markjenkins-28628

A test of the degree of imagination shown in a sci-fi film is whether it could equally have been done as a cowboy movie. "Rebel Moon Pt. 1" could have, and the movie would have been "The Magnificent Seven" (1960, 2016, 1998-2000 as a TV series, or indeed "Seven Samurai" of 1954), because the plot is err.... identical. And I expect the plot of the second half will be identical too. So if you have ever seen any of those and a spaceship taking off, you don't need to see this movie (OK, some of the spaceship imagery is very good). But I have to wonder whether anyone was actually paid for "writing" the script :-)

The new "Dune" is watchable, but for those who actually like the David Lynch version, redundant - though no more so, I suppose, than making any new "Tarzan" or "Sherlock Holmes" movie. The cast has around 40% of the charisma ratings of the originals, and dropping "Part One" from the title was a bit sneaky - even after two hours I still assumed it was going to streak to the end of the plot, but it doesn't. So my question is - since the film doesn't seem to drag too much, how is it possible to spend two hours and 35 minutes covering only half the plot of the Lynch version, and still have to leave out characters like the Emperor, Princess Irulan, Shadout Mapes (apart from introducing her, and her exit line "eeeeaaaaahhhhhh...") and more?

I don't watch much bad tv. When you're used to some of the best shows ever made, shows which can be truly awe-inspiring and visionary like 'The Expanse" and "Vikings", it can come as a shock to find that television as dreadful as 'Intergalactic" can still be made in the 21st century, or even the 24th century. But everything criticised by others - the frozen-faced wooden acting, the pathetic wokeness, the childish dialogue (with added swearing), the utter stupidity of machine guns issued on a spaceship, which don't damage anything in one scene but blow holes in stuff in the next, is all there.

Some of the computer graphic scenery is indeed great, congratulations on that. But what I don't see in anyone else's review, and I'm really sorry to say this, is that the major explanation for all the problems is - it's conceived and written by a woman. Unfortunately women think that if they write about emotions and shouting IN SPACE, they're writing science fiction. Well, they're not. And even DC Fontana who wrote many excellent Star Trek episodes wisely chose to hide her real name - Dorothy :-)

It's no good saying "Anne McCaffrey" either. Anne McCaffrey wrote about a girl on a dragon, not science fiction. And the writers of "Intergalactic" write science fiction at the level of some imaginative 10-year-old. In fact scrub "imaginative' - the plots simply string together drivelling streams of stuff you've seen in other more competent sci-fi shows. And in "The A Team" for that matter.

Never mind. I believe they're showing "Babylon 5" again somewhere. Once you've marvelled at "'The Expanse" that should be your next port of call, and certainly not the embarrassing mess that is "Intergacraptic".