Comments for Sound On Sight

Comment on ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Sound on Sight Podcast # 356 by Edgar Chaput

Edgar Chaput — Tue, 21 May 2013 03:53:40 +0000

Don’t worry, there is no need to apologize. As stated in this episode, the show runners (Simon and Ricky) would rather be talking about films other than Star Trek were it to for some variables that are beyond their control. Personally, while I’m flattered to be invited as a guest on the regular show (I like podcasting and I specifically like talking movies with my SOS colleagues) I won’t deny that being a regular co-host on Sordid is more thrilling because of the movies we talk about.

My comment was more concerning the distinction of what serious film can be. We all have our definitions about what that might mean (even myself) but even despite those personal viewpoints, they can be trumped. I for one, had no idea yesterday’s discussion would evolve into the film’s potential commentary on post 9/11 counter terrorism measures. Ricky and our guest Mariko were able to extrapolate that out off the film and, to top it off, gain even further enjoyment because of that. This from, yes, a Star Trek film. While I agree that talking about non mainstream fair is something SOS does take some pride in (again, this would include myself), any movies than result in serious, intelligent and provocative conversation.

Comment on ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Sound on Sight Podcast # 356 by Francesco

Francesco — Tue, 21 May 2013 01:39:34 +0000

1. I already apologized for the comment.

2. I think you misunderstood my comment.
I wasn’t criticizing the quality of the podcast (my personal top 3 or 4), just the quality of the movie.
I just think is a waste of your talents.
I’m listening to this podcast for a while now and i know what are you capable of doing.

Comment on Cinema’s Greatest Villains: The 1970′s by Fletch

Fletch — Mon, 20 May 2013 22:57:42 +0000

How could you forget John Houston in Chinatown? That’s probably the greatest villain of any decade.

Comment on ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Sound on Sight Podcast # 356 by Edgar Chaput

Edgar Chaput — Mon, 20 May 2013 20:33:14 +0000

I think we at Sound on Sight appreciate your concern. We also very much appreciate your interest in what we do. Ricky mentioned the Sordid Cinema show which does concentrate on more obscure (mostly) film material.

However, and this is just me saying this (so don’t associate everyone on the show with it), let’s not get into a debate about what consists of a ‘debate of serious cinema.’ That sounds pretty pejorative to a lot of well produced and hosted shows out there that do concentrate on stuff like Star Trek. Let’s just be a wary of how we use words here.

Comment on ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Sound on Sight Podcast # 356 by Ricky

Ricky — Mon, 20 May 2013 19:28:56 +0000

We have no sponsors. I pay for the podcast out of my own pocket. The ads on our site barely pay for the actual site.

But yes, as mentioned, we are in a transition period. Josh lives in Phoenix and Simon moved to Toronto. We just need some time to regroup.

However, our Sordid Cinema spin off show which is on the same feed covers more underground stuff.

Comment on ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Sound on Sight Podcast # 356 by Francesco

Francesco — Mon, 20 May 2013 18:53:17 +0000

SORRY, I WROTE THE COMMENT BEFORE LISTENING TO THE PODCAST. LATER I HEARD THE EXPLANATION, SO PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGY.

Comment on ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Sound on Sight Podcast # 356 by Francesco

Francesco — Mon, 20 May 2013 18:46:34 +0000

To much mainstream in my opinion.
I do not know why is that. Maybe sponsors or something?

Didnt you say once that this is podcast for film students and cinefiles?

Jurassic Park, Iron Man, Star Strek? Really? Why?

We would like to debate serious cinema.

Comment on Cinema’s Greatest Villains: The 1970′s by Jack Deth

Jack Deth — Mon, 20 May 2013 13:44:31 +0000

Hi, Terek:

Superb list!

If you didn’t note all of them. You got most of them!

I would add another Anthony Zerbe villainous role from the 1970s.

His crooked DA, Anthiel in ‘Who’ll Stop the Rain rocks in its overt greasy sliminess.

Also the tag team of John Colicos and JD Cannon as CIA honchos scheming against Burt Lancaster in ‘Scorpio’.

Christopher Lee also scores high as Lord Summerisle in ‘The Wicker Man’ from 1973.

Comment on Doctor Who Ep. 7.14, “The Name of the Doctor”: Inconsistent internal logic weighs down creative, fatalistic finale by Connor Duff

Connor Duff — Mon, 20 May 2013 07:32:02 +0000

I’ve been a die hard fan of Doctor Who for over two years now, and while the show rarely dissappoints in my experience, this series was not the best. The plot holes I’m realizing now are gaping, and the finale was not as mind-blowing as I had hoped it would be. However, an episode that stood out in my mind was “Hide”. The episode was witty, whimsical and suspenseful and very true to the spirit of the show.
All in all, not the best season ever, but I’m liking Clara a lot. She’s mysterious, funny and clever (though to be fair, the mystery’s been solved), and I’d love to see more of her.
And of course, I’d hate to see Matt Smith go; he’s
excellent, but the idea of having John Hurt as the
next Doctor is outstanding! He looks badass and I think he may have a similar feel to some of the older
Doctors (ie, William Hartnell, John Pertwee) both of
whom were excellent.
My friend thinks that John Hurt is the Doctor’s
secret regeneration from the Time War, but I think
(and really hope) that he’s the 12th Doctor and the 11th has met him due to a “Three Doctors” related merge and it would make sense for that episode to be set after the show left off because the 11th Doctor would have met the 12th as the 10th Doctor and therefore had known him prior to the event happening because he already experienced it once. I think that makes sense.
Anyways, I always shall love the show, even when it’s not at it’s best and I have high hopes for the next season and the new Doctor. :)
Sorry, one more point I didn’t think of till now.
One thing I couldn’t stand about series seven was the constant “Doctor who?” asking. That got really old, really fast. It’s cliché at this point

Comment on Doctor Who Ep. 7.14, “The Name of the Doctor”: Inconsistent internal logic weighs down creative, fatalistic finale by rick

rick — Mon, 20 May 2013 05:45:54 +0000

the idea behind killing DW to prevent him from reaching his tomb is that time can be rewritten so it was better to have him die than to have him not ever existed because he had saved the universe so many times granted they over did it with their firts attempt blowing up the tardis in the pandorica story but so far smith is confirmed for season 8 so hurt is gonna be a evil doctor the ultimate villian the doctor himself a past doctor who escapes his established timeline and becomes the evil he sought to avoid kinda like the hulk in the utopia storyline where he became the maestro he was an evil dr banner who later in his life becomes evil in the doctors case it appears to be in the time war or an earlier version.

Comment on Doctor Who Ep. 7.14, “The Name of the Doctor”: Inconsistent internal logic weighs down creative, fatalistic finale by Peter Barabas

Peter Barabas — Mon, 20 May 2013 04:10:18 +0000

I’m with you in the sense that I feel there’s just too much nidpicking in this article. These shows aren’t out there to bring us a story without any fault whatsoever. That would just make it insanely hard to bring the plot forward. That said, there is simply no “inconsistency” a writer couldn’t explain. However, explaining all of it would probably be more boring than some people think, or would just simply take too much time.
I enjoyed these last few episodes, and the possibilities the ending presented are great.

Comment on Cinema’s Greatest Villains: The 1970′s by Bill Mesce

Bill Mesce — Mon, 20 May 2013 00:58:06 +0000

Great catches all! Every time I thought, Well, he’s not gonna pick so-and-so, there it was! What Olivier could do with a dental pick and three words outclasses all the superpowered supervillains of the last 15 years!

Comment on Roundup of New NBC Shows for Fall 2013-2014 by Justine

Justine — Sun, 19 May 2013 22:07:26 +0000

I am looking forward to the new Michael J. Fox show, sincerely hoping it won’t be a dumbed down CBS sitcom clone. Easily the one of the bunch I am most eager to see.

Comment on Doctor Who Ep. 7.14, “The Name of the Doctor”: Inconsistent internal logic weighs down creative, fatalistic finale by Jaym Esch

Jaym Esch — Sun, 19 May 2013 22:07:10 +0000

“The question was asked. Silence didn’t fall (in fact, nothing fell- a door cracked and the Doctor almost died. Funny way for the Silence to prevent the Doctor dying via the GI- killing him themselves first). It’s one thing to subvert expectation. It’s another to hype something repeatedly and then not deliver.”

I would suggest silence did fall- not the the silence you’re thinking of, however. The question was asked, and it (would have) led to The Doctor’s death. We saw the stars blinking out of existence from all the planets and galaxies he’s saved. That is true silence- so many lives ended. Even many of his friends blinked out of existence on the spot. More silence!

For me, I’d say that’s delivered.

Otherwise, I can’t comment too much. I don’t seek out plot holes or delve deeply into the details of shows. As a writer, I find it would take far to long, and reject too many possibilities, to make certain every last possible detail is examined. Particularly with such a short time frame and limited budget. You simply can’t flush out so much lore and find solutions that make for quality TV.

As a casual fan who simply enjoys the show week to week, I’ve found all of the current episodes (since Moffat brought it back) outstanding in their own way. I’m a bit bothered by a serious, old version of the Doctor, however. I enjoy seeing a wild, fun, crazy guy running about with with and intellect. I look to other shows for old, wise and stoic. Hopefully Hurt’s Doctor is a secondary character while Matt Smith’s continues the primary role? I can’t say I’m keen on entire episodes with Hurt’s version (who is too old to make sense with companions who would be young, hot and of interest. Last thing I want is an old Doctor with an old female companion, reminding me how old I’ve gotten- not a pleasant reminder. I want to live vicariously through the young, hot, intelligent, and spunky women he’s had (ignoring older Catherine Tate, whom I disliked.)

Comment on Roundup of New NBC Shows for Fall 2013-2014 by Sean Colletti

Sean Colletti — Sat, 18 May 2013 20:44:28 +0000

Hey, Jack.

NBC has certainly earned a lot of the bullying it gets based on what they choose to air and what they don’t. This new batch certainly won’t change that, either (Michael J. Fox will bring in some solid ratings, but we know ratings don’t necessarily equate to quality). But I’m holding out hope for ‘Dracula’, which physically looks the best out of this lot.

I know ‘Community’ took a huge turn for the “meh” this past season, but I still look forward to watching a few NBC shows for the 2013-2014 year: ‘Parks and Recreation’, ‘Parenthood’ and if they decide to bring back ‘Hannibal’.