think, because the actors have some serious chemistry going, but have clearly figured out that they chose the wrong movie to display it in.

And having read/watched interviews with Kristen Stewart and seen a few clips from various things, I don't think I could ever buy her as a clumsy twit with no survival skills. She seems more likely to stomp on someone's instep and then find the closest thing to swing or throw, if there's no obvious escape route.

The spoof it good because it revels in the absurdity. And you aren't quite sure if the door was really supposed to be closed.

Reply

crumpeteer August 22 2008, 19:55:57 UTC
Poor RPattz gives the impression that he just sort of wants the craziness to blow over. Poor kid, he seems like a pleasant guy. And Kristen Stewart seems far too capable for Bella. She reminds me slightly of Emily Deschanel, who is most definitely not needing to be saved.

Reply

meganbmoore August 22 2008, 20:09:22 UTC
In most shots you see of them that aren't in character, she looks like the one who will be beating people up, and he looks like he doesn't mind.

You can't picture her stumbling in the woods while running for her life unless it's as a distraction to grab that nice, sturdy branch she saw.

I classify them both as pleasant kids who want to escape. But being 18, she seems to be trying harder to save face. (I half get the feeling that she's a fan who didn't realize how bad it was until she was playing Bella.)

Reply


fairest1 August 22 2008, 20:38:12 UTC
*watches both* Okay, the main difference I can see is that one has slightly better production values, one is funnier, and the acting feels stiff on both of them.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up