In celebration of Buckaroo Banzai -- HONG KONG CAVALIERS UNITE

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (222 of them)

Buckaroo Banzai could kick Marty McFly's tiny little lillywhite ass to the Eighth Dimension and back. No competition.

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Time Bandits is a rulin' early-HBO flick tho.

Unquestionably, saw it twice in theaters, and was my introduction to both Gilliam and Monty Python and through them the whole idea of 'British comedy' in a modern film/TV sense.

Kate: nope, no second disc, just one disc with, as noted, a hell of a lot of extras.

Back to the Future I never cared for.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:27 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost - yeah but CRISPIN GLOVER!

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

CRISPIN GLOVER WAS NOT THE STAR OF THE FILM, WAS HE?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, he's had top billing in so many films. Let's see, there's Twister and that one about rats...

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:29 (twenty-one years ago)

also, was Jeff Goldblum the star of Buckaroo Banzai? (Kate don't answer that)

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Peter Weller rules. Michael J. Fox less so.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:30 (twenty-one years ago)

CHRISTOPHER LLOYD IS IN BOTH FILMS.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I am not gonna pick sides between "John Bigboo-tay!!!!" vs. "1.21 Gigawatts!!!!" they are both awesome.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Christopher Lloyd + John Lithgow = scenery munching goodness. Christopher Lloyd + Michael J Fox = DRAGGED DOWN BY THE HEAVY SUCKAGE.

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Lloyd in BB = perfect ensemble casting; Lloyd in BTTF = you imagine him and Glover smoking out between takes and wondering if they're the only two sane people on the set.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't you mean "only two INSANE people on the set"?

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned I have never seen this side of you before, and I'm not sure I like it.

― NA (Nick A.), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Good lord, man, define what this 'side' of me is supposed to be!

Don't you mean "only two INSANE people on the set"?

WONKO THE SANE TO THREAD.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Insane is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, if you are trying to make a movie with MAD SCIENTISTS in it, I would say that it is URGENT AND HIGHLY KEY.

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:39 (twenty-one years ago)

The side where you don't like Back to the Future.

― NA (Nick A.), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I also crush puppies and eat dead babies on a regular basis.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)

don't get me wrong, NA, the third one is the weakest one of the series, but I still like it for some reason. Prolly the ZZ TOP cameo.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:41 (twenty-one years ago)

You know, a few months back, I was going to start a thread about the changing role of science and especially scientists in 80s comedies (BTTF, BB, Ghostbusters, Weird Science things like that, where mad scientists are seen as generally benevolent or even actively good) as opposed to their predecessors in 50s and 60s films where the classic mad scientist is evil, a descendent of Dr. Frankenstein.

But I didn't think there would be the interest...

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Are there many mad scientists these days? Does Jackman's Van Helsing count?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:43 (twenty-one years ago)

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Van Helsing (or rather his assistant) is getting there. I'm trying to think of recent movie scientists, but I don't see many current films. I'm more thinking about 80s mad scientists vs. 50s/60s mad scientists. Like Buckaroo Banzai vs. Quatermaster or however you spell it.

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I called in to a radio show on NPR about "the concept of destiny in movies" a couple of months ago to ask about the Back to the Future movies (and time-travel movies in general). I was on the radio.

― NA (Nick A.), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:54 (twenty-one years ago)

how could anyone not like "you...are...my...density!"?!?!?!?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

destiny vs. density

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

duh Ned that's like the entire gist of the scene.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I was referring more to NA vs. your posts.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah but that's the whole joke in the movie in that Marty tells George to tell Lorraine that she is his destiny but he fucks up and says density hahahaha OMG ROFFLE nerds are funny!

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Crispin de Bergerac

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

See, that's why BTTF is just crap. There's that whole stupid romantic comedy subplot to it, while BB has GOOD VERSUS BAD ALIENS!!! FIGHTING TO SAVE THE UNIVERSE!!! And the romance is just totally bizarre and thrown in an afterthought and unexplained.

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:33 (twenty-one years ago)

totally wrong, Kate! The romance between Buckaroo and his dead wife's sister is INTEGRAL to the plot! And it's not a subplot in Back to the Future, either: if Marty fucks up in 1955, his parents don't meet and fall in love and thusly he doesn't exist! How is that SUB-anything?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

The romance between Buckaroo and his dead wife's sister is a footnote to the plot! They could have left it out and the movie would have still been just the same.

BTTF is a romantic comedy dressed up as a science fiction film and therefore dud dud DUD DUD DUD!!!

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:39 (twenty-one years ago)

you don't like romance?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Romance sucks big hairy moosecock. Oh, and romantic movies suck, too.

Tell me how the romance of Buckaroo and Penny was integral to the plot. How?

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)

okay, not integral, but definitely good comic relief.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Pointless. OK, she satisfies the hot babe quotient, but really. There's no point for her to even be there, except to flag up the weirdness surrounding Buckaroo's past. Which is actually a pretty good reason for her to be there. But anyway, I'm not arguing this. I'm arguing that BB is a better film because it's NOT a stupid dumb horrible sucktastic romance.

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)

her getting kidnapped is a pretty decent plot device to drag out the ending, tho.

Kate, I weep that you don't like romance.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:47 (twenty-one years ago)

this thread needs to include My Science Project...

― Kingfish Disraeli (Kingfish), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Kate, I weep that you don't like romance.

I'm with Kate in that I don't like crap romance; however there have been far crappier romances than BTTF's.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean I'm not a huge fan of romance, but a good one is a good one. Do you people not like Katherine "My Head's a-Wobblin'" Hepburn flix?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Crappy romances stuck in to provide babe action in otherwise decent sci fi flicks suck big hairy moosecock. If I wanted to watch a romance, I would have rented one, except I didn't cause I'm not a dumb chick flick chick. Why can't they just stick in stong, good, female characters in, for the sake of having good female characters. Like Ivanova in Babylon 5. If you're going to have romance in a sci fi film, have it be integral to the plot. Like, erm, the captain and the alien babe in Babylon 5.

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait, so not thinking much of BTTF and its romance plot means I hate Hepburn? I don't think so.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Barkin's character isn't nearly as cookie-cutter sci-fi babe-ish as most bad sci-fi stuff. Big juggs + engineering = happy sci-fi nerds.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:53 (twenty-one years ago)

no Ned, I'm just saying that a good romance is just as good as anything else. The crap that is probably 80% of the genre ain't any different from the crap that is 80% of sci-fi.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:54 (twenty-one years ago)

They showed the auction of Hepburn's things on the news this morning. All these fans were going "This is an outrage, how can you exploit her like this?" like dumbasses until the auction house pointed out that she SPECIFIED IN HER WILL SHE WANTED HER BELONGINGS SOLD WHEN SHE DIED. But anyway... Hepburn is the sort of strong, interesting character who is in films because she belonged in the film and was integral to the plot. She was never shoehorned in to provide babe action.

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)

no way, this was supposed to be an action-safari flick:

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)

x-post... hey, I'm saying that Barkin is less offensive than most romance subplots. that's what makes BB better than BTTF. but the fact that you say she's better than most sci fi babes indicates that you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about and complaining about.

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Speaking of which, I have, like 600 channels of digital TV in the other room. I should stop mucking about on the internet and go see if I can find some bad sci fi!

― Possibly Kate Again (kate), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm just saying that a good romance is just as good as anything else

Define 'good.' Which is incredibly obvious but is also the entire point -- everyone will differ.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 10 June 2004 16:59 (twenty-one years ago)

c'mon that sorta nitpicking is sub-Raggettian at best.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 10 June 2004 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Skipping 122 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.