/mtv/ General: We Leaked the Trailer Edition
The old one stopped bumping, and this image could've gone in either the DC or Marvel threads, so I figured putting it in a "neutral" thread would work better.
Reposting since the old thread isn't bumping anymore.
It's not the worst thing but why did anyone think it was necessary to make this?
Sony is making a lot of things hoping something catches fire like Marvel.
Finally watched American Graffiti. Totally enjoyed it, was a good movie. I was afraid it would be boring crap about nothing, but instead it was really enjoyable slice of life with few action-y moments. Overall, completely non-disappointed.
Makes you wonder what kind of career Lucas would have if SW wasn't such a massive hit, doesn't it?
Well, if you look at what the man likes, and his career in general, it's obvious he has the softest spot for fantasy and sci-fi and old fashioned action shows. He just doesn't find realistic stories very exciting.
I don't know if anyone else here is a big fan of Terry Brooks like I am, but during Comic-Con MTV released a teaser trailer for The Shannara Chronicles: //youtube.com/watch?v=crjkQHnDYu0
Almost certainly MTV (of all stations!) picked up the rights in reaction to the success of Game of Thrones. The teaser shows lots of good action and effects, but I'm not sold that it will do the story justice (the first season will adapt The Elfstones of Shannara, I believe). Show has kind of a blah name, but since the books tend to have huge gaps in time between them and they will adapt the other books if this first season does well, it makes sense. "Shannara Legends" sounds better to me, but one of the book arcs has the title "Legends of Shannara", so that is probably out...
>The beautiful backdrop of New Zealand
>It really establishes the world of the Shannara Chronicles in a way that seperates it from other genre tales
Except, y'know, that one big, famous one.
They probably should have gone with Vancouver, really. Shannara's Four Lands are basically Washington State anyway.
Well that is another thing cleared up, whole bunch of nothing.
I could've sworn the names were already released.
Apparently not all four where known. Not really that big a deal other than they aren't really that memorable. But then again the others have been around for about thirity years.
Watching the Trailers Pixels feels a lot like as a alternate ghostbusters film.
Oh yeah, it's totally Evolution by way of an episode of Futurama and Adam Sandler being totally shit.
If it weren't for the "Adam Sandler" part, that would sound really good.
Yo, it's like gender swapped animated Egon, kudos to the costume department.
Moviebob's kind of a dick, but boy is he spot on with this one.
>finally made a worse movie than Nine Months
Holy shit, THAT bad?
I don't really get the love for Inside Amy Schumer. It relies too much on using taboo words for shock value and hitting the audience over the head with the message du jour. That's not to say the show doesn't make excellent points. I also appreciate that it uses accessible language as opposed to relying on vague pseudointellectualism like The Mary Sue or Polygon. But she's just not very funny.
She presents her point under slightly absurd circumstances and we're supposed to find that hilarious, but IMO it lacks actual humor compared to other socially conscious comedians like Lewis Black and early Colbert. Could be that she's concerned making it too funny will distract from the point, but still. Maybe I just haven't watched enough episodes, I don't know.
I can't think of a comedian who's work doesn't rely on social messaging. And the reason its "accessible language" is because its comedy. Maybe its not funny, but its still in the genre.
In fact, while we're on the subject:
I just want Turbo Kid to come out already.
I feel there is a link to these two articles. In part the origins to the pretintious nature of many Hollywood comedians.
Eh, the first one is more about how, despite all of his films making money based primarily on his name alone, Sandler’s career arguably peaked with The Wedding Singer and fell from there—mainly because he didn’t grow as an artist/comedian/person.
Though my thinking is that many consider themselves to be cultural staples even though they are not. Thinking along the realm that mentality was shaped by those that started SNL and it never really grew beyond that save the earlier comedians that existed before joining and grew beyond the "troupe" did those that came about post SNL the majority to stagnate if they are associated with it. Which affects not only the performer but the audience that watches them.
…can you maybe rephrase that in a way that isn’t confusing to read?
SNL hasn't changed since its inception and that causes most of those associated it post mid-late 80s to stagnate as comedians. Adam Sandler being the given example of this.
Honestly Black Hermione is a doll and some read lines that indicate maybe she is dark skinned. Though making Harry Half Black Via James likely wouldn't go over well, because James was an asshole.
Those are adorable. And if the usual suspects are going to get butthurt over "muh forced diversity", then I gotta say: remember Blaise Zabini?
On the other hand it can go too far in the other direction. Like, there was some really dumb drama in Attack on Titan land where BNFs would tell their followers to call out (read: harass) artists for "whitewashing" Eren/Berthold because they didn't draw them sufficiently dark enough when they're tan at most, or insisted that some characters are supposed to be really dark and anyone who disagrees is racist when the manga and anime explicitly show them being really pale. Now that the manga flat-out said "everyone inside the walls is the same race, either everyone is white or nobody is and if you draw them otherwise you can't pretend it's not an AU or racebend" it's moot but it's still pretty ridiculous.
Basically, the age old rule of not forcing your headcanons on other people, especially when actual canon contradicts it.
Eh. The thing about racebends that's always annoyed me and seems to be present here once again is East Asians being left out of the equation. Not all people of color are dark-skinned. Plenty of us are naturally even lighter-skinned than stereotypical white people. And for that matter being darker-skinned doesn't automatically make you a person of color either if Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, and the various North Africans and Middle Easterners who self-identify as white are anything to go by. If people are going to say that characters can't be Asian because of their last names but they can be black because of slavery, the article points out that a lot of these reimaginings make them mixed race anyway, so there's nothing saying at least part of them can't be Asian.
Seems weird to make them Latino when there aren't a whole lot of them in the UK or Europe in general, but then again the UK was like 95% white people when the books came out so it's not like it's about being super accurate. Also the thing about no wizards in real life.
And it being the Oxford for Wizards basically, and free. Please what kinda fantasy world is that.
Poor Ron, cursed to be a ginger forever. I do find it interesting that so many artists who seem happy to depict Harry looking nothing like the boy on the cover of the book keep Ron exactly the same as the book describes him. I'm honestly curious as to why that is. Are the red hair and freckles too iconic to imagine Ron without them? Or does the fact that there's no room to argue that he could actually be black because he's canonically white take some of the fun out of the headcanon?
He's a poor redheaded ginger bastard. He's always got to be on the bottom.
Hogwarts is free because the Ministry of Magic pays for it. Rowling got it right, if your total population is just a few hundred citizens and everyone has magic, then the goverment can pay for your stuff.
Been funny if after the Tommy Boy takeover when he decreed only pure bloods could attend that he established ludicrous tuition fees and learned that most pure Wizard families were broke as fuck and we're just trading on their names.
>Feig detailed some ways in which his movie is going to be quite different from the beloved individual. First stop? Ghosts that are actually scary.
>That’s right, gone are the days of bulbous, binge-eating cuties like Slimer. Based on her conversation with Feig, Ball promises “actually-eerie, pants-shitting ghosts.” That’ll have the ghostbusters quaking in their orange-striped boots.
So is that is ignorance of the subject matter or just arrogance leading to that kinda stupid talk.
Not scary, fuck them.
Least the other seems to still be on track. Maybe it'll catch the spirt it needs to do it right.
>Vinz Clortho and Zuul (not really ghost, but still creatures the 'busters face)
>that flying thing with the clawed hands and a mouthful of tentacles coming out of the subway station
>the zombie cab driver
>the spider-like ghost at the theater
>that huge ghost at washington square
>those impaled ghost heads
In what world are those not pretty legit scary designs?
What I liked about the ghosts in the old movies is that there was a huge variety of them, you had the outright monstrous, the silly looking ghosts, and the "normal" ghosts like the Central Park Jogger.
I'm going to be so upset when the female-led film bombs and the male-led one is a big success and Sony pins it on that aspect, rather than the part where one of them is made by an incompetent bastard who doesn't get the franchise and the other one isn't.
>In what world are those not pretty legit scary designs?
"Wait, you mean that every ghost in Ghostbusters wasn't like Slimer? Admittedly, my only experience with the franchise has been seeing the VHS cover in a Blockbuster 15 years ago."
Fuck man, the cartoon was scary. (when I was like 2 but still)
REALLY HOPE this new movie gets one too.
The cartoon had plenty of silly ghosts, but from time to time it threw some pretty cool beasties at the viewers.
Sup Samhain Celtic god of the dead.
If Tobin's Spirit Guide is missing. This movie has lost me.
Also more info on the other GB movie
Its not going to be all dudes and is a mixed gender team. So we may get a Kylie or maybe an Ortiz on the team. Crap that is looking more and more like the horse to back. Dude is already writing the Bible for the project.
Mixed gender eh? That's really good to hear. Definitely going to root for this film then, as long as the women are treated as fairly as the ones in The Winter Soldier.
Track record seems pretty solid. And the villain in the Feig version is.. Neil Casey? Another SNL alum I've never heard of.
Looking a lot like the he's just going to be a random dude with ghost powers. Also the Pearce one wants Chris Pratt which would be a good move
Speaking of the Ghostbusters cartoon, best villain from the best episode coming through.
I would like to see them use Danny Pudi in this alternative Ghostbusters 3, given that they worked with him on Community, and I'd really like him to have a career outside of racist characatures now that Community is mostly wrapped up.
(Also, Pudi is Egon as Fuck, and a Ghostbusters team needs an Egon)
Just watched ORIGINAL The Producers. So much better than the dumb remake.
>“There has been a lot of excitement recently about what is happening with the Ghostbusters franchise. As the producer of the new Ghostbusters film, I feel the need to clarify. There is only one new Ghostbusters movie and that is the Paul Feig directed version coming next July, presently filming and going fantastically. The rest is just noise,” Reitman said.
Greater positive buzz and enthusiasm over someone writing a Production Bible and his ideas of who should be in the movie than the Feig film has gotten in the last couple of months. Also word is Aykroyd is out. People might be catching on that they backed the wrong horse.
No, better writing. Mose subtle. Less noise.
Well yea, the other one loaded itself into the whole "Female Ghostbusters" line with no other talk about what it's going to be other than a leaked pitch email they've not acknowledged.
And we've still got reporting that keeps saying it's others "all male" when we've seen the quite that it's not. Are they attempting to make the other look bad by sticking with that line.
Both versions are good comedies as far as I'm concerned.
Sadly, I will never think like that again, since a certain web review has changed my mind forever.
This one’s for you, Piper, you magnificent bastard:
>Rowdy Roddy Piper died
fuck this gay earth
Keith David was shocked by the news, glad Saints Row 4 gave them an epic send up. RIP HOTROD
Ghostbusters fanboys are such whiny shitheads.
Those guys are assholes, but I sorta agree with the general point. I mean, I wonder how many of those kids have any idea of who are these women and what the hell are they supposed to be.
Still wonder how much is bitter fanboys and possibly some that are just doing it to "see they are just crapping on them because they are women." defense of a film we really don't know much about aside from props.
As of which those throwers look uncomfortable to shoot with both cinematically and physically least in inferring they have a lot of power with the recoil when they "kick" on and stumbling around while they wrangle.
I mean I think the actresses could do the movie right but if it's R rated like other Feig films.. It'd going to miss the whole point of introducing them to a new generation and this act is going to look rather sad.
Jesus fuck are people actually talking shit about them visiting a hospital?
I have to barge in and throw a friendly reminder: Not every bitter Ghostbusters fans who is being overly critical of the remake does it because the new 'busters lack penises, plenty of us are bitter and overly critical because it is a friggin' Ghostbusters remake, the most unnecesary thing in history.
Yelling at the girls because they went to an hospital is absurd and stupid, though.
I fucking love Kristen Wiig and I have no doubt she's gonna be funny in this.
I think a reboot of one of the most perfect movies in cinema history is utterly fucking retarded.
Feig was an asshole putting this film out there like that from the start. But apparently he's utter tone deaf in understanding what Ghostbusters is as a decade spanning franchise.
Too much of this current "controversy" seems to be done just to overshadow that people were generally interested in what was going on with the other movie the few weeks. This all seems like the very wrong way to carry on a franchise. Doing way more harm than good with Ghostbusters which saddens me.
Did Sony have a single hit this summer?
FF is Fox, but Sony's single hit was Paul Blart 2.
ohhhh, now I fear what they'll do to the theme.
>Last November, Sony’s former co-chairman Amy Pascal predicted that the studio’s 2015 output would be problematic in an all-caps e-mail: “THERE ARE TOO MANY DRAMAS/NOT ENOUGH TENTPOLES/NO OBVIOUS BREAKOUT HITS."
So Biggest news from Sony is throwing tins of shit at the wall AGAIN and see what sticks.
>Antoine Fuqua’s all-star Magnificent Seven remake (Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, etc.)
Those three right there sound perfect for a Ghostbusters Sequel done right
>Sony's single hit was Paul Blart 2.
>Magnificent Seven remake
I Cannot think of anything less necessary remake, hell it is itself a remake of Seven Samurai.
>Magnificent Seven remake
WHY. The original is a masterpiece. (And I mean the original M7. Though Seven Samurai is a masterpiece in its own right.)
Its Modern Hollywood, still chasing the spirt of the Spaghetti Western they never really understood.
Trinity and Nobody films are a great showing of bright hearts dealing with bad people.
An embodiment of everything I hate about 90s sitcoms.
He went there!
Ughhh. I am so glad we got the animated series instead. Even if it was only six episodes.
And now, a Bruce Lee screen test:
Will they license a nifty metal theme for Ghostbusters, not likely.
It's going to be dubstep.
Also, that lilttle girl in the ghost costume, best part of that video.
So apparently the second season of True Detective was an utter mess.
It's a clusterfuck, it's like they tried to combine 3 different series.
I fell behind after the third episode and yeah, it really didn't have the strong start of the first season, so it not sticking the landing either doesn't really surprise me.
Ah well, maybe they'll fix things for season three.
The close was pretty good though:
OKay just watched True Detective s2e4 and holy shit, they went full on video game level violence this time.
Like, there were a few badass action sequences in the first season, but this was a total fucking bloodbath.
Nice analysis of the superhero films released and coming forward.
That bit about “the movies that could have been” is depressing as fuck—and all the worse knowing Marvel and DC will both make the same mistakes again over the next five years.
DC I could see running into that partly because they may not have learned from their mistakes. Marvel seems to have seen where they've faltered over the decades and are putting things in place to keep it from happening. They may have a misstep but I think it will be minor compared to what DC is attempting in a third of the time that Marvel took to get to this spot.
I hope the response to their response to the Suicide Squad trailer leaks taught them something at least.
Marvel Studios has produced so far 12 movies, and they have all been hits. If twenty years ago I had told my younger self that in the future there would be three Ironman movies, two of Captain America, two of Thor, two of the Avengers, and that all were high-budget productions instead of shitty made for TV crap, I'd shot myself right there and then, because that older fellow obviously must be some sort of alien doppelganger .
I have no idea why the fans seem to be so anxious, almost looking forward it, to see these movies fail. Have more faith in the Superhero genere, because holy shit, the fact that such a thing exists and it's thriving and wildly popular is mind-blowing. We are living in times of dreams and wonders, and I feel that for some reason the fans have lost perspective of it.
I'm also surprised they're jamming yet another set of Batman films into their palette instead of a new hero, possibly an LGBT one. Sure Ben Affleck has shown he's not a bad director at all, but there's already so much Bat-fatigue after a whole trilogy of the films plus his looming appearances in several of the other films. And if DC wants to differentiate themselves from Marvel as the more "experimental" company then more Batfilms isn't the solution.
I don’t think they’re looking forward to the actual failure so much as they’re wondering precisely when it’ll happen. Every trend and fad is a bubble, and all bubbles eventually burst; superhero/comic book movies will be no different.
But I think the big problem isn’t so much fatigue of superhero movies as it is the problems with all this “shared universe” bullshit that Marvel started. The MCU was a nice idea—and Marvel’s done a wonderful job of keeping it intact without completely bombing the thing to Hell—but now we’re getting a DC Cinematic Universe, Fox is trying to do an X-Men cinematic/television universe, Universal is still trying to get its Universal Monster Cinematic Universe off the ground, The CW has a minor version of this with the Flash/Arrow crossover stuff (now to include Constantine), and so on. It doesn’t feel like these characters and stories can stand alone from each other any more. Even Guardians of the Galaxy, the most “disconnected” film in the MCU as far as tie-ins, still has a link to the “Earthbound” part of the Universe thanks to Thanos and the Infinity Stones. Audiences will eventually tire of the shared universe schtick, and when that happens, the bubble surrounding the current superhero movie will burst.
The formula for superhero movies needs to change, too. It's not enough to keep rebooting failed attempts at launching characters into film or redoing origin stories over and over (or doing both at the same time; lookin’ at you Amazing Spider-Man). We need a new approach to superhero films that breaks the formula and creates a new one—something that tinkers with the individual parts and finds a way to rebuild how these movies work without sacrificing what people love about them. People will only go see the same movie in different “clothes” so many times before they get wise and go find other things to watch.
It’s not a matter of “if the bubble bursts”, so much as it’s a matter of “when”—and since Ant-Man miraculously succeeded, some point during Phase Three of the MCU seems like the smartest bet for “when”. Marvel might not even burst the bubble; Fox and DC/WB can do that with a high-profile failure of their own (or another failure, in Fox’s case). But the bubble will burst, and when it does, the whole MCU—and the entire shared universe concept vis-á-vis movies—could come crashing down.
Don't forget the Transformers Cinematic Universe. Or the Zaibatsu Cinematic Universe.
Pretty sure the idea of shared universes was already around with the X-Men and Origins which was only distantly linked to the events of the first trilogy.
The current superhero "bubble" started in 1998 with Blade, of if you don't count that as a superhero film, then in 2000 with X-men. That's a mighty bubble right there, going strong for a decade and half. I don't know, the doomsayers keep seeing signs and omens that simply are not there. Again, plain, normal moviegoers went to the theaters to watch a friggin' Ant Man movie, how crazy is that?
I’ll note that Westerns dominated the cinematic landscape throughout the 1950s—almost one hundred Westerns were put in theaters during 1951 alone—but that bubble eventually burst, too.
Every trend and fad is a bubble. Superhero movies as the summer tentpoles and shared cinematic universes are no different from those aformentioned Westerns.
That actually helps my point, it took quite a few decades (with all the massive generational shifts that occured between the 50s and 60s) and several hundred of Westerns to get the market tired for the genre and for that bubble to burst, we are nowhere near as saturated of Superhero films. Perhaps in another 15 years, but right now I am not seeing anything that supports these "2016 will be the beginning of the end" claims I often see on the internet.
2016? Hell naw. BvS:DoJ alone will make shitloads of dosh no matter what. 2018 or 2019? Possibly. Phase Three will be nearing its end with Infinity War, we’ll know for sure whether DC’s stab at a shared cinematic universe will pan out into something worth a damn, and God knows what Fox will do with the X-Men and Fantastic Four licenses (not to mention Deadpool).
Though we spent most the late '00s and early to mid '10 in the Nolanverse which afterwards with the lackluster display of Rises had some saying people were done with the grim and edgy comic adaptations.
I don't think "superhero movies" and "shared universes" need necessarily be synonymous with each other. While the superhero bubble must burst eventually, there's no reason why it should take the concept of a shared cinematic universe with it, it's a perfectly marketable concept in and of itself.
It's why I'm very intrigued with what Universal has planned for its monster lineup, because it seems by far the best candidate for a successful cinematic universe that doesn't involve superheroes (a better candidate than fucking Ghostbusters, that's for certain). The Universal horror movies of the 30s and 40s are the ur-example of a shared cinematic universe, so it's more like a tradition returning to its proper home than a Hail Mary leap at Marvel's success like DC's effort is shaping up to be.
The signs don't look good, unfortunately. Dracula Untold disappeared without a trace, the first "proper" entry in the universe (helmed by Alex Kurtzman of all fucking people) has been pushed back to Spring 2017, and the execs responsible have made clear that it's going to be an action-y PG-13 universe with little actual "horror" in it.
That does make me think, though: what if some company tried to form a shared universe completely out of whole cloth? Completely new characters, original settings, disparate genres targeting different demographics, sensible budgets and auteur directors making well-received films that seem independent of each other, dropping only vague hints that they're connected, until BAM crossover? It'd be a risky endeavour but I'd love for at least one company to give it a go just to see what would happen.
>It'd be a risky endeavour but I'd love for at least one company to give it a go just to see what would happen.
You just described TGIF on ABC (well, the earlier part), but shows instead of movies.
Yeah, but technically pretty much every TV Show is in a shared universe, all of which was in the head of the little autistic boy from St. Elsewhere.
The Promos for Person of Interest and Elementary going into syndication on WGN make me wish they were a shared universe.
That explains why John Munch keeps showing up in different shows.
I keep hearing good things about Elementary, but have yet to watch an episode.
He's actually the main REASON for it.
>and now, Straight Outta Compton
Outside of Ted 2, Universal is having a good year.
U.N.C.L.E. was good. Not great, but good. Guy Ritchie brings a lot of style to the table but repeats a lot of the same things he did with Sherlock. The plot and scenarios were very predictable, and both the climax and ending were unsatisfying. But the cast was top-notch and it's still a cool action flick regardless. I just wish the theme from the original TV show was somewhere in the movie, but it's not.
I decided I'm not that much of a fan of Last Week Tonight anymore. I wish John Oliver was more like Jon Stewart and poked fun at events in a sarcastic way, instead of preaching to the audience about how wrong disgusting someone is or how awful the problems in America are. Until the last couple of minutes all the humor comes from references that don't really add anything to what he's talking about.
So the new thing they've released for Ghostbusters is Hemsworth on their Ecto-2. Still waiting on those "sscary" ghost designs.
Dang, he really is "Rule 63 Jeanine".
Also, everybody knows the real Ecto-2 in the Real Ghostbusters was an autogyro. Accept no substitutes, kids.
That fucking neck...
Kinda feeling this is going to run headfirst into the Fantastic Four problem, Changing tons of things for the sake of change.
HA! The "nerdy" secretary dons the suit to come to the teams rescue isn't that much of a spoiler really. Though this time it seems a lot more literal than what happened in Ghostbusters 2 and carried over to the comics with Tully getting all the women and fame.
Again like Fantastic Four keeping a tight lid on most the story isn't a good way to bridge the gap between the generations of fans.
And another pic of the Boston "refit". to turn locales into New York. Why not just shoot in New York? Who knows. Maybe they'd have had too many questions as to why they weren't using the Firehouse. Who still has one of the Signs BTW.
>And another pic of the Boston "refit". to turn locales into New York. Why not just shoot in New York?
Or set the movie in Boston, as a franchise location.
>Tully getting all the women and fame.
My dream for Ghostbusters 3 would have been Rick Moranis coming out of retirement for a bit to play Louis Tully, Mayor of New York City.
>Changing tons of things for the sake of change.
I wouldn't really call that "The Fantastic Four Problem."
That would have been great, them going to Ghostbusters HQ and Dueling Accents in submitting the paperwork for franchise approval.
"Ghostbaasters whadda you whaaant"
"Need yah heds signatah on this heah fom."
Bit alone may kill a few poor souls.
Though since the other script is still being worked on, maybe there is hope for such things and Louis Tully being Mayor and throwing the Senior Ghostbusters out of his officer.
"That's two mayors you've offended Peter, that enough?"
"No Ray, I think I've got one more left in me."
And so now he's finished. Now to see how much longer they'll be shooting to get an understanding how much he's in the film.
Good idea in theory but in practice there's a million reasons a shoot can either go longer or shorter.
True, he's got a lot of movies on his schedule.
Including Thor 3 and the Infinity War megashoot.
Those films don't start shooting until at least a year later don't they?
Universal had the best success this year, while Sony had the worst.
>Furious 7, Pitch Perfect 2, Fifty Shades of Grey, Straight Outta Compton, Trainwreck
I didn't see any of those movies, how could they be that successful?
>"... and a lack of concern about bringing in the young white male demographic ..."
... My god, I'm part of the problem.
Don't feel that bad, aside from young I'm none of those (wouldn't be even if they did add the word "straight") and I didn't either. Maybe I should start checking the Furious series though since it's apparently a lot better than I give it credit for.
Kinda bummed that Fifty Shades of Grey did so well. I thought people had better taste in fap material. I heard it's at least still better than the books.
If you’re gonna check out the F&F series, you can actually start with Fast Five. This is where the series moved from “street racing bromance-drama action flicks” to “over-the-top Ocean’s-Eleven-with-cars heist flicks”, and they're arguably much better for that change. Fast Five is the series pinnacle, but Fast & Furious Six was a fun film (“endless runway” aside). I’ve heard Furious Seven is about as good as Six, and it features about as perfect a send-off for Paul Walker’s character as the filmmakers could do given real-life circumstances.
>Kinda bummed that Fifty Shades of Grey did so well.
Given the dearth of such films (at least ones aimed towards women) in mainstream theaters, its success doesn’t surprise me in the least. I’m disappointed in how well it did, sure, but ultimately not surprised.
Furious 7 (I wonder if they are going to try to shorten the title even more for part 8) was a colossally stupid movie. It was also a bollocks-load of fun, a popcorn movie done right. It helps that there is such an overload of charisma by the actors, that you will believe these characters can accomplish these pants-on-head-retarded actions, and look awesome while doing so. It's like how Ash could fire three shots out of a two barrelled shotgun in Army of Darkness, or how Col. Matrix could blow up a building sky-high using one claymore mine (which doesn't even remotely work like that) in Commando, and yet you didn't question it.
Particulary, there is a scene towards the end of the movie involving The Rock, that convinced me if there is ever a Flex Mentallo movie to be made, he should get the part. I do belive that the man can alter reality by flexing his muscles.
The Rock can alter reality just by raising his eyebrow. He is that damn good.
Welp, you convinced me.
>“street racing bromance-drama action flicks”
>“over-the-top Ocean’s-Eleven-with-cars heist flicks”
Thanks for summing up my main problem with the series beforehand. The latter definitely sounds up my alley.
*sigh* This isn't helping peoples perception of the film.
Yea empowerment is good and all but Feig started it with his whole opener about it being a reboot which was more aggravating than getting the cast of his other comedies to fill most the roles.
Maybe they don't understand the root of the criticism does go beyond their gender, least I hope not because then they'd be purposefully supporting this caustic static Feig has been generating for months against criticism.
I'd like the film to be passable since we'd then get the other film done down the line maybe.
Driving a massive wedge straight down the middle of your potential audience which is then cut into quarters by alienating the fans since this really feels more like some kinda sequel or knock off than what one could see as a Reboot. I can see them pulling out the term Reimagining as it pulls closer to release and the general fanbase finds out how much of the classic film setting is missing.
I mean I'd like to see this feel like the others but it just seems so far removed in setting and if the pitch proves to be what they went with its tone will be terrible no to mention the clear R rating it get. Maybe Sony will sell it to Disney after all of this.
Why are you so convinced a freakin Ghostbusters movie is gonna get an R rating?
I'm looking at Feig and his track of films. All the recent ones are R rated comedies and same goes for his lead. I'd be surprised if this hits a pg13 rating. But given how set they are on it being a comedy like all the others hollywood fawns over I cannot see it not getting an R rating. We'll see but I'm pretty sure it'll be R.
James Gunn's directed Rs. GotG wasn't one.
It's a pretty ill informed little assumption to think a franchise movie wouldn't be a PG13, especially given you're assuming the producers surrendered any control over their cash.
Or unless you want to stick to your logic. In which case you should be lamenting the peanuts movie being rated R too.
Peanuts doesn't have a "funny girl" cast known for R movies and production claiming to have "actual scary" ghosts. But you could be right as Robocop reboot was a tepid PG-13 slog.
So maybe it will be a standard PG-13 Affair. Right now I really hope it will at least work even it it doesn't get the massive appeal like the original did. I'd hate for it to be a massive blowout like Fantastic Four and pretty much doom the franchise to be shelved infidelity. But as combative as they are with the fanbase right now its a bit worrying with the actual concerns some fans have about the changes being drowned out by both sides, so they never get heard.
Also, on a lighter note holy shit Feig was that luckless teacher from Sabrina
>and it features about as perfect a send-off for Paul Walker’s character as the filmmakers could do given real-life circumstances.
It does. I like the movies but don't really care much for the characters, and yet I do admit the ending made me tear a bit. You could feel Vin Diesel actually meant every word he was saying, that it was a honest good-bye and not just an actor reading from a script.
Oh Joy something that won't just have Lucy Lawless on for just an episode..I hope. But yea EVIL DEAD SERIES YEAAAAAAA!!!
An interesting rundown of what we know so far in the film. Wonder what happened to cause them not to just film in New York.
>Wes Craven is dead
Crap, is he the start of another cycle? We my loose Tim Curry in one of these.
The Oscar Death Reel is going to have to be a seperate 3 hour special this year. I mean damn.
FUCK. This is my fucking aesthetic when it comes to music. The '80s vibes from this song give me life.
It’s a few months old, but I’m just now getting around to reading this essay by Film Crit HULK, and goddamn it’s good stuff:
I pretty much approve of everything I've ever read from Film Crit Hulk. Even the movies he loves that I don't, I am 100% behind his philosophy on entertainment and his way of approaching discourse about it.
I get that it's part of his gimmick, and maybe I'm just a pissbaby, but god is it hard to read his posts because of the all-caps.
There are sites that will convert all-caps text to normal text. He links to a few of them here and there for the sake of
pissbabiespeople who have problems with the typography.
That was a long read, but well worth it. The person they linked to (La Donna Pietra) also has some pretty great stuff.
I wish I could print this out and show it to every person I've seen on Tumblr who gets mad because a work dared portray its female character as anything less than a total Mary Sue, or who buys into the YFIP-esque belief that any problematic viewpoint a character ever expresses necessarily reflects some hidden belief on the part of the author/actor.
So many words to describe the Galbrush Dilemma.
I've been enjoying his work more recently than before, but I never agreed with his theory about films having multiple acts. Or, the theory that we should be writing films with more than three acts. It never sit well with me, since simplifying a movie's structure to three acts is done to make it easier to focus on the essentials. There's no benefit to writing a 28-act movie besides complicating the matter.
This is a silly argument, and "Merlynn132" is a silly collection of letters and numbers for making it. Max Caulfield from Life Is Strange is arguably a "Galbrush" and I haven't seen "teh feminists" call for Dontknod's public execution for that design choice, if anything it's been the opposite.
>the theory that we should be writing films with more than three acts
Hey, five-act structure works for one-hour TV dramas.
Did you really copy-paste a youtube comment to parade around you were so proud of it?
FILMCRIT HULK essentially made the same argument and asked fellow feminists not to call the complex and flawed female antagonist in Gone Girl sexist.
Speaking of which: feminists called Gone Girl sexist because women shouldn't be portrayed like that!! Galbrush Dilemma applies.
That's a screenshot, and it wasn't me.
You know... back when the Tomb Raider reboot was in it's hype cycle, and the controversy of Lara being both physically and mentally abused in the game arose, I recall "uh... it's because she is a woman? Where were all these people when Spec Ops The Line broke it's main character into pieces?"
True though he's a male so he should be able to handle that. But also it wasn't just that Laura was being abused it was because it was largely gore porn with her body being messed up in the most graphic ways possible.
Of course not--Life is Strange actually has lots of female characters. People who argue "You can't write a female character with X trait or people say it's sexist!" are overlooking the fact that it only ever sends that message when a person with X trait represents the majority of the female presence in a work.
Like in the first Avengers movie, Black Widow was effectively the only female character in the movie. Therefore any trait she possessed *did* represent the movie's entire take on women. So yes, things they do to Black Widow in that movie would run the risk of representing sexist dialogue. Likewise, when you only have one token black character in an entire universe, giving that token black character stereotypical features makes it appear you are buying into stereotypes against black people.
You get around that very simply: by not having one person be the entirety of the audience's experience with a particular group. You want to have a black character who's a criminal? Fine! Just have more black people so that we see not all of the characters are like that. You want a female character who's guilty of some horrible character flaw? ADD MORE FEMALE CHARACTERS AND DON'T GIVE THEM ALL THAT FLAW.
It is stupidly simple to avoid these sorts of complaints. The people who make them are acting like this is difficult because they see inclusion itself as some sort of favor they're doing for minority groups rather than just fucking writing genuine characters with genuine representation of the world we actually live in. The thing is, the people who make these complaints don't want to do that because it interferes with what they're actually writing--pure self-insert power fantasy. And they don't want to deal with the idea of having to have their self-insert character be black or a woman or something.
Basically, trashy writers hate getting called out on how much they suck at writing anything genuine, and trashy audiences defend them because all those audiences want is trashy power fantasy they can insert themselves into. And, like the writers, they don't want to have to pretend to be a woman or a minority.
I don't disagree with your main point, but Black Widow might not be the best counterexample. The only real complaints about Black Widow in the first movie I saw were either wanting more women so she didn't feel so token, which is perfectly valid, or a vocal minority of morons who were convinced Loki (a villain so stupidly evil only the biggest /pol/tard or husbandofag can still find him sympathetic) calling her a cunt was a case of Joss Whedon sneaking a subliminal misogynist agenda into the film.
Then in the second movie you had Helen Cho, Laura Barton, Black Widow's boss, and Scarlet Witch so Black Widow was no longer the only important female, but this was the one where people actually started going "one female character out of six had some dialogue which could be construed as a negative trait, even then it falls under what Film Crit Hulk was talking about, therefore it's sexist!". Though it's considerably muddied by the fact that the vast majority of people whining about it are butthurt shippers finding a convenient source of ammo to feel self-righteous over, and often expressing misogynist views of their own ("this movie is sexist! but stuffing Hawkeye's wife in the fridge so my OTP can happen? yes please!").
In fairness, Black Widow calling herself a monster because she was forcibly sterlized is A BIT MUCH.
I took that to mean the sum total of her crimes as a Black Widow, and the connection with her sterilization the result of bad editing.
I am pretty sure she called herself a monster for all the bad shit she had to endure to become the Black Widow, the culmination of it was the sterilization
>it was largely gore porn with her body being messed up in the most graphic ways possible.
By the end of that game I mentioned, the character looked like this.
A more recent example, if a mission goes loud in MGSV, odds are Big Boss will leave looking like something out of a liiveleak video, bathed in blood and human bits.
Dunno, I say those people making a fuss about Lara being graphically messed up like that, they were being sexists and didn't even realize it. Equality is a two-way road, if Big Boss can take it, so can Lara.
>If The Greatest Soldier Who Ever Lived can take it, so can a lost mid-20's girl who got lost!
I've seen this comparison between the punishment meted out to Lara and Captain Walker before, but I'm not sure it's really applicable as beneath the torture Tomb Raider and Spec Ops: The Line were trying to achieve very different things.
Spec Ops: The Line is a deconstruction of the kind of macho action-movie heroics that typify the Call of Duty series and other military shooters. We see a trained Army Ranger being thrown into the kinds of set-pieces that most shooter protagonists breeze through without a sweat, but over the course of the game this relentless conflict and bloodshed destroys him as a person. At the end of the game he's a shell of his former self, a "survivor" in name only, and in no fit state to be considered a hero or even a functioning human being. It's taking a thesis that Metal Gear Solid took ten games to tell and neatly summarising it in a single harrowing experience.
Tomb Raider is trying to do almost the exact opposite, it's not trying to destroy Lara, it's trying to build an anonymous young girl into the Lara Croft we all know and look up to. It's not a deconstruction, it's a straight-up hero's origin story, trying to explain where the pistol-wielding thrill-seeking tomb raider came from. But here's where the torture porn aspect of Lara's trials works against the narrative: after hours upon hours of relentless pain and horror that would make any one of us want to crawl into a dark room and never leave the house for the rest of our lives, what in all of these experiences could possibly drive Lara to strike out and want more of it? I'm speaking as someone who appreciates what Tomb Raider was trying to do and think that its execution was very well done, but the game's critics who complain about the lack of actual "tomb raiding" have a point on a basic narrative level - there's hardly ever a moment of wonder in all of this carnage, no moment where Lara stops and sees something beautiful in her fraught isolation that makes all of this carnage worth it somehow.
The people that say "how come its fine for a man to go through the wringer and not fine for a woman?" are missing the point - Walker doesn't make it through the wringer, he started a trained elite soldier and ended up a shriveled wreck. Lara starts as a fresh-faced archaeology student who's done some spelunking, and we're expected to believe that she can go through the same wringer and end up stronger for it. Spec Ops: The Line is all about taking the concept of "redemption through violence", pounding the gamer's face with it and asking 'ya feeling "redeemed" yet, you horrible person?' Tomb Raider plays "redemption through violence" entirely straight, and yet puts the character through the exact same ordeal. Why should inflicting torture on a character be soul-crushing in one case and "empowering" in the other? Neither games are especially realistic, to be sure (no matter how much grime they throw at the screen), but it seems self-defeating to have a heroic origin story and inflict the same crippling pain upon the main character as a deconstructive excoriation of the whole concept of heroism.
Well next game looks to have Laura suffering some PTSD though we don't know much of the contet, its likely a framing device and her time with the shrinks takes place after her next game.
Well next game looks to have Laura suffering some PTSD though we don't know much of the contet, its likely a framing device and her time with the shrinks takes place after her next game.
The devs also talked about how they wanted to do these terrible things to Lara Croft because they wanted the player to want to protect her. Pointless tragedy and gorn because they thought it was what made a strong female character. It was gore porn with sexist intentions, despite your attempts to make it true equality.
Pretty cool the props that can be made with 3d printers
That feels like a cheap-ass cop-out—and it reeks of the “It was his first fight” arguments used to defend the massive collateral damage and lack of saving lives in Man of Steel. We see all these things happen to Lara Croft/because of Superman, but the game/movie itself doesn’t address the actual consequences of those things.
And according to the next game being "Rise of" she's still not near where old Lara was as an adventurer.
The Social Network is still a damn fine movie.
Re-watching it has me more hype for its spiritual successor, Steve Jobs, and Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.
Maybe. "The Red Shirts are coming!" was pretty darn silly, and not in a good way.
It is a good movie. Fictional or not, I like how it presented Facebook's humble beginnings: a site where you vote on which girl is the hottest. And human nature being what it is, makes EVERYONE use it.
Also, I originally watched Social Network because Jesse Eisenberg voiced Blu in Rio, which I liked a lot.
Black Mirror is coming back!
>mfw watching Late Show with Stephen Colbert
Nailed it. 10/10 debut. So happy he's back on TV.
Curious, is there any way to watch it live without a TV?
Hope they do, Broadcast may not be dying as quickly as Cable but its still a factor. Also hope he doesn't have the hiccups in viewership changeover like Conan at NBC did and they screw him over in a panic.
Not really an answer but check out the Late Show with Colbert youtube channel. They uploaded a whole bunch of the clips. I'm not sure if it's the whole episode or not but it's quite a lot of it.
I liked the first episode of Colbert's new show but the second wasn't nearly as good. The Scarlett Johannsen interview and "Big Furry Hat" skits were just cringeworthy.
They are quickly going to force him out of his element to keep with the standards they have grown used to and appeal to their older demographics. We'll see what happens.
I actually loved the Big Furry Hat sketch. That and the Mentalist Switch from episode one felt very Conan-esque (and that's likely because one of the writers was from Conan). I didn't see the interview well, because my affiliate keeps fucking up the picture, but Colbert was interrupting her too much. I'm sure he'll ease back in time, but that's the only off-putting thing about the new show. The Kendrick Lamar performance was fantastic.
Last night's interview with Joe Biden, however, was terrific. This is something I don't think Colbert could have pulled off if he was playing his Colbert Report character.
>That and the Mentalist Switch from episode one felt very Conan-esque (and that's likely because one of the writers was from Conan)
Yeah, they felt super-heavily like Brian Stack pitches, because the former was basically "In the Year 2000" complete with rafter based clothing, and the latter was the Walker: Texas Ranger Lever reborn.
Not a huge fan of Conan so maybe that's why. Big Furry Hat seemed a little, I don't know, lolsorandom. The Scarlett under the stars sketch was also a little infantile for me.
I liked the Mentalist gag fine. Although I would've preferred it if it stayed as a Colbert Report-esque pure visual gag so the actual switchover becomes that much funnier.
The Visit has surprisingly gotten good reviews. I wonder if this will encourage M. Night Shyamalan to be a tongue-in-cheek director.
God, I hope not. It was bad enough when he did that shit by accident.
Those are the interviews he likes, the celebs seem to bore him after a while. While Stewart runs the Opposite and actually despises all the political stuff according to reports post Daily Show.
>Tobins Spirit Guide becoming a legit physical item.
Good, its written by the people doing the comics that understand all the ends and outs of the lore so that's a plus.
>Some Filming in New York finally
But it looks to be Secondary Work with only stunt crew being seen. Likely to bolster the Green Screen New York setup they have been using at an airfield. Sony baffles me sometimes.
Though I still hope and thing its likely that it was the current Mayor of New York being an asshole and not wanting the big production tying up things.
I mean I just cannot fathom the whole New York via Boston and a Green Screen Times Square.
>Mattel doing the toys
Dammit. Here I was hoping for a good Female Punk Egon that wouldn't be some Matty Exclusive crowdfunded garbage.
That was super depressing. Not stuff he could have done on Colbert Report.
So I'm hearing good buzz about The Martian, after Ridley Scott's recent spate of not-so-good *cough*terrible*cough* films. Haven't read the novel but I'm hoping it's more scientifically accurate than Gravity was.
Even back on The Colbert Report, he did basically drop character entirely for a few minutes on the show after his mom died.
Seeing a few stirrings of the pot that Colbert should lay off the weighty talks and just go with fluff. Don't agree as I am looking forward to what he was to talk about with Sanders on Friday. Be leagues ahead of whatever Jimmy and Hillary cringe through.
That is a very large orangutan.
>Jimmy and Hillary
Neither side of that interview will bring anything of value.
Fallon in insipid, and Hillary's completely lost the ability to say anything of substance in an interview.
That Orangutan is like the size of two gorillas.
Also- Man, Disney really doesn't like the whole "raised by wolves" part of the Jungle Book, huh?
How much of that is CG and how much is practical effects? Because damn.
Imagine what the TaleSpin movie’s gonna look like now.
Pacific Rim 2 is dead.
>Legendary wanted to produce a sequel to del Toro's Pacific Rim, which was made under the Warners deal and turned into one of those films that grosses a lot ($411 million worldwide) while being so costly that a follow-up isn't a sure thing. Sources say Legendary liked that the original performed exceptionally well in China, where the company is heavily invested, but for now the project — which had been ramping up to make a release date in August 2017 — has been halted indefinitely and will be pushed back (if it gets made at all).
Its just like Superman, Man of Steel has been shelved while Affleck is readying his direction of a new Batman Trilogy. Warner Bros doesn't want to deal with things that are not sure billion blockbuster gold. And not their own properties.
Are we at least still getting the series?
I feel so sad for Guillermo del Toro. Just fucking everything he touches has been dieing prematurely recently.
I hope Crimson Peak is good.
Whats the point of calling this a "live action" movie, really?
Dr.Who started again, does anyone even care?
Fuck I wish I could, but all that Missy/Master shit last time (only learned about that since I checked out about four episodes in) Was garbage. Fuck those that complain because people call it out in being a shitty season and a waste of a new doctor.
Jenna Coleman’s leaving the show after this season, so at some point during the season, Clara’s gon’ go bye-bye.
Why the fuck did she stick around this long and have just about zero character other than being a literal maguffin for the doctor even existing. I liked the earlier idea with her first introduction "Human converted to a Dalek without the brainwashing" and then it all went south from there with her. I really don't blame her more that I blame whomever cannot write that character at all.
I wasn't sure I'd bother with the new series (I've been feeling the fatigue with all the other fans), but the latest episode was really solid. I'm genuinely interested in what will happen next.
Quote Steven Moffat, the man who created her character and is currently driving the show into the ground "She's the greatest companion the Doctor has ever had."
She really should have been a cute girl personality Dalek.
I can't begin to tell you how much I hate that this entire season is two parter episodes.
Apparently Coleman knows how fucking terrible the character is and that's why she's leaving despite Moffat wanting to keep her til he was done with the series, apparently Capaldi is also looking for an out, he wanted to be wanted to be a fun Doctor so instead of making him one they are jamming shit like Guitar gladiatorial combat into episodes where he lets children die and he's not happy with it ("Fucking dracula the tired old man" is apparently what friends have heard him say about the role.) so it's possible he's already in the process of leaving since BBC accidentally leaked a list of possible new Doctors though this has happened before as they just like the keep lists of who could be who around.
My problem with the way Moffat writes is that it's exactly how they wrote John Carter of Mars and it was especially apparent in this episode.
>Quote Steven Moffat, the man who created her character and is currently driving the show into the ground "She's the greatest companion the Doctor has ever had."
Christ, Moffat, way to shit all over Sarah Jane. No wonder Whovians hate your guts.
>I can't begin to tell you how much I hate that this entire season is two parter episodes.
Why the hate? Classic Who was defined by its cliffhangers, while nuWho has generally kept to three or four a series. This just feels like a return to an old format.
I know it's au fait to shit on Who from a great height and call Moffat Literally Hitler, but I'm prepared to give this series a shot after the latest episode.
I may try if my goto has the episodes streamlined. Last season burned me out.
They made the Doctor too much of a dick without giving justification for why Clara was still hanging around, whereas the old show Doctors could get away with being totally dicks because they were in some way forced to be with the people they had around (Broken TARDIS, etc.)
The format was abandoned for a reason, A couple two parters? Fine. EVERY SINGLE EPISODE OF THE SEASON? Fuck off. It destroys the ability of the series to tell fun, compact stories which are my favorite Dr. Who stories.
Someone around there doesn't know how to handle a B Plot that runs through a series. A plots last for an episode while the B pieces come together as we go along.
Is that person Steven Moffat?
I'd lay most the problems with him, the B plots haven't been good for a few years.
I'd lay most the problems with him, the B plots haven't been good for a few years.
>The format was abandoned for a reason,
Yeah. The show went off the air for over a decade and came back as a different kind of show, for a different audience.
> EVERY SINGLE EPISODE OF THE SEASON?
WORKED FOR SARAH JANE ADVENTURES!
Is current companion worse than River? I say it's hard to be worse than her. I liked the way Matt Smith Doctor handled her. Overall I liked him since he had the exuberance but could be dark when needed.
>Is current companion worse than River?
No companion could be worse than River, but ultimately their problems come from the same place.
Considerably worse than River, River is literally confined to her own stupid corner, Clara has been literally inserted into every previous era of Dr.Who.
A thought on this, could this stem from certain people in the production not understanding that the companion doesn't have to be important to the shows plot more that they have to be important to the Doctor but that doesn't mean they have to be involved or revolve around the plot.
Jeff Lynne finally done it. He is actually releasing a new record, of the revitalized ELO project.
Here is the single:
Blackmore's Night performed Smoke on the Water in 2012:
An important piece of rock history if you ask me.
>Interest in the film is pretty much a flat-line with the only pulse being on the still in writing development other Ghostbuster film which was then ridiculed by this films production.
>Trying to start some kinda controversy to get some kinda press.
This movie is going to be an albatross. It feels a lot like Fantastic Four all over again. Wonder if Denny's will get the food promotion
In other news Hotel Transylvania 2 was derailed thanks to Adam Sandler bullying his way into more control over the production. When will people stop giving this moron anything? Is it because he's able to pull in "A List Comedians" or something? Fuck you Sony. Least they are letting Genndy do his own project as an apology for this garbage.
Hardcore is the first movie I'm actually excited for this year.
I've been spoiled by lossless FLAC audio. Now mp3s sound like they're ran through a potato to me.
You are using some funny headphones, anon. MP3 is worse, but not that much worse.
Unless your FLAC music is above CD quality.
Not literally. It's just that I have a good ear and hear the quality difference. So mp3s just sound so lacking now.
Had to get a new pair of headphones, got a pair of the creatives with built in SFX chip. Picking up lots of low ends that I had not heard before.
>built in SFX chip
One of those Beats kind that have two EQs? Thats kind of an artificial set of sounds so that might be it.
I consider myself to be like that too, which is why I ALWAYS try to buy lossless (and physical just in case). I actually discovered the difference between AACs and CDs accidentally, by ear.
Having said that, I still think MP3s are acceptable and not that bad, especially when there is no other option.
No just using a chip that is the same as in a soundcard so its got better adjustments due to that direct processing, also 50mm Drivers.
I like it, he's not really retired but he just didn't see any good roles out there. And "it doesn't make sense" for him to cameo in the new Ghostbusters film according to him.
Gotta remember to pick up his comedy album when I get a chance.
It is impossible for me to respect him any more than I already do. God bless the fact that we got him on screen for as long as we did.
Damn fine live action Barney Rubble. Overall I still like that movie and LHS is alway a classic.
Good on ya Nike.
Self tying shoes strike me as something that would be practically useful to Michael J Fox.
He actually jokes about that in the BTTF-themed commercial he did for Toyota (“Still waiting for those…”).
And Hulu is no longer F2W...
Fuck my life!
Hulu is subscription-only now? Well there goes that service's relevance.
>Hulu is subscription-only now?
Barring "previews" (i.e. about the first two episodes of a show's season).
Shhhhh, you can hear the bomb drob.
He's a real dummy.
>5 Million Budget
>Jem "Life Changing" vids
Vids were those sent in to talk about how the cartoon and what things meant to them. Movie reconstructs them to be about Jem in the movie.
Film was just a wreck.
I know, I know — >Buzzfeed — but the former is a good look at just how historic a bomb Jem really is and the latter is a solid review of why Jem deserved to bomb. (I can't think of a single outlet aside from The Mary Sue that ran a generally positive review of the film.)
Jem is one of the shows I want to work as a revived cartoon. I've got an idea of how the pilot would work. And actually the little android being a part of Synergy could work as leading into finding the whole Holographic Network Interface.
Fan4 and Jem I think show something that is a problem with some productions and what I think Ghostbusters will run headlong into (hopefully not all the while yelling that it was the Male Chauvinist that caused it all.)
Its the utter disrespect they seem to have for the fanbase.
Fox didn't give a shit about the Fantastic Four fanbase because it made the film purely to keep the rights, but even if it had cared, that film still would have sucked ass. Jem sucked because it both disrespected the fanbase (as well as the franchise's original creator) and attached the Jem license to a shitty paint-by-numbers script that likely had nothing to do with the franchise until the producers hooked the rights. The all-female Ghostbusters...well, we'll have to see about that one.
What disrespect has the new Ghostbusters shown so far that isn't making the cast female? I have yet to hear a legit critique of the film, outside of Hollywood making another sequel/reboot/whatever.
They rebooted the comics recently, so it it's not unreasonable.
And from everything I’ve seen, the comics are actually pretty good.
comics are good at keeping the one and its already had one attempted murder. Eric Raymond is also on the comic horizon.
I kind of miss DVD extras.
That's the one thing you don't get on Netflix.
I'm a sucker for director commentaries.
You would think Blue Ray would have even more of that stuff. Its also kinda shocking when you find out that some have even less than Laser Disc had.
>outside of Hollywood making another sequel/reboot/whatever.
That's a entirely good and justifable reason to be angry and against the film. Let's be honest, at best the movie will be decent and watchable, but will pale compared to the original. Like, I kinda liked the remakes to Robocop and Evil Dead, but I am not going to pretend they weren't utterly pointless and unnecesary. And at worst, it will be like the Poltergeist remake, desperately trying to be like the original while missing every point that made it work.
Oh ho ho?
> since it was basically evangelion, can the next one basically be Gurren Lagann?
Holy shit, do people keep saying that?
It would take a really shallow reading of both PR and Evangelion to say they were basically the same.
For starters, PR is shitloads more optimistic than EVA.
What. Are you telling me the fact that they both have giant robots in them doesn't basically make them the same thing?
Not leastways because Eva actually *doesn't* have giant robots in it. Unless you count Jet Jaguar.
The first episode of Ash vs. Evil Dead was okay.
Technically, Pacific Rim also doesn't have robots, as the strict definition of a "robot" involves an AI controlling the machine.
>the strict definition of a "robot" involves an AI controlling the machine.
Or at least remote piloting.
I've been looking for that particular pic forever. Is it from 20th Century Boys?
I thought of this scene immediately, but it took me a while to relocate: it's from volume 10, chapter 104.
Speaking of Avatar, has the ship sailed on the sequel.?
Avatar came out 2009 btw.
Last I heard, Cameron still has plans for three more films, but that was back in January of this year, and that was when he supposedly wanted to get the first sequel out in 2017.
Avatar is a bit of an odd duck, though—for as much money as it made back then, you don’t hear all that much about it these days: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/05/19/avatar-the-biggest-movie-ever-why
The last public development about Avatar was that the script was finished in June, and that a ton of planning and design has been made so far. Who knows, hopefully Cameron took heed of the criticisms about the first movie, and put some extra effort this time into the characters and world building (Avatar did world building in very broad strokes, but never went into the little details of the setting, which is actually what makes people obsesses about fictional universes).
Let's get real, if James Cameron wants a sequel, it will happen, and if something is stalling it, that "something" is Cameron. If the guy says "gimme", Hollywood would reply "how much".
And about that article.
>turns its giant spaceship into a mundane looking satellite (can you recall what it looks like without looking it up?)
Yes? Yes. The Venture Star was a damn cool spaceship.
>Avatar did world building in very broad strokes
Not if you read the guide book/wiki. They but tons of love & time into that.
Anywho, I'm cool with him taking his time with his long time dream project as long a he lives to make this fan project when his done.
I can wait another decade.
I know about the guide book. I mean, I own it, heh. But very little of that is present in the movie. What the hell, they don't even really explain what Unobtanium is or what it does, which is the entire reason why earth is in Pandora doing stuff. Avatar was very sparse on the details, which is why people don't have much to talk about the movie.
Also, last I heard about Alita, was that Cameron was pushing Robert Rodriguez as his replacement.
Disney still on Hook for Avatar land or did they decide to do something else.
>Disney cuts a deal with Viacom just to get their hands on Avatar Last Airbender and tweak the Avatar land into the Great Swamp.
>Korra retroactively becomes a Disney Princess since she's one anyway.
All is done because they had so much Avatar marketing material and didn't want to throw it away.
Was there for halloween, and it's clearly still being built. The damn thing's massive.
>Also, last I heard about Alita, was that Cameron was pushing Robert Rodriguez as his replacement.
This is the only Cameron-related news I'm interested in. I do hope he stops squatting on the thing and gets it going in some form, Alita's been in development limbo for fucking aaaaages.
And that Alita need to be an R to be faithful to the source material is not helping...
Thats what killed Mountain of Madness of I remember right...
It was Prometheus that finally killed At The Mountains of Madness, according to Del Totoro.
Did not know that.
Speaking of Del Totoro, atlest he is striking while the iron is hot with Pacific Rim.
Serious, where was the Tales of Pandora comic or whatever?
Yeah, according to Del Toro, At The Mountains of Madness was definitely dropped because the studios found it too alike Prometheus. He also said that one of these days he is going to try for a last time to get the movie made.
Atlest Legendary is not stopping the awesome anytime soon.
Because this is kind of what I want out of Avatar 2.
Multi factions for the win.
Uuuuh, the CGI in that trailer jumps from fucking awesome quality to "The Hobbit looked better" in a blink of an eye. I hope the parts that look wonky are just because the effects are still being worked on.
Holy fucking shit. Jem and the Holograms was yanked from theaters after two weeks; it cost 5mil to make and made only 2mil (including its 1.4mil opening weekend!). Historically, it will go down as the lowest-grossing film to debut in more than 2,000 theaters.
I feel bad for the theaters that had to run all those empty screenings.
This is gonna be a tough sell, not just because of the $2M price tag, but because it's happening at a time where we already of Rifftrax. Joel also want to reboot MST3K with a new host and VAs for the bots, but also wants to include the old cast for writing and skits. However, Michael J. Nelson won't be involved (https://www.facebook.com/mikeatrifftrax/posts/1167399969942922) and I doubt the rest of the Rifftrax cast will. And they're the most recognizable face of MST3K, outside of Joel.
I reserve the right to renounce my cautious hype if the final product of this Kickstarter doesn’t live up to the MST legacy, but I wouldn’t mind seeing a new MST season—especially if they can get the rights to go after one or two recent movies (i.e. movies released from the 1990s to the 2000s).
>especially if they can get the rights to go after one or two recent movies (i.e. movies released from the 1990s to the 2000s).
I don't see that happening for cost reasons, along with the Kickstarter emphasizing on older films like the original series did.
>Colbert make a joke about ethics in games journalism
>cue massive butthurt
It wasn't a particularly funny or clever segment (quite the opposite IMO), but the brine is delicious.
So that’s why Joel can do the MST3K reboot now.
>Colbert now batting around the third spot in ratings late night ratings.
Maybe they should have gone with Ferguson
Maybe they need to stop booking fucking CEOs trying to sell shit and politicians who are losing to Trump?
But those are the people Colbert likes to talk to.
Today I've had a dream about a sequel to "Kindred: The Embraced". It had a pretty mediocre name, something with "blood" in it, but the contents seemed decent. Then I woke up and was sad.
Before someone mentions it, I know that "Kindred" brutally violated some parts of lore and rules of the setting. But come on, it was the best thing in media since VtMB and some of the actors did their job really well. I'm normally not a big fan of bloodsuckers, whether old-timers following in Stoker's footsteps or modern variations, but oWoD really struck a chord of some kind.
So, anyone up for a "what kind of VtM (or some other WoD) film I would like to see"?