PDA

View Full Version : Adventures of Pluto Nash



StyLe
2002-Aug-12, 04:40 AM
I'm not even going to watch this movie but it takes place on the moon so you can expect some BA on account that it's in space and most movies make mistakes.

nebularain
2002-Aug-26, 04:32 PM
Boy! What a winner movie.
Either it has, remarkably, no BA in it, or no one wants to see it, or no one wants to admit they saw it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

beskeptical
2002-Aug-27, 09:52 AM
I wanted to see it but it got bad reviews. I was hoping someone who had seen it would have commented so I knew if the reviews were reliable.

Sum0
2002-Aug-27, 10:28 AM
Well, in the commercial they say "far side of the moon" rather than dark, which I suppose counts as good astronomy...

Jim
2002-Aug-27, 12:59 PM
What you need to keep in mind is that this is an Eddie Murphy movie<sup>1</sup> that was shelved for many months<sup>2</sup> and finally released during the summer doldrums<sup>3</sup> with no hype<sup>4</sup> and no prescreenings for the critics<sup>5</sup>. I'm sure it has lots of bad astronomy in it, but the studio has already tagged it as simply "Bad."

1 He's made a lot of bad movies lately.
2 Indicating trepidation over releasing it.
3 When few people will notice it.
4 To make sure few people will notice it.
5 To avoid bad reviews before it hits the thaters.

kucharek
2002-Aug-27, 01:17 PM
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0180052 says it all...

Harald

Hale_Bopp
2002-Aug-31, 03:32 AM
Well, the BA has been known to take one for the team. Maybe he will see it!

How about it, BA? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Rob

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Aug-31, 04:39 AM
On 2002-08-30 23:32, Hale_Bopp wrote:
Well, the BA has been known to take one for the team.

Not a prayer. I try to watch/review first run movies if they look like they have legs to them, so the audience is as broad as possible. This one has "direct to video" all over it.

redrefractor
2002-Nov-16, 10:26 AM
I started another string on this film without realizing that THIS one existed, but I'll summarize my observations on the film;

Lots of GOOD astronomy, including excellent usage of selenographical terms such as "Rille" and "Mascon", and Murphy's character even gives a creditable explanation of why the lunar night lasts two weeks.
Yes, the plot is awful (a basic little guy versus organized crime kingpin tale--with a semi-clever twist at the end), but the lunar surface scenery is nice (the mountains are rounded properly and not sharp and pointy as in most films). NOT a great film, but GOOD astronomy!

heliopause
2002-Nov-16, 05:40 PM
Does anybody remember when Eddie Murphy movies used to be worth watching? Ever since that unfortunate incident where he got caught with a Lady of the Night (well, he was dressed like a lady) his movies have been...well...they STINK!!! Gone are the days of "Raw", "Delirious," "48 Hours" and "Beverly Hills Cop." Now we get "The Klumps."

heliopause
2002-Nov-16, 05:44 PM
On 2002-11-16 12:40, heliopause wrote:
Does anybody remember when Eddie Murphy movies used to be worth watching? Ever since that unfortunate incident where he got caught with a Lady of the Night (well, he was dressed like a lady) his movies have been...well...they STINK!!! Gone are the days of "Raw", "Delirious," "48 Hours" and "Beverly Hills Cop." Now we get "The Klumps."


Wait a minute...does anybody remember when movies in general used to be worth watching??? Now all we get are remakes, kitzch and sequels to kitzch.

Kaptain K
2002-Nov-16, 06:28 PM
Wait a minute...does anybody remember when movies in general used to be worth watching??? Now all we get are remakes, kitzch and sequels to kitzch.
And Lord of the Rings. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Smaug
2002-Nov-16, 06:35 PM
You dare to insult LOTR! Aieee I can't take it!

heliopause
2002-Nov-16, 06:45 PM
On 2002-11-16 13:35, Smaug wrote:
You dare to insult LOTR! Aieee I can't take it!


Gee, Smaug, with a name like yours, I can't see how you'd be offended at a swipe at LOTR /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif!

Jetmech0417
2002-Nov-16, 06:53 PM
Perhaps he was referring to the cheesy animated LOTR series. I seem to remember the entire saga was packed into about 75 minutes of bad animation. And one can't forget about the animated version of The Hobbit.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Nov-16, 07:10 PM
On 2002-11-16 13:53, Jetmech0417 wrote:
Perhaps he was referring to the cheesy animated LOTR series. I seem to remember the entire saga was packed into about 75 minutes of bad animation. And one can't forget about the animated version of The Hobbit.
You're probably referring to Bakshi's version (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0077869), which was partly rotoscoped, but was 132 minutes long and did not cover the entire trilogy. It was so bad, they just didn't finish.

Kaptain K
2002-Nov-16, 08:04 PM
On 2002-11-16 13:35, Smaug wrote:
You dare to insult LOTR! Aieee I can't take it!

Oh dear, I did not make myself clear. I mentioned LOTR as an exception to the above mentioned drivel, not as an example. Sorry. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

heliopause
2002-Nov-16, 09:12 PM
On 2002-11-16 15:04, Kaptain K wrote:

Oh dear, I did not make myself clear. I mentioned LOTR as an exception to the above mentioned drivel, not as an example. Sorry. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif



Yes, the joys of an on-line forum. It gives the reader tons of room to misinterpret, misconstrue and get one's undies (boxers, briefs, panties..take your pick) all up in a bunch /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif !

LOTR is one of the few things that will make me shell out $9 to go see.

nebularain
2002-Nov-16, 10:05 PM
On 2002-11-16 12:40, heliopause wrote:
Does anybody remember when Eddie Murphy movies used to be worth watching? . . . Gone are the days of "Raw", "Delirious," "48 Hours" and "Beverly Hills Cop

Don't forget Donkey in Shrek!

Smaug
2002-Nov-16, 11:40 PM
On 2002-11-16 16:12, heliopause wrote:


On 2002-11-16 15:04, Kaptain K wrote:

Oh dear, I did not make myself clear. I mentioned LOTR as an exception to the above mentioned drivel, not as an example. Sorry. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif



Yes, the joys of an on-line forum. It gives the reader tons of room to misinterpret, misconstrue and get one's undies (boxers, briefs, panties..take your pick) all up in a bunch /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif !

LOTR is one of the few things that will make me shell out $9 to go see.



I see Kaptain K. My mistake, and yes the $9 bucks is well worth it

David Hall
2002-Nov-17, 12:36 AM
Here's a look at Bakshi's LOTR, in all it't gory detail. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm

And Eddy Murphy made some stinkers in the past too. I seem to remember a little movie called D.C. Cab. He used to joke about doing it later.

Anyway, with the rumor of good astronomy, I'm actually curious to see Pluto Nash now. Does that mean there's something wrong with me?

heliopause
2002-Nov-17, 01:18 AM
On 2002-11-16 19:36, David Hall wrote:
And Eddy Murphy made some stinkers in the past too. I seem to remember a little movie called D.C. Cab. He used to joke about doing it later.



D.C. Cab was possibly thew worst movie ever, but Eddie Murphy was not part of the cast. For some unknown reason, I happen to own one of the few remaining copies of the putrid film featuring Mr. T, Paul Rodriguez, Bill Maher, Gary Busey (oh man was ol' Gary on some kind of uppers in that flick), and a bunch of nobodies.

David Hall
2002-Nov-17, 01:35 AM
Ok, you're right. My memory must've been off. But I do remember him joking about taking a movie deal because he was offered a lot of money for it.

Maybe it was Best Defense (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0086955)?

kucharek
2003-Feb-11, 08:37 AM
This movie seems to get what it deserves: It is in the 23rd Annual RAZZIE Nominations of the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation for the worst screenplay of the year.

http://razzies.com/asp/content/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=110

Maybe we should contact the foundation if they wouldn't like to add a category "Worst Science" or something like that...

Harald

David Hall
2003-Feb-11, 04:30 PM
I see Episode II got 7 nominations.

I don't understand what everyone has against the last two Star Wars movies. Sure, they weren't great, but they aren't that bad. There are definitely some really cool scenes and characters in them. But people vilify them as if they were bombs of the worst sort.

It's probably just because most fans weren't expecting average movies. They went in hoping for the magic of the first trilogy, and getting disappointed when they didn't deliver. But come on, taking it to the opposite extreme and saying they sucked is unfair too.

logicboy
2003-Feb-11, 05:15 PM
The Next Movie is gonna kick some A$$ because Annakin goes nutz!!! and killz everyone.

YOUNG WORD DELETED BY THE BAD ASTRONOMER OFF DARTH VADER!!!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2003-02-12 02:11 ]</font>

Kizarvexis
2003-Feb-12, 01:49 AM
On 2003-02-11 11:30, David Hall wrote:
I see Episode II got 7 nominations.

I don't understand what everyone has against the last two Star Wars movies. Sure, they weren't great, but they aren't that bad. There are definitely some really cool scenes and characters in them. But people vilify them as if they were bombs of the worst sort.

It's probably just because most fans weren't expecting average movies. They went in hoping for the magic of the first trilogy, and getting disappointed when they didn't deliver. But come on, taking it to the opposite extreme and saying they sucked is unfair too.


I think it is more because the new movies can't live up to the expectation of the old movies. Star Wars fans had twenty years idealize the triology in their minds before seeing the new movies. Add in the hype before Ep I and it is very logical, IMO, why so many people villify the new movies.



Yes, the joys of an on-line forum. It gives the reader tons of room to misinterpret, misconstrue and get one's undies (boxers, briefs, panties..take your pick) all up in a bunch!

What about if someone doesn't wear underwear? What do they get in a bunch? or can they? Would not wearing underwear make you calmer, because you can't get them in a bunch? Sounds like its time to apply for a government grant for some research. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Kizarvexis

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Feb-12, 07:11 AM
Watch the language please, Logicboy.

Ilya
2003-Sep-04, 03:00 AM
I finally watched "Pluto Nash" (on HBO), and must say was pleasantly surprised. It's intentionally silly - it parodies many different things. The humor reminds me a lot of "Futurama"; here are two examples:

A nightclub singer does an act which is a VERY obvious takeoff on Frank Sinatra. A customer swoons: "Isn't he wonderful? So unique! Nothing like him anywhere!"

Eddie Murphy's (male) robot bodyguard looks at female waitress robot. Eddie comments something about two of them getting together. The bodyguard: "No, I am 110 V and she is 220." "So? Get an adapter." "No, that just ruins it for me."

And, as far as I can tell, what little astronomy was in the movie, was actually GOOD.

freddo
2003-Sep-04, 04:26 AM
I can't believe that the people who have seen this film believe the astronomy was good in the film!! Huh?!? Sure they pay homage to a lot of the more nitpicky things people like us would have a field day with:

But they forget the biggest problem of all - Lunar Gravity. Apparently the act of having an enclosed atmosphere on the moon also provides Earth like gravity... Ok then... Didn't anyone else notice this?

Mind you - the fight outdoors on the Moon was fairly well done.



Eddie Murphy's (male) robot bodyguard
Randy Quaid's character was definitely the saving grace of the film!

Ilya
2003-Sep-04, 05:06 PM
But they forget the biggest problem of all - Lunar Gravity. Apparently the act of having an enclosed atmosphere on the moon also provides Earth like gravity... Ok then... Didn't anyone else notice this?


Of course I noticed it. But considering the production costs involved in getting it right, I was willing to forgive it.




Eddie Murphy's (male) robot bodyguard
Randy Quaid's character was definitely the saving grace of the film!

I agree!

Krel
2003-Sep-04, 05:51 PM
They didn't forget about the Lunar gravity, they just used the old 'artifical gravity' escape. In the begining of the film, where the cars were entering the tunnel to the city there was a sign warning of the increase from Lunar gravity to Earth gravity.

Before its release I had heard about how bad the film was, that it had sat on the shelf for two years, it was only at the local show for a week. But I didn't find it that bad, certainly no worse than MIB II. But I still won't pay twenty bucks for the dvd.

David.

AKONI
2003-Sep-05, 12:17 AM
Pluto Nash = Tax write-off for the production company

waynek
2003-Sep-07, 09:59 PM
I got this movie on DVD because a local store was going out of business and it was dirt cheap. I didn't expect to like it, but in fact I found it very entertaining. After all the negative press it got, I was shocked to find it relitively clever and funny, and with beter science than the average Star Trek episode (not that that's so hard, but a lot of science-aware people still like that one). I decided beforehand that I would not nitpick, but just enjoy, but I didn't notice anything impossible to ignore as I usually do. If you like sci-fi comedy, I'd say this one is worth renting.

PS. I hate the way people let the press (and other handy scapegoats) form their opinions for them. I think if people hadn't been told to hate it then not so many of them would have. [-X