Palagrin

Your post just made it seem like you were genuinely surprised ;P

I'm not sure it's about the swapping of genders, specifically - I think it's more a plea to a romantic other trying to show them what she's feeling - "You don't want to hurt me, But see how deep the bullet lies. Unaware Im tearing you asunder." My favourite Kate song is definitely Hounds of Love - I just love it. But the 'The Whole Story' version of Wuthering Heights is marvellous too, particularly the last third in which she really lets it go. So, so good!

You realise that's a spoof website?...

I thought this was pretty funny and accurate....

There wasn't much wiggle room in the film because it was poorly paced and scripted; that's what I'm arguing. Sure, you wouldn't be able to add anything to the current structure, the structure needed a complete overhaul! Hmm, yeah, it's not that I would have preffered a different film, it's just that the execution of the script was poor.

I'd quite like to see a female doctor next...

Yeah, background, but seeing is superior to telling. We have very little character development of him in Into Darkness; it relies on canon, which is lazy.

Very true, though I'd argue that's more to do with their ages rather than the actual appearance of romantic interest! xD Burn isn't out until February, but do get on to Fuse - I can't emphasise how good it is!

I'm not sure that's what qualifies YA, plenty of chick-lit have "budding romances" too...it's more to do with the character ages, though Pure does have crossover appeal. Anyway, so glad you loved Pure, Fuse (the sequel) is even better, if you can believe it, so hurry on!

Yes, it's a parallel universe, which also means that a lot of assumptions can/have be(en) broken/cast aside. That's partly what makes it accessible to a new audience. I agree, it's hard not to self-reference, and I'm not saying they shouldn't; everyone loves it when their favourite TV show has some kind of in-joke that only some viewers understand. The problem arises when the majority (if not all) of a character's motivations/personality/development is based on the mythos of the series, as we see with Cumberbatch's Khan, whom we are told is super-powerful, super-evil and yet we never really understand how/why/quite what he is capable and has done. There just isn't much character development in Into Darkness, and that's why, though I felt he was brilliantly acted, I felt he wasn't as big an adversary as he should have been.

Oh, certainly, films always play to their audiences. But JJ Abrams had established in the first film that he would deviate from the traditional mythos of the series, thus opening it to a new audience. In Into Darkness, he almost reverses that, relying on the audience's previous knowledge of Khan (and thus is character motivations) to villify him, rather exploring his character in the film. That's what I'm bemoaning.

Depending on which dictionary you use, it yields different results. Some stress the sexual aspect whilst other's merely think of it as "to give gratification". Either way, the context I was using the word was the latter

If only I could, I'd make a deal with God, tell him to swap our places ;D Thanks guys!

He certainly walks a fine line, and in this case I think he failed. The entire Khan thing was self-referential - pretty much his entire character was built on the pre-existing mythos, which meant that I, who haven't see the Wrath of Khan, did not understand why he was so terrible/evil/villainous, and so his character wasn't as much of a villain as he should have been. Doesn't help that he's sidelined in favour of the rather questionably motivated Commander. In-jokes that are only understood by those particularly familiar with the mythos...which is exactly what pandering is, in my book. But I digress...

I'd say I'm more familiar than most but I'm still not THAT familiar and most of that went over my head. So yeah. He did exactly the opposite of what he did for the first - he pandered to the Trekkies.

Yeah - I know what you mean - I used to offer something similar where I'd summarise a book/series in a short paragraph, just quickly explaining the premise and why it's worth reading.

It certainly is very sad - to the point of harrowing - but it's one of those books you can't not read because it tells such an important style.

Seventeen...

Anyone been to see this yet? I haven't read the book and don't intend to see it until I do, but Lana del Rey's song has changed my opinion of her...xD What do you guys think?

I just recently saw this at the BFI IMAX in London in 3D. Can't say I was THAT impressed, slightly disappointed really. Visually - it's stunning, of course, and the IMAX sequences were gorgeous, as usual. But the story. Can't say I was convinced. For a start, the pacing was all over the place; and it never gained any really momentum, it just jumped from crisis to crisis, allowing for no buildup and subsequently no proper climax. Secondly, the motivations of the villains - both Cumberbatch, who was fantastic and underused, I thought - his character almost became a secondary villain, and the Commander, whose motivations weren't really that clear and I thought a bit...meh. I was disappointed by his character. Thirdly, waaaay too many corny lines. I also thought that it relied too much on the established mythos and the self-references for anyone who hadn't seen the episodes/films it was referencing to understand it that well. As for the IMAX - I love IMAX, but I'm not sure I'd watch something in 3D again until shooting in a higher frame rate is standardised. It's just too much of a strain, and it spoils the otherwise stunning visuals.

I realise now that the topic title makes me sound like I am actually French...which I'm not, I just have a tendency to speak Franglais when I'm in the mood! I'm seventeen, mostly like reading YA fiction, run a review blog (http://www.thirstforfiction.com if you're interested, I'd love feedback!) and am in love with Kate Bush. So yeah. Hi!

So I don't know how many of you have read Between Shades of Gray or Out of the Easy... I can't recommend either books highly enough, and I've had the wonderful opportunity of meeting Ruta on several occasions - including being able to interview her, which was an experience in itself. Between Shades of Gray - her first book - is particularly harrowing and it certainly made me cry, but it's such an important book. Out of the Easy is less "important" in a historical sense, but is phenomenal, better, almost, that BSoG. So yeah. Go read them!

If I could, I'd read the Mortal Engines Quartet by Philip Reeve over and over again. Still one of my all time favourites. Also, Looking for Alaska by John Green and TFiOS, as well as Ruta Sepety's Out of hte Easy and Between Shades of Gray.

I went to one of the London TFiOS live tour stops too - great, really worth it I'm not so keen on Hank's music - but just listening to John talk about TFiOS is fantastic. To be honest, Katherines is his weakest solo novel, and his contribution to WG,WG wasn't great - Preferred Levithan's Grayson. Let it Snow is a good Christmas read, though - I really enjoyed that one!

I read this waaaay back and have since read the sequel, Fuse - and I'm really, really impressed by Baggott's writing style. It's just stunning, and Fuse, particularly, is a fantastic sequel. I'm really looking forward to Burn.