[video=youtube_share;3WfR87K5zW8]https://youtu.be/3WfR87K5zW8[/youtube]
The singular good scene from the sequels.
I watched The Great Wall, with Matt Damon fighting alien dinosaurs with a bow and arrow. As silly as the premise is, it's a fun movie.
While net was down sat down and watched some old BW SF movies.
Kronos: One of those "science hero" sorts of movies with a relatively slow start off but lots going on even so. Flying saucer is detected approaching earth. For some reason its decided to blow it up. Fails and the thing lands in the ocean off Mexico. Scientist team investigates. And finally Kronos makes its appearance. And I love the design of the thing. Its monolithic and lacking most of the standard robot features, or features at all. It proceeds to go on a rampage as its mission is to drain energy. Really neet way ov moving as it stomps along on four piston pillar legs that alternatingly lift and fall.
Monolith Monsters: Mentioned this before. Another "science hero" movie and one of my favourites for the totally original idea of a "monster" that isnt even alive. A meteor crashes outside a little desert town and soon thereafter people collect some of the fragments to study or by chance. Then one of found dead, petrified and then another and it becomes apparent the threat is the rock fragments that absorb water and silica and grow into huge crystal pillars that eventually topple and shatter. Also interesting in that the monster is secondary to the interplay of the people and how they react to the impending crisis.
Watched Office a Korean thriller/horror film. Pretty slow burn and subtle (with touches of Hitchcock) for a Korean genre film which these days tend towards a lot of violence and gore. Not that this one doesn't get plenty violent by the end but I'm grading on a curve here. Some nice but simple twists in this that could be used in any CoC or investigation game.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2086[/ATTACH]
We did a roundtable talk on House of Traps: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-e5zv7-82211f
This is an early 80s Chang Cheh film starring the venom mob (no Lo Meng this time out though) and based on the Seven Heroes and Five Gallants. I think the story in this one is engaging and the fight scenes are all very tight. The centerpiece of the film is the House of Traps, which is a really cool concept and something that would work well in a campaign. It isn't a house filled with traps so much as a tower housing a single, but multi-level, trap structure (there are a sequence of traps that all play off each other once the thing is triggered). The world here is pretty morally gray, with a prince during the early Song Dynasty seeking revenge against Emperor Taizong for forcing his father to commit suicide. The protagonists of the film are trying to break into the prince's House of Traps to recover some stolen objects and to obtain a list of people involved in the revolt. Characters are colorful and memorable (even those with brief moments on screen). Pretty bloody as these films go as well.
Saw what I think was House of Traps at a con. That the one with the floor of spikes and some sort of killer umbrella?
Is the Baulderstone on the podcast the same Baulderstone of the forum?
I'm digging the discussion approach to the podcasts, you know your Chinese history!
Quote from: Omega;1017754Monolith Monsters: Mentioned this before. Another "science hero" movie and one of my favourites for the totally original idea of a "monster" that isnt even alive. A meteor crashes outside a little desert town and soon thereafter people collect some of the fragments to study or by chance. Then one of found dead, petrified and then another and it becomes apparent the threat is the rock fragments that absorb water and silica and grow into huge crystal pillars that eventually topple and shatter. Also interesting in that the monster is secondary to the interplay of the people and how they react to the impending crisis.
I saw this as a kid, keep meaning to track it down to watch again. If it is as I remember than more interesting than the description would make it sound.
Speaking of older movies, I recently watched the 1970s Invasion of the Body Snatchers again. I hadn't seen it in years and it was much better and scarier than I expected. Proof that re-makes don't always suck or just retread the same old story with different faces.
Quote from: Voros;1017811Is the Baulderstone on the podcast the same Baulderstone of the forum?
I'm digging the discussion approach to the podcasts, you know your Chinese history!
Thanks.
That is the same Baulderstone.
The discussion approach is a double edged sword but I feel more comfortable with that format. I just hit record and we don't edit the discussion (the only exception to the later is if something truly disruptive occurs and I have to stop recording---in which case I just splice together two separate recordings). I think you get more honest opinions about things that way and eventually you start getting a natural conversation.
Last week we reviewed a movie that uses the same source material so it was interesting contrasting them. Next week we are doing Reign of Assassins (normally we try to do 3 old school movies, followed by 1 newer film---newer can mean 90s or later).
Quote from: Omega;1017810Saw what I think was House of Traps at a con. That the one with the floor of spikes and some sort of killer umbrella?
That sounds like the same movie.
And as posted in the DL thread...
There is a Dragonlance Musical? In Russia? The Last Trial.
One of the songs from it. Takisis and Raistlin. Lord of Nothing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEXYeb4pSG8
Apparently started off as a fan made stage play in the 90s and then had a larger production around 2010 and one big final production in 2014.
Watched "The Last Dragon" an american kungfu movie from the 80s set in Harlem. The main charcter is Bruce Leroy, a black dude who dresses and acts like he thinks Chinese do. Its a fun and well done film.
Then "Dragon: the Bruce Lee Story" my wife liked that one better, its actully a love story with alot of Kungfu. It wasn't as good as I remembered, but I was very tired and I'm not 14 any more.
Saw the Last Dragon in theater. Reallly weird movie with alot of weird acting characters. But hey it was the 80s and movies were still able to be properly weird.
So just watched Spiderman Homecoming and Justice League.
Spiderman was just as tween and annoying as I expected, but it's offset by strong performances from Michael Keaton and the kid playing Parker. Gwyneth Paltrow got billing in the credits for less than a minute of screen time. Guess someone was worried she might find a hashtag.
Justice League...was a mixed bag. Plot was surprisingly solid for a DC film, action scenes were easy to follow, but everyone that wasn't Wonder Woman or Flash looked plastic, like the editors went in during post and cgi'd the cast and failed to be subtle. I understand the Cavill had a moustache that needed to be removed, but the rest? No idea. And why in shit is Flash a barely functional autistic?
Quote from: Omega;1017885And as posted in the DL thread...
There is a Dragonlance Musical? In Russia? The Last Trial.
One of the songs from it. Takisis and Raistlin. Lord of Nothing
[video=youtube;lEXYeb4pSG8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEXYeb4pSG8[/youtube]
Apparently started off as a fan made stage play in the 90s and then had a larger production around 2010 and one big final production in 2014.
That's the most Russian thing I've seen since Tarkovsky died.:D
Quote from: Voros;1017938That's the most Russian thing I've seen since Tarkovsky died.:D
Apparently the person playing Dalamar in the last production was Raistlin in the previous, and his wife plays Tika. Music is pretty good too.
That is the most whack thing I've seen since Italian Spider-Man.
Quote from: Elfdart;1018051That is the most whack thing I've seen since Italian Spider-Man.
Come again?
Re: Last Dragon it's a fun movie; very obviously tongue-in-cheek movie. Bruce Leroy? Eating popcorn with chopsticks?
Honeymoon Killers. A classic grimy horror/thriller from 1970, Scorsese was originally to direct but was fired over creative differences. Kastle, an opera director, did a great job though and created a gritty, rough B&W sleaze classic. A favourite of not only Scorsese but Truffaut and John Waters.
Based on the true story of an overweight nurse and Lonelyhearts Lothario who fall in love and proceed to work together in ripping off lonely spinsters, eventually turning to murder. The late 60s/early 70s is an underused time period for CoC, I could see using this tale as inspiration for a different kind of CoC session.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2099[/ATTACH]
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1018734Re: Last Dragon it's a fun movie; very obviously tongue-in-cheek movie. Bruce Leroy? Eating popcorn with chopsticks?
The pop corn with chopsticks actully looked like a good Idea.
I've been tearing through the Amazon horror movies selection; it's amazing just how many terrible movie-like things they have on there (a bunch of student films, perhaps?). About the only thing watchable is the Ash vs Evil Dead TV series, but it's good enough at least.
On Canada Netflix there are a few excellent horror films: Ben Wheatley's Kill List and Sightseers, Witch, Babadook, I Saw the Devil, We are What We Are and others.
For Amazon, you have to subscribe to their "channels". They have a couple of horror themed ones with curated stuff that looks decent. I tend to go for the pre-2000's horror and there's a good amount of that. I think another "channel' focuses on more modern horror movies, but don't quote me on that.
For Netflix, I think that their horror stuff is so-so. The Upflix app might be of limited help in finding something.
Quote from: Doom;1019528I've been tearing through the Amazon horror movies selection; it's amazing just how many terrible movie-like things they have on there (a bunch of student films, perhaps?). About the only thing watchable is the Ash vs Evil Dead TV series, but it's good enough at least.
My wife and I have been watching Ash vs the evil dead, just started season two. It's fun, nice to see they maintained the level of serious / camp from the original movies.
There is a lot of good stuff on Netflix, but yes there is a lot of chaff to sort through. Horror as a genre in particular has a high garbage to good ratio. On the plus side, it is so much easier to try another after 10 minutes compared to the old days of VHS where you felt an urge to watch the thing and hope it gets better since you already paid for it.
Just finished the new ScarJo version of Ghost in the Shell. I liked it, though it's certainly not as good as the anime movie. If you like cyberpunk, and have an aversion to anime, then you will likely love this movie.
Quote from: danbuter;1020165Just finished the new ScarJo version of Ghost in the Shell. I liked it, though it's certainly not as good as the anime movie. If you like cyberpunk, and have an aversion to anime, then you will likely love this movie.
I made it about half way. Any longer and I would have put my eyes out with a melon baller. The film managed to incorporate three different plots, shoe horn origin stories for at least two characters (maybe more didn't get that far) and Johansson has all the personality of a stroke patient overdosed on Botox.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1020259.....) and Johansson has all the personality of a stroke patient overdosed on Botox.
Thats accurate. I think maybe thats what she was going for.
Anyone remember a horror anthology series from possibly Mexico called something like Horro Horro Theater? I saw this back in the late 90s as at the time my cable subscription included a South american channel and it looked fairly interesting what little I saw. Had a sort of Dark Shadows feel.
Quote from: Headless;1020270Thats accurate. I think maybe thats what she was going for.
Then this would be her most successful role. I'm honestly not a fan of hers, bjt this was atrocious.
And can someone please explain why they keep calling her Major? The character's name is Motoko Kuisinagi. Major is her RANK. But every time she's referred to its "Major got hurt" "Major did this". Was the scriptwriters afraid to use the word "the"? Did they think Motoko was her middle name?
Watched an ooold copy of a Filipino movie from 1987 called Tikbalang, Once Upon a Time in the US. First saw it at a convention back in the 90s. Think Duckcon? A really weird fantasy movie where a Tikbalang transports some kids from modern earth to a fantasy realm. Kind of like a live action D&D cartoon with an Asian theme. Some interesting effects here and there like the stop motion tikbalang at the beginning and various supernatural beings presented. Definitely does not take itself too seriously. Very reminiscent of Wizards of the Lost Kingdom which came out in 85.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1020259IJohansson has all the personality of a stroke patient overdosed on Botox.
So she was perfect as the character ;).
I also agree that the how people addressed her was really awkward.
Quote from: danbuter;1021430So she was perfect as the character ;).
I also agree that the how people addressed her was really awkward.
Everything was. Movie should have been titled Cring in the Shell.
It's really wierd. I couldn't make it through GitS, I was decidedly mixed on the Last Jedi and Thor Ragnarok gave me the dry heaves everytime someone tried to be funny.
Best movie I've seen recently? Fucking Justice League.
That's a painful realization.
Quote from: Headless;1020270Thats accurate. I think maybe thats what she was going for.
She's a cyborg after all.
Quote from: Headless;1020270Thats accurate. I think maybe thats what she was going for.
If intentional, I think her performance was really good. I certainly was thinking it as I watched the film. I
felt like she was a brain in a cyborg body, and not just when they were showing that she was a cyborg.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1021521She's a cyborg after all.
Cybog dos not mean brain dead nor dose it necessarily mean impossible to be "human".
This is particularly important given that in the source martial she has tons or personality.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1021780If intentional, I think her performance was really good. I certainly was thinking it as I watched the film. I felt like she was a brain in a cyborg body, and not just when they were showing that she was a cyborg.
You mean like in every ghost in the shell any thing ever ???? The simple fact is all of the gits stuff has done that.
But why should I spend my time damning A bad movie when some one much more skilled then me has all ready done it.
[video=youtube;v2soHxEN79c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2soHxEN79c[/youtube]
I got tired of watching bad movies so I popped in a DVD of "The Sand Pebbles" starring Steve McQueen, Mako, and Candice Bergen. Good stuff, a classic, particularly good if you are looking for interesting events and background for your 1920's games. On a different note, much of the feel in the movie can be used in the OTU for the worlds that are Amber Zone and Red Zone for where gunboat diplomacy has been used to maintain order among worlds by the Impereium.
Cleanse your palettes and give it a watch.
I saw 2 really good movies recently.
Panic in the year zero about A family from LA that was going on A camping trip when the bombs fall. Part of why this is such an interesting picture is that rather then being about some one who dosen't pick up on whats going on or has no idea what to do or A survivalist type that's spend half there life waiting for something like this to happen. It's about A family headed up by A guy who never planed for this but imminently figures out whats going to happen and how to prepare for it before the last pieces of civilization collapse.
The other is The lady from shanghai it's A fun film noir movie and it frankly has some of the best dialogue I have ever seen in A movie.
Which rather makes sense given Orson Welles had A big hand in it.
Just finished Blade Runner 2049. It didn't shit all over the first movie. Was a little too on the nose in spots for my taste, but altogether not bad.
It had this modern movie clean to it though. Even the dirt looked clean. Sharp and in focus, even when out of focus. That's not just Blade Runner though.
Story was fine. I mean, it's nothing new, and executed well. Not the kind of movie I'd want to watch over again, but fine for one viewing. I guess this my rambling way of saying it was ok.
And on a techincal note, the Blu-Ray version hit a new first. I had to turn the volume, I swear I'm not even exaggerating, to the max, and I could only barely hear the dialogue. And then a loud part would come on, and blast the whole apartment, I had to ride the volume. I suspect it may be my jury-rigged PS3 HDMI to RCA TV. Dunno. Just very distracting.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1022319Just finished Blade Runner 2049. It didn't shit all over the first movie. Was a little too on the nose in spots for my taste, but altogether not bad.
It had this modern movie clean to it though. Even the dirt looked clean. Sharp and in focus, even when out of focus. That's not just Blade Runner though.
Story was fine. I mean, it's nothing new, and executed well. Not the kind of movie I'd want to watch over again, but fine for one viewing. I guess this my rambling way of saying it was ok.
And on a techincal note, the Blu-Ray version hit a new first. I had to turn the volume, I swear I'm not even exaggerating, to the max, and I could only barely hear the dialogue. And then a loud part would come on, and blast the whole apartment, I had to ride the volume. I suspect it may be my jury-rigged PS3 HDMI to RCA TV. Dunno. Just very distracting.
I've had that problem with dvds and blurays before. I think it's a layer imbalance when they format the media. The first series run of Ghost in the Shell : SaC was notorious for it between the opening credits and the show proper.
Quote from: kosmos1214;1021918The simple fact is all of the gits stuff has done that.
My biggest problem with the movie was that while watching, I was mentally saying "I've already seen this, and it was done better then." They literally tried to cram three anime movies and four OVAs into a single film and it just ended up being 20 pounds of shit in a 10 pound bag.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1022319And on a techincal note, the Blu-Ray version hit a new first. I had to turn the volume, I swear I'm not even exaggerating, to the max, and I could only barely hear the dialogue. And then a loud part would come on, and blast the whole apartment, I had to ride the volume. I suspect it may be my jury-rigged PS3 HDMI to RCA TV. Dunno. Just very distracting.
I've found most movies have had that issue since the mid-'00s. So much so that I keep closed captioning on 100% of the time these days. I live in a condominium, and believe me loud noises will make the neighbors complain.
Well moronwood is at it again they are now going to be making A movie out of one of the most impact full comics I have ever read.
that being
battle angel Alita now this is going to hurt being as I can legitimately say I would not be the person I am had I not read this at 13/14ish.
[video=youtube;aj8mN_7Apcw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj8mN_7Apcw[/youtube]
Post script: Also the scrap yard is way to goddamn clean in that trailer.
Quote from: jeff37923;1022335My biggest problem with the movie was that while watching, I was mentally saying "I've already seen this, and it was done better then." They literally tried to cram three anime movies and four OVAs into a single film and it just ended up being 20 pounds of shit in a 10 pound bag.
sounds like A good sum up of A good chunk of the problem.
Quote from: Omega;1020286Anyone remember a horror anthology series from possibly Mexico called something like Horro Horro Theater? I saw this back in the late 90s as at the time my cable subscription included a South american channel and it looked fairly interesting what little I saw. Had a sort of Dark Shadows feel.
i remember the anthology...but can't remember the name. There are some pretty good Mexican horror movies, certainly as good as any B movie. Sorry I can't give a name, but be sure to watch Witching and Bitching if you can find it (used to be on NetF), it's *awesome*.
The discussion on dumb monsters got me to dig out my old copy of the BW 1959 blob monster movie Caltiki, il mostro immortale. My copy was in Spanish so I thought it was produced down south. Turns out it is a movie from Italy. A pretty lurid and even at times grotesque movie I'd heard of but never seen as it got mention way back in those old monster movie magazines. Its a fairly plodding movie. But when things go bad they go really bad.
I've never seen the english dub or the original Italian version so cant say if anything was changed. Probably was in at least the english version.
wtf is wrong with her eyes. (battle angel alita picture)
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1022756wtf is wrong with her eyes. (battle angel alita picture)
Everyone's been wondering that since the trailer came out.
http://uproxx.com/hitfix/why-does-alita-battle-angel-have-anime-eyes/
Apparently they wanted to replicate the manga eyes in live action. I think the results speak for themselves.
[video=youtube;kY-pUxKQMUE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY-pUxKQMUE[/youtube]
She doesn't look like a cyborg. She looks like some kind of fish/human.
Yeah it looks horrible.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1022756wtf is wrong with her eyes. (battle angel alita picture)
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1022821Everyone's been wondering that since the trailer came out.
http://uproxx.com/hitfix/why-does-alita-battle-angel-have-anime-eyes/
Apparently they wanted to replicate the manga eyes in live action. I think the results speak for themselves.
[video=youtube;kY-pUxKQMUE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY-pUxKQMUE[/youtube]
She doesn't look like a cyborg. She looks like some kind of fish/human.
It's actually worse then that they are borrowing some notes from the manga's art style and not others leading to an aborted in between style that actually lacks some of the definition compared to the manga.
Here are some pics for contrast.
Spoiler
(https://s23.postimg.org/ya9xrp3sb/150a939fd799f55757512f1ea3236ecc.jpg)
(https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F63%2F22%2F78%2F6322785eb51be160b09e9b8f5d5b51c7--battle-angel-alita-direction.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.co.uk%2Fpin%2F228557749818143181%2F&docid=wg_ZBTaDtOSYbM&tbnid=KOM5nXLJxt6kaM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiDwM_3wIPZAhWDq1kKHbFFBakQMwjFASghMCE..i&w=736&h=555&bih=943&biw=1920&q=battle%20angel%20alita&ved=0ahUKEwiDwM_3wIPZAhWDq1kKHbFFBakQMwjFASghMCE&iact=mrc&uact=8)
(https://i0.wp.com/www.completelyentertained.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/377_4_nzhyp_page1271.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/63/22/78/6322785eb51be160b09e9b8f5d5b51c7--battle-angel-alita-direction.jpg)
(https://d1nao0k9edgivc.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/battle-angel-alita-616x403.jpg)
Also sorry for not showing to much fight seance stuff that mangas pretty bloody and I don't want to break the rules.
Which actually leads me in to some thing but is it just me or from the trailer is the movies smelling pg-13?
Also heres A guide why the mangas worth reading http://www.ign.com/articles/2007/03/12/battle-angel-alita-new-readers-guide
Quote from: kosmos1214;1022943It's actually worse then that they are borrowing some notes from the manga's art style and not others leading to an aborted in between style that actually lacks some of the definition compared to the manga.
Also heres A guide why the mangas worth reading http://www.ign.com/articles/2007/03/12/battle-angel-alita-new-readers-guide
I've read Battle Angel Alita (The first run, and a little of the "reboot" series) and I agree. In general there's things in certain art styles that are done
because it's not live action. This attempt to replicate it shows why. So I guess it will serve as a bad example? :/
And I agree, it's a great series. Made quite an impact on me when I first read it.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1022953I've read Battle Angel Alita (The first run, and a little of the "reboot" series) and I agree. In general there's things in certain art styles that are done because it's not live action. This attempt to replicate it shows why. So I guess it will serve as a bad example? :/
And I agree, it's a great series. Made quite an impact on me when I first read it.
Agreed I read up threw some point in the ZOTT arc then my library system ran out of the manga so I was stuck I'll be honest it's nice to know it's still going.
Also I must say It's nice to know I am not the only person this side of the sun thats read it.
The only person with huge eyes who still looks gorgeous to me is Kajal Jain. Maybe they should have cast her:
(http://www.punjabicelebs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/10425494_782383471835712_7299730199791589824_n.jpg)
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1023804The only person with huge eyes who still looks gorgeous to me is Kajal Jain. Maybe they should have cast her:
(http://www.punjabicelebs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/10425494_782383471835712_7299730199791589824_n.jpg)
Looking at her that very well may have been A better idea though it's worth remembering that the reason they ended up casting scar-jo as makoto was that none of the Asian actresses in Hollywood do action movies :/
Quote from: kosmos1214;1024054Looking at her that very well may have been A better idea though it's worth remembering that the reason they ended up casting scar-jo as makoto was that none of the Asian actresses in Hollywood do action movies :/
This is sarcasm right?
Please tell it's sarcasm.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1024120This is sarcasm right?
Please tell it's sarcasm.
It may be partially true. There may well be very few. Or those that were on hand either werent interested, or did not fit the look. And Hollywood may have wanted a big name to stick on the movie as usual.
Finally got a copy of The Slime People from 1963. Saw this wayyyyyy back on Hoolihan & Big Chuck, but never saw it again till recent. Not a bad film really and its got surprisingly crisp filming for its budget. The suits arent bad either really. Its a rather plodding movie and some of the actings a little off though. But boy do they love their fog machines!
Quote from: Omega;1024151It may be partially true. There may well be very few. Or those that were on hand either werent interested, or did not fit the look. And Hollywood may have wanted a big name to stick on the movie as usual.
So much more likely to be the latter, i.e. a big-budget movie and the studios wants a big name to prop it up.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1024120This is sarcasm right?
Please tell it's sarcasm.
Quote from: Omega;1024151It may be partially true. There may well be very few. Or those that were on hand either weren't interested, or did not fit the look. And Hollywood may have wanted a big name to stick on the movie as usual.
Sorry I should have been A touch more clear but it's pretty much what happened with gits LA. There weren't any major Asian actresses in Hollywood that where willing to do an action movie so we got scar-jo.
At the time there where more then A few videos on the subject by A bunch of different peeps at the time who do movie stuff .
There was one actress I remember hearing brought up as A potential I forget her name but she didn't have A huge name so the studios wouldn't even look at her.
Also what Ras said.
Post Script edit: Also rereading my previous post i miss typed rather badly sorry for any confusion. I didn't mean to say that there where no Asian actresses who do action movies at all.
Saw an interesting movie the January man kind of A fun for A mystery / thriller feels A bit like it's A 600 or 800 page novel that got condensed down to 2 hours.
Thor, Ragnarok
Let's start with the disclaimer that I'm way past burned out on the Marvel Cinematic Universe(tm) films. They were really good in the beginning, but they've beaten their tone and style into the ground. Having said that, I liked it ok.
The first 20 (ish) minutes almost lost me. Thor as a wisecracking hero rubbed me the wrong way. It was a huge tone shift for the character. He was too lighthearted, and the Surtur fight wasn't very interesting. Having Odin lost on earth and then die felt very limp to me. Like, Oh, they have to bump off Odin to get the plot moving, get on with it already! It's unfortunate that they couldn't find anything to do with the Jane Foster character and off-screened her. At least they tried in... man I can't even remember the title of the movie. Thor 2, the Dark Elf one.
But once they got to the junk planet, and the story started to get moving, I started paying attention and got into the film. The Hulk/Banner stuff was great.
Not bad, worth watching, but don't expect them to stray from the Marvel Formula.
not a movie, yet, but coming in about 2 weeks I believe on Netflix is the new Reboot, which has ironically enough been so totally rebooted it shares about two points of interest with the original.
Now its a live action show about some teens who discover a digitizing machine to go into cyberspace to battle programs sent by a human hacker called the Sourcerer.
Fans are calling a Power Rangers wanna-be. But personally I think it shares more with Superhuman Samurai Cyber Squad. Minus the mecha and Ultra-Man type hero.
This is developing into some epic mishandling. "We tried to imagine that ReBoot had never been made"
https://www.rebootrevival.com/ (https://www.rebootrevival.com/)
Quote from: Omega;1029117 "We tried to imagine that ReBoot had never been made"
Well that sums up pretty well why I probably won't be watching it how about the rest of you?
Quote from: kosmos1214;1029190Well that sums up pretty well why I probably won't be watching it how about the rest of you?
Its about the same thing they said with the System Shock remake after they got the money. Eventually they realized their mistake and are going back to the original vision. Too bad Superhuman Guardian Reboot Squad wont.
Justice League
More super hero movies. I've already said I'm well burned out on the genere by now, but there's a few things that made JL palatable. Mostly the end. Despite Steppentime being about the blandest super villian yet, I really liked how they eventually beat him. It was foreshadowed, and most importantly, they didn't murder him. He done himself in, which is a very superhero-story way for the villain to fail.
And I liked it way better than Batman versus Superman. Whatever the hell that movie was called.
I just saw Ready Player One and I didn't like it. I'm not going to say it was bad--the rest of my family really liked it--but it just didn't appeal to me. There was just too much happening on the screen and I felt like I was distracted from what was going on by graphics overload at several points. I also went in knowing it was a kids/teen film at heart, but it's much more like the 80s versions of those where there really isn't any subtle humor or extra layers for adults. So again, not a bad movie, but it din't appeal to me.
I liked it. The book was more enjoyable. (I won't comment on "better")
It was a quick book but an even quicker movie. Stuff the devoloped and built in the book didn't have time in the movie. I was disappointed a couple parts I liked were missing. Ain't that always the way.
But worth watching. Maybe more a rental than theater.
Saw some of the Reboot series. Yeah, its got about nothing to do with the original.
But...
A few episodes in and they introduce Megabyte. Who seems to be the old Megabyte. That is till the human villain "upgrades" him. Cant say Im thrilled with the redesign. But whomever they got for the voice actor was spot on. So far seems really good at emulating Tony Jays voicing of Megabyte.
Later they actually visit Mainframe... which was part of this college secret lab all along??? And they meet Bob, Dot, and Enzo? Except they look kinda... off. And Mainframe is depopulated? Weird. Oh and we get to see the User from the original??? But whomever they got for the voices here too did it really well. and they did a good job of recreating Mainframe too. That doesnt save this series though.
I saw Hurricane Heist yesterday. No money was spent to do so, yet I still feel cheated out of my time. It was fucking horrible. Not amusingly horrible, but more "I think I'd rather be mowing the yard in the hot Florida sun" horrible. If you have an opportunity to see this movie and are actually considering it, please call someone and ask for help.
Regarding the reboot reboot I found this on A video giving the history of reboot I am quoting this exactly as I found it.
Also It's supposedly something one of the guys who worked on the show posted on 4chan .
QuoteFor years we have waited, well... ''don't bother'' posted from a employee from Rainmaker. He posted on 4chan anonymously and it has now since been deleted: (Note: the punctuation or lack-thereof is the same as in the post. I just typed it out.) ''I feel you guys deserve an explanation and since I can't talk publicly about this without putting my job in danger I'll post this here where everyone will think I'm larping. Everybody that was working on this show knew this backlash was coming but Hefferon has his head so far up his ass he wouldn't listen to anybody and nobody could tell him to smarten up since he owns the whole company any idea he came up with was put in no matter how stupid, hell sometimes he brought his kid into reviews and had the kid give notes, also fun fact the main character shares a name with his kid and the main character's father's name is the name of his assistant. The production itself was a massive disaster as well, Hefferon got sold on using the unreal engine for lighting and rendering the series despite rainmaker having a superb traditional CG pipeline because the first ReBoot was the first CG show on TV he wanted to make this show a first as well so the first unreal game engine show on TV. "To compound that problem those of us that came over from a traditional pipeline were given next to no training in unreal so we are figuring it out as we went along, the guy that was supposed to be the big know it all guy about unreal ended up being completely incompetent at his job but was great at kissing Michael's ass and creating conflicts by going behind the art and animation director's backs. Also wouldn't be surprised if a # MeToo story comes out about this guy as he was just creepy in general with the girls on the team. The project also went through a number of different art directors as they got fed up and quit due to the related issues this of course caused a lot of issues to the point where most environments in the show were just improvised off of single concept images. Also in the trailer you might notice some of the CG shots look extremely crappy and some look good, here's why that is. The creepy kiss up guy from earlier convinced Hefferon early on that reboot wouldn't need a team of lighters since ''The game engine will do that automatically for us'' So for the first few episodes there was no team dedicated to lighting the shots so it fell to the world builders to light those episodes and as no world building had any lighting experience you can see the results, after those episodes were complete they finally came to the realization that you actually need lighters to get good TV show level lighting so they hastily hired a team of lighters but because it was so late in the production schedule they had to hire basically anybody that applied so that means the majority of the lighters were straight out of school, and I don't think they finished up hiring that team till episode 11 or 12. Another reason for the crappy looking CG is because there was absolutely no training provided to the surfacing team on how shaders in unreal work, so you had them going in blind muddling their way through trying to figure out how to make ship work, hell the most any of us got to training in unreal for the whole project was about 2 weeks. I know to people outside the industry surfacing and lighting may not sound important but they are the subtle things that make something go from looking cheap and bad to looking good in CG. ''In summary the production was a complete cluster fuck with a CEO making all the decisions, refusing to listen to anybody just making his pet fantasy project about his self inserted son, but hey he got what he wanted, he can now say reboot the guardian code is the first ever show to be made with the unreal engine and rendered in 4k plus there is some VR stuff. Watch anytime he talks about the show he'll hit on those points, hell those are the points we've been told to hit on in the handout they gave us about how we're supposed to talk about the show in public.I'm very sorry about the product we put out there, I can't imagine how hard it is for long time fans of ReBoot to look at this abomination, if you're holding out any hope for this show don't, not only did the spit on the grave of ReBoot they did it in a badly written, badly acted show. If you're wondering if they tried to do anything to placate you guys, that'd be episode 10, they have all the old main characters in that episode but only that episode and it's just as badly written and acted as they other episodes. Do not watch this show, do not support this show or if you feel the need to satisfy your curiosity about it wait at least a month after release, netflix tends to make a decision on renewing for more seasons based on the numbers after about 2-4 weeks so the last thing this show needs is to do well out of morbid curiosity during those weeks and get another season.''
The video I found it on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVnzhISq0oY
You could tell that just by watching a few episodes and listening to the CEO talk.
I'll buy that I my haven't heard any of the stuff the ceo has been spouting nor have I watched any guardian code so that was my 1st exposure.
Tbh if even A fraction of that post is true it explains A lot.
Watching the first epsiode of Netflix's Lost in Space. So far, it's not grabbing me. I'll try to finish out the episode to give it a proper chance.
Episode 2 is much better. The characters are actually showing some character.
Looks stupider than the failed pilot from the 90s or 00s. And oh hurray.. another dysfunctional family. Though will be interesting to see what the do, or dont do, with the dynamics between will and not-Dr Smith.
Quote from: Omega;1034321Looks stupider than the failed pilot from the 90s or 00s. And oh hurray.. another dysfunctional family. Though will be interesting to see what the do, or dont do, with the dynamics between will and not-Dr Smith.
I'm about 5 episodes in, and Smith is turning out to be a pretty interesting character. Or rather, her antics are interesting.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1034360I'm about 5 episodes in, and Smith is turning out to be a pretty interesting character. Or rather, her antics are interesting.
I like the actress, but the character is straight out of a soap opera. She exists, imo, to do one thing and one thing only. Make whichever situation they're in worse.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1034402I like the actress, but the character is straight out of a soap opera. She exists, imo, to do one thing and one thing only. Make whichever situation they're in worse.
That was pretty much Smith in the original too.
Planets going to blow up? Smith sells all the Deuterium for an elixir. Trade off occasionally with Will's curiosity or trust getting them in a fix somehow.
I'm just amazed there's not more curiosity about the alien death-bot. They just sort of let it wander around, with no real interest in the first alien thing ever found, much less a robot with a wide array of powers.
And yeah, i'm liking the new Smith, too, even if she is a total maniac. I wonder just how long the writers can plausibly cover up the fact this character is pure psycho. The "old" Smith was a worm, but the new one is murderous and crassly manipulative to an extraordinary level
I really loved the after-credits scenes in Deadpool 2.
Black Panther
This movie was extremely silly. I know it's a comic book story, but I couldn't take it seriously. I'll have to think about why it's tripping my silly-o-meter when something like Ant-Man didn't.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1041069Black Panther
This movie was extremely silly. I know it's a comic book story, but I couldn't take it seriously. I'll have to think about why it's tripping my silly-o-meter when something like Ant-Man didn't.
Could be the setting of Wakanda itself. Its allways been a little odd with its superscience theme.
Not a movie, but theres a new Thundercats cartoon out. Its about as far removed from the original in art style as you can get.
And now theres a new Rocky and Bullwinkle show that just looks horrible.
Also really not liking the new Ducktakes art.
What with these massive downgrades in art?
Quote from: Omega;1041266What with these massive downgrades in art?
Laziness.
Bumblebee trailer just dropped.
https://youtu.be/fAIX12F6958
As a big Transformers fan, who had hopes that the live action movies would be good, and was severely disappointed in the way Michael Bay treated the franchise, I'm hoping this movie will be decent.
Just caught Hell House LLC on Prime. Found footage horror movie, something I'm not usually a fan of. This one was genuinely creepy as fuck, though, even though they telegraph the final shock pretty badly towards the end.
Watched Savageland over the weekend on Amazon Prime. Great low-budget fakeumentary about a town on the border of the US and Mexico that gets brutally massacred. It's got an unnatural twist to it and the some of the "photos" of the event are downright frightening.
Quote from: rgalex;1044542Watched Savageland over the weekend on Amazon Prime. Great low-budget fakeumentary about a town on the border of the US and Mexico that gets brutally massacred. It's got an unnatural twist to it and the some of the "photos" of the event are downright frightening.
I caught this yesterday, but I didn't like it nearly as much as Hell House LLC. It was plenty disturbing but not scary per se-- just sadder.
I watched Dunkirk. I don't know. Based on all the previews and reviews, I expected a really good movie. It was ok. Some scenes were well done, but overall, the movie just wasn't that interesting.
Quote from: danbuter;1045665I watched Dunkirk. I don't know. Based on all the previews and reviews, I expected a really good movie. It was ok. Some scenes were well done, but overall, the movie just wasn't that interesting.
Dunkirk felt really dull to me. I was hoping for something with a bit of excitement and a lot of tension (IOW, most of the old war movies I've liked) but this never delivered on either.
I'm watching a very good German science fiction movie free on Amazon Prime called Cargo Space Is Cold. I'm about 20 minutes in on it and I am hooked. The only downside is that I can't seem to find this movie on DVD anywhere.
I'm dying to see Mandy... From the director of Beyond the Black Rainbow I believe.
Watched all of No Game No Life. A fun little amime series about a pair of super gamers called to a world where everything is settled with games. And some of the games played get pretty wacky and some really clever twists and setups for each of the major challenges. Its up on Crunchyroll.
Currently re-working through Sword Art Online. First episode has a quick little homage to what I am pretty sure is Gary Gygax. Series about players trapped in a deadly fantasy VR MMO that goes in some interesting directions. Second arc features a sylvan themed MMO and the third shifts to a Sci-Fi/Post Apoc mmo. Also up on Crunchyroll except for the movie.
And in WTF movie news. Micheal Bay will be producing a live action... Dora the Explorer. Except now shes in high school because nothing says Dora the Explorer like sticking her in school. Apparently eventually she will pick up the monkey and head off to the jungle to save her parents. Um Bay? You sure you didnt pick up the new Tomb Raider script by accident? :D
Quote from: Omega;1052697And in WTF movie news. Micheal Bay will be producing a live action... Dora the Explorer. Except now shes in high school because nothing says Dora the Explorer like sticking her in school. Apparently eventually she will pick up the monkey and head off to the jungle to save her parents. Um Bay? You sure you didnt pick up the new Tomb Raider script by accident? :D
The explosions and gun fights are going to be epic.
On a related note...why in the fuck is there going to be a live action Dora film?
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1052707The explosions and gun fights are going to be epic.
On a related note...why in the fuck is there going to be a live action Dora film?
So Dora can explore the wonderful world of sex after she loses her virginity, obviously. It may even be a James Gunn vehicle movie....
Quote from: jeff37923;1052713So Dora can explore the wonderful world of sex after she loses her virginity, obviously. It may even be a James Gunn vehicle movie....
I watch it with my daughter. Don't ruin it.
Quote from: jeff37923;1052713So Dora can explore the wonderful world of sex after she loses her virginity, obviously. It may even be a James Gunn vehicle movie....
Cool. I've been waiting for a reboot of the Emmanuelle series.
Hardcore Henry is pretty awesome, though the violence and pacing (if perpetual full speed can be referred to as "pacing") might be a bit much.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1052725Cool. I've been waiting for a reboot of the Emmanuelle series.
I'm still trying to find a copy of the one with tge vr rigs.
Quote from: Doom;1053166Hardcore Henry is pretty awesome, though the violence and pacing (if perpetual full speed can be referred to as "pacing") might be a bit much.
For a Film Noir Detective version check out the 1947 movie "The Lady in the Lake" based on Raymond Chandler's book of the same name.
I just watched A Quiet Place. Monsters invade (From space? Another dimension? The center of the earth?) not much details on the who, except they are blind monsters who hunt with sound. The story is about a family holed up on a farm, trying to survive.
I really liked the ending.
And I did find Michael Bay's involvement ironic.
"When the credits roll on "A Quiet Place," seeing Michael Bay's name is a jolt -- Krasinski's film feels far removed from Decepticons and Aerosmith ballads. "He never wants to squash the director's vision," said Fuller. "I think that Michael saw his responsibility as supporting [Krasinski].""
https://www.indiewire.com/2018/04/a-quiet-place-executive-producer-john-krasinski-emily-blunt-1201950769/
I think I like this Michael Bay. Help movies get made from the background. :D
Infinity War[video=youtube;lDtCQdbny1M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDtCQdbny1M[/youtube]
My prediction:
Spoiler
I think this is gonna go similar to the comic, withe Captain Marvel taking the place of Adam Warlock. [strike]Gamora[/strike] Edit, derp, I meant Nebula. get the Infinity Gauntlet away from Thanos, and either she or Marvel use it to undo the events of the previous movie. Marvel splits up the Infinity Stones again, and we're back to status quo in the Marvel Movieverse. Several actors, including Robert Downey Junior, take this opportunity to retire their involvement.
Am I the only one that felt Infinity War was a bit of a let down both as a film and as a MCU event?
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1053850Am I the only one that felt Infinity War was a bit of a let down both as a film and as a MCU event?
I thought it looked great, but it did feel like a letdown to me. Most likely that's because it's hard to fully meet the expectations of 10 years of build-up.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1053850Am I the only one that felt Infinity War was a bit of a let down both as a film and as a MCU event?
Eh. I can't fault them. They have their formula, it works really well, and none of the Marvel Movies so far have been utter shite.
I aknowledgede that I was pretty burned out on the Marvel Movies a few years ago, so I went into Infinity War with a thorough "meh" attitude.
I think the big fight scenes dominated the movie, and dragged out way too long. I'd get distracted and putter around on the internet and listen out the side of my ear for something interesting to happen.
Quote from: Omega;1053262For a Film Noir Detective version check out the 1947 movie "The Lady in the Lake" based on Raymond Chandler's book of the same name.
What's the relationship there? Hardcore Henry has many flashes of brilliance, but I would have never guessed it to be based on a Chandler book/movie, even if I concede many clear influences.
I hated A Quiet Place. An idiotic premise, stupid situation, and characters who seem hellbent on getting themselves killed.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1053942Eh. I can't fault them. They have their formula, it works really well, and none of the Marvel Movies so far have been utter shite.
You missed the latest Fantastic 4 movie then. And the prior two Spider-man movies before the current re-reboot were pretty poor. I have not seen the newest one so can not say if it is good or bad. And aside from the airport battle Civil War felt so very very pointless.
Quote from: Doom;1053976What's the relationship there? Hardcore Henry has many flashes of brilliance, but I would have never guessed it to be based on a Chandler book/movie, even if I concede many clear influences.
What? No no. I meant that Lady in the Lake was an example of an early try at a fully POV movie. Far as I know there is no connection to HH.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1053850Am I the only one that felt Infinity War was a bit of a let down both as a film and as a MCU event?
I thought it was a big let down.
The Marvel movies have had their ups and downs, but I thought the recent run of Doctor Strange, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Thor: Ragnarok, and Black Panther were excellent (and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 at least a solid sequel). All of them had a strong theme and visual style, plus interesting storyline and characters.
Infinity War was a jumbled, clunky mess by comparison. It had no style, and especially the formulaic plot and storyline was a major stumbling block.
(Spoilers)It was obvious from the premise that of course all six stones would fall into Thanos' hands leading to a final confrontation. So most of the plot was all playing out foregone conclusion, and even in a dull manner. What was worse was repeating the trope where Thanos threatens to kill someone, and the hero then dutifully hands over the stone - done by Loki over Thor at the start, followed by Gamora over Nebula, followed by Doctor Strange over Iron Man.(/Spoilers)
Quote from: Omega;1054011You missed the latest Fantastic 4 movie then. And the prior two Spider-man movies before the current re-reboot were pretty poor. I have not seen the newest one so can not say if it is good or bad. And aside from the airport battle Civil War felt so very very pointless.
I did skip them. I wasn't interested in them, as both were reboots and reboots of reboots. So I'll amend my post to say that the MCU movies I have seen haven't been utter shite. :D
Quote from: Omega;1054011You missed the latest Fantastic 4 movie then. And the prior two Spider-man movies before the current re-reboot were pretty poor. I have not seen the newest one so can not say if it is good or bad. And aside from the airport battle Civil War felt so very very pointless.
The Fantastic Four movies and those Spider-Man films were not technically part of Disney's MCU (nor were the Blade series, Punisher movies, Elecktra, or Daredevil). Sure, they're Marvel movies, but bringing them into the discussion is a lot like bringing up D&D 4e into a discussion about any other type of D&D.
I'd argue that the Garfield Spider-Man films, at least tge first one wasn't bad. There has not been a goid FF movie though.
I actually liked the middle two Fantastic Four movies even if they did totally botch Galactus in the second one and played up the Human Torch a bit too much.
Quote from: Omega;1054240I actually liked the middle two Fantastic Four movies even if they did totally botch Galactus in the second one and played up the Human Torch a bit too much.
Wait... If those were the middle two, what was the first one? I only remember three FF films: two with Captain America as Johnny Storm and one with Killmonger as Johnny Storm.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1054244Wait... If those were the middle two, what was the first one? I only remember three FF films: two with Captain America as Johnny Storm and one with Killmonger as Johnny Storm.
Treat yourself, here's the original Fantastic Four movie from 1994. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrbFLJHeX8w) With the Boy Who Could Fly as Johnny Storm.
I liked the 05 Fantastic Four. The scene on the bridge specifically was a bit of super-heroism that hadn't been in "super hero" movies for a while. Just savin' people and whatnot. No big, endless brawl.
And the "family" part was played pretty well.
Doom was shit though.
Quote from: Pat;1054318Treat yourself, here's the original Fantastic Four movie from 1994. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrbFLJHeX8w) With the Boy Who Could Fly as Johnny Storm.
I... ah... um, yeah. I watched the first 2 minutes and that's shown me I shouldn't watch the next 90 minutes, but I've got a lot of time to kill, so...
Quote from: HappyDaze;1054466I... ah... um, yeah. I watched the first 2 minutes and that's shown me I shouldn't watch the next 90 minutes, but I've got a lot of time to kill, so...
It's actually better than it should be. Yes, it's pure B-grade cinema, with crappy props and special effects, mediocre acting, a very goofy villain, some serious problems with the plot and character development, and the production quality is poor (the film only exists in the form of bootleg fan copies, after all). But it's entertaining as a trashy film, coherent enough that you can follow the plot, and there are a couple character moments that work. It might be better than the 2015 version.
And it's clearly got more spirit, because the actors were really into it. I can't recommend the documentary Doomed: The Untold Story of Roger Corman's The Fantastic Four (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3113456/) (2015) because it gets tedious, but the interviews with the cast make it clear that everyone involved sincerely believed this was a high profile film destined for success. In other words, they were all completed deluded.
2nd trailer for Bumblebee.
[video=youtube_share;3P2DFimdfvM]https://youtu.be/3P2DFimdfvM[/youtube]
I can't help but sperg out. This looks so much better than the Bayformers films.
I just watched The Mummy (with Tom Cruise). It was much better than I expected. I recommend it!
The 13th Warrior was an excellent inspiration for RPG gaming.
My 2 cents.
Quote from: Razor 007;1057860The 13th Warrior was an excellent inspiration for RPG gaming.
My 2 cents.
While not the best movie ever made I think the concept is very cool. The enemies are class (and pretty freaky initially) as well as the whole set up of being trapped in a village that is very hard to defend.
Got around to finally finishing watching all of Fire and Ice. This was a 1983 animated movie by Ralph Bakshi and Frank Frazetta no less. And pretty well done with none of Bakshi's cost cutting tricks used in some other movies. This is how you do rotoscoping right. It very much feels like a D&D adventure where "stuff happens!" between the villains initial bid for power and the final battle which unfortunately gets a little choppily edited near the end. Lots of interesting characters and I actually liked that the movie took its time getting from point to point.
Quote from: Omega;1058282Got around to finally finishing watching all of Fire and Ice. This was a 1983 animated movie by Ralph Bakshi and Frank Frazetta no less. And pretty well done with none of Bakshi's cost cutting tricks used in some other movies. This is how you do rotoscoping right. It very much feels like a D&D adventure where "stuff happens!" between the villains initial bid for power and the final battle which unfortunately gets a little choppily edited near the end. Lots of interesting characters and I actually liked that the movie took its time getting from point to point.
*Puts on grumpy pants*
A lot of modern movies seem to be afraid of boring the audience with pacing. Maybe they're right, but I find even movies I like don't give much time to absorb the story before rushing on to the next scene.
Solo
I liked this a lot more than I thought I would. I knew they were going to explain the Kessel Run, which really, really didn't need explaining, but whatever.
A bit too on the nose at times, "Oh, that's where Han got his blaster, Oh, that's how he got the Falcon, Oh, that's how the Falcon got to look like it did in the OT" etc. That got tiresome.
But the story was coherent, always a nice difference from the sequels, I liked the characters and how they were acted, and the story took quite a few turns that I didn't expect.
It had some teeth as well.
I give it a solid C+.
Watched my old copy of the 1953 movie Houdini starring Tony Curtis and Janet Leigh. Excellent movie even with all the liberties it takes with certain elements. For a George Pal movie it is rather subdued on the fantastical elements.
I finally got around to watching muh DVD of The Kingsman: The Golden Circle.
Wow. So many Bad Ideas that were flawlessly executed and so many Good Ideas that were slapped together like a half-forgotten afterthought.
And MAN does it have the worst case of sequelitis you ever did see! Can't quite make up its mind if it wants to be a Serial or an Episode...
I almost feel like I should do one of my mega analysis posts on it... almost.
Saw Bohemian Rhapsody last night. Enjoyed it. They take a lot of liberties, especially with chronology, but I expect that with biopics. The music, the performances and the story all worked.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1063981Saw Bohemian Rhapsody last night. Enjoyed it. They take a lot of liberties, especially with chronology, but I expect that with biopics. The music, the performances and the story all worked.
I've heard that the surviving members of Queen sort of slanted the depiction of the band to come across as.. how to phrase it... The Good Guys, with the now dead Freddy taking the fall for shennanigans..
How obvious is it, if at all?
Saw Prospect, I liked it but think it is better seen as a matinee or at the dollar theater because it isn't worth full price. The movie is more of a character study than anything else.
Picked up the DVD of Angel-A from the local McKay's. I recommend this film for anyone who has an ounce of romance in their soul. The acting, story, and camera work was absolutely riveting. Just about anytime you pressed pause, you were rewarded with an incredible visual.
Quote from: Spike;1064076I've heard that the surviving members of Queen sort of slanted the depiction of the band to come across as.. how to phrase it... The Good Guys, with the now dead Freddy taking the fall for shennanigans..
How obvious is it, if at all?
That didn't seem the case to me at all. I know why some people are saying that. But I really disagree. It depicted some of the conflicts in the band but it was a pretty respectful and humanizing depiction of Mercury. It did play very, very loose with things like chronology though. If you look at interviews of the band over the years, especially Brian May and Roger Taylor, they always been very protective of Mercury. There is one scene where they are having a stylistic clash over disco elements that I think people who have an axe to grind are reading into too much. And if you watch the actual scene, the end result is Another one Bites the Dust. There is a rift in the band in the film that over emphasizes Mercury's role. But I think that was done by the writer for dramatic purposes because Mercury is the person that the film is really about (and it isn't like the rest of the band comes out looking like they handled it all that well either). Again though, even though that portion of the movie plays lose with details and chronology, overall, it gets at some essential things that matted in Queen, particularly how close the band became once it was clear he was dying and they only had a limited time to make music (and just a spoiler they do place his AIDS diagnosis way earlier than it happened in real life for dramatic purposes).
My opinion is attacks on the band members somehow trying to make themselves look better, are unfair. First off, they've spent the last several decades protecting Mercury's legacy. Second, Queen isn't the kind of band where people were starved for adoration. Brian May is comfortably regarded as one of the top guitarists in the world, and both he and Roger Taylor had prominent singing and writing roles on their albums.
Some people have attacked the movie and the band for how it handles his sexuality. Again, I don't see it. The movie is basically about Mercury finding love and friendship. They didn't do that to say he was bad for being gay. They did that because in the wake of his death the press hounded Mercury's memory and attacked him for being overly promiscuous. The band has long tried to fight the image of Mercury as a promiscuous person who treated people like sex objects. And in the weeks after his death, you can find interviews of them doing just that. The film provides an explanation for how that image stuck, and it offers a more rounded view of his relationships with people. These are people who went to bat for the man pretty ferociously. So I just think folks are forgetting both the context of his death and the context of what it meant to be gay in Mercury's lifetime. People can debate the accuracy of the way they chose to represent his life. But I don't think the intention was what many of the harsher critics say it was. It just doesn't line up with the band's behavior and statements over the years (nor does it line up with the content of the movie).
Finally got to watch Guardians of the Galaxy 2. Overall a pretty fun movie. Went in some odd directions along the way but played out fairly well. And nice to see the original Guardians make a cameo. Well except for Vance Astro.
Thanks, Bedrock... I think I'll check it out when it comes out on DVD... hmm... odds of it playing locally??? Not good...
I wasn't sure earlier, I'm a fan of Queen after a fashion, but I've seen too many shit movies lately so I've started to look on anything made in the last twenty years (That long??!?!!) as automatically bad, so my evaluation is less about quality and more about if I can relax and enjoy the stupidity on display.
Quote from: Spike;1064180Thanks, Bedrock... I think I'll check it out when it comes out on DVD... hmm... odds of it playing locally??? Not good...
I wasn't sure earlier, I'm a fan of Queen after a fashion, but I've seen too many shit movies lately so I've started to look on anything made in the last twenty years (That long??!?!!) as automatically bad, so my evaluation is less about quality and more about if I can relax and enjoy the stupidity on display.
I quite liked it. I will probably see it once more in the theater but I am a very big fan of the band. Once is probably plenty for most viewers. It is a movie for fans and audiences. Despite some really good editing and a few impactful choices, it is more meant to entertain than please critics. The critic score on rotten Tomatoes is about 60% while the audience score is 94% (last I checked). If you like queen, it is worth seeing. It is a biopic, so does all the usual biopic stuff if that is an issue for you. If you are like warm on Queen, then it probably isn't going to be as interesting to watch.
Watched the 8 Harry Potter movies. I saw Sorcerer's Stone more than a decade ago, but beyond that it's my first real exposure to the franchise in either print or film. Two things really struck me, as I watched. The first is the major tone-switch. The first two movies were light kid's stuff, then they got really dark, both visually and thematically. This helped the series, though there was way too much focus on Harry Potter's innate specialness, and the villain Voldemort remained a one-dimensional caricature instead of turning into a fully developed character. The other aspect that really stood out is how the films celebrate the classism of the elite. It's not classism in the sense of money, but classism in the sense of talent and education. While it's true one of the major themes of the movie is a fight against discrimination, it's only against the prejudice facing the new elite (mudbloods). Those who have magic have it all, while muggles are treated as the butt of jokes and doing terrible things to them is fine because it's funny (pig's tail, being turned into a blimp, wiping their minds, etc.); at best, they're just shadowy figures you feel sad about (Hermione's parents), or people needing a rescue. Even blatantly slavery (house elves) is only considered bad when it's abusive.
Wasn't at all what I was expecting.
I am one of those few who just rather dislikes the whole series, movies and books. The movies are relentlessly bleak and mean spirited with only a few rare bright points before something else rotten happens.
Quote from: Omega;1064503I am one of those few who just rather dislikes the whole series, movies and books. The movies are relentlessly bleak and mean spirited with only a few rare bright points before something else rotten happens.
I would definitely avoid Joe Abercrombie's stuff then....
Shit like this just makes me depressed. (https://youtu.be/WUxZmen6G2U)
On another western spree and this time came across an interesting one I'd seen partially before but never knew the name of.
Lucky Luke, 1991 Italian film based on the Belgium comic series. Made by and starring Terrence Hill from the Trinity movies. It plays much like a live action cartoon at times and certainly does not take itself very seriously. And Hill also played him in the Italian live action Lucky Luke TV series also in 91 and lasted 8 episodes. Ending apruptly after the death of Hill's adopted son it seems.
And apparently in 83 Hanna Barbera and Garmont co-produced a French/German/English Lucky Luke cartoon series of 26 episodes. And there may be a new series out.
And lastly there is another Lucky Luke live action movie from 2009. Still hunting that one down.
Anyone else with a distinct apathy towards Captain Marvel?
There's no hate there, I just cannot find the slightest damn to give about the character.
Quote from: Thornhammer;1067522Anyone else with a distinct apathy towards Captain Marvel?
There's no hate there, I just cannot find the slightest damn to give about the character.
I am still interested. Though Larson shooting her mouth off in an interview lessened that interest.
I think alot of people are misreading the trailers and that alot of the backlash is fallout from the total agendaing of the character the SJW faction at Marvel turned the character into. Combined with really bad writing even when they werent SJWing. So people were primed to look on the character negatively and unfortunately Larson has not helped matters at all.
Id say the apathy is akin to what happened to the Han Solo movie. Apathy induced by Last Jedi and the whole SJW war against the fans.
Quote from: Omega;1066091On another western spree and this time came across an interesting one I'd seen partially before but never knew the name of.
Hey, speaking of westerns - did you check out The Ballad of Buster Scruggs?
Quote from: Omega;1067542Id say the apathy is akin to what happened to the Han Solo movie. Apathy induced by Last Jedi and the whole SJW war against the fans.
At this point I've been enjoying close to three years of I-told-you-so shadenfreud over the decline of Star Wars. I called it when I left the Farce Awakens and haven't seen any of the new Star Wars movies after that, though, honestly, with all the youtube videos about Star Wars, I almost haven't had too.
I can even point to the exact part of the the Farce Awakens that told me what a shit show we were in for, the de-protagonizing of Finn for Rey, starting the moment she kicked his ass. Star Wars used to have room for more than one Hero at a time, you know?
I've missed... four?... of the MCU movies, and with all the crap going on with Ms Marvel I'm tempted to sit out the second half of Infinity Wars. I've liked Brie Larson in the past, but she seems to have forgotten that fans are the reason she has a career, as with all entertainers. I wish I'd kept a link to an editorial piece I saw that contrasted Tom Hanks (who gracefully allows fans to take selfies with him) and Jennifer Lawrence, which made this point very well.
Quote from: Spike;1067571At this point I've been enjoying close to three years of I-told-you-so shadenfreud over the decline of Star Wars. I called it when I left the Farce Awakens and haven't seen any of the new Star Wars movies after that, though, honestly, with all the youtube videos about Star Wars, I almost haven't had too.
Rogue One is excellent.
Quote from: Thornhammer;1067522Anyone else with a distinct apathy towards Captain Marvel?
There's no hate there, I just cannot find the slightest damn to give about the character.
Yep. I burned out on Marvel just before Infinity War. The Captain Marvel trailers are like a couple of minutes watching someone do the dishes.
Quote from: Pat;1067780Rogue One is excellent.
Rogue One is the best out of all the movies IMHO. Solo wasn't that shabby, either (best on DVD).
Quote from: Pat;1067780Rogue One is excellent.
It's good but I wouldn't go that far. It had some serious pacing issues and a bunch of switch off your brain moments.
That fact that it's still good in spite of that is amazing.
Quote from: jeff37923;1067920Rogue One is the best out of all the movies IMHO. Solo wasn't that shabby, either (best on DVD).
I really liked Solo, despite my criticims eariler in the thread. I'm a bit dissapointed that it didn't do well at the box office, and Disney/Lucasfilm may take the wrong lessons from that.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1068055I really liked Solo, despite my criticims eariler in the thread. I'm a bit dissapointed that it didn't do well at the box office, and Disney/Lucasfilm may take the wrong lessons from that.
I believe Solo did not do well because Disney screwed royal Last Jedi and alienated fans to the point they just up and refused to watch Solo out of protest. That and solo came out too soon after Last Jedi. Not helped either by some of the SJWing going on in the background from the producers that sabotaged the movie too. There are times where it feels allmost like they wanted the movies to fail.
Unfortunately Disney likely learned not a damn thing other than maybe not try to put out the movies so close together that fallout from one diminishes the next.
Just watched Antman & Wasp and enjoyed it quite a bit. There were some slow moments here and there. But overall it was pretty good and had some crazy action scenes too.
Also. Finally got to see a pair of anime that were suggested viewing in an old issue of Polyhedron. Which also gave a good overview of why some names are spelled differently.
First up is "Tenku Senki Shurato" (Shurato of the Heaven Wars) aka "Legend of the Heavenly Sphere Shurato": This is one of those "abducted to a fantasy world to champion a cause." sort of series from 1989-1990. Two friends are whisked away to a fantasy world. One being the reincarnation of a legendary hero, and the other inexplicably becoming evil. Interesting in that unlike most such shows the hero in this one has about zero support and things go downhill for a while. Good art and apparently was fairly popular in Japan. Not quite my thing but I got a few episodes at GenCon and finally gave it a look after decades.
The other is a weird one called Project Zeorymer, aka Hades Project Zeorymer: This was a 4 part OAV loosely based on a manga series. Frankly it didn't make alot of sense, but my copy was untranslated which made it a little harder to parse a few particulars. But the gist of it was fairly easy to figure out. A young man is abducted to pilot a super mecha stolen from some sort of organization that has taken over with these mecha what are incredibly destructive. It is also interesting that the villain actually sends an escalating number of units to take on the Zeorymer instead of just one at a time. Also good art, if occasionally choppy.
Third up was Bubblegum Crisis. One of my players has the set on DVD and plan to have a look at it soon. I have only seen parts of it over the years.
Quote from: Omega;1068208Third up was Bubblegum Crisis. One of my players has the set on DVD and plan to have a look at it soon. I have only seen parts of it over the years.
The original one or the remake? I hated the remake.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1068217The original one or the remake? I hated the remake.
He has both and was not very impressed with Bubblegum Crash either so it is low on my priority list.
Ah, Bubblegum Crash wasn't nearly as good either, but I was talking about the reboot. I tried to watch with an open mind, but it just wasn't my thing.
So there is a 3rd version? Never heard of it. Probably why.
Much like the 3rd or 4th remake of Gatchaman which retained the title and that was about it.
I watched Battle Angel Alita. It was pretty good. Fantastic combat scenes, and the actors were great. They did westernize it a bit, adding in a little extra romance than was in the source material, but I guess that's unavoidable nowadays.
Quote from: danbuter;1076532I watched Battle Angel Alita. It was pretty good. Fantastic combat scenes, and the actors were great. They did westernize it a bit, adding in a little extra romance than was in the source material, but I guess that's unavoidable nowadays.
Eh. I liked Battle Angel Alita for it's really strange aspects. Chips for brains, split personality cyborgs, uncomfortable questions about human nature and how it could swing hard from a romantic view of humanity, to a horrible dystopian view of humanity.
I'm expecting the film to have scrubbed about 99% of that, and left the cyborg fights and replaced all the dialogue with Hollywood cliches.
It's stupid of me, but I can't get past the anime eye thing. I think a review on Forbes was mixed about the movie too. They also felt the eye thing was weird.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1076846It's stupid of me, but I can't get past the anime eye thing. I think a review on Forbes was mixed about the movie too. They also felt the eye thing was weird.
Battle Eyeball Alita.
Anyone else just flat-out not give a fuck about Captain Marvel?
Quote from: Thornhammer;1077624Anyone else just flat-out not give a fuck about Captain Marvel?
I am skipping that movie.
Quote from: Thornhammer;1077624Anyone else just flat-out not give a fuck about Captain Marvel?
I'm looking forward to Shazam!
Marvel Studios could make a talking raccoon work, but I think even they can't save Captain Marvel.
I've got tickets for the family to see Captain Marvel this weekend. I don't imagine it will be all that different from the rest of the Marvel movies, and they've all been fairly entertaining even if they're starting to feel like "too much of the same" to me.
Quote from: Thornhammer;1077624Anyone else just flat-out not give a fuck about Captain Marvel?
I personally don't care much for superhero movies, except Batman and maybe Superman.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1077811I've got tickets for the family to see Captain Marvel this weekend. I don't imagine it will be all that different from the rest of the Marvel movies, and they've all been fairly entertaining even if they're starting to feel like "too much of the same" to me.
I thought the most recent spate of Marvel movies had nicely distinct style from each other - like Doctor Strange with its world-folding psychedelics, Guardians of the Galaxy with its 1970s music theme and humor, Thor: Apocalypse with its heavy metal quirkiness, Black Panther with its afro-futurism, along with Spider-Man: Homecoming and its high school drama.
The exception was Infinity War, which I thought was an awful formulaic mess with no style at all.
I'm cautiously optimistic that Captain Marvel will be more like the other Phase 3 movies - which is to say, not like them, but having a style of its own.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1076764Eh. I liked Battle Angel Alita for it's really strange aspects. Chips for brains, split personality cyborgs, uncomfortable questions about human nature and how it could swing hard from a romantic view of humanity, to a horrible dystopian view of humanity.
I'm expecting the film to have scrubbed about 99% of that, and left the cyborg fights and replaced all the dialogue with Hollywood cliches.
A lot of that is still there. I recommend you see it.
Quote from: Ratman_tfEh. I liked Battle Angel Alita for it's really strange aspects. Chips for brains, split personality cyborgs, uncomfortable questions about human nature and how it could swing hard from a romantic view of humanity, to a horrible dystopian view of humanity.
I'm expecting the film to have scrubbed about 99% of that, and left the cyborg fights and replaced all the dialogue with Hollywood cliches.
Quote from: danbuter;1077891A lot of that is still there. I recommend you see it.
I haven't read the original manga, but I was pleasantly surprised by Alita Battle Angel.
Admittedly I had low expectations, but it avoided many of the bad anime and bad Hollywood trends that I thought would be there.
Quote from: Thornhammer;1077624Anyone else just flat-out not give a fuck about Captain Marvel?
Brie Larson was a terrible choice and the trailers don't give us any sense of drama or story, just disconnected quick cuts that smell like political propaganda instead of a coherent story. But who knows? Maybe it will be an okay action flick.
Shazam - in huge contrast - shows perhaps too much in its trailers, but it certainly makes its tone/story very clear. Same with the Hellboy reboot.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1077950Brie Larson was a terrible choice and the trailers don't give us any sense of drama or story, just disconnected quick cuts that smell like political propaganda instead of a coherent story. But who knows? Maybe it will be an okay action flick.
Shazam - in huge contrast - shows perhaps too much in its trailers, but it certainly makes its tone/story very clear. Same with the Hellboy reboot.
Why do you consider her (Larson) a terrible choice for Captain Marvel? Is is because of her acting ability or her politics? If it's the former, can you give examples? If it's the latter, I really don't care about the politics of the actors (or writers or directors or whatever) in the things I watch.
Brie has been boring and perfunctory in everything she's done, but she's Hollywood's darling of the moment. Her performance in Kong: Skull Island was surprisingly dull considering the hype around her, but most of that cast was a mess, and that film only held together because of Kong and the editing pace.
Maybe she's be amazing in the Marvel role, but nothing in trailers shows a hint of that - especially compared to the initial trailers for Wonder Woman (Gail Gadot), or compared to other female supers from older movies, look at the trailers for Underworld and Resident Evil which had a fraction of Captain Marvel's budget.
As for her politics, she's standard Hollywood garbage.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1077975Brie has been boring and perfunctory in everything she's done, but she's Hollywood's darling of the moment. Her performance in Kong: Skull Island was surprisingly dull considering the hype around her, but most of that cast was a mess, and that film only held together because of Kong and the editing pace.
Maybe she's be amazing in the Marvel role, but nothing in trailers shows a hint of that - especially compared to the initial trailers for Wonder Woman (Gail Gadot), or compared to other female supers from older movies, look at the trailers for Underworld and Resident Evil which had a fraction of Captain Marvel's budget.
As for her politics, she's standard Hollywood garbage.
Are you suggesting that Underworld(s) and Resident Evil(s) had
good acting/performances from their female leads? If so, I don't think we're likely to agree on much because I thought those movies were trash (enjoyable popcorn-munching trash, but trash). I don't doubt that Larsen can pull off a performance on par with Selene or Alice--but that's setting the bar very low IMO. I'm more interested to see how her performance compares with that of ScarJo's Black Widow.
The entire MCU is popcorn trash! And that's 100% okay because it's comic books, not the Iliad. The DC movies get themselves in trouble because they're overly enamored with "comics as American mythos" instead of "disposable monthly fantasy cartoon books".
Very few action movies are more than popcorn flicks, regardless of the gender of the lead. What Underworld and Resident Evil have is compelling performances of the character from their leads (much moreso in the first films in the series before sequels take the character concepts off the rails) and that comes across in the trailers. And I'm not a Kate Beckinsale fan, but her Selene jumped off the screen as a unique character. There is no sense of the who/what/why of Captain Marvel from the trailer and that's due to Brie's vacant performance. The same vacancy she had in Kong, except now we get "angry vacant" instead of "scared vacant".
I suspect Brie will be on the same level as ScarJo or JLaw's Mystique, but that's not a compliment.
But I could be wrong. I thought Halle Berry as Storm was a mess in the original X-men trailers, but she was great in the actual film and has since really commanded that character.
Quote from: danbuter;1077891A lot of that is still there. I recommend you see it.
Quote from: jhkim;1077942I haven't read the original manga, but I was pleasantly surprised by Alita Battle Angel.
Admittedly I had low expectations, but it avoided many of the bad anime and bad Hollywood trends that I thought would be there.
Hrm. Hrmmm. Hrmm. Maybe. I hate how hollywood takes a piece of fiction and turns it into a cookie cutter action movie, so your posts make me at least closer to the fence. I'll probably check it out on disk when it comes out.
Quote from: danbuter;1077891But I could be wrong. I thought Halle Berry as Storm was a mess in the original X-men trailers, but she was great in the actual film and has since really commanded that character.
Huh, I thought Storm (And Cyclops) were horribly under-used in the films. I didn't expect them to write whole sagas about their characters, but we hardly got anything. As for performances, like I said, they were hardly there in the first place, and I found both characters to be underhwhelming.
Just saw Captain Marvel. I was entertained and sometimes pleasantly surprised, but then again I know nothing of Captain Marvel and I managed to avoid all spoilers beyond the first trailer. Mostly I saw it in theater because I learned she would be someone important in [strike]Protectors[/strike]Avengers : Endgame and I'm gonna see that one opening weekend.
The humor was different enough from GotG or Ragnarok. I liked Brie, disliked the CGI job (or make-up effects) they did on Fury and Coulson. And I kinda guessed what the 2 post-credits scenes would be.
I really enjoyed Captain Marvel. I'd put it in the top-tier of Marvel movies with Captain America, first Iron Man, and Guardians of the Galaxy. Tone was a little more GotG - it was funny but didn't seem forced. I felt compelled to register with Netflix and add my review; it was at 43% audience before I saw it and 34% after I saw it, but I can tell that the theater crowd really enjoyed the movie. No spoilers, but I think people particularly enjoyed the cat (Goose). I think you can discount the audience rating - it appears to have been manipulated by people that are not interested in a female super-hero lead.
There is a second post-credits scene at the very end of the credits; people who left after the first post-credits scene didn't miss anything particularly important, but I felt (and think the others in the theater) felt that it was worth watching the second one, too.
And the Stan Lee tribute at the beginning. :thumbsup:
Captain Marvel wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either. It really suffers for not having a memorable villain much as Doctor Strange did. Overall, the whole thing felt like it was just crammed in backstory to get Captain Marvel into Avengers: Endgame. On its own, the film didn't really do much of anything or go anywhere. Larson did fine; in my eyes it was the story that dropped the ball, not the actress.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078259I really enjoyed Captain Marvel. I'd put it in the top-tier of Marvel movies with Captain America, first Iron Man, and Guardians of the Galaxy. Tone was a little more GotG - it was funny but didn't seem forced. I felt compelled to register with Netflix and add my review;
Is it on Netflix already?
Quote from: HappyDaze;1078297Captain Marvel wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either. It really suffers for not having a memorable villain much as Doctor Strange did. Overall, the whole thing felt like it was just crammed in backstory to get Captain Marvel into Avengers: Endgame. On its own, the film didn't really do much of anything or go anywhere. Larson did fine; in my eyes it was the story that dropped the ball, not the actress.
It was better than Thor 2 or IM3. So definitely middle of the road.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1078396It was better than Thor 2 or IM3. So definitely middle of the road.
I agree that it was better than those two, but it also wasn't as good as roughly four times that many titles. So, I put it on the not-so-good side of the road, but not all the way into the ditch alongside it.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1078401I agree that it was better than those two, but it also wasn't as good as roughly four times that many titles. So, I put it on the not-so-good side of the road, but not all the way into the ditch alongside it.
I didn't want to type out all the MCU movies that are forgettable.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1078403I didn't want to type out all the MCU movies that are forgettable.
Fair enough. I've enjoyed most of them, but I agree that they are all largely forgettable. I also tend to prefer the group movies (Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy along with with CA: Civil War) and "buddy movies" (CA: Winter Soldier, Ant Man and the Wasp, and Thor: Ragnarok) over most of the solo hero movies. I also strongly prefer well-developed villains, which helped me to like Black Panther over Doctor Strange (even though, in the comics, I vastly preferred the latter) and was the thing I most enjoyed about the most recent Spider-Man.
I've been surprised at how few memorable villains there have been in the MCU movies. Most have been sadly one dimensional, which is weird considering how many awesome intricate villains exist in the Marvel comics.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078441I've been surprised at how few memorable villains there have been in the MCU movies. Most have been sadly one dimensional, which is weird considering how many awesome intricate villains exist in the Marvel comics.
All one needs to do is look up Ronan the Accuser on Wikipedia. He was the blue guy in the first Guardians of the Galaxy. He's got a history on par with Magneto for ups and downs, villianny and anti-heroism.
So its not that the MCU is lacking for interesting villains, its that they aren't making full use of them. Part of this has to do with Time. I noted this twenty god damn years ago with the first X-Men movie, which had... 9 major characters, and 87 minutes in which to use/develop all of them. And it fails on that level, despite being an enjoyable movie... though contrasting it with the current crop of Comic Movies shows just how weak it was in retrospect.
So when making a movie under a tight deadline, you give an emphasis to the Heroes and reduce the Villains to MacGuffins, who don't need a lot of development. It can work (honestly: How much development did Darth Vader actually receive in A New Hope?)
Another element, perhaps more subjective, is that modern directors and writers are simply weak storytellers, focusing on formulaic Rotes, and allowing visuals to carry them. Just last night I watched a comparison of the Korean Old Boy with the Spike Lee remake, and the contrast was appalling, but it shows how much can be done in small, even short, scenes if you pay attention to details... and just how much those details can matter! Again: Darth Vader is Illustrative. He had roughly the same amount of screen time as Ronan the Accuser, yet we got so much more out of that time, thanks in part to two excellent actors, and the simple fact that DV actually had a comprehensible purpose, while RA was... some sort of randomly genocidal maniac/generic goon with power.
Its no shock to me that one of the most compelling villains came from Thor, as whatever other flaws Kenneth Branagh may have, he was telling a story about people. Loki is interesting because he is human, its his human flaws that make him interesting, and allow him to keep dancing across the lines between hero and villain while staying true to the character, and from what I can tell Killmonger from Black Panther carries a lot of that 'humanity' with him... we can sympathize and even admire what he does even when we are appalled by his methods and choices.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that any would be author starting out should focus their energies on making the antagonist and his/her goals before they put any thought at all into the Hero, who is actually best served as a semi-anonymous proxy for the reader/viewer... but that's a minority opinion at best.
But its damn good GM advice, I'd say...
Quote from: Spike;1078468I'm increasingly of the opinion that any would be author starting out should focus their energies on making the antagonist and his/her goals before they put any thought at all into the Hero, who is actually best served as a semi-anonymous proxy for the reader/viewer... but that's a minority opinion at best.
The protagonist as proxy for the viewer isn't a minority view, it's straight out of the Hollywood blockbuster handbook. Critics and genre fans may dislike it, but it appeals to audiences. The usual poor development of villains is more Sturgeon's Law than anything.
Quote from: Pat;1078529The protagonist as proxy for the viewer isn't a minority view, it's straight out of the Hollywood blockbuster handbook. Critics and genre fans may dislike it, but it appeals to audiences. The usual poor development of villains is more Sturgeon's Law than anything.
How embarrassingly unclear of me. I was referring to the idea of writing the villain first as the minority opinion, not the idea of the hero as a semi-anonymous proxy.
I saw Captain Marvel this weekend. I'd put it a little above average among the MCU films, and I agree with others that weak villains was its weakness - which to be fair is shared by most of the MCU films, even the good ones.
Quote from: Spike;1078468Darth Vader is Illustrative. He had roughly the same amount of screen time as Ronan the Accuser, yet we got so much more out of that time, thanks in part to two excellent actors, and the simple fact that DV actually had a comprehensible purpose, while RA was... some sort of randomly genocidal maniac/generic goon with power.
Its no shock to me that one of the most compelling villains came from Thor, as whatever other flaws Kenneth Branagh may have, he was telling a story about people. Loki is interesting because he is human, its his human flaws that make him interesting, and allow him to keep dancing across the lines between hero and villain while staying true to the character, and from what I can tell Killmonger from Black Panther carries a lot of that 'humanity' with him... we can sympathize and even admire what he does even when we are appalled by his methods and choices.
I agree that the MCU movies have been weak on villains - but to be fair, you're comparing to one of the most memorable cinema villains from forty years ago. Within the MCU movies, I think the best villains have been Loki (from Avengers), Vulture (from Spider-Man: Homecoming), and Killmonger (from Black Panther); plus sort-of the Winter Soldier (who was not technically the main villain, but was the opponent with the most screen time).
I noticed that Ant Man and the Wasp didn't even have a villain, so much as a set of antagonists. I know the ghost-woman would probably qualify as a villain technically, but really, her sympathetic situation pushed her pretty far out of villain territory, IMO.
Quote from: jhkim;1078595I agree that the MCU movies have been weak on villains - but to be fair, you're comparing to one of the most memorable cinema villains from forty years ago. Within the MCU movies, I think the best villains have been Loki (from Avengers), Vulture (from Spider-Man: Homecoming), and Killmonger (from Black Panther); plus sort-of the Winter Soldier (who was not technically the main villain, but was the opponent with the most screen time).
I think its less that Darth Vader was THAT memorable, but rather that the film(s) as a whole were that memorable. Go back to A New Hope and tell me exactly what Darth Vader does that brings him to the level of complexity of Killmonger or The Vulture? The only fair comparison winds up being Loki, as DV got three movies to build up his character arc.
Thank you for bringing up The Vulture, btw. It makes an interesting example of my 'start with the Villain' theory of writing, as Spiderman:Homecoming literally starts with The Vulture!
Quote from: jhkimI agree that the MCU movies have been weak on villains - but to be fair, you're comparing to one of the most memorable cinema villains from forty years ago. Within the MCU movies, I think the best villains have been Loki (from Avengers), Vulture (from Spider-Man: Homecoming), and Killmonger (from Black Panther); plus sort-of the Winter Soldier (who was not technically the main villain, but was the opponent with the most screen time).
Quote from: Spike;1078611I think its less that Darth Vader was THAT memorable, but rather that the film(s) as a whole were that memorable. Go back to A New Hope and tell me exactly what Darth Vader does that brings him to the level of complexity of Killmonger or The Vulture? The only fair comparison winds up being Loki, as DV got three movies to build up his character arc.
Thank you for bringing up The Vulture, btw. It makes an interesting example of my 'start with the Villain' theory of writing, as Spiderman:Homecoming literally starts with The Vulture!
I wouldn't say that Darth Vader has that much complexity - but I also don't think that strong characters are the same as complexity. With Killmonger and Vulture, we're treated to their origin backstory at the beginning of the film - but I think that's a crutch rather than being necessary. Backstory isn't the same thing as character. Good acting, writing, and directing can bring a lot to characters without any need for backstory or complexity - and I think Vader has that.
Regarding backstory, I really liked that the Tom Holland Spider-Man hasn't had an origin story. It's a tired formula, and over-rated in importance.
Quote from: jhkim;1078621I wouldn't say that Darth Vader has that much complexity - but I also don't think that strong characters are the same as complexity. With Killmonger and Vulture, we're treated to their origin backstory at the beginning of the film - but I think that's a crutch rather than being necessary. Backstory isn't the same thing as character. Good acting, writing, and directing can bring a lot to characters without any need for backstory or complexity - and I think Vader has that.
Regarding backstory, I really liked that the Tom Holland Spider-Man hasn't had an origin story. It's a tired formula, and over-rated in importance.
Yer drifting, jhkim. This isn't really a discussion of backstory at all. This is what I said just a few posts upthread:
Quote from: MeIts no shock to me that one of the most compelling villains came from Thor, as whatever other flaws Kenneth Branagh may have, he was telling a story about people. Loki is interesting because he is human, its his human flaws that make him interesting, and allow him to keep dancing across the lines between hero and villain while staying true to the character, and from what I can tell Killmonger from Black Panther carries a lot of that 'humanity' with him... we can sympathize and even admire what he does even when we are appalled by his methods and choices.
Neither the word, nor the concept, of Backstory comes up. I talk about being able to relate to, to understand, the villain and why they are doing what they are doing.
Loki doesn't start out evil, he starts out at the less favored son trying to win the approval of his father, competing with a beloved older brother, but his choices are bad, and as things spiral out of control, they get worse until he loses everything he wanted. (Yes, that's a very facile treatment, but I'm keeping this modest and short).
Killmonger disagrees with the isolationist policies of Wakanda and wants to use their advanced technology to help outsiders. But to do that he has to kill everyone who opposes him and destroy a peaceful, stable (possibly stagnant) culture. Backstory helps us know why, but it isn't necessary.
I think the Vulture largely gets carried on the strength of Michael Keaton's acting, as there is a strange gap between the 'fuck the system that screwed us, we'll get ours' we see at the beginning and the murderous sociopath we see for the rest of the film, but even then his motivations are human motivations.
Ronan the Accuser: Random genocidal monster with vague murmurings of 'because reasons'. How can you understand or sympathize with that? He's evil for the sake of evil, basically, and really we get sort of the same thing from Ego in the second film. We can understand (if not sympathize) with his bloody quest for offspring, but then he goes off the rails with some plot to absorb all life in the galaxy that just goes into cartoon villainy.
To bring this full circle, what about Darth Vader? Well, when we meet him he's trying to secure military secrets that have been captured by the 'other side'. We don't need to know who DV is under the mask, or what sort of childhood he had to understand his motivations, and his ruthless determination would almost be admirable. We can understand him and his actions because they are relatable. The entire conflict makes sense to us: Darth Vader is searching for the droids because they hold secrets dangerous to him/his side. Every step of the plot follows from that starting point like a well constructed set of dominoes. Going back around to Spiderman, the conflict between the Vulture and Spidey is just as organic, if not as direct (and nothing at all wrong with that!) Spiderman is trying to be a Superhero and doing Hero stuff, and the Vulture is selling alien guns to criminals to make money because the Government screwed him out of a contract. Their rational, relatable goals put them into conflict, and the movie is stronger for it than say, the Captain America, or worse, Winter Soldier (which I enjoyed, but seriously: Hydra's motivation inside SHIELD is what, exactly?)
100% agree with Spike. The quality of a fiction highly depends on the antagonist.
Its extremely important for GMs because your players need to strive against something they respect / fear / hate and that requires time and crafting to make the villains worthy of the players' actions and their character's sacrifices.
As for Hollywood, 90% is gonna be crap so I'm happy when even 10% is worth my time.
And I am with jhkim on Origin Stories. I'm bored to tears with them. Noticed the trailers for the Hellboy reboot are downplaying that aspect, but I wonder how the actual film will deal with that. I understand their need as a setup, but you got 30 minutes max. Makes me concerned about Shazam as it looks like all Origin.
Finally saw GLASS last night. I'm a happy camper. The Unbreakable / Split / Glass trilogy worked for me and nailed the "street level" / low power superhero concept while still feeling they were "super" in aspect. I enjoy M. Night's work even when his films don't work because I always find something creative and out of the ordinary, even when the overall film is a mess (The Happening).
Also saw BUMBLEBEE (Woot! $4 Double Feature!) and I'm good. I'm an unabashed Michael Bay fan and the Transformers reboot is totally an amalgam of Bay's Transformers & Speilberg's ET. Fun PG kid's movie, not an adult fan flick.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078376Is it on Netflix already?
Flixster (which uses Rotten Tomatoes).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078886Flixster (which uses Rotten Tomatoes).
Flixster hasn't existed for a couple years. Captain Marvel is on a number of the streaming sites that replaced it, like Fandango Now and Vudu, but only as a preorder.
Quote from: Pat;1078937Flixster hasn't existed for a couple years. Captain Marvel is on a number of the streaming sites that replaced it, like Fandango Now and Vudu, but only as a preorder.
I'm sorry that I was unclear. I did not watch Captain Marvel on Flixster. I use Flixster to find movie times and I used the app to review the movie. Flixster uses Rotten Tomatoes for critic and audience reviews to determine if a movie is 'Fresh'. Currently, Captain Marvel is 'certified Fresh' with a 62% audience score and a 79% critic score. I saw the audience score as low as 34% on opening day, driven by people who had not seen the movie. After seeing the movie the first time on Friday, in a theater, with an audience that clearly broadly enjoyed the movie, I registered in order to post my own review (my first ever). The movie was quite enjoyable and I went to see it
again the next day, this time with my wife and three children (age 11, 7, and 3). My wife and the two older kids quite enjoyed the movie; the three year old enjoyed being AT the movies, but probably didn't care much, but she was well-behaved and I'm glad we included her.
As far as a movie 'villain', I don't think this movie suffers for not having a clearly defined bad guy that can be punched in the face. I think it's easy to believe that bad things happen because a bad person does bad things and punching that bad guy in the face will solve that problem. The truth is that a lot of bad things happen because well meaning people take actions that they believe are good and either have unintended consequences or they have convinced themselves that they're supporting the 'greater good'. Civil War dealt with similar themes regarding personal responsibility versus societal oversight. In the movie there were a series of objectives and a series of obstacles; the fact that it wasn't a single bad-actor pulling the strings didn't bother me at all.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1078992I'm sorry that I was unclear. I did not watch Captain Marvel on Flixster. I use Flixster to find movie times and I used the app to review the movie. Flixster uses Rotten Tomatoes for critic and audience reviews to determine if a movie is 'Fresh'.
Ah, my bad. I didn't realize a Flixster app was still around. They no longer exist as a company, and my experience with them (online movie locker) is they shut their doors and closed. Always odd how different exposure combined the complexity of mergers and acquisitions can lead to very different perspectives on things as fundamental as whether a company is still around. I suppose as long as it's bought and turned into a brand, nothing ever really dies.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1078647100% agree with Spike. The quality of a fiction highly depends on the antagonist.
Its extremely important for GMs because your players need to strive against something they respect / fear / hate and that requires time and crafting to make the villains worthy of the players' actions and their character's sacrifices.
To be fair, as I understand it the Antagonist in Captain Marvel is 'The Patriarchy', and leaving aside external concerns that is a perfectly valid choice of antagonists. I understand Absalom, Absalom* is a classic example of a story with no true antagonist, with the family struggling against nature.
Conflict is what is important, so what I said about starting with the villain is actually of limited use if viewed as literal.
The problem with CM's use of the Patriarchy is not that The Patriarchy is boring or that it doesn't exist, its that Marvel doesn't struggle against it. Its a one sided fight of a hypercompetent Ur-woman against a weak and feckless concept trying to surpress her inner awesome, or so it seems to me**. Conceptually it isn't a problem with the antagonist, its a problem with the hero (ie: She never struggles, never grows, never has that moment of darkness, blah blah...), but bringing it full circle, if the role of The Patriarchy was more fully fleshed out, then CM would have potentially had these issues to solve.
* Haven't seen/read it. I'm totally burnishing my intellectual cred with some name drops that mean nothing. Pimpin'!
**I haven't seen it, so I'm speculating based on second hand reports. Look man, its a 100 mile drive for a character I never cared for in a film I didn't expect and the main actress doesn't even want me to see it, so... yeah.
Quote from: Spike;1079345To be fair, as I understand it the Antagonist in Captain Marvel is 'The Patriarchy'...
Not sure why you think that, since as presented it's really about an alien race that basically kidnapped her, and had used propaganda against another alien race to make them look like the bad guy.
I saw nothing in this movie that really emphasized anything resembling "patriarchy". I think you might be listening too much to the people critiquing the movie without seeing it, or those praising it and reading into things that aren't there.
Quote from: JRT;1079347Not sure why you think that, since as presented it's really about an alien race that basically kidnapped her, and had used propaganda against another alien race to make them look like the bad guy.
I saw nothing in this movie that really emphasized anything resembling "patriarchy". I think you might be listening too much to the people critiquing the movie without seeing it, or those praising it and reading into things that aren't there.
I'm not sure why you are invested so much in making this point, as I clearly stated that there is nothing wrong with a conceptual antagonist even 'The Patriarchy'.
As to your inability to see past superficial conflict to the thematic conflict at the heart of the film, that I can't help you with. Perhaps you have a vested reason to not see it in this case? Perhaps you need some giant conan looking motherfucker with "The Patriarchy" emblazoned across his chest in order to visualize conceptual enemies?
Perhaps you'd care to disagree that 'The Weather' could be an antagonist in Absalom, Absalom? No? Then I assume your disagreement is emotional and not rational.
Quote from: Spike;1079351I'm not sure why you are invested so much in making this point, as I clearly stated that there is nothing wrong with a conceptual antagonist even 'The Patriarchy'.
Hah, "invested"? I simply wrote two sentences in response. Hardly what I'd call an investment.
You said "To be fair, as I understand it the Antagonist in Captain Marvel is 'The Patriarchy'" First of all, you said as you understood it. But you didn't see the movie.
My comment corresponded to whether or not you've seen the movie at all, or if you're just listening to the critics and second hand reports who think it is some sort of SJW fantasy, and basing your critique of the movie on that aspect rather than the actual viewing--in which case I simply provided what I consider a correction, as well as a question as what caused you to think that was the theme.
The enemy in CM is Imperialism.
More specifically, western imperialism, with the Kree leadership all being white and the Skrulls being broken into native tribes that refused to being conquered.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1079366The enemy in CM is Imperialism.
More specifically, western imperialism, with the Kree leadership all being white and the Skrulls being broken into native tribes that refused to being conquered.
I agree with imperialism, maybe not necessarily Western though--probably more based on the Roman Empire style. The Upper Class Kree are blue, not the white skinned ones (or black ones)--they are kind of the minority. Though that's not obvious in the movie--it's more the MCU in general.
(Minor spoilers - nothing significant)
Quote from: JRT;1079408I agree with imperialism, maybe not necessarily Western though--probably more based on the Roman Empire style. The Upper Class Kree are blue, not the white skinned ones (or black ones)--they are kind of the minority. Though that's not obvious in the movie--it's more the MCU in general.
In terms of narrative, I'd agree that the enemy is collectivist militarism and imperialism. Inherently, I don't see that the Kree are any more symbolic of the U.S. than of, say, China or Japan. I think it plays fine in China, picturing the Kree as the imperialist Japanese. Tibetans could easily see China in the Kree. etc.
Calling it the Patriarchy is interesting - because I think many people would see that - which I'm sure the film-makers are aware of. The Kree are not in the slightest portrayed as sexist. Their military are integrated, and no mention is made of Captain Vers being a woman as unusual. Her superior officer / mentor is male, but the Supreme Intelligence is portrayed as sexless - and appears to Vers as a woman. Meanwhile, her allies on Earth are mostly men.
A key point of the film is when Carol, in montage, remembers a series of points in her childhood of being knocked down and getting up again. I think this is taken by audiences as a scene of female empowerment. In the montage, young Carol is seen as all girls. But there's nothing inherently gendered in it, other than Carol being female.
By contrast, Wonder Woman is a much more gendered movie - inherent from its source material. It's very much about matriarchy vs patriarchy - given the all-female Paradise Island contrasted with the sexist WWI era setting.
Quote from: jhkim;1079494In the montage, young Carol is seen as all girls.
I'm sure all girls (and probably all boys) can relate to trying to move past failure, but I don't think they were trying to imply that all girls are like Carol - she very clearly pushes the envelope in terms of achievement, which is part of what makes her worthy to be a hero.
Captain America did more with this - obviously the heroes have super powers, the question that leads to is whether they're worthy of them. Thor also directly confronts that. I think Captain Marvel realizing that 'getting up again' is what makes you a hero is important to her arc, but it is not specifically a commentary on girls versus boys - it just happens that a lot of people telling her that she couldn't 'play with the boys' were for obviously sexist reasons, and Thor or Captain America didn't deal with those specific problems. But Captain American certainly had a similar experience with more physically powerful 'bullies'.
While I am not interested in Alita: Battle Angel. It is at least a chucklefest to watch the SJWs attack it now since it seems to be outperforming their chosen savior Captain Marvel.
One recent accusation on a newsfeed was that Alita was doing so well because "Men are sexist and Alita has a totally sexualized body!" which anyone with even one brain cell to rub together can tell isnt true. She has a fairly normal figure and doesnt even have any genitalia! Really. WFT SJWs? And yet Captain Marvel gets a pass...
Quote from: Omega;1081081While I am not interested in Alita: Battle Angel. It is at least a chucklefest to watch the SJWs attack it now since it seems to be outperforming their chosen savior Captain Marvel.
One recent accusation on a newsfeed was that Alita was doing so well because "Men are sexist and Alita has a totally sexualized body!" which anyone with even one brain cell to rub together can tell isnt true. She has a fairly normal figure and doesnt even have any genitalia! Really. WFT SJWs? And yet Captain Marvel gets a pass...
The point about outperforming seems off base. Here's the numbers from BoxOfficeMojo -
Captain Marvel (BoxOfficeMojo (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=marvel2018a.htm))
Budget: approx. $152M
Domestic: opening weekend $153M, second weekend $68M (-55% drop), third weekend $34M (-49% drop)
Foreign: opening weekend $303M, total to date $590M
Alita: Battle Angel (BoxOfficeMojo (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=alita.htm))
Budget: approx. $170 million
Domestic: opening weekend $33M, second weekend $12M (-57% drop), third weekend $7M (-41% drop)
Foreign: opening weekend $31M, total to date $316M
Totals aren't quite comparable since Captain Marvel came out a month later and is still playing, but Alita has made $400M worldwide, while Captain Marvel has already made $914M worldwide and seems likely to pass a billion. Alita has performed well in Asia and came close to Captain Marvel there, but Captain Marvel has performed roughly five times better in the U.S. and made more than twice as much overall. I think the Asia vs U.S. split seems obvious given the material for each, and Captain Marvel has clearly done much better overall.
I haven't seen either! Do I win anything?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081127I haven't seen either! Do I win anything?
Extra money in your pocket right now and the opportunity to watch them as "new releases" when they show up on On Demand in a couple of months.
I took my 11 year old to Alita. The movie was okay. I don't think Alita was sexualized - there were questions about whether a human could love someone with a mechanical body. Ultimately the movie fails to resolve its central premise; it essentially establishes that a sequel is required.
Having seen both, I think Captain Marvel was the better movie and had much broader appeal.
$900 Million+ compared to $400 Million would make a premise of 'Alita outperforms Captain Marvel' difficult to fathom.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1081158it essentially establishes that a sequel is required.
Having seen both, I think Captain Marvel was the better movie and had much broader appeal.
$900 Million+ compared to $400 Million would make a premise of 'Alita outperforms Captain Marvel' difficult to fathom.
1: Sounds like it ends at about the same point the anime way back ended on. There never was a sequel far as I know.
2: Alita just doesnt appeal to me. Im more curious to see Captain Marvel. But I am going to wait and get it second hand off E-bay rather than put money in Disney or Marvel's pocket at this point.
3: Apparently Alita had a bigger budget than CM. But from all accounts CM had a substantially bigger marketing budget. Also apparently someone has been tinkering with the numbers for CM as well. Disney? Someone else? But there has definitely been some underhanded goings on with CM so all bets are off on their claimed numbers. I am also dubious of the claims it is the sixth highest grossing film since 2002 as wikipedia claims. But who knows at this point?
x: I did like Antman & Wasp. Aside from a few slow points it was an overall fairly good movie that suffered a little from trying to shoehorn in five or so different stories from the comics into one movie and using hardly any of some of them.
Quote from: Omega;10814213: Apparently Alita had a bigger budget than CM. But from all accounts CM had a substantially bigger marketing budget. Also apparently someone has been tinkering with the numbers for CM as well. Disney? Someone else? But there has definitely been some underhanded goings on with CM so all bets are off on their claimed numbers. I am also dubious of the claims it is the sixth highest grossing film since 2002 as wikipedia claims. But who knows at this point?
You describe "claimed numbers" here. But box office results aren't internal numbers from Disney claimed without verification. They're from exactly the same source as all the other box office results - collected from theaters. Disney could hide some production or marketing costs internally, but I don't see how to question the box office gross except by conspiracy theory that box office results for all movies everywhere are rigged. Particularly given the variety of international distributors, it seems highly implausible that a conspiracy to massively manipulate numbers could get through without notice.
Still, if you have a source for that, I'd be interested to hear it.
Quote from: jhkim;1081462You describe "claimed numbers" here.
Numbers can be manipulated, and apparently Disney bought up a bunch of tickets for the movie. How much? No clue. At first I thought that was just for the boxtop discount tickets they were doing. But seems after that so who knows what the hell is up. But seems people are noticing something. They sure as hell noticed Rotten Tomatoes manipulating the numbers. Weird stuff that is honestly perplexing.
The movie does seem to be picking up at the box office again. Probably because most of the viewers are unaware of Larson's bad attitude and self proclaimed "agenda" she pushed into the movie.
I think people are watching the movie because it is fun.
I saw the movie twice on opening weekend and I saw a different movie a couple of weeks later and the number of people per showing appeared to me to be relatively consistent with a popular movie. The box office receipts from movies this decade tend to be higher because of IMAX/RPS/3D which include a higher ticket. I don't know that more people saw Captain Marvel than saw Iron Man in theaters, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me; a lot of people know what they're getting with Marvel movies and a lot of people who aren't into comics have been enjoying them.
I think that if you feel that the numbers are lying, it means that the movie doesn't fit in with a narrative you want to be true; I think that's a far bigger problem. Johnny Cash described the problem in
Man in Black:
Quote from: Johnny CashAnd, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believen' that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believen' that we all were on their side.
It's easy to believe that you're 'standing up' for others who agree with you when you're just...not.
I think its more a matter of various companies, including Disney, caught pulling various tricks and it means you really can not trust them after that. Are the numbers as good as they appear? Who knows? But with all the other trickery going on it is best to not just believe at face value. Movie companies have been turning more and more to manipulation. A few years back it was just shill reviews to generate fake good news. But over the last few years its getting worse.
As said. I was hoping the movie would do well and advocated that people were reading the wrong things into the trailers. Then Larson herself proved me so very wrong. And things went downhill from there.
Quote from: Omega;1081826I think its more a matter of various companies, including Disney, caught pulling various tricks and it means you really can not trust them after that. Are the numbers as good as they appear? Who knows? But with all the other trickery going on it is best to not just believe at face value.
You are still speaking as if the box office numbers are a just some numbers made up by Disney, and we have to trust in Disney to believe those numbers.
Box office totals come from groups of theaters, where each theater chain publishes their ticket sales. Box Office Mojo is just one front end for showing that - you can compare the numbers with many others. I believe Entertainment Data, Inc. (EDI) is the most common central source - but they are transparent about the numbers they get so they can be spot checked. Particularly in the international market, theaters are under different management - and different people working there can see the data that is attributed to their theaters.
cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_office#Box_office_reporting
So it's a highly distributed system subject to a lot of little uncertainties, but I find it hard to credit the idea that box office receipts could be off by hundreds of millions of dollars.
Quote from: Omega;1081826Movie companies have been turning more and more to manipulation. A few years back it was just shill reviews to generate fake good news. But over the last few years its getting worse.
Of course companies try to use manipulation to get people into buying their product. To my mind, that's basically the definition of marketing. Do you feel that there was a good old days when companies were just honest and didn't try to manipulate people into buying?
Quote from: Omega;1081826As said. I was hoping the movie would do well and advocated that people were reading the wrong things into the trailers. Then Larson herself proved me so very wrong. And things went downhill from there.
I dunno. I don't follow entertainment news and haven't seen anything from Larson (or pretty much any other celebrity). I don't know what you got from that. I watched the movie and I liked it - as did my friends and family. That's how I base things.
BumblebeeDuring the first third, I wasn't very enthusiastic. It has it's moments, but nothing really stood out as great. towards the transition from the middle to the climax, the characters got got quite a bit better. They started to make the cookie cutter characters a bit more relatable. Last third was good. I could follow the action, unlike all the other movies in the franchise, which were a godawful CGI mess.
Serviceable story, nothing earth shaking there. The Transformers characters were actually characters, for a nice change.
I don't expect anyone will understand, but
Spoiler
The scene at the end where Bumblebee meets up with Optimus Prime, in his G1 Freightliner truck mode got me all emotional. Up until now, I'd been resigned to the live action Transformers movies being garbage, but for a moment there the G1 cartoon I loved as a kid was on the big screen. The whole movie was worth it just for that scene, to me.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081987Bumblebee
During the first third, I wasn't very enthusiastic. It has it's moments, but nothing really stood out as great. towards the transition from the middle to the climax, the characters got got quite a bit better. They started to make the cookie cutter characters a bit more relatable. Last third was good.
I hadn't seen any of the other movies in the franchise, and barely remember the cartoon. But I agree with this. It definitely got better.
It straddled a fine line between shallowly repeating 80s tropes and really engaging with them, but yeah, I think it got better. And it did make the transformers into characters - even the bad guys.
Quote from: jhkim;1081993I hadn't seen any of the other movies in the franchise, and barely remember the cartoon. But I agree with this. It definitely got better.
It straddled a fine line between shallowly repeating 80s tropes and really engaging with them, but yeah, I think it got better. And it did make the transformers into characters - even the bad guys.
As a Transformers fan, (That's the TF, in Ratman_tf) I've had some time to brew up some specific opinions, and read a few reviews.
Bumblebee was better than the previous films in the franchise, but Bay has set the bar very low.
The film still suffers from the casual violence and over the top action of the Bayhem precedent. For example, the Decepticons casually killing humans and Autobots. Now, I don't mind that the bad guys do bad things, but it's treated very casually. Like, oh well, Cliffjumper just got cut in half. On with the film! Bumblebee casually kicks a Decepticon's severed head in the first battle sequence. The good guys seem just as shitty as the bad guys, and there's very little reflection on the extreme violence. Even the cartoons were more thoughtful than that!
The whole movie suffers from moving far too fast and not building tension. A problem I have with a lot of modern movies. Action-Drama-Humor, repeat in quick succession until the credits roll. It makes for a very unsatisfying story.
Charlie starts out walking a very thin line between being understandably upset over her father's recent (ish?) death, and being shitty towards her family over it. I think this actually pays off when the film starts building towards the climax, and the family has to come together. Though it has the same pacing problem where it's all thrown together at the last moment.
The semi-love interest is at least not a complete goofball, but really doesn't add a whole lot to the movie besides being the person who stumbles into the situation while pursuing Charlie, and being a foil for the whole "Girl and her robot" situation. But it does give some cool scenes where Charlie gets to show off her cool alien car robot to him. So eh.
I think the movie needed to prune some scenes, and focus on the remaining elements to make them more resonant and impactful. Pacing and building up the story.
Nitpicks-
1. I believe Charlie was trying to fix her father's Corvette engine with parts from boat motors? I don't think car engines work that way. I'll have to re-watch to make sure that's what she was doing.
2. Sector-7 guy racking the slide on his pistol in his office. Such an eye-rollingly bad movie cliche.
@Omega
You're in tinfoil hat territory.
Disney is a publicly traded company. They have to report to their stockholders about their financial performance.
I don't know what you think they're getting by inflating the numbers - the more they do that, the more it costs them. If Disney were going to try to make movies look successful, surely they would have done the same with John Carter of Mars?
From all appearances, this was a decent Marvel movie and performed like a decent Marvel movie. Other than 'I don't like SJWs and I want this movie to fail', on what basis do you suspect that they didn't just cross the $1 Billion world-wide this week?
It boggles my mind to think of how many people would have to be in on this conspiracy. If theater owners were showing the film to empty auditoriums, surely we'd have heard reports of that? I saw the movie twice and the theater I go to has assigned seats; it appeared that all the seats that were assigned before I bought my tickets were filled.
Trailer for the Joker movie dropped. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t433PEQGErc) Lots of people seem to be really excited but I'm just not feeling it. I just... I don't know. To me the Joker is just one of those villains I feel is better w/o an official origin. Also, I kinda think he, of all the villains out there, should never come off as a sympathetic character. Maybe it's just me though.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1082086@Omega
You're in tinfoil hat territory.
Or are you blindly naive or been living under a rock all this time?
Quote from: rgalex;1082185Trailer for the Joker movie dropped. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t433PEQGErc) Lots of people seem to be really excited but I'm just not feeling it. I just... I don't know. To me the Joker is just one of those villains I feel is better w/o an official origin. Also, I kinda think he, of all the villains out there, should never come off as a sympathetic character. Maybe it's just me though.
I am not liking the look of this Joker. Another "Nut in makeup" take rather than the chemically deformed loon?
Depends on which joker they are using. Assuming its not another one totally unrelated to anything in the comics.
Depictions of the Joker, like about every comic character, have changed depending on the writer. But one older backstory is sympathetic. That being the one where the person that would become the Joker was a comedian who agreed to help a gang with a heist in order to help his ill and pregnant wife. Falling into the chemicals while trying to escape Batman. His wife and child die and all this drives him insane.
Quote from: Omega;1082313Or are you blindly naive or been living under a rock all this time?
I don't think so.
Quote from: cinemablendHere, in release order, are Marvel's members of the billion dollar club.
Marvel's The Avengers. Global Box Office: $1.518 Billion.
Iron Man 3. Global Box Office: $1.214 Billion.
Avengers: Age Of Ultron. Global Box Office: $1.405 Billion.
Captain America: Civil War: $1.153 Billion.
Black Panther: $1.346 Billion
Avengers: Infinity War: $2.048 Billion
Captain Marvel: $1.003 Billion (and growing)
Clearly there are successful movies that
aren't in the $1B+ club, even ones I quite enjoyed. From this list, the films most closely associated with the Avengers have done the best; Captain Marvel was teased at the end of Infinity War and included a teaser for the next Avengers movie. It's hardly surprising that Captain Marvel would correlate. Further, it appears that GENERALLY, newer movies are grossing more than older movies. I'd attribute that at least in part to more IMAX/3D screenings that include higher ticket prices. That is, it's possible to gross MORE while fewer people watch the movie if those people are opting in for the premium experience.
While I've never seen a movie in China, I'm not particularly skeptical of Transformers: Age of Extinction making nearly $300 million in China, so I'm not any more skeptical of Captain Marvel's gross. This file appears to be in line with other films. The audience in the theater appeared to be in line with other movies that have crossed the $1B mark. I have not seen or heard any credible evidence that the numbers have been doctored. It appears that the only people trying to cast doubt on the numbers don't want to believe that a super-hero movie starring a woman with 'outspoken views on gender equality' could perform well.
Quote from: Omega;1082313Or are you blindly naive or been living under a rock all this time?
I think the issue is that, while we can argue there's no such thing as "objective news", usually statistics are the ones hardest to spin unless the stats reporting has errors on that level.
I try to use Occam's razor when thinking about this type of thing. Marvel Movies have done pretty darn well since they established the MCU, especially with The Avengers Movie tying them together. Captain Marvel is consistent with the same box office performance, so I don't see any manipulation of the figures. Seeing the movie myself, there was nothing in this movie to come off as heavy handed preaching, etc. And I don't think anything Bree Larson said would have a significant backlash--there's been very little talk of that. (For those that didn't know, she said something about wanting movie critics to not be dominated by "White Men" last year).
Also, most movie reporting on Box Office really loves to emphasize failures as well as successes. Let's put it this way--if a Marvel Movie was not doing well, the press would be all over that. People are actually waiting for "super-hero fatigue" to set in, and nobody's going to be on top forever, so I do expect at some point we will have a Marvel Movie that is considered a failure. It hasn't happened yet.
Went and saw Shazam! over the weekend with some friends. It was good. The story was an origin story, but I don't really mind those so long as we haven't seen them a dozen times before (Batman, Superman, Spider-man, etc). One of the best surprises was that they didn't show all the funny parts in the trailer.
Overall I'd give it a B+. Good story, children actors that didn't suck, nice message about family, fun action. On the downside it was obvious in a few places that the budget didn't allow for the CGI to be as polished as it could have been. Also, the villain was a little dull but the actor did a good job with what he was given.
Quote from: rgalex;1082663Went and saw Shazam! over the weekend with some friends. It was good. The story was an origin story, but I don't really mind those so long as we haven't seen them a dozen times before (Batman, Superman, Spider-man, etc). One of the best surprises was that they didn't show all the funny parts in the trailer.
Overall I'd give it a B+. Good story, children actors that didn't suck, nice message about family, fun action. On the downside it was obvious in a few places that the budget didn't allow for the CGI to be as polished as it could have been. Also, the villain was a little dull but the actor did a good job with what he was given.
I enjoyed the movie, but Shazam! had some really conflicting tones. It's 70% lighthearted and fun with 30% holy shit that's violent thrown in. You know there's going to be some fighting in a superhero movie, but some of the violence was a bit surprising to me.
In a way it is Shazam/Captain Marvel in name only as they really do disservice to both the characters. Not as badly as in New 52. But ugh. Someone missed the memo on who Captain Marvel and Bully Batson are. The TV series, cartoon and even the serial got it down better. Though the TV series deviated massively in other respects.
Shazam feels more like a retooled Prime script for Ultraverse. Looks good though. But like other DC movies, seems to miss the points of the characters, Even Wonder Woman has that problem.
Quote from: Omega;1082748Shazam feels more like a retooled Prime script for Ultraverse. Looks good though. But like other DC movies, seems to miss the points of the characters, Even Wonder Woman has that problem.
I thought WonderWoman was the best DC movie by a wide margin. What do you think the point of the character is and how do you think they missed it?
Quote from: Omega;1082748In a way it is Shazam/Captain Marvel in name only as they really do disservice to both the characters. Not as badly as in New 52. But ugh. Someone missed the memo on who Captain Marvel and Bully Batson are. The TV series, cartoon and even the serial got it down better. Though the TV series deviated massively in other respects.
Shazam feels more like a retooled Prime script for Ultraverse. Looks good though. But like other DC movies, seems to miss the points of the characters, Even Wonder Woman has that problem.
There's that pesky Wisdom of Solomon that the current comic run pretends isn't a thing, and the movie follows suit.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1082833There's that pesky Wisdom of Solomon that the current comic run pretends isn't a thing, and the movie follows suit.
To be fair, it's not just the current comic run. The same was true in other adaptations like the Young Justice cartoon. A number of writers have been intriguing by the idea of a kid in an adult body. I agree that it isn't the original Captain Marvel of the comics. But a lot of adaptations change things from the original comics considerably. I mostly care about whether it's a good movie first.
With Shazam, I was mixed. I was annoyed by much of the first half of the Shazam movie, but I have to admit, the ending really hooked me.
Quote from: rgalex;1082185Trailer for the Joker movie dropped. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t433PEQGErc) Lots of people seem to be really excited but I'm just not feeling it. I just... I don't know. To me the Joker is just one of those villains I feel is better w/o an official origin. Also, I kinda think he, of all the villains out there, should never come off as a sympathetic character. Maybe it's just me though.
I think he's going to start out weird but basically nice, and then end up madly sociopathic and killing people for fun. He actually
seems insane, just with his little posture changes and facial expressions.
Quote from: jhkim;1082842To be fair, it's not just the current comic run. The same was true in other adaptations like the Young Justice cartoon. A number of writers have been intriguing by the idea of a kid in an adult body. I agree that it isn't the original Captain Marvel of the comics. But a lot of adaptations change things from the original comics considerably. I mostly care about whether it's a good movie first.
With Shazam, I was mixed. I was annoyed by much of the first half of the Shazam movie, but I have to admit, the ending really hooked me.
I liked the Justice League version where as Captain Marvel he was more mature and confident. But there was still a kids wonder and hope too.
I just saw the new Hellboy, and it's really, really bad. I thought about leaving after less than an hour of the film, but I din't really have anything better to do, so I sat through the second half texting with a friend that had the good sense not to join me for the film. The action scenes felt like a video game, and so did the dialogue. But the story...how the hell could they cut & paste it so sloppily that it made almost no sense at all. More than a few times there was the "tell them, show them, then make it totally irrelevant by the next scene" bullshit. This Hellboy wasn't just brooding and sarcastic, he was a whining bitch. The squeaky babydoll voice of the female BPRD agent/medium was grating too.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1083045But the story...how the hell could they cut & paste it so sloppily that it made almost no sense at all. More than a few times there was the "tell them, show them, then make it totally irrelevant by the next scene".
It's a railroad scenario, where the PCs have to go from scene to scene to fight, and get the next clue for the next encounter.
Dare I even mention that the teaser trailer for the new Star Wars film dropped?
I mean, at this point I'm only interested in watching this flaming train finally go sailing off the tracks and crash into the gorge.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1083114Dare I even mention that the teaser trailer for the new Star Wars film dropped?
I mean, at this point I'm only interested in watching this flaming train finally go sailing off the tracks and crash into the gorge.
My day was better not knowing that it was out.
That said, looks like more of the same shit I didn't like in TLJ.
Wonder if they've got the stones to withstand the cries of racism if they off Lando like they have every other OG character.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1083124Wonder if they've got the stones to withstand the cries of racism if they off Lando like they have every other OG character.
Nope. So they won't kill Lando.
He might have been on the chopping block earlier, but not with Carrie Fisher passing away.
The Last Jedi badly, badly damaged my interest in new movies.
I'll admit, though - I was watching the Celebration feed when they showed the trailer. When Ian McDiarmid walked out, I
lost it. Marked right the fuck out and am not ashamed of that in the slightest.
I sat through the trailer. I suspect it's a huge troll. Are they bringing back the Emperor? Who is the Last Skywalker? If only they built up an actually interesting story and characters to care about, I might be equally interested in those questions.
Dark side Ghost? Or possibly he he uncovered the secret of immortality and reformed. Or its a clone. Or like Darth Maul, he survived somehow. I mean really. If Maul can survive being cut in half then all bets are off.
Quote from: Omega;1083156Dark side Ghost? Or possibly he he uncovered the secret of immortality and reformed. Or its a clone. Or like Darth Maul, he survived somehow. I mean really. If Maul can survive being cut in half then all bets are off.
It's J.J. Abrams. Guy is an imitator. He knows what works without knowing why it works. Look at Into Darkness for a great example.
Quote from: Omega;1083156Dark side Ghost? Or possibly he he uncovered the secret of immortality and reformed. Or its a clone. Or like Darth Maul, he survived somehow. I mean really. If Maul can survive being cut in half then all bets are off.
If some of the rumors I heard a few months ago are true, it's going to be flashbacks and Palpatine's last secret/master plan, although the possibility of them bringing him back a la
Dark Empire is also there. Any of those do seem to be ways to get things out of the plot cul-de-sac TLJ left things in. A straight return has several problems, although one of the big ones mentioned in the past is that it undercuts the end of RotJ ... and after Episodes VII and VIII, that ship has not just sailed but run aground, crashed, and caught on fire.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1083180If some of the rumors I heard a few months ago are true, it's going to be flashbacks and Palpatine's last secret/master plan, although the possibility of them bringing him back a la Dark Empire is also there. Any of those do seem to be ways to get things out of the plot cul-de-sac TLJ left things in. A straight return has several problems, although one of the big ones mentioned in the past is that it undercuts the end of RotJ ... and after Episodes VII and VIII, that ship has not just sailed but run aground, crashed, and caught on fire.
When watching the Hobbit movies, I think it was the second one, I got to this zen state of saying "Why not?" in a kind of sarcastic tone. I'm only around because I'm a fan of the original movies, (Or in the case of The Hobbit, the book) the new stuff is gonna do what it does, and I can laugh at it. So bring back the Emperor. Have him create an army of Ewok cyborg clone warriors who can blow up planets with their spears. Why not?
I think they should just "Highlander 2" the Star Wars franchise, simply forget the last couple of movies even existed, and start over.
Quote from: Doom;1083206I think they should just "Highlander 2" the Star Wars franchise, simply forget the last couple of movies even existed, and start over.
Any day now they will announce the NEW Highlander movie franchise. Or TV series.
Quote from: Omega;1083490Any day now they will announce the NEW Highlander movie franchise. Or TV series.
As long as it's better than Raven or that last direct to disc movie, I'm down.
Raven was not too bad from what little I saw of it. Seemed to keep the same feel of the Highlander TV series.
Least it wasnt the complete mess of the cartoon or the weirdness of that one off anime movie.
I liked that wierd water punk cartoon.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1083704I liked that wierd water punk cartoon.
The anime? Search for Vengeance?
Quote from: Omega;1083786The anime? Search for Vengeance?
Nah, there was a unfortunately short lived cartoon by DIC in the late 90's. It's a weird post-apocalypse where the bad guys tech was water based. At least that's the impression I got.
DIC did not produce the Highlander animated show. If I recall right it was a French or Canadian animation studio, (Galmont?) and I believe Bobbot? Could be wrong though. Been a few decades! And it has been so long I am not sure if their tech was water based or not. Seems unlikely as there was at least one episode where they had to deal with ocean dwelling people? It ran for I think two seasons. So it outlasted Xyber 9.
Avengers : Endgame
As a capstone to 10 years MCU, I give it an 8. Could have been a nine if they had made it a 100 minutes Avengers movie without the 80 minutes schmalz, emo and non-action stuff. When you keep checking your watch and wondering when something is going to happen.
As a movie I give it a 6,5 , maybe a 7. Ok, I enjoyed it but the humor didn't work this time for me. And too many characters that didn't get their chance to really shine.
Quote from: Godfather Punk;1084386Avengers : Endgame
As a capstone to 10 years MCU, I give it an 8. Could have been a nine if they had made it a 100 minutes Avengers movie without the 80 minutes schmalz, emo and non-action stuff. When you keep checking your watch and wondering when something is going to happen.
As a movie I give it a 6,5 , maybe a 7. Ok, I enjoyed it but the humor didn't work this time for me. And too many characters that didn't get their chance to really shine.
I liked it well enough, but I did find the "get all the females characters on-screen for this shot for no particular reason other than they're female and make sure none of the boys are in the shot" to be outrageously stupid. Thankfully, it was only a few seconds of the film.
Quote from: Godfather Punk;1084386Avengers : Endgame
As a capstone to 10 years MCU, I give it an 8. Could have been a nine if they had made it a 100 minutes Avengers movie without the 80 minutes schmalz, emo and non-action stuff. When you keep checking your watch and wondering when something is going to happen.
As a movie I give it a 6,5 , maybe a 7. Ok, I enjoyed it but the humor didn't work this time for me. And too many characters that didn't get their chance to really shine.
Was Satan in it?
If the devil is in the details, you could make a case, but I saw no actual evidence of him.
Quote from: Godfather Punk;1084650If the devil is in the details, you could make a case, but I saw no actual evidence of him.
Meh. It's not Infinity War without a cameo by the Devil himself.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Cs5YwHRuW8Y/VAtBDoLpqSI/AAAAAAAAd7k/_YtrsWkQUv0/s1600/ig5_20b.jpg)
Saw Endgame, wasn't overly impressed.
I enjoyed it. I am looking forward to the point where most people have seen it so I can discuss some of the plot points without spoiling anything.
Just came across another recording of the Russian musical Dragonlance: The Last Trial. This one an older production with a different crew.
Seemed to have slightly better costuming and, er, acrobats? But some of the characters did not look as close to their origins as one might like whereas the ones in the final showing looked their parts overall. A bald Caramon stood out in this one for example. Though I rather like this version of Dalamar as he comes across as so sly and conniving. The rest were ok. At a bit over 2 hours it is an impressive production for both.
Just saw the trailer for the Sonic the Hedgehog movie and holy hell Paramont actually did worse than I expected.
So we have YET ANOTHER damn adaption where the characters are dropped into the real world. Rather than the subjects setting. Or I should say. Character. Singular. As pretty much Sonic is the only character from the games in the movie. There is Jim Carey playing what is supposed to be Dr Robotnic/Eggman. But its so scant a nod it barely counts. Worse though is the CGI model for Sonic. really. WTF were they thinking? Apparently Sony is not happy. But they should have known better by now and lever signed control of the character off to someone else.
Quote from: Omega;1085885Just saw the trailer for the Sonic the Hedgehog movie and holy hell Paramont actually did worse than I expected.
So we have YET ANOTHER damn adaption where the characters are dropped into the real world. Rather than the subjects setting. Or I should say. Character. Singular. As pretty much Sonic is the only character from the games in the movie. There is Jim Carey playing what is supposed to be Dr Robotnic/Eggman. But its so scant a nod it barely counts. Worse though is the CGI model for Sonic. really. WTF were they thinking? Apparently Sony is not happy. But they should have known better by now and lever signed control of the character off to someone else.
Jim Carrey is so 90's in his delivery that I'm wondering if he went back to his old practice of taking his pay in cocaine.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1085900Jim Carrey is so 90's in his delivery that I'm wondering if he went back to his old practice of taking his pay in cocaine.
True. Though re-watching the trailer I am starting to like Carey's Robotnik/Eggman as it seems like maybe he is gradually growing into looking more and more like he does in the games.
Meanwhile re-watching the trailer the CG for Sonic looks really bad. Like something from the 90s. The CG TV show looks better than this.
I saw ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL and it was good. Not great, but fun enough and decent cyberpunk.
I read the manga too long ago to comment how much the movie deviated from the source material.
Surprisingly, the movie didn't have any SJW nonsense. That alone felt like a throwback to when we could have strong female leads without politics. Nobody in the movie does an acting job worth mentioning (either good or bad), and the characters/location makes enough sense to suspend disbelief for 120 minutes. Is it perfect? Far from it, but the pace, combat sequences and futuretech visuals were worth the viewing.
Most importantly, the movie offers lots of RPG idea potential. Fans of sci-fi, post-apoc or cyberpunk will pull some inspiration, even if the action does feel "live anime" which actually isn't bad for most RPGing.
Quote from: Omega;1085885Just saw the trailer for the Sonic the Hedgehog movie and holy hell Paramont actually did worse than I expected.
So we have YET ANOTHER damn adaption where the characters are dropped into the real world. Rather than the subjects setting. Or I should say. Character. Singular. As pretty much Sonic is the only character from the games in the movie. There is Jim Carey playing what is supposed to be Dr Robotnic/Eggman. But its so scant a nod it barely counts. Worse though is the CGI model for Sonic. really. WTF were they thinking? Apparently Sony is not happy. But they should have known better by now and lever signed control of the character off to someone else.
Director has responded saying they're going to change the design for Sonic.
https://www.destructoid.com/sonic-the-hedgehog-s-director-vows-to-redesign-the-character-after-fan-backlash-552262.phtml
I agree with they guys at Cinemassacre (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex5UEYEMDTo). Sonic would probably make a good enough animated film. Not everything has to be reinterpreted as live action.
Finally saw Captain Marvel. Not bad, the story was generally fun. Her super powers became a little too much of a plot device at the end. Not really into the mid-1990s retro vibe, but they did it well. Character development was pretty good. The supporting cast was almost uniformly excellent -- I think the skrull leader could make reciting the phone book sound fascinating, the Kree mentor and the little Captain Marvel to be both had lots of charm, and Fishburne made a good if odd and slightly goofy Fury. Overall, the weakest part of the movie was Brie Larson. She was supposed to be tough, but came across as stiff. And a dry sense of humor was central to her character, but everything fell flat. I think the woman who played Marie Rambeau would have made a far better Captain Marvel. Wasn't a huge fan of the cat, but the audience loved it.
Don't see why there was any fuss about feminism. Really nothing about the Patriarchy. Some anti-imperialism, but it wasn't a clear analogue of anything. There was some girl-power stuff in reaction to how women weren't allowed to fly combat missions, but she's the protagonist and a pilot, so what would you expect?
Edit: By little Captain Marvel to be, I mean the other little Captain Marvel to be.
Quote from: Pat;1086631Fishburne made a good if odd and slightly goofy Fury.
Quote from: IMDBSamuel L Jackson....Nick Fury
Watch him correct someone else who ought to have known better (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y1o8910Xs4)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1086749Watch him correct someone else who ought to have known better (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y1o8910Xs4)
I knew better,
and I still wrote it. In my defense, he's even more Fishburne than usual in Captain Marvel. :)
Quote from: Pat;1086754I knew better, and I still wrote it. In my defense, he's even more Fishburne than usual in Captain Marvel. :)
Fishburne was in Ant Man and Wasp. With his son playing him in the flashback.
Quote from: Omega;1086807Fishburne was in Ant Man and Wasp. With his son playing him in the flashback.
Not where it came from. I knew Samuel L. Jackson played Fury in the
Avengers movies, and during
Captain Marvel I was asking myself did they recast him? I think I respond more to demeanor than to faces.
Quote from: Pat;1086815Not where it came from. I knew Samuel L. Jackson played Fury in the Avengers movies, and during Captain Marvel I was asking myself did they recast him? I think I respond more to demeanor than to faces.
Fishburne has come a long way from Pee Wee Herman... :eek:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dg8vmS6VAAQuF31.jpg)
Quote from: Godfather Punk;1084386Avengers : Endgame
As a capstone to 10 years MCU, I give it an 8. ....
As a movie I give it a 6,5 , maybe a 7. ....
Now that I've seen it, I see what you mean. It's really weighed down by the need to incorporate as many elements as possible from earlier in the franchise. It felt very old, and it wasn't because of the time travel. No, it felt old because it was so focused on the past; there was very little that was new, and what was new (like the 5 year leap) was underexplored. Plot-wise, it was really just one big fight that existed mostly to showcase all the different characters, bookended by the very backward-looking setup, and an extended denouement. It's not bad, but it's more a coda than a proper movie.
I didn't want to make a new thread for this-
https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/john-boyega-tells-feels-disney-star-wars/
Looks like Boyega isn't pleased with the direction the sequels took, and may have some things to say after the final film releases.
The new SW trilogy achieved the impossible. They made the prequels look good.
Now to voice what... I believe... is probably an unpopular opinion: I LIKED THE MATRIX SEQUELS.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1092960Now to voice what... I believe... is probably an unpopular opinion: I LIKED THE MATRIX SEQUELS.
I didn't hate them. It's an odd disconnect when someone bashes the Matrix sequels and I'm like, wut?
Same. I liked the two Matrix sequels. The animated anthology was... peculiar... to say the least. Only seen parts of one of the console games. And the MMO went in some pretty odd directions as a sort of followup to the last movie.
And as have noted before. I liked the first two SW prequels. Especially the second. Im not as fond of the 3rd prequel mainly because A: things move and change too fast. Way too fast. And B: Anakins fall to the dark side is also way too fast. Same with the sequels. The pacing and some character shifts are way too fast or out of the blue. I thought the first sequel was ok. Rey was just a little too good with the force. But I liked the fact she was fairly inexperienced with the lightsaber and it showed. Which baffles me why some critics keep bitching about how amatureishly she fights. Its because she IS you morons!
The second sequel I just do not like at all. And that's without even factoring in how mean spirited the producer and some crew were treating fans. I think a better ending would have been Rey and Kylo joining forces.
Quote from: Omega;1093145The second sequel I just do not like at all. And that's without even factoring in how mean spirited the producer and some crew were treating fans. I think a better ending would have been Rey and Kylo joining forces.
God, what a wasted opportunity. For all Kylo's bluster, in the end everyone was right back where they started. The movie should have ended with Kylo and Rey flying off in a spaceship, leaving both Resistance and First Order behind. The only two times I've given a shit about her character is in the beginning of TFA, when she was scrounging parts, and in TLJ when she and Kylo were interacting.
---
I Am Mother (Netflix original)
I really liked this. A nice little thriller wtih tons of ambiance. Not gonna spoiler it. Reccomend.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1093149I Am Mother (Netflix original)
I really liked this. A nice little thriller wtih tons of ambiance. Not gonna spoiler it. Reccomend.
Watched it last night as well. Slow burning, strong acting, mostly subtle but effective f/x, not at all cinematic, ends up with dealing with some serious philosophical issues. Impressive.
Strongly recommend anyone who might be interested in watching not Google anything. It's the kind of movie you want to see fresh.
Quote from: Pat;1093161Watched it last night as well. Slow burning, strong acting, mostly subtle but effective f/x, not at all cinematic, ends up with dealing with some serious philosophical issues. Impressive.
Strongly recommend anyone who might be interested in watching not Google anything. It's the kind of movie you want to see fresh.
Yeah. I don't know if 'thriller' was the right term. It's laser focused on characters. More like a drama?
Spoiler
I imagine most people would disagree with Mother's decision to make the human race better by destroying everyone and starting over. Her brave new world has a foundation of murder. Perhaps that will inadvertently cause Daughter to reject what she's been taught, maybe not. The strength of the movie is that it doesn't ram morals down your throat. It presents the situation and lets the viewer make up their own mind.
If you haven't seen the movie, don't click on Ratman's spoiler block. Just don't.
Quote from: Omega;1093145Same. I liked the two Matrix sequels. The animated anthology was... peculiar... to say the least. Only seen parts of one of the console games. And the MMO went in some pretty odd directions as a sort of followup to the last movie.
And as have noted before. I liked the first two SW prequels. Especially the second. Im not as fond of the 3rd prequel mainly because A: things move and change too fast. Way too fast. And B: Anakins fall to the dark side is also way too fast. Same with the sequels. The pacing and some character shifts are way too fast or out of the blue.
RotS is my favorite of the prequels (although I like all of them), but I think Lucas wrote himself into a corner back in
1980 when he defined Empire as "Episode V"--meaning that he only had three films' worth of space to handle the fall of Anakin and the Republic. Adding
The Clone Wars between Episodes II and III has helped in that regard, but has added problems of their own.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1092960Now to voice what... I believe... is probably an unpopular opinion: I LIKED THE MATRIX SEQUELS.
I love all the Matrix flicks.
I have NO clue what the sequels were supposed to be about. The action sequences and music were so spectacular, thrilling and fun that I still don't care it made no sense.
The animated Matrix was an odd experiment collective storytelling inside the IP and I wish they had done another one in the years post-trilogy. I don't recommend them for anyone who isn't a Matrix junkie, but I found over half the stories worth watching.
Here is another odd western I either missed, or saw so long ago and only once that I'd forgotten it.
Curse of the Undead. This is a supernatural western from 1959 and features a more traditional vampire than the made up hollywood ones. The vampire is a suicide that was not buried at a crossroads. He can walk arounf in daylight, and victims killed do not rise as new undead. Pretty interesting and fairly well produced too for an obscure piece like this. It was on a DVD collection I have had for years and never looked at as thought it was a different movie. doh!
It gets mentioned in one of the Blood Brothers modules for Call of Cthulhu.
Shazam!
Liked it. Didn't love it. I was impressed that they didnt' kill off the main villian. Haven't seen that in a while. The Mr. Mind cameo was fun.
The so called "live action" Lion King was like 90%+ CGI. Felt about as pointless as it can possibly get as they went with a "realistic" tone which made nearly everything very washed out and just short of expressionless due to that "realistic" constraint which Jungle Book did not suffer as much from.
Avengers Endgame
A disappointing ending to a franchise that had outstayed it's welcome.
I came in late, but I'd been spoiled to most of the important bits of the movie. I knew they killed Thanos in the beginning. I came in when Ant-Man got out of the quantum realm and discovered that everyone was sad.
I think this is the first time travel movie where I couldn't understand the time travel aspect. All that jazz was confusing, and I was getting very bored with it all.
End battle was CGI nonsense.
Tony Stark dying was a cop out. We knew from the first Avengers movie that he was willing to sacrifice himself for the good. A much more interesting fate for his character would be to see if the womanizing playboy could settle down and have a successful family life. Wasted opportunity there, but I suppose RD Junior was done being Iron Man.
Thor, meh, whatever. Really most of the other characters were meh, whatever. All the comic book time travel meant I lost track of who was alive and who was dead and why I should even care.
I did like Captain America's ending.
Sequel bloat was inevitable, but it was sad to see the series, which I did very much like in the beginning, get augered into the ground for the finale.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1099347I think this is the first time travel movie where I couldn't understand the time travel aspect. All that jazz was confusing, and I was getting very bored with it all.
Yeah, I couldn't follow it either.
And I still don't know what the soul stone does.
Quote from: Ratman_tfI think this is the first time travel movie where I couldn't understand the time travel aspect. All that jazz was confusing, and I was getting very bored with it all.
Quote from: Aglondir;1100486Yeah, I couldn't follow it either.
And I still don't know what the soul stone does.
I thought the time travel in Endgame was interesting, mostly in that it doesn't follow the established standards, but is still mostly consistent. The two common standards are
1) Closed-loop like the first Terminator movie, or The Final Countdown. The past and future are fated, so if you go back and change the past, you're just fulfilling what happened. It's consistent, but the predestination can feel frustrating - like none of the character's choices matter. If you try to change the known past, you are fated to fail.
2) Open-loop like Back to the Future, where the timeline overwrites itself in a fuzzy sort of way. There can be paradoxes like killing your own grandfather, but they cause mysterious and illogical problems - like photograph images fading from the feet up. You *can* change the past, but it's generally considered bad according to semi-mystic laws. There is still a sense of Fate - that history is supposed to go a certain way - and the characters act to support it.
Endgame seems to follow a branching model, which appears in a number of books but almost no movies. You can't change your own past - that just creates new branches without changing your own timeline. But you can take items out of the past, and use them in your present. I liked it because it avoids the issue of Fate. Characters weren't trying to change the past, and they also weren't trying to fix the past. They were focused on their own unknown future.
AnnihilationI'd been wanting to see this for a while, but it never came up on a Netflix search. So I finally got the DVD.
What to say, without spoilers? I liked it. I think it delivered what I was expecting. The acting was rather flat. There's a scene
Spoiler
Where the main character, Leena, is talking to her co-worker about their affair, and they both sound like robots. None of the dialog matched what I'd expect humans to say. But I suspect that was the point of the whole movie. People alienated from their humanity. Was it intentional? I don't know. I fancy it was the changed Leena's memories of human events? But that could have been conveyed much more effectively.
I liked the ending. I dig strange experiences, and the movie certainly was that.
So. Watch it if you want to see a trippy flick about a strange and unsettling event.
Annihilation is worth watching for the imagery, but nothing else.
Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood is a very long and beautifully shot movie, with some very strong and well acted scenes, but these scenes jump out because it really feels like the story could have been told in 90 minutes too.
I'm not sorry I paid full ticket price, but I was expecting something more dynamic from Q T.
(I'd compare it to Death Proof, which was imo 90% blabla and 10% boomboom).
I am probably also 10 years too young to fully appreciate all the period references although I do remember watching F.B.I. and Mannix in the early 70's. And the music never gets old.
Saw the trailer for the new Catz movie. Its one long WTF. Who the hell thought this was a good idea? It looks like bad bodypaint. Combined with the usual insane over-reliance on CGI. The stage show looks a billion times better with good ol practical effects and prosthetics.
Terminator Dark Fate trailer
As much as I liked Terminator 2, that film opened the door to endless sequels, where they tell the same basic story over and over.
Not excited for this one.
The Terminator, Predator and Aliens franchises all seem to suffer from the inability to improve upon their original movies.
It would probably help if Hollywood wasn't pretty much a dumpster fire at this point.
And sadly its been a long time in comeing.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1101632The Terminator, Predator and Aliens franchises all seem to suffer from the inability to improve upon their original movies.
All 3 had pretty good and fairly different sequels. Problems is... that is where they all should have ended as each one screwed up with its third and subsequent sequels. All three are the general exception to the overall rule that sequels tend to lose something, sometimes slowly, sometimes appallingly fast.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1101607Terminator Dark Fate trailer
As much as I liked Terminator 2, that film opened the door to endless sequels, where they tell the same basic story over and over.
Not excited for this one.
Actually the ending of T2 seemes to be THE END. But Hollywood just would not leave it at that and so BOOM! "Hey that ending really means we can just keep time looping this movie till doomsday really comes! Horray!" much like with Star Trek now.
Not a movie, but I don't care.
Just finished watching Season 8 of the Walking Dead, the "all out war".
The only way it makes sense is if Rick, Maggie, and Ezekiel are name level characters with their own domains facing off against an even higher level enemy who rules multiple domains, Neegan. Most of the named supporting cast are high level as well, allowing them to face threats with ease that used to be deadly, and clearly and categorically outclassing everyone else around them. For all its flaws, and there are many, it's the D&D endgame, zombieapocalypse version.
Quote from: SpinachcatThe Terminator, Predator and Aliens franchises all seem to suffer from the inability to improve upon their original movies.
Quote from: Omega;1101698All 3 had pretty good and fairly different sequels. Problems is... that is where they all should have ended as each one screwed up with its third and subsequent sequels. All three are the general exception to the overall rule that sequels tend to lose something, sometimes slowly, sometimes appallingly fast.
I concur. I found T2 and Aliens particularly to both be the exceptions of sequels that built excellently on the original movie. But after that, the sequels didn't just fail to improve, they quite imploded.
Quote from: jhkim;1101767I concur. I found T2 and Aliens particularly to both be the exceptions of sequels that built excellently on the original movie. But after that, the sequels didn't just fail to improve, they quite imploded.
Predator II isn't quite in the same class as Aliens and Terminator II, but it still does a good job of building on what came before.
After that though, Jesus Christ, what the hell are these people thinking?
Trivia: There are two actors I can think of who were in all three series of Alien, Predator and Terminator. Can you think of any?
Predator was really hard to top without Arnold, but I think Predator 2 is serviceable. I liked it better than the comicbook follow ups with the wannabe Arnold clone who was really corny and annoying. I did like the WWI story though.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1101791Trivia: There are two actors I can think of who were in all three series of Alien, Predator and Terminator. Can you think of any?
Lance Hendriksen. The cop in Terminator, the android in Aliens, the expedition leader in Aliens vs Predator.
Bill Paxton was in all 3 franchises too I believe. Aliens, Predator 2 and Terminator.
Quote from: Mind Crime;1103711Bill Paxton was in all 3 franchises too I believe. Aliens, Predator 2 and Terminator.
You are correct. Terminator, Aliens, and Predator 2.
I watched an old Horror movie by John Carpenter called "Prince of darkness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Darkness_(film)
This was a digitally remastered, cleaned up version of the movie.
It wasn't really a great movie to be honest.
I DID enjoy the practical effects that were used as opposed to lots of CGI you see in more modern movies.
Although, some of the fakeness if the practical effects really came through due to the image quality being improved so much in this remastered version.
It had a lot of familiar old actors from the 80s it. Particularly actors from the "Big trouble in little China" movie.
For me, it was worth watching just to see these actors.
Quote from: danskmacabre;1104524Although, some of the fakeness if the practical effects really came through due to the image quality being improved so much in this remastered version.
You're not alone in noticing that (https://www.cracked.com/index.php/article_26567_hd-remakes-are-making-all-your-favorite-shows-unwatchable.html). I think the linked article is interesting.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1104532You're not alone in noticing that (https://www.cracked.com/index.php/article_26567_hd-remakes-are-making-all-your-favorite-shows-unwatchable.html). I think the linked article is interesting.
Ah yeah. I've heard of the terrible Buffy conversion.
I watched the entire Buffy series again with my daughter (who loved it) last year. But it was the original quality SD version.
I wasn't aware of a cleaned up version at the time.
I watched a comparison Youtube video of old vs cleaned up Buffy a while back and it was a disaster.
It wasn't so much that the clean up was done badly with the "Prince of darkness" movie though. It was done REALLY well.
So well that the practical special effects just LOOKED like special effects and really fake.
I wouldn't have noticed so much or at all when viewing it on VHS years ago when that was all that was available.
On a slight tangent. I have also been watching the original Star Trek series on Netflix, which has been cleaned up and additionally some of the old cheesy special effects have been updated/replaced etc and I REALLY love it.
Even in the old days watching Original Star Trek on old grainy TV or VHS had pretty awful special effects. Although to me that was part of its charm.
Re-watching it now, I feel whoever did the clean up, did it tastefully and appropriately. It was a pleasure to watch. The old Star Trek got a new lick of paint and it was done well.
Quote from: danskmacabre;1104549On a slight tangent. I have also been watching the original Star Trek series on Netflix, which has been cleaned up and additionally some of the old cheesy special effects have been updated/replaced etc and I REALLY love it.
Even in the old days watching Original Star Trek on old grainy TV or VHS had pretty awful special effects. Although to me that was part of its charm.
Re-watching it now, I feel whoever did the clean up, did it tastefully and appropriately. It was a pleasure to watch. The old Star Trek got a new lick of paint and it was done well.
Agree. I typically don't like CGI remasters, but the orignal series stuff looks so good, and not out of place. I prefer them to the old effects.
Saw the trailer for the Batwoman show. Just... wow. WTF were they thinking? Is this serious or a parody?
Quote from: Omega;1104578Saw the trailer for the Batwoman show. Just... wow. WTF were they thinking? Is this serious or a parody?
Thanks to Progressives, I don't even want to see the trailer. Any female super hero is going to be an exaggerated version of feminism, in an attempt to make her stronk and brave wymn.
*Goes to wiki. Eyes roll into back of skull*
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1104619Thanks to Progressives, I don't even want to see the trailer. Any female super hero is going to be an exaggerated version of feminism, in an attempt to make her stronk and brave wymn.
*Goes to wiki. Eyes roll into back of skull*
QuoteKate: I need you to fix the suit.
Luke Fox: The suit is literal perfection!
Kate: It will be... when it fits a woman.
Also. Why not Batgirl? She made her own suit rather than co-opting someone elses. Hell this isn't even the Batwoman from the comics. She at least had a story and personality. Or the Huntress. Or the new female Question whos been around a while. Was not a SJW feminist insert co-opt and was still more interesting and competent with no powers at all.
If you want some cheap fun, bring up almost any review of Rambo: Last Blood and enjoy the deplorable scum in the comment section tearing the movie reviewer a fresh new asshole. No surprise at Rotten, the critics have it at 27% vs. 84% audience.
I'll see it at the El Cheapo when it shows up after Christmas, but the trailer didn't look too impressive. I'm sure it delivers on all the points for a revenge fantasy and of course, Stallone is gonna Stallone so everybody already knows what they're gonna get from the movie.
I watched Call of Cthulhu. A Movie adaption of HP Lovecraft's short story of the same name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Call_of_Cthulhu_(film)
What makes this special is it was made in 2005, but was done as a Black and White silent movie.
Basically made in the style of 1920s movies with text cards for conversations etc.
It was really fun to watch and appreciate the work they (they being http://www.hplhs.org/ , HP Lovecraft Historical society) put into it.
They put in artifacts in the film. Using the white make up like they used to use years ago and so on.
The special effects are stop motion and using minis for terrain. This is on purpose I think to show the limited technology that would have been available in the 1920s.
It's a fairly short movie at 47 minutes, but then it was a short story and movies in those days were often fairly short anyway.
All in all, I had a blast watching this and being a HP Lovecraft fan it was a joy to watch.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1105531If you want some cheap fun, bring up almost any review of Rambo: Last Blood....
Seeing this in a couple of days with a friend.
It'll be a laugh and if it's anything like the Gore fest that the last Rambo movie was, it'll be worth watching.
Not expecting a masterpiece work of art, so it'll probably deliver what it does well.
Quote from: danskmacabre;1105647I watched Call of Cthulhu. A Movie adaption of HP Lovecraft's short story of the same name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Call_of_Cthulhu_(film)
What makes this special is it was made in 2005, but was done as a Black and White silent movie.
Basically made in the style of 1920s movies with text cards for conversations etc.
The special effects are stop motion and using minis for terrain. This is on purpose I think to show the limited technology that would have been available in the 1920s.
It's a fairly short movie at 47 minutes, but then it was a short story and movies in those days were often fairly short anyway.
All in all, I had a blast watching this and being a HP Lovecraft fan it was a joy to watch.
1: Have that one. Very impressively done. Sadly their Whisperer in Darkness adaption is a total mess and I did not like it at all.
2: News Flash: Miniature terrain is still used even today. Just not as often. And Miniature terrain was used extensively in the original three Star Wars movies for example, as did the minecart scene in Temple of Doom. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen also made use of miniatures. Apparently the Harry Potter movies had some really impressive miniature sets as well. Even Lord of the Rings made use of some miniature sets and some impressive foam latex swords for the armies.
3: Actually some were long even by todays standards. I have an old copy of Calabria from 1914 and it is a sprawling 2 hours long and surprisingly clear for a movie from that era.
4: It is surprisingly well done and they put alot of effort into it.
I quite liked "Whisperer in the darkness". Not as much as "Call of Cthulhu" which to me was a work of art. But it was still good to watch. I noticed they added a lot at the end of Whisperer in the Darkness, but I think in general, Lovecraft's stories must be hard to translate to film.
Yeah I'm aware about Miniatures still being used somewhat, although it's seen as a cheaper option to use CGI more these days.
I noticed "The Colour out of space" has been made too, but as a bigger budget movie. I wonder how that will go.
Quote from: danskmacabre;1105835I quite liked "Whisperer in the darkness". Not as much as "Call of Cthulhu" which to me was a work of art. But it was still good to watch. I noticed they added a lot at the end of Whisperer in the Darkness, but I think in general, Lovecraft's stories must be hard to translate to film.
Yeah I'm aware about Miniatures still being used somewhat, although it's seen as a cheaper option to use CGI more these days.
I noticed "The Colour out of space" has been made too, but as a bigger budget movie. I wonder how that will go.
There is actually an older loose adaption of Colour out of Space, featuring Nick Adams and Boris Karloff. Die Monster Die! from 1965. Very loose adaption indeed. But I rather like the effects in the big finali. Sometime in the 2010s there was an I believe German adaption. I'd have to look it up. Apparently there is also an Italian adaption I have not been able to pin down a copy of yet. Then there is the movie The Curse which I have never seen but others have noted is a fairly good adaption of the story. Another on the to find list.
I seem to remember a late 80s or early 90's straight-to-cable movie called Curse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbETC9rF2MA It seemed inspired by Colour out of Space. There's a follow up that is all about snakes. Both were kind of gross. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t-BaEElZRg
Ooh that's interesting re the Colour out of space adaptions, inspirations etc.
I'll defo try to chase those up.
Necronomicon and Dagon I absolute despised.
I personally really like the original Dunwitch Horror movie. The remake is garbage. There is bemusingly a rather well done and faithful Japanese adaption done with puppets and stop motion. Part of a set all from the same person apparently for some Japanese horror anthology far as I can tell. The pieces were, The Picture in the House, The Dunwitch Horror, and The Festival.
There is also a rather well done fan adaption of The Shadow out of Time. And the stop motion animator of that has gone on to animate many more Mythos pieces.
I saw Ad Astra earlier this week. It was painful. The Moon Pirates (I'm serious...) were absurd, the inconsistency in gravity and acceleration, and the final spacewalk that begins with riding a spinning sensor array until it flings him to a ship well out of sight based upon "eyeballing" it (bonus points for using a piece of the array as a shield against impacts with Neptune's rings like he's Starlord meets Captain America). Yeah, a total turd.
From the trailers, I can't tell what Ad Astra's genre is supposed to be. Is it supposed to be a Buck Rogers space fantasy? Or does it try to be hard scifi?
Does it have any redeeming value?
Quote from: Spinachcat;1106325From the trailers, I can't tell what Ad Astra's genre is supposed to be. Is it supposed to be a Buck Rogers space fantasy? Or does it try to be hard scifi?
Does it have any redeeming value?
My wife likes to look at Brad Pitt's face, but even she thought this movie was crap.
It tries to be a deep and reflective character story... with MOON PIRATES!!! It goes for a hard sci-fi backdrop, but then fails to be consistent in any of its science (the moon seems to have normal gravity until it becomes dramatic for it not to... sort of like activating a scene aspect in FATE) and it also fails for trying to constantly push Pitt's character into being an over-the-top action star rather than something more realistic. He's so unrealistic that the self-reflection just fails because there's no humanity in his character.
Just recently saw a 1963 Japanese fantasy movie called Yoso, AKA: The Bronze Magician and a couple of other titles. Stars Raizô Ichikawa who unfortunately died a few years after making this.
It is about a Buddist monk who is granted powers over life and death after a long dedication. He leaves his mountain retreat and soon becomes hopelessly entangled in courtly royal intrigue when he is called on to save the ailing queen. Things go downhill from there for the monk. What is interesting about this one is its glacial pace, lack of major action really, and overall focus on the emotional turmoil of the monk and the political plotings of the villains. What really helps this movie is Raizo's intense yet subdued performance as the humble, yet powerful monk. Alot of good acting throughout.
Raizo also played the main character of Nemuri Kyoshiro in the long running "Sleepy Eyes of Death" series of movies. He was in at least 10!
Another forgotten gem. The Great Bandit from 1963, AKA Samurai Pirate, AKA The Lost World of Sinbad. This one is a fun little fantasy adventure set in feudal Japan with none other than Toshiro Mifune as the hero Sukezaemon. Sadly the US version takes a few, ok lots, of liberties. But hey, who knew that back then?
Also on a Horror DVD collection came across an odd one War of the Zombies. Actually Rome Against Rome/Rome contro Rome, a 1964 Italian movie in the same style as many of the Hercules and Machiste movies of the era with John Barrymore jr as the hero. Not sure why they dropped it in the horror collection. I guess someone just read the title and thought it was an actual zombie movie???
Well against all odds the Thundercats Roar series is out now and its actually worse than the preview 2 years ago suggested. But that was the intent. Horay for yet another series handed off to someone who hates the source material.
Quote from: Omega;1119736Well against all odds the Thundercats Roar series is out now and its actually worse than the preview 2 years ago suggested. But that was the intent. Horay for yet another series handed off to someone who hates the source material.
Foul: That's no movie.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1119747Foul: That's no movie.
Well to be fair. It not even a cartoon. :rolleyes:
I watched on Netflix Cargo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_(2017_film))
An Australian Zombie Apocalypse movie.
It wasn't very action packed, but instead focused on the the Australian terrain, the harshness of it. Human stories of handling survival and so on.
It DID push the "Evil white men are evil" thing that seems to be popular these days.
But overall, I quite enjoyed the movie and Martin Freeman plays the main character, which was cool.
A decent enough watch with a few eye rolling moments.
I saw Birds of Prey and something, something Harley Quinn. It had great reviews but OMG what a piece of shit. The reviews compared the humor and action favorably to Deadpool, and I have to wonder if they ever watched Deadpool. I'm trying not to be too critical, but IMO, there was nothing worthwhile in this movie.
I enjoyed Suicide Squad...but I only paid $2 at the El Cheapo. I thought Margot Robbie's Harley was fun, Leto was an odd, but okay Joker and I like Will Smith. He's pretty much always Will Smith, but he doesn't phone it in and he clearly enjoyed playing Deadshot.
But Birds of Prey? The trailers just screamed Woketard Nonsense. No surprise its flopping.
Anybody see The Grudge reboot?
The original? The american adaption? Or a Grudge re-reboot?
Quote from: Spinachcat;1121512Anybody see The Grudge reboot?
Quote from: Omega;1121549The original? The american adaption? Or a Grudge re-reboot?
It's a side-story that take place during and after the American 2004 movie.
I got scared off last minute by some terrible word of mouth from a few people who's opinion on horror movies I trust. I plan to still watch it, just not until it's on a streaming service.
Haven't seen The Grudge reboot and not really inspired to watch yet another reboot of a movie that is not that old and was already pretty good. That's not even counting the fact that the franchise has been milked pretty well.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1121482I saw Birds of Prey and something, something Harley Quinn. It had great reviews but OMG what a piece of shit. The reviews compared the humor and action favorably to Deadpool, and I have to wonder if they ever watched Deadpool. I'm trying not to be too critical, but IMO, there was nothing worthwhile in this movie.
If you like Margot Robbie's performance as Harley Quinn, which in all fairness I do (I enjoyed
Suicide Squad), BoPatFEooHQ (which I'm typing only because it amuses me how clunky that acronym is) is about, eh, 40% of a good movie.
Unfortunately the 60% which is bad is just
awful, including:
1) Critically defanging Harley herself in terms of what she's actually allowed to
do: when she raids a police station to kidnap Cassandra Cain, she uses a
beanbag gun because post-breakup Harley apparently now has moral qualms about killing cops;
2) Criminally underusing the rest of the Birds, and spending almost no time on how the characters actually, you know,
relate to one another because they don't actually form a single complete team until the last 15 minutes;
3) Having no idea how to create a villain or conflict worthy of the name -- like, seriously, the arc plot vs. Roman "Black Mask" Sionis is fanfic-level "Mary Sue" bad in how utterly lacking in any engagement, suspense or tension it has;
4) A series of juggled, nonsequential plot threads in the first act which doesn't seem like anything except an attempt to be Tarantino-esque and clever for its own sake -- I have no problem with nonsequential storytelling, but you need a reason for it;
5) Not allowing
any male character
whatsoever (except for one briefly mentioned aside in the Huntress's backstory) to be decent, likeable or competent at all (the closest we get is Chris Messina's Victor Szasz, and the writer and director go out of their way to make him both so physically creepy nobody can like him and to get rid of him before he can really affect the final showdown);
6) Casting Rosie Perez. (Okay, that one's entirely personal, I'm sure she's a decent person and fine performer given the right material, but I've never seen her in anything where she didn't set my teeth on edge.)
It also doesn't help that most reviewers want so badly to praise the film for its feminist cred that they can't be honest about its actual flaws as a piece of storytelling. My own wife, whom I love dearly and who is herself an award-winning horror writer, loves Harley so much as a character that she thinks the film is better than it is, which is part of why I'm ranting about it here rather than at home. :o
What I don't get is the fetishization of Harley as some kind of quirky anti-hero. The bitch killed babies and children for the Joker. She's reprehensible with no redemption arc to excuse her being a protagonist in a comic book film.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1121664What I don't get is the fetishization of Harley as some kind of quirky anti-hero. The bitch killed babies and children for the Joker. She's reprehensible with no redemption arc to excuse her being a protagonist in a comic book film.
You just named why so many fans love her. Shes a killer who gets a pass because shes sooooo cute!
This is a recurring problem with DC and even marvel and even manga overseas. Fans, or sometimes the parent company will latch onto the most offensive or un-likable character and elevate them totally out of proportion.
Lobo. Deathstroke, Ambush Bug, etc from DC with Harley being the ongoing fetish.
Deadpool and Squirrel Girl, oh so very very these two. Marvels idea of 'funny' tends to be the most un-funny characters ever.
Anime and Manga? Theres a long long long list.
All of these characters, with the exception of Lobo, were interesting initially and when used sparingly.
In the animated series Harley was interesting because you could never quite get a handle on her. Much akin to the Joker. Just marginally less homicidal.
Not helped that, as with everything, different writers have different ideas for what these characters are.
My issue with Birds of Prey is that I read comics, and I know who the Birds of Prey are, and Cassandra Cain, and Black Mask, and I don't recognize any of them in the trailer.
For that matter, even Harley Quinn is considerably toned down from her sex appeal role in Suicide Squad.
Quote from: Lurkndog;1121808My issue with Birds of Prey is that I read comics, and I know who the Birds of Prey are, and Cassandra Cain, and Black Mask, and I don't recognize any of them in the trailer.
For that matter, even Harley Quinn is considerably toned down from her sex appeal role in Suicide Squad.
Im getting progressively more tired of superhero shows who spend what feels like 90% of the movie more or less plainclothes.
Quote from: Omega;1121875Im getting progressively more tired of superhero shows who spend what feels like 90% of the movie more or less plainclothes.
That was a big problem with the
Birds of Prey TV series from the 2000's. Harleen Quinzel was their big bad, but she didn't go full Harley Quinn until the last episode. Also they had Dina Meyers as Batgirl/Oracle, but they only got her into costume as Batgirl once. Huntress just dressed like she was going out dancing, and Black Canary was even more forgettable.
Apparently the movie is not doing well and the producers believe that the moviegoers were too stupid to realize Harley Quinn was in the movie and renamed it Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey.
Yup. That will change everything.
Been doing a series of Horror reviews this month to celebrate Strange Tales. I enjoyed all three of the following for different reasons.
LEGEND OF THE MOUNTAIN: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2020/03/legend-of-mountain-1979.html
This movie is definitely not going to be for everyone because it is on the slow side, very subtle in how it handles horror, and a bit of an artsy film. I like it though. It is directed by King Hu (who did Come Drink With Me, Dragon Inn and Touch of Zen), and set during the Song Dynasty on a fort in the mountains along a march between the empire and the Xi Xia. It is a ghost story, my review is spoiler-ridden, but here I will say it is atmospheric, blurs the boundary between the human and ghostly world, and does a great job of using mundane details to create a sense of unease. Not a lot of action, but very interesting and subdued magic battles.
THE ENCHANTING GHOST: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-enchanting-ghost-1970.html
A classic Chinese Horror Movie. It is subtle, but not as lengthy or artsy as Legend of the Mountain. Definitely feels like it was made in a prior era of film making. And there is a long lead up before anything super natural happens. However that lead up really gives the supernatural stuff its impact.
LEGEND OF THE DEMON CAT: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2020/02/legend-of-demon-cat.html
A mystery set in the Tang Dynasty that follows a monk and official investigating a demon cat who feeds on peoples eyes. The sets in this one are quite elaborate (really good fodder for a GM looking for locations in a historical Chinese setting). Devotes a lot of energy to painting pretty scenes (I have seen some people complain about the CG in places).
If you ever get a chance. Check out Yoso, AKA: The Bronze Magician. I commented on it a few pages back.
Still hunting for a copy of the Japanese movie Dai Touzoku, that was renamed The Lost World of Sinbad
Watched Gerald's Game last night.
I haven't read the book, but I got a strong vibe of Misery, especially when Paul Sheldon was left alone by Annie. In this case, King swapped sexes and made it all about the protagonist's dirty sexual secrets.
Strong start, woman goes off with husband for a kinky weekend vacation to try and put the spark back in their relationship. Dude has a heart attack while she's handcuffed to the bed. She's faced with trying to survive while various things happen.
Goes mental fairly quickly, with her discussing her issues with imaginary versions of her husband and herself.
Ending was weak, in that Stephen King way. He's great at setup and building tension, but only in a few cases has he pulled a satisfying ending out of his stories. (I really loved The Dead Zone)
Mostly, I was dissapointed that the main character's personality could be summed up with "Was sexually abused as a kid." Got it. Anything else? Nope. Everything about her revolves around that.
Maybe in the book she was a more interesting character.
The thread on sword and planet reminded me indirectly of an old pulp author used to read. Manly Wade Wellman and one of his non SF anthologies that was turned into a movie back in the 70s. Who Fears the Devil, featuring his recurring "Silver John" character. Though if I recall correctly in the books hes only ever called John. A wanderer who carries a guitar with strings of pure silver. And is sort of an Apellation based lovecraftian investigator sort due to his frequent encounters with creatures from the mountain legends.
The movie is based mostly on two of those stories. "The Desrick on Yandro" and "O Ugly Bird" and they actually got a folk singer to play John.
Thie stories and film can be an interesting take on how to do a CoC adventure that is not based on the standard oddities, yet still treads some familliar ground. John comes across as what a CoC PC character might be if they actually lived past one adventure. ahem.
Finding the movie though is a pain as does not seem to have come out on VHS or DVD that I've ever seen yet.
Finally got to sit down and finish watching Avengers: Endgame. And have to say that overall I liked it. Theres a few low moments. But they are brief or not too onerous, or both. Captain ManHater is not a huge presence and is not the show stealer Marvel was building her up to be in this. Definitely did not go in the directions I expected.
Who Fears the Devil sometimes goes by The Legend of Hillbilly John. Not sure if that helps but you never know.
Yes. Though that version is apparently edited. Not sure what was edited.
I don't know about the movie, but the Silver John stories are great. Manly Wade Wellman does a good job of keeping them grounded, but creepy. The idea of a man-eating house-monster is ludicrous, for instance, but he makes it work.
I watched Garm Wars, The Last Druid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garm_Wars:_The_Last_Druid) last week. At least, I put it on Netflix and watched it out of the corner of my eye while playing video games. It looks interesting, in a B movie level of acting and story. The visuals are superb. I plan to give it another go after finishing up season 3 of The Good Place.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1126816I watched Garm Wars, The Last Druid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garm_Wars:_The_Last_Druid) last week. At least, I put it on Netflix and watched it out of the corner of my eye while playing video games. It looks interesting, in a B movie level of acting and story. The visuals are superb. I plan to give it another go after finishing up season 3 of The Good Place.
Saw it as well. Its a collab between a Japanese crew and I believe a Canadian one. The plots really murky, but there. But dang it looks good. This is what Abrams should aspire to.
Quote from: Lurkndog;1126807I don't know about the movie, but the Silver John stories are great. Manly Wade Wellman does a good job of keeping them grounded, but creepy. The idea of a man-eating house-monster is ludicrous, for instance, but he makes it work.
Yes. I've read that one and he makes it a very believable threat and its fairly well thought out a trap. All the more diabolical because it just sits there waiting, looking like an old shack.
Oh and this is the guy that can make killer bunnies disturbing. If polite.
Since it's a TV series but I don't think it warrants it's own thread
The Good Place Seasons 1-3Because the final Season 4 hasn't been put up yet.
I got turned on to this series by a pastor (Paul Vanderklay on youtube) talking about philosophy. I wound up binge-watching season 1, and finishing up seasons 2-3 the week after.
Great series. It's superbly written. Very funny. I'd laugh out lout at least once per epiosde, and usually a few times.
The creator was inspired by Lost, and I'd say the twists are very Lost-ey, except so far there is actually something of substance behind the twists, and not just plot black holes.
If you're interested, I won't even spoil the series setup, because part of the fun is not knowing what's going to happen next. A woman dies and goes to "heaven". Don't spoil the show for yourself if you can help it.
Spoiler
After the big reveal of season 1, they go into this annoying cycle of having lots of drama, and then resetting the characters so they can go through it all again. It gets tiresome and while I'm still looking forward to season 4, the constant resets are not part of the reason. It feels like a soap opera where everyone gets amnesia all the time.
Occasional social justicey jokes pop up, and those fall really flat for me. I give them a quick eye roll and move on.
Reccomend.
The Platform
I made it to three minutes before getting tired of the film smacking me in the face with a sledgehammer.
Haven't watched any movies lately, but I've been watching standup on Netflix.
I'm a big fan of Jim Gaffigan, Bill Burr, Norm MacDonald, Joe Rogan, Demetri Martin, Anthony Jeselnik and John Mulaney, but among the newer / lesser known comedians, I highly recommend checking out Todd Barry, Kanan Gill, Ryan Hamilton, James Acaster and Lavell Crawford.
As for comediennes, I think Kathy Madigan has no equal, but Ilza Schlesinger does a very good job. Also, just discovered Gina Brillon whose opened for Fluffy (Gabriel Inglesias) and she's a fellow Bronx born, but she did a very fun special.
The whole Comedians in Cars is extremely hit and (mostly) miss.
Just finished watching the 1975 movie The Hindenburg, with George C Scott and many other familiar faces gaceing a really well done movie. The sets look great and from all accounts were very accurate, and the cast all plays off well. Havent had a chance to see this since it came out.
Interestingly enough the movie plays out more as an investigative mystery rather than a disaster movie. And it spends probably 90% of the movie on that and taking its time the various passengers, crew, investigators and law enforcement go about trying to solve the mystery both on board and groundside.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1128555The Platform
I made it to three minutes before getting tired of the film smacking me in the face with a sledgehammer.
*looks up movie*
Oh, THIS piece of schlock. Yeah, I saw the trailer for this and was like... 'uh huh... that's not pushing a sociopolitical view, no, of course not *snort*'
Lifeforce
Much maligned movie from the 80's. Accused of being cheesy, exploitative and schlocky. Mostly due to Mathilda May being nude for most of her scenes.
Summary: Astronauts exploring Hayley's Comet (Hayley's Comet comes up in a few movies of the time, due to it's real world passage near the earth) find a seemingly derelict spacecraft 150 miles long. They investigate and find a bunch of "dead" bat aliens and three nude humans whom they take to earth. Turns out they're space vampires who suck the life force from other beings.
I remembered this movie fondly, and recently bought it on Blu-Ray. On rewatching, I still love it, warts and all. And there's a lot of warts.
A lot of the dialog is goofy. Many important plot points happen off-screen. And the story goes off into a pointless goose (vampire) chase for the middle of the film.
I'm not going to use spoiler blocks for a 30 year old film.
But there's so many great scenes! One of the most memorable is when they're flying back to London in a helicopter, and the space vampire girl creates a body out of the blood and goo from two bodies they were transporting with them. The bodies are clearly mannequins and look terribly fake, but the blood-body is very convincing and freaky.
There's some very shitty FX, but a lot of good stuff too, especially for the time. And it's all practical, of course. None of this fake, glossy CGI crap.
I love the end where London is in flames, soul explosions everywhere, and it gives a proper creepy end of the world vibe.
One thing I noticed on rewatch is one of the last scenes is Carlsen and the space girl flying up into the alien ship as disembodied "life force", and there's a quick scene, only lasts a few seconds, where they show the crystal coffins reform full of space babies. It's at that point, 30 years later, I realized the space girl was mating with Carlsen.
Another small detail is, at home on blu-ray in high-def, you can see the vampires and their "zombie" victims have spiral contact lenses on their eyes.
So, I thoroughly reccomend this flick. I bought the Blu-Ray because it's only occasionally available on streaming services, and I especially wanted to make sure I got the Director's Cut, because the US theatrical release was butchered.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/13dLRUuiqWKOQM/giphy.gif)
Watch the crazy space vampire movie!
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1130358Lifeforce
Much maligned movie from the 80's. Accused of being cheesy, exploitative and schlocky. Mostly due to Mathilda May being nude for most of her scenes.
Summary: Astronauts exploring Hayley's Comet (Hayley's Comet comes up in a few movies of the time, due to it's real world passage near the earth) find a seemingly derelict spacecraft 150 miles long. They investigate and find a bunch of "dead" bat aliens and three nude humans whom they take to earth. Turns out they're space vampires who suck the life force from other beings.
I remembered this movie fondly, and recently bought it on Blu-Ray. On rewatching, I still love it, warts and all. And there's a lot of warts.
A lot of the dialog is goofy. Many important plot points happen off-screen. And the story goes off into a pointless goose (vampire) chase for the middle of the film.
I'm not going to use spoiler blocks for a 30 year old film.
But there's so many great scenes! One of the most memorable is when they're flying back to London in a helicopter, and the space vampire girl creates a body out of the blood and goo from two bodies they were transporting with them. The bodies are clearly mannequins and look terribly fake, but the blood-body is very convincing and freaky.
There's some very shitty FX, but a lot of good stuff too, especially for the time. And it's all practical, of course. None of this fake, glossy CGI crap.
I love the end where London is in flames, soul explosions everywhere, and it gives a proper creepy end of the world vibe.
One thing I noticed on rewatch is one of the last scenes is Carlsen and the space girl flying up into the alien ship as disembodied "life force", and there's a quick scene, only lasts a few seconds, where they show the crystal coffins reform full of space babies. It's at that point, 30 years later, I realized the space girl was mating with Carlsen.
Another small detail is, at home on blu-ray in high-def, you can see the vampires and their "zombie" victims have spiral contact lenses on their eyes.
So, I thoroughly reccomend this flick. I bought the Blu-Ray because it's only occasionally available on streaming services, and I especially wanted to make sure I got the Director's Cut, because the US theatrical release was butchered.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/13dLRUuiqWKOQM/giphy.gif)
Watch the crazy space vampire movie!
Oh yeah, I liked it, now I gotta find that fabled bluray.
Lifeforce is epic nonsense, with gloriously cheesy special effects and actors chewing the scenery. Can't forget the "I am the feminine in your mind" scene with Patrick Stewart (if it matters, major spoilers -- it's the movie's big infodump):
[video=youtube;7uOhTRONUbY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uOhTRONUbY[/youtube]
Another fun 1980s movie is The Night of the Creeps. It's not as epic, and has less cheesecake and chewing the scenery, but it has equally fun special effects, and better characters and plot.
Lifeforce is a pretty good move really. sure its all over the place. But it is interesting to follow it as it bounces around. Feels a bit like a Quatermass plot.
The effects are pretty good even now and lack the "cartoon" feel so many modern CGI overloaded movies have.
And its an interesting twist on the whole vampire theme and is relatively consistent with its mechanics.
I had the book this was based on, "Space Vampires" I believe, way back and have to say the movie is alot better.
Top Secret
I watched this ages ago, and was reminded of it via a RLM reView (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVC5n6hYTFY).
I laughed a lot. Still a great comedy. Very 80's if that's a factor for some people.
I just recently watched, or rather re-watched, Darkman. Haven't seen it in 25 years, more or less. Held up pretty good, though that's not saying much. I also re-watched Bulletproof Monk. It didn't exactly hold up, though again, that's not saying much. BM pretty much relies entirely on the charm and charisma of its actors to make up for its vapid, shallow... everything. Conversely, Darkman doesn't seem to give its actors much to do to carry the film, relying instead on its action and premise.
Of the two I think I will be revisiting Darkman in another 25 years or so, but I am actually done with Bulletproof Monk for good. Not 100% on that (unlike, say, Drop Dead Fred or Tank Girl...), but maybe 50% sure.
Quote from: Spike;1133188I just recently watched, or rather re-watched, Darkman. Haven't seen it in 25 years, more or less. Held up pretty good, though that's not saying much. I also re-watched Bulletproof Monk. It didn't exactly hold up, though again, that's not saying much. BM pretty much relies entirely on the charm and charisma of its actors to make up for its vapid, shallow... everything. Conversely, Darkman doesn't seem to give its actors much to do to carry the film, relying instead on its action and premise.
Of the two I think I will be revisiting Darkman in another 25 years or so, but I am actually done with Bulletproof Monk for good. Not 100% on that (unlike, say, Drop Dead Fred or Tank Girl...), but maybe 50% sure.
I need to rewatch Tank Girl. I remember really liking it.
Finally finished watching Don Bluth's An American Tail. Yeesh the movie pulls no punches and poor Fivel gets put through multiple wringers. On the other hand Fivel pretty much puts himself into said wringers a several times. Sometimes by just being a trusting little kid. And others by poking into things he really ought not to.
Haven't made it through the sequel yet. Hard to believe this is Jimmy Stewart's last movie.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1133212I need to rewatch Tank Girl. I remember really liking it.
I cannot condone this course of action...
No, I really liked Tank Girl when it came out, and was shocked to find that I was very much in the minority. Then I re-watched it a few years back. It was... not pleasant, though the Kangaroos still hold up in a 'so bad they are good' sort of way, but that's just about the only part that does.
Quote from: Spike;1133249I cannot condone this course of action...
No, I really liked Tank Girl when it came out, and was shocked to find that I was very much in the minority. Then I re-watched it a few years back. It was... not pleasant, though the Kangaroos still hold up in a 'so bad they are good' sort of way, but that's just about the only part that does.
What's so terrible?
Quote from: Pat;1133269What's so terrible?
Take your pick: Tone, Acting, Plot, Story, weird musical number in the middle of the film, half-ass comic book panel filler...
I mean, I suppose I could be persuaded to do one of my super-massive reviews of a 25 year old film, but really who would even want that, other than sadists who know I'd have to watch it again...
Quote from: Spike;1133293Take your pick: Tone, Acting, Plot, Story, weird musical number in the middle of the film, half-ass comic book panel filler...
I'll have to watch it again. I have positive memories of that film.
Quote from: Pat;1133304I'll have to watch it again. I have positive memories of that film.
So did I. Until I watched it again after a decade plus away from it. Lori Petty's snarking did not age well, and Malcolm McDowell's scenery chewing isn't as good as you remember either.
I rewatched Tank girl not that long ago.
It is kinda cringe I suppose. It's very typical of the "hip 90s" quirky type style at the time.
But once I got past the cringe feeling, it was ok.
It's true it doesn't bear any sort of scrutiny plot, acting, effects etc, but if you look past that, it was a fun watch.
Saw it when it came out. Didnt think much of it. Its a nonsense show. But doesnt take advantage of that enough.
I had forgotten to recommend SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK. Or maybe I did. Who knows anymore.
For PG-13, it was surprisingly intense with some genuine scary parts. The wrap around storyline was pretty good and even the "politically correct" elements didn't break the movie. Compared to recent horror movies, I'd say it was on par with IT part 1, and far superior to IT part crapholio.
I could see this movie getting a cult following in the future.
THIS was one extremely messed up monster...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4577[/ATTACH]
I recently watched this movie Blue is the warmest color. its a great movie about a girl discovering his sexuality but thats all i think ! abit over-rated but still a very beautiful movie to watch. and i know its not a movie but its an honorable mention to name "the office" (comedy) . i recently discovered the office and i must say WOW. just that ! the office is definitely worth watching.:)
Quote from: Spinachcat;1134799I had forgotten to recommend SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK. Or maybe I did. Who knows anymore.
For PG-13, it was surprisingly intense with some genuine scary parts. The wrap around storyline was pretty good and even the "politically correct" elements didn't break the movie. Compared to recent horror movies, I'd say it was on par with IT part 1, and far superior to IT part crapholio.
I could see this movie getting a cult following in the future.
THIS was one extremely messed up monster...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4577[/ATTACH]
Wasn't this a collection of short stories at one point? The monster looks familiar.
So I watched the Netflix movie of
The Old Guard with my wife today, and she enjoyed it more than I did.
Pluses: Charlize Theron and Chiwetel Ejiofor are never not watchable, and the main villain character is a not unentertaining turn by actor Harry Melling, whom everyone knows as Dudley Dursley from the Harry Potter movies. Newcomer Kiki Layne is not bad, if a little lightweight, and those who like action choreography for its own sake will find much good work here. And the theme of the movie -- that people do more good than they know -- is uplifting, if a touch clumsily executed.
Minuses: Several, unfortunately.
First: If the primary plot point of your protagonists is that they're immortal to all normal threats, then you have to come up with
something that threatens them in
some way for the story to engage us. Immortals fighting mortals is boring by definition because you know your heroes can't possibly lose, which is exactly why
Highlander was exciting where
Guard's fights are just dull (unless you're a fight-choreography junkie). If your heroes can't be personally hurt, then threaten something they care enough about that that's worse, which would have been easier had these characters been given enough personality to have such people or things in their life.
Second: If the villain doesn't start out with a personal connection to the heroes, he'd better acquire one damn quick to make the story interesting. Melling does the best he can with his villain role but his problem is that he really doesn't care anything about who our immortal crew are, or have anything personal against them beyond their natural reluctance to be his guinea pigs for reverse-engineering immortality. As a result the fights are basically exercises in choreography and nothing more.
Third: If the audience can think of a simple and more effective tactic against the heroes than any the villain uses, requiring only what the villain already knows, then the villain is a dull villain. If your immortals can cut down entire squadrons with their blades while ignoring firearms, then
do not get near them -- stay out of range, use tear gas, Tasers and tranq darts.
Fourth: The great thing about the immortals of
Highlander was that, even though we never knew where they truly came from or why they had to fight for the Prize (I am ignoring HIGHLANDER II here, but doesn't everyone?), the simple fact that there
was a Prize and a fight they couldn't escape put a forward motion on all their life-arcs, no matter what else they did. The immortals of
Old Guard don't seem to have
any reason for their existence, and no reason for the only possible way they appear to be able to die:
Spoiler
One day, with no warning or predictability, their immortality simply "runs out" and they start aging again and will die if lethally wounded like anyone else. (I asked my wife, "Doesn't decapitation work? What happens then, does the head grow a new body or the body grow a new head?")
Also, the immortals we see on screen are, with one or two exceptions, all there ever are or have been; the story deliberately cuts off any hint of a larger, mysterious world.
Fifth: I loathe the SJ advocacy movement with a passion for putting these thought patterns in my brain, but they're there now, and I cannot help notice: Of our five immortals, the one who turns out to be a traitor to the group is, predictably, the lone straight white guy of the bunch, and the gay couple who've been lovers for a thousand years also happen to have been on opposite sides in the Crusades. My good faith that such choices
aren't a not-so-subtle "eff you" to certain viewers has, sadly, declined in recent years.
Final score: 1.5/5 solely on visual style and good acting jobs from Charlize and Chiwetel. If you really want a good story about immortals go back and watch your
Highlander DVD.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1139056Final score: 1.5/5 solely on visual style and good acting jobs from Charlize and Chiwetel. If you really want a good story about immortals go back and watch your Highlander DVD.
Yeah. There's
so much stuff to sift through on Netflix. When I browsed and saw this title's summary, I was like, "Eh, I'll just re-watch Highlander."
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1139056Fifth: I loathe the SJ advocacy movement with a passion for putting these thought patterns in my brain, but they're there now, and I cannot help notice: Of our five immortals, the one who turns out to be a traitor to the group is, predictably, the lone straight white guy of the bunch, and the gay couple who've been lovers for a thousand years also happen to have been on opposite sides in the Crusades. My good faith that such choices aren't a not-so-subtle "eff you" to certain viewers has, sadly, declined in recent years.
.
This point right here is pretty much why I've all but stopped watching... everything. Well, everything American, anyway... though its not like I'm an expert on finding new and exciting korean films (Not, you know, that I've seen a bad one), or what not.
Though I will admit to breaking down and, though this is the movie thread, I'll cheat and bring up TV, I just watched season one of Lucifer. I'll probably watch season two, at least. Its not... good exactly... but I like how it almost hints at an actually thought out metaphysics, and... unlike a lot of religious themed stuff out of hollywood actually seems to treat the subject with a modicum of respect. I dunno, I get weird when it comes to religion in writing: There is a fine line between juvenile mockery and pedantic literalism where really good storytelling and though provoking ideas can exist and I feel Lucifer actually threaded that needle.
I mean as much as I enjoyed Legion (just to name an example), its utter lack of respect for the mythology it was treading on made it also far more painfully stupid than it needed to be, which is why I never really want to rewatch it. Ruined any deeper meaning the conflict between... was it Michael and Gabriel?... over how to best obey God that the movie wanted to have.
Back to Lucifer though: Weirdly enough, Its not the main two characters (Lucifer, who is by turns charming and annoyingly overdone, and Chloe Decker, the mortal woman who (Spoiler!) love will redeem him (or whatever...) that make the show work. Its the psychiatrist. The devil's therapist. That shit's a riot.
Quote from: Spike;1139463I will admit to breaking down ... I just watched season one of Lucifer. I'll probably watch season two, at least. Its not... good exactly... but I like how it almost hints at an actually thought out metaphysics, and... unlike a lot of religious themed stuff out of hollywood actually seems to treat the subject with a modicum of respect. I dunno, I get weird when it comes to religion in writing: There is a fine line between juvenile mockery and pedantic literalism where really good storytelling and though provoking ideas can exist and I feel Lucifer actually threaded that needle.
Well, as a practicing (though very far from perfect) Roman Catholic I have to admit that when it comes to religion, I prefer erring towards pedantic literalism (or what I call, y'know, "getting it right"). So I unsurprisingly don't have the same good opinion of the show's philosophy. In my experience the only reason anybody starts a story with the idea of, "What if the Devil wasn't really evil?" is so that they can immediately play with the logical follow-up idea, "And what if that meant God wasn't really good or perfect, either?" as a way to delegitimize any particular plank the writers dislike in traditional religion.
That said, I agree with you that it's the supporting characters that make the show watchable despite itself -- my wife quite enjoyed the first three seasons and thus I found myself seeing more of it than I would have chosen on my own hook -- and that Rachael Harris's therapist character is a hoot. (I must admit to really disliking Mazikeen, though; I acknowledge not being familiar with all her arcs, so this is possibly an unfair evaluation, but she sticks in my mind mostly in the two modes of "smug bitch" or "abusive bitch", and I've never liked either type.)
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1139525Well, as a practicing (though very far from perfect) Roman Catholic I have to admit that when it comes to religion, I prefer erring towards pedantic literalism (or what I call, y'know, "getting it right"). So I unsurprisingly don't have the same good opinion of the show's philosophy. In my experience the only reason anybody starts a story with the idea of, "What if the Devil wasn't really evil?" is so that they can immediately play with the logical follow-up idea, "And what if that meant God wasn't really good or perfect, either?" as a way to delegitimize any particular plank the writers dislike in traditional religion.
Well, I come at it from a generally atheistic-strongly agnostic perspective, I accept the unknowable as unknowable and I am deeply cynical that any organization run by men (or women, if you need that pedantic clarification) that proclaims to know the absolute truth is inherently flawed and corrupt, or at least will become corrupt VERY quickly. Personally, I find there are plenty of hints in the old testament that 'The Devil' is more a job than the traditional stories of The Fall would indicate. I prefer my fictional depictions of God to remain more unknowable for just the reason you state. I'm reminded of the Clips on Youtube I've seen from Supernatural when Chuck reveals himself to be God... I found the Winchesters reactions to be very well handled, all told, but the depiction of God (as Chuck) to be so far from the mark that I was glad I had stopped watching the show many many seasons earlier.
QuoteThat said, I agree with you that it's the supporting characters that make the show watchable despite itself -- my wife quite enjoyed the first three seasons and thus I found myself seeing more of it than I would have chosen on my own hook -- and that Rachael Harris's therapist character is a hoot. (I must admit to really disliking Mazikeen, though; I acknowledge not being familiar with all her arcs, so this is possibly an unfair evaluation, but she sticks in my mind mostly in the two modes of "smug bitch" or "abusive bitch", and I've never liked either type.)
At least in Season 1 Mazikeen has nothing to do but be generally a bitch, which I suppose is a flaw in having an otherwise excellent supporting cast... someone gets the shaft. I thought her character arc was doing well, with her relationship with... amendola?... until she said something dumb about being used as a pawn by 'both of them'... utterly missing the fact that she OFFERED to be a pawn to Lucifer a whole... two episodes... earlier? AFTER she'd seduced the angel. Then there was the wasted opportunity of her having stolen one of Lucifer's feathers in secret...
So yeah, I agree that Mazikeen isn't really a likeable character, beyond a few fun moments (mostly, again, with the therapist).
I will say that I am curious about your take on the Father Frank episode, as a Roman Catholic. I found it to be one of the highlights of the season, and a reason to 'trust' these writers not to be too... blasphemous?... with the show's premise. Better to say that they seem to be as respectful as their premise allows, I suppose.
Quote from: Spike;1139603Personally, I find there are plenty of hints in the old testament that 'The Devil' is more a job than the traditional stories of The Fall would indicate.
Granted; the word "satan" was after all a term for an adversary rather than a name per se. Nonetheless, much like your own (and not unmerited) cynicism about human organizations whose people get more concerned with being right -- or worse, looking right -- rather than teaching by example what
is right, I admit to the same cynicism about any storyteller who wants to "subvert traditional imagery of good and evil"; I've never seen that fail to end up anywhere except calling good evil and evil good, to which the Bible promises only woe.
QuoteI am curious about your take on the Father Frank episode, as a Roman Catholic. I found it to be one of the highlights of the season, and a reason to 'trust' these writers not to be too... blasphemous?... with the show's premise. Better to say that they seem to be as respectful as their premise allows, I suppose.
I actually enjoyed the Father Frank episode immensely. But that only made it all the more disappointing when they failed to follow up on any of its implications.
If I'd been running that show, I would have had Father Frank come back as a saint, and had a lot of fun with the conflicts between him and Amenadiel about their different approaches to facing evil despite being nominally on the same "side".
Watched the Riverworld movie. Oddly enough for a SyFy movie its not bad really. But then I know only the basics of the book. Production values were actually not bad. Acting was not bad overall. My main irk is it feels like alot of the draw of the book is missing from the movie. That and for some reason the main protagonist of the book is in the movie the villain? I really hate that. Same when they did that with John Carter.
Speaking of John Carter. Finally had a look at Asylum's John Carter of Mars movie. You know things are bad when a low budget tag-along movie is somehow vaugly closer to the source than the big budget version. Both though take various liberties with the story and characters.
Quote from: Omega;1139679Watched the Riverworld movie. Oddly enough for a SyFy movie its not bad really. But then I know only the basics of the book. Production values were actually not bad. Acting was not bad overall. My main irk is it feels like alot of the draw of the book is missing from the movie. That and for some reason the main protagonist of the book is in the movie the villain? I really hate that. Same when they did that with John Carter.
Speaking of John Carter. Finally had a look at Asylum's John Carter of Mars movie. You know things are bad when a low budget tag-along movie is somehow vaugly closer to the source than the big budget version. Both though take various liberties with the story and characters.
The Asylum mockbuster of Battleship is supposedly better done than the original film. I cannot offer direct testimony as I've seen neither film.
Quote from: Ghostmaker;1141059The Asylum mockbuster of Battleship is supposedly better done than the original film. I cannot offer direct testimony as I've seen neither film.
I liked Battleship. It's like a Michael Bay film (it's obviously made to copy his 'style') but about half as obnoxious.
Can't comment on the Asylum version.
I've seen American Warships and its... ok. Better than some Asylum movies. Same for their Giant robot movie. Its still an Asylum movies though so set your bar low before going in.
Quote from: Omega;1141782I've seen American Warships and its... ok. Better than some Asylum movies. Same for their Giant robot movie. Its still an Asylum movies though so set your bar low before going in.
I often have Asylum movies or something like them playing in the background when I'm doing prep work for my games (or completing payroll audits). They have some vaguely interesting moments, but rarely anything that keeps me so interested that they distract me from what I'm really working on.
Transformers, War for Cybertron
Since the TV thread slid off the front page, and I can't find it.
I'm up to episode 2, and have a few opinions.
It's... not baaaad. I'm not going to say it's great. The CGI is ok, the animation is odd. A lot of watching robots sashay around swinging their hips conspicuously. Weird thing to notice, but I did.
Dialog and writing is very, very bland. Characters all sound pretty much the same. It's a very down, mopey version of Transformers that takes itself a little too seriously for my tastes.
Set during the end of the Great War, the Transformers are sick of fighting, but don't want to surrender or give up. Optimus is trying to keep his battle weary forces together, while Megatron initiates a plan concocted by his science officer, Shockwave to do a dirty and end the war through a fitting evil scheme.
I like the nuance, of course. Just because it's a kid's IP, doesn't mean they can't tell interesting stories. The music and sound effects are very bland.
I plan to finish the first season over the next few days. I'm watching one a day. But like most Transformer-centric stories, I think it appeals mostly to the die hard fans. Casuals who want to drop in and see what it's all about are likely to be put off by depressing CGI robots bitching about how sucky their robot lives have become.
The transformers in this one look very much like the toys, excepting a few (like Ratchet, Jetfire and Bumblebee that all look like the old cartoon).
Speaking of Transformers
About 2 decades ago at GenCon I picked up some fan translated VHS tapes of the first couple of episodes for Beast Wars II and Beast Wars Neo. Two transformers anime that far as I know still havent made it to the US.
Beast Wars II is interesting in it follows a set of warriors from a different group who are dealing with a new batch of villains with machine theme vs the heroes with the beast theme. LEad by Leo Convoy on one side and Galvatron and his brother Megatron on the other. Good animation and lots of different stuff going on each episode. Not sure who the two moon goddesses are. Certainly better than the awful Beast Machines.
Beast Wars Neo is an odd one. Really odd. Follows a bunch of students who get a new leader Big Convoy and travel from planet to planet searching for errant energy capsules and opposing a bunch of dinosaur themed villains. This one seems aimed at a slightly younger audience. Good animation and at least the stories are varied.
man transformers was nice, they just had to stop like few movies before !!!!
they kept it going for too long
Well, I made it to episode 2 of the Netflix Cybertron series and lost interest. That should tell you something.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1145115Well, I made it to episode 2 of the Netflix Cybertron series and lost interest. That should tell you something.
Without more explanation, it doesn't really tell us much.
Quote from: anime_qui;1145093man transformers was nice, they just had to stop like few movies before !!!!
they kept it going for too long
They needed to stop at no movies. Hated the first one, didnt like the second one, and was pretty meh on the third one. They are all so damn lacking in individuality now its hard to tell whos who, especially in a fight.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1145115Well, I made it to episode 2 of the Netflix Cybertron series and lost interest. That should tell you something.
Which one? I think theres like two or 3 now?
Quote from: Omega;1145204Which one? I think theres like two or 3 now?
The one I previously posted about. War For Cybertron, Siege.
Quote from: Omega;1145203They needed to stop at no movies. Hated the first one, didnt like the second one, and was pretty meh on the third one. They are all so damn lacking in individuality now its hard to tell whos who, especially in a fight.
I saw glimmers of a decent movie in the first Bay Transformers. The sequels were dumpster fires and turned the stupid up to 11.
I consider Bumblebee to be the best of the live action films so far.
Bill and Ted Face the Music
Eh. It was funny and entertaining. Not as good as the first two, but not a disaster like so many nostalgia cash ins.
Reccomend.
*Edit* In hindsight and listening to Midnight's Edge review, I agree that this was a good passing the torch film, because they didn't have to piss on Bill & Ted to make the daughters look good in comparison.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1145274I saw glimmers of a decent movie in the first Bay Transformers. The sequels were dumpster fires and turned the stupid up to 11.
I consider Bumblebee to be the best of the live action films so far.
I liked the first one, the second and third ones ruined pretty much everything I liked about the first one, and the rest were barely worth renting as dumb action flicks.
I did like Bumblebee. I knew I was being pandered to with the manic pixie dreamgirl mechanic, but I liked it anyway. Hopefully the sequel won't suck.
New Mutants is pretty fucking terrible. There's perhaps 5 minutes of amusing material buried in 90 minutes of shit. I can't even recommend this one as an on-demand what-the-hell-it's-only-six-bucks option. Just say no.
This is about as close to the comics as Power Pack was. EG: Not even remotely. And it just feels so utterly off kilter. But we knew this from the trailers well ahead.
There was a Power Pack movie?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1146848Bill and Ted Face the Music
Eh. It was funny and entertaining. Not as good as the first two, but not a disaster like so many nostalgia cash ins.
Reccomend.
*Edit* In hindsight and listening to Midnight's Edge review, I agree that this was a good passing the torch film, because they didn't have to piss on Bill & Ted to make the daughters look good in comparison.
All I gotta say is that Keanu Reeves looks -very- strange without his mustache and beard. Although Alex Winter has aged pretty well all things considered.
Quote from: Pat;1146978There was a Power Pack movie?
TV series pilot that never got past a limited showing. One of my players way back knew some of the production crew. That and the New Mutants pilot. But that one at least followed the comics a little more. Ive seen both.
Im pretty sure there was one more from Marvels tries at superhero TV series in the 90s.
addendum: Ohh yeah! Nick Fury with David Hasselhoff as a pretty darn good Fury actually.
Also didnt know Marvel was behind the Nightman TV series? Thought that was Malibu's gig?
Cuties
Nothing like a big controversy to get me interested. So I went ahead and watched it. I rather liked it. Despite all the people flipping their caps on social media over pedo bait, this is not that kind of film. It's not even anti-child sexualization (though that it a part of the film) so much as about children growing up and trying to find acceptance in an adult world, and doing it very poorly as you'd expect of a child.
To sum up, a young girl, Amy is upset, I would go so far as to say traumatized, by her father bringing another woman into their family. IE polygamy. She rebels in various ways, by stealing from her mother, getting in fights, and yes, doing some rather inappropriate sexualized behavior. It's a biting criticism of tradition and Islam in specific and how that impacts a young girl who can't process it all.
Quote from: Omega on August 31, 2020, 10:35:41 AM
addendum: Ohh yeah! Nick Fury with David Hasselhoff as a pretty darn good Fury actually.
He looked the part, but that was the only good thing about the production.
Those Marvel TV movies were an in-depth study in missing the mark.
More like trying to do comics as more "real world" well before the Nolan Batman movies. Which ends up feeling very lacking. That and trying to keep the SFX budgets down.
Same reason so many of these live action adaptions of say cartoon and game characters keep failing as near invariably they are set in the real world or so close that they lose huge chunks of what makes them interesting. The new Sonic movie is just one in a long long depressingly long line if these and its just as lacking.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 12, 2020, 06:31:50 AM
Cuties
Nothing like a big controversy to get me interested. So I went ahead and watched it. I rather liked it. Despite all the people flipping their caps on social media over pedo bait, this is not that kind of film. It's not even anti-child sexualization (though that it a part of the film) so much as about children growing up and trying to find acceptance in an adult world, and doing it very poorly as you'd expect of a child.
To sum up, a young girl, Amy is upset, I would go so far as to say traumatized, by her father bringing another woman into their family. IE polygamy. She rebels in various ways, by stealing from her mother, getting in fights, and yes, doing some rather inappropriate sexualized behavior. It's a biting criticism of tradition and Islam in specific and how that impacts a young girl who can't process it all.
Counterpoint:
https://www.menofthewest.net/cuties-boiling-the-cultural-frog/
Quote from: RandyB on September 14, 2020, 02:33:21 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 12, 2020, 06:31:50 AM
Cuties
Nothing like a big controversy to get me interested. So I went ahead and watched it. I rather liked it. Despite all the people flipping their caps on social media over pedo bait, this is not that kind of film. It's not even anti-child sexualization (though that it a part of the film) so much as about children growing up and trying to find acceptance in an adult world, and doing it very poorly as you'd expect of a child.
To sum up, a young girl, Amy is upset, I would go so far as to say traumatized, by her father bringing another woman into their family. IE polygamy. She rebels in various ways, by stealing from her mother, getting in fights, and yes, doing some rather inappropriate sexualized behavior. It's a biting criticism of tradition and Islam in specific and how that impacts a young girl who can't process it all.
Counterpoint:
https://www.menofthewest.net/cuties-boiling-the-cultural-frog/ (https://www.menofthewest.net/cuties-boiling-the-cultural-frog/)
I unwisely spent the weekend arguing on twitter over the film. I disagree with the article and I'll leave it at that, because the argument just goes in circles at this point.
Quote from: Omega on August 31, 2020, 10:35:41 AM
Quote from: Pat;1146978There was a Power Pack movie?
TV series pilot that never got past a limited showing. One of my players way back knew some of the production crew. That and the New Mutants pilot. But that one at least followed the comics a little more. Ive seen both.
Huh! Thanks for the info, I hadn't known about this. I just watched the pilot with my son. It was cheesy with terrible effects, but it captured a lot of the original comics that he loved when he was young, so it was fun to watch. It got the kids spot on, I thought - good casting.
While net was down recently sat down and watched a Russian movie called Koma that was recently translated and released subbed and dubbed. I went with the subbed version.
The movie is about an architect, well either that or a player who realllllly likes Star Frontiers too much and built a while diorama city in his apartment... heh. Said architect was recently in a car accident. Then the cracks start to show, quite literally, that he is essentially still in the accident. He is in a coma in a hospital somewhere and his mind is in some sort of shared universe composed of the memories of everyone whos ever been in a coma. Its a truely weird alien geometry.
The architect is helped by some fellow coma patients and very quickly learns that this mindscape is not safe as there are things dwelling in it that hunt the patients relentlessly.
From there the rules of this otherworld are learned. Some of the inhabitants have a power of some sort, such as healing, sensing the monsters, mapping the network of connections between memory nodes, and so on.
The movie is well made and looks great. The mindscape is really well done and the monsters are unusual (though could have been a bit more alien looking. But there is a reason they are not.) The story itself goes in some interesting and unexpected twists and turns even. Its not great of course, but its fairly entertaining and a fun concept that does not get used much.
Feels a bit like what you'd get if you mixed The Odyssey TV series from the 90s with The Matrix and a touch of White Wolf's Orpheus.
Since we have almost nothing to do but to sit at home, i recently watched the whole harry potter movie collection. man i though im not gonna like it because i watched them when i was a kid but to be honest some of them are good !
this is funny funny timing as just came across an old kids movie from the 80s called... The Worst Witch. based on the YA series from the 70s by Jill Murphy.
Any of this sound familliar?
A young student at a witches boarding school. She is a bit accident prone and picked on by the other students except for 2 friends who help or hinder her efforts. She has a snobbish upperclass rival and one of the teachers has it in for her while the head of the academy tries to help her.
The movie has Faruza Balk as Mildred, yep, Dorothy from Return to Oz. (and Mercedes in GTA Vice City), Diana Rigg from the Avengers as Mrs Hardbroom, and... Tim Curry? Yep, Tim Curry, singing...Some of the visuals arent bad for an 80s movie and of course Diana Rigg allways looks good in black. ahem.
Double-bill this with Babes in Toyland featuring Drew Barrymore and... Keanu Reeves? yup, Keanu.
The 80s was a weird era mm-hmm.
Recently made it to theaters to watch Tenet and Infidel. Both pretty good. I have Caviezel's son in a college class this semester... I had some nice chats about the movie and other acting topics with him.
Movie related:
https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/texas-grand-jury-indicts-netflix-over-cuties-movie-claiming-it-sexually-exploits-minors (https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/texas-grand-jury-indicts-netflix-over-cuties-movie-claiming-it-sexually-exploits-minors)
TLDR: Texas grand jury just indicted Netflix over 'Cuties'.
Hard to say if this will stick or not.
Watched Bride of Frankenstein last night for the first time in ages. Forgot how fun it was as a horror movie. I always remembered the tragic end, but forgot about things like the ballerina homunculi. Definitely enjoy this one more than the first Frankenstein film (though that is good too). Classic horror movies often have a bit more fun and humor in them, and it was refreshing to see that on display. Hoping to watch some of my favorites this month if I have time.
Check out the two "House of" movies as well as they are actually pretty good. John Carridine makes for a rather dapper Dracula and Lon Chaney Jr reprises his role as the Wolf Man in House of Frankenstein with Boris Karloff as the mad scientist. And House of Dracula has some interesting twists and turns in it. Carridine and Chaney return and Glenn Strange plays the Monster in both. House Of Dracula was one of Lionel Atwills last movies. Jane Adams who plays the Hunchback in House of Dracula also played Vicky Vale in the two Batman serials.
Quote from: Omega on October 09, 2020, 07:58:42 AM
Check out the two "House of" movies as well as they are actually pretty good. John Carridine makes for a rather dapper Dracula and Lon Chaney Jr reprises his role as the Wolf Man in House of Frankenstein with Boris Karloff as the mad scientist. And House of Dracula has some interesting twists and turns in it. Carridine and Chaney return and Glenn Strange plays the Monster in both. House Of Dracula was one of Lionel Atwills last movies. Jane Adams who plays the Hunchback in House of Dracula also played Vicky Vale in the two Batman serials.
That is a good idea. I have not watched those since I was a kid
Saw "The Call Up" since it was officially on YouTube for free.
In what appears to be a very near future setting MMO players are invited to play in a new game called The Call Up in a large rented office building.
The players wear a bodysuit armour and helmet that puts them into a high end VR experience. Things start to look odd pretty quick when they discover they can not leave. And things only get worse from there as they play a VR military sim. As you can likely guess. It turns out to be a deadly game.
This one was 50-50 for me. I liked the sets and characters and the initial premise was good.
But...
The execution of the plot got progressively un-likable and at points a bit too predictable. What was not predictable was the bewilderingly arbitrary way many die in this.
Can I recommend it? Not sure really. Its a bit too YMMV. But hey its free for now.
Social Dilemma was a very interesting piece to watch. Nothing was shown that I wouldn't be aware of already but still, well-made and builds a very negative feeling about this whole deal of social media
Mosul on Netflix is pretty damn good.
It is about the Ninevah SWAT team fighting against ISIS. Violent. Intense. Something a little different that isn't from the American perspective.
If you like modern war movies, don't miss it.
I watched The Rise of Skywalker. It's not brilliant and doesn't break any new ground, but it's much better than I expected. The trappings were great, and the emotional beats were solid. The plot was a bit of rushed nonsense, but it held together enough. The climax wasn't that great, but the denouement and the wrapping up of the various plot and character threads were better. They powered up Ren too much, but, to be fair, that did that to the other force users as well (it wasn't her uberpower during the finale). The nostalgia got a little heavy for my taste, but it was integrated fairly well. The dialog was functional at presenting information and reinforcing characterization, but not a single line rises to the level of poetry. The acting was sufficient. It's not memorable, but it is watchable.
Quote from: Pat on December 13, 2020, 05:57:22 AM
I watched The Rise of Skywalker. It's not brilliant and doesn't break any new ground, but it's much better than I expected. The trappings were great, and the emotional beats were solid. The plot was a bit of rushed nonsense, but it held together enough. The climax wasn't that great, but the denouement and the wrapping up of the various plot and character threads were better. They powered up Ren too much, but, to be fair, that did that to the other force users as well (it wasn't her uberpower during the finale). The nostalgia got a little heavy for my taste, but it was integrated fairly well. The dialog was functional at presenting information and reinforcing characterization, but not a single line rises to the level of poetry. The acting was sufficient. It's not memorable, but it is watchable.
I'm going to indulge myself just a little here.
Rise of Skywalker is going to be the first Star Wars film that I never plan to watch, even on streaming to have an informed criticism like Last Jedi. I was never fond of the sequels, and TLJ killed my interest in them. Your mini-review makes me think I'm making the right decision, if the best I could hope for is "watchable".
I did enjoy the Underworld saga, just haven't seen the newest one
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 13, 2020, 07:25:53 AM
I'm going to indulge myself just a little here.
Rise of Skywalker is going to be the first Star Wars film that I never plan to watch, even on streaming to have an informed criticism like Last Jedi. I was never fond of the sequels, and TLJ killed my interest in them. Your mini-review makes me think I'm making the right decision, if the best I could hope for is "watchable".
If it matters, Rise of Skywalker in many ways is a repudiation of The Last Jedi.
Quote from: Pat on December 14, 2020, 03:38:03 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 13, 2020, 07:25:53 AM
I'm going to indulge myself just a little here.
Rise of Skywalker is going to be the first Star Wars film that I never plan to watch, even on streaming to have an informed criticism like Last Jedi. I was never fond of the sequels, and TLJ killed my interest in them. Your mini-review makes me think I'm making the right decision, if the best I could hope for is "watchable".
If it matters, Rise of Skywalker in many ways is a repudiation of The Last Jedi.
Yeah, I've seen the Red Letter Media review for RoS. That's kind of amusing. But it sounds like they took everything I disliked from Force Awakens and dialed it up to 11.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 14, 2020, 04:54:29 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 14, 2020, 03:38:03 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 13, 2020, 07:25:53 AM
I'm going to indulge myself just a little here.
Rise of Skywalker is going to be the first Star Wars film that I never plan to watch, even on streaming to have an informed criticism like Last Jedi. I was never fond of the sequels, and TLJ killed my interest in them. Your mini-review makes me think I'm making the right decision, if the best I could hope for is "watchable".
If it matters, Rise of Skywalker in many ways is a repudiation of The Last Jedi.
Yeah, I've seen the Red Letter Media review for RoS. That's kind of amusing. But it sounds like they took everything I disliked from Force Awakens and dialed it up to 11.
That's the Half in the Bag review? It's pretty good. But yes, The Rise of Skywalker is definitely more akin to The Force Awakens.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 14, 2020, 04:54:29 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 14, 2020, 03:38:03 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 13, 2020, 07:25:53 AM
I'm going to indulge myself just a little here.
Rise of Skywalker is going to be the first Star Wars film that I never plan to watch, even on streaming to have an informed criticism like Last Jedi. I was never fond of the sequels, and TLJ killed my interest in them. Your mini-review makes me think I'm making the right decision, if the best I could hope for is "watchable".
If it matters, Rise of Skywalker in many ways is a repudiation of The Last Jedi.
Yeah, I've seen the Red Letter Media review for RoS. That's kind of amusing. But it sounds like they took everything I disliked from Force Awakens and dialed it up to 11.
They dialed it even higher, but the gauge wouldn't read past 11. There are some good visuals (not great for Star Wars, it's like they tried too hard and ended up overshooting being great), but the story and characters (but not necessarily the actors) are crap.
Johnny MnemonicCyberpunk Red got me thinking about this film, so I had to give it a re-watch.
I like Johnny Mnemonic. It's got it's problems. Oh boy, does it. I noticed that it's shot like a TV show. The story elements don't quite all mesh together. There's some dated CGI in the hacking scenes.
But for all that I think Johnny Mnemonic is the most cyberpunk film I've watched. The Matrix (for example) is a better film, but Johnny Mnemonic has more of the iconic cyberpunk RPG elements. The Yakuza, a powerful corporation, a "free city" where the law seems completely absent, cybernetics, street revolutions, a fixer in a bar hooking up people with jobs, plenty of double crosses and so on.
So watch it! Or re-watch it.
Just saw the Rocketeer a few days ago, and I was expecting very little, but was positively surprised. I think it's a bit of an overlooked pulp gem. A few points:
-I wonder if many reviewers didn't get the humor. It's full of it, and often self-deprecating humor (contra Ebert's review of the film).
-Many also didn't notice how much effort they put into the set designs. The zeppelin is actually quite accurate.
-Jennifer Connelly is young, a bit more "fleshy" than in recent years, and absolutely gorgeous.
Pretty nice inspiration for pulp adventures with fairly straightforward plots :)
Quote from: Trond on December 18, 2020, 11:15:13 PM
Just saw the Rocketeer a few days ago, and I was expecting very little, but was positively surprised. I think it's a bit of an overlooked pulp gem. A few points:
-I wonder if many reviewers didn't get the humor. It's full of it, and often self-deprecating humor (contra Ebert's review of the film).
-Many also didn't notice how much effort they put into the set designs. The zeppelin is actually quite accurate.
-Jennifer Connelly is young, a bit more "fleshy" than in recent years, and absolutely gorgeous.
Pretty nice inspiration for pulp adventures with fairly straightforward plots :)
Good call. One of my favorites.
Quote from: Pat on December 14, 2020, 03:38:03 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 13, 2020, 07:25:53 AM
I'm going to indulge myself just a little here.
Rise of Skywalker is going to be the first Star Wars film that I never plan to watch, even on streaming to have an informed criticism like Last Jedi. I was never fond of the sequels, and TLJ killed my interest in them. Your mini-review makes me think I'm making the right decision, if the best I could hope for is "watchable".
If it matters, Rise of Skywalker in many ways is a repudiation of The Last Jedi.
I'd rather watch The Star Wars Holiday Special on LOOP than see that shite again! (Man, TLJ must've really got to you to see RoS as anything as watchable! I broke an axel on some of those PLOTHOLES!)
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 18, 2020, 06:49:32 AM
Johnny Mnemonic
Cyberpunk Red got me thinking about this film, so I had to give it a re-watch.
I like Johnny Mnemonic. It's got it's problems. Oh boy, does it. I noticed that it's shot like a TV show. The story elements don't quite all mesh together. There's some dated CGI in the hacking scenes.
--snipp--
Yep. I went to the movies to see this - I liked it, even if it seemed a bit, underwhelming at times. A good romp!
I always liked the Rocketeer, btw! :) Good call on that one!
--------------------------
I got one:
Repo Man (1984) Trailer: https://youtu.be/DLGrXGEMOSo (doesn't do the film justice tho...)
Stars Harry Dean Stanton and Emilio Estevez, and is my favorite 80's film (seeing that I was a punk back in the 80s!) -
A quick synopsis:
A loser punk meets up with an automobile repossessing agency and learns the TRUE meaning of EXTREME! Along the way he runs afoul of:
1) A Government conspiracy
2) Aliens
3) UFOlogists
4) Aging Hippies
5) Southern California Punk Rock
6) Television Evangelists
and finally 7) The creator of the Neutron Bomb and his car which everyone wants.
I'd like to say it's a heartwarming buddy-film, but FUCK NO! A romance? Only if quickies and BJs count!
But it does have style and was written and directed by Punks who knew the scene!
Excellent example of 80's Nihilism, Music, and Originality!
Wonder Woman 1984
Spoiler space. Turn back now, ye mortals who have not watched.
I really wanted to like this movie. When it worked, it worked really well, When it didn't it stunk.
The first Wonder Woman was great up until the CGI garbage battle where WW won with the power of shooting the bad guy in the face with a laser beam.
This movie was like that, except sprinkled through the film. A great action sequence like the chase in Egypt broken up by some terrible nonsense action. A dramatic scene would end with CGI WW flinging herself into the sky with her magic lasso.
Wonder Woman can make things invisible, but only when it's important to the plot.
And I can't shake that they tried to make Maxwell Lord into a petty revenge porn version of Trump. I'm sure Trump haters will be jerking off to that shit.
I did like that they managed to resolve the story without blowing up the bad guy with a laser.
I feel like another re-write to smooth out the story, and toning down the excessive action silliness, would make this an A, but I have to give it a D+ as it is.
WW84 Spoilers:
.
.
.
.
Short answer: it's good, but not quite great.
I agree that in many ways, Wonder Woman 84 is a hot mess. Powers were invented out of thin air and then forgotten about. Wonder Woman can suddenly fly now, it turns out flying isn't actually all that hard. And there is a lot of 80's groupthink that history proved wrong, like the Reaganesque president precipitating World War 3, instead of defeating the Soviets by standing up to them and making them eat the consequences of their own bad choices until they collapsed from their own rottenness. Plus a ton of other virtue-signalling and self-indulgence along the way.
It's over-wrought and in many ways a mindless spectacle, but it works.
I think the movie's strengths manage to outshine its weaknesses. And its strengths are definitely the characters it creates, which are solid and original and pretty much hold together and make the story work. Maxwell Lord isn't a political cartoon come to life, he's his own thing, well-acted, and you get where he is coming from while still understanding why he's wrong. Kristen Wiig really shines as Barbara Minerva, and is believable in both her frumpy stage and her supervillain stages. The conflict between Cheetah and Wonder Woman is well done. Chris Pine is absolute gold as Steve Trevor, and he tends to steal the scenes he is in, in a good way. And Gal Gadot is simply glorious as Wonder Woman. Kind, vulnerable, mortal, but strong and wise and clear-headed, and absolutely gorgeous but always on target.
Is it the best possible Wonder Woman movie? No, as I said it has a lot of weaknesses in the script, it just manages to get past them and succeed on its own strengths. I think the first one is probably a better movie, it certainly had a better script. But this one is definitely worth watching.
If I were to compare it to Ghostbusters 2016, WW84 is a much better movie because its central story works. WW84 is a superhero story that's super. GB16 was a comedy that wasn't funny.
If I were to compare it to a Marvel movie, I think I'd compare it to Avengers: Age of Ultron. Both movies have kind of rickety underpinnings, but manage to get past them to the good stuff. Both of them are kind of long, and have stretches that are somewhat dull before picking up again. I think WW84 is better than Age of Ultron, though. WW84's dull spots are shorter than Age of Ultron's, and its best bits are better than Age of Ultron's. WW84 sticks to its central storylines better than Age of Ultron, which had way too many characters and subplots, not all of which were compelling. WW84 has only a handful of storylines, and most of them land.
In the end I would say it was well worth watching, for sheer spectacle and craftsmanship, but you could certainly make up a Top 10 list of superhero movies that doesn't have WW84 on it.
I saw Mulholland Falls the other day. (No, not Mulholland Drive) Maybe I'm sniffing out old films showing off Jennifer Connelly's charms :)
This is a movie that seems to have fallen in between the cracks a bit, but I thought it was pretty good. Very noir, and a bit depressing, but well done. Nick Nolte was made for this rough detective role. Jennifer Connelly is the main murder victim of the story, so she's seen mostly in flashbacks (but a big part of her role is her sex appeal so there's that). I like the acting overall. Strange that not more people have heard of this one, but if you are into hard-hitting fedora-wearing detectives then this should be a must.
After sleeping on it, I wonder if their mistake was in making it into a global catastrophe. The theme of wishes is very personal, and I think the story would have been more coherent if they kept it smaller. Like say, the core characters, a few of their aquaintances, and then Lord threatenes 'just' the city.
And just for giggles, I'd like to point out that the DC universe now has an event in it's recent past where everyone in the world had their wishes granted and then everyone gave up their wish to save the world. Everyone knows something about Wonder Woman, even if it's just that she was the person convincing Lord to give up his wish.
After a few more movies, are we going to get to the point like in Dr Who where every Christmas London is attacked by aliens from outer space, and the average person expects it? That could get very silly very quickly.
I'd really like the next Justice League movie to be a simple rumble between the Justice League and the Legion of Doom.
Keep it small, keep it fun, and best of all, it's something that Marvel hasn't done yet.
I saw WW84. It was OK, neither great nor terrible. If you're already paying for HBOMax, give it a try. If you're not, see if there's a free trial period because I wouldn't drop money specifically for WW84.
I heard from a movie friend that people are slamming this movie(WW84) on the net cause its suuuper bad. I watched it. I laughed at some points. I was dissapointed at others. To sum up my thoughts(its late and i have little steam) i can only say; its based on a superhero comic book, the main character is a god, the world is full of silly ideas that make no sense. And people wanted this to be internally consistent with believable repercussions? In a movie set in the imaginary 1980s?.. Friggin Shazam and Aquaman are in this universe... Its only oke in my view, but i liked parts of it and your mileage may vary.
Quote from: Warder on December 27, 2020, 06:46:01 PM
I heard from a movie friend that people are slamming this movie(WW84) on the net cause its suuuper bad. I watched it. I laughed at some points. I was dissapointed at others. To sum up my thoughts(its late and i have little steam) i can only say; its based on a superhero comic book, the main character is a god, the world is full of silly ideas that make no sense. And people wanted this to be internally consistent with believable repercussions? In a movie set in the imaginary 1980s?.. Friggin Shazam and Aquaman are in this universe... Its only oke in my view, but i liked parts of it and your mileage may vary.
Yeah, but people draw the line at different points.
For example, Superman shooting heat rays of of his eyes is silly, but people roll with it.
Superman shooting a
fix the Great Wall of China ray out of his eyes is generally agreed to be past that line.
Being internally consistent with believeable reprecussions is what makes the silliness acceptable.
I really hated the CGI scenes giving them the freedom to have Wonder Woman do whatever they wanted, whether it was a good idea or not. The scene where WW grabs a missile with her lasso so it can drag her along, for example, was just... eh it was more silly than exciting. If they showed her gritting her teeth and making an epic leap I think would have gone much better.
I will say that riding that line between silly and too silly in a movie based on comic book superheroes is challenging. The movies that have gotten it right are impressive, IMO.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 27, 2020, 07:55:14 PM
Quote from: Warder on December 27, 2020, 06:46:01 PM
I heard from a movie friend that people are slamming this movie(WW84) on the net cause its suuuper bad. I watched it. I laughed at some points. I was dissapointed at others. To sum up my thoughts(its late and i have little steam) i can only say; its based on a superhero comic book, the main character is a god, the world is full of silly ideas that make no sense. And people wanted this to be internally consistent with believable repercussions? In a movie set in the imaginary 1980s?.. Friggin Shazam and Aquaman are in this universe... Its only oke in my view, but i liked parts of it and your mileage may vary.
Being internally consistent with believeable reprecussions is what makes the silliness acceptable.
I really hated the CGI scenes giving them the freedom to have Wonder Woman do whatever they wanted, whether it was a good idea or not. The scene where WW grabs a missile with her lasso so it can drag her along, for example, was just... eh it was more silly than exciting. If they showed her gritting her teeth and making an epic leap I think would have gone much better.
I will say that riding that line between silly and too silly in a movie based on comic book superheroes is challenging. The movies that have gotten it right are impressive, IMO.
Yeah, I found WW84 to be just dumb. The Shazam movie was far more internally consistent, for example. Also, it's not just internal consistency of powers. It's also having mundane things like airplanes and cars work in a remotely believable way, and also having characters act with consistent internal motivations.
Also, I just didn't find the ridiculous parts funny. The Shazam movie was also much more of a comedy, while WW84 just had lots of unfunny absurdity.
I feel like if this was coming out in an ordinary holiday time alongside other blockbusters, it would be a total flop. But people just really want *something* new.
Quote from: jhkim on December 28, 2020, 06:26:48 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 27, 2020, 07:55:14 PM
Quote from: Warder on December 27, 2020, 06:46:01 PM
I heard from a movie friend that people are slamming this movie(WW84) on the net cause its suuuper bad. I watched it. I laughed at some points. I was dissapointed at others. To sum up my thoughts(its late and i have little steam) i can only say; its based on a superhero comic book, the main character is a god, the world is full of silly ideas that make no sense. And people wanted this to be internally consistent with believable repercussions? In a movie set in the imaginary 1980s?.. Friggin Shazam and Aquaman are in this universe... Its only oke in my view, but i liked parts of it and your mileage may vary.
Being internally consistent with believeable reprecussions is what makes the silliness acceptable.
I really hated the CGI scenes giving them the freedom to have Wonder Woman do whatever they wanted, whether it was a good idea or not. The scene where WW grabs a missile with her lasso so it can drag her along, for example, was just... eh it was more silly than exciting. If they showed her gritting her teeth and making an epic leap I think would have gone much better.
I will say that riding that line between silly and too silly in a movie based on comic book superheroes is challenging. The movies that have gotten it right are impressive, IMO.
Yeah, I found WW84 to be just dumb. The Shazam movie was far more internally consistent, for example. Also, it's not just internal consistency of powers. It's also having mundane things like airplanes and cars work in a remotely believable way, and also having characters act with consistent internal motivations.
Also, I just didn't find the ridiculous parts funny. The Shazam movie was also much more of a comedy, while WW84 just had lots of unfunny absurdity.
I feel like if this was coming out in an ordinary holiday time alongside other blockbusters, it would be a total flop. But people just really want *something* new.
I agree with all of this, particularly the comedy parts. Iron Man movies typically have had much better humor for instance.
Quote from: jhkim on December 28, 2020, 06:26:48 PM
I feel like if this was coming out in an ordinary holiday time alongside other blockbusters, it would be a total flop. But people just really want *something* new.
I hear WW84 is doing well financially. I expect a large part of it is people wanting a fun movie during their Covid stress.
Quote from: jhkim on December 28, 2020, 06:26:48 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 27, 2020, 07:55:14 PM
Quote from: Warder on December 27, 2020, 06:46:01 PM
I heard from a movie friend that people are slamming this movie(WW84) on the net cause its suuuper bad. I watched it. I laughed at some points. I was dissapointed at others. To sum up my thoughts(its late and i have little steam) i can only say; its based on a superhero comic book, the main character is a god, the world is full of silly ideas that make no sense. And people wanted this to be internally consistent with believable repercussions? In a movie set in the imaginary 1980s?.. Friggin Shazam and Aquaman are in this universe... Its only oke in my view, but i liked parts of it and your mileage may vary.
Being internally consistent with believeable reprecussions is what makes the silliness acceptable.
I really hated the CGI scenes giving them the freedom to have Wonder Woman do whatever they wanted, whether it was a good idea or not. The scene where WW grabs a missile with her lasso so it can drag her along, for example, was just... eh it was more silly than exciting. If they showed her gritting her teeth and making an epic leap I think would have gone much better.
I will say that riding that line between silly and too silly in a movie based on comic book superheroes is challenging. The movies that have gotten it right are impressive, IMO.
Yeah, I found WW84 to be just dumb. The Shazam movie was far more internally consistent, for example. Also, it's not just internal consistency of powers. It's also having mundane things like airplanes and cars work in a remotely believable way, and also having characters act with consistent internal motivations.
My one nit with Shazam is when he catches the bus. That thing should have crumpled around his hands and collapsed from the impact. But it was such a great scene, seeing a superhero actually save people and not just punch the villain, I give it a pass. :D
*I probably should have made that one reply. Ah well.*
Quote from: Trond on December 18, 2020, 11:15:13 PM
Just saw the Rocketeer a few days ago, and I was expecting very little, but was positively surprised. I think it's a bit of an overlooked pulp gem. A few points:
-I wonder if many reviewers didn't get the humor. It's full of it, and often self-deprecating humor (contra Ebert's review of the film).
-Many also didn't notice how much effort they put into the set designs. The zeppelin is actually quite accurate.
-Jennifer Connelly is young, a bit more "fleshy" than in recent years, and absolutely gorgeous.
Pretty nice inspiration for pulp adventures with fairly straightforward plots :)
It is a surprisingly good movie despite its various deviations from the source comics. I liked the actors and as you noted the sets and everything are really well done.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 27, 2020, 07:55:14 PMYeah, but people draw the line at different points.
For example, Superman shooting heat rays of of his eyes is silly, but people roll with it.
Superman shooting a fix the Great Wall of China ray out of his eyes is generally agreed to be past that line.
Most agree the whole of Quest for Peace was past all lines. heh.
As for Wonder Woman and being a comic book character. The problem is the movies do not use the comic book character and instead make up over the top stuff for god knows what reason.
Wonder Woman in the comics has some fairly well defined abilities and limitations even into the 70s where she had by then experienced some upgrading like everyone else. If the movies had stuck to that it would have been believable because its not drifting towards Quest for Peace weirdness.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 28, 2020, 07:41:49 PM
My one nit with Shazam is when he catches the bus. That thing should have crumpled around his hands and collapsed from the impact. But it was such a great scene, seeing a superhero actually save people and not just punch the villain, I give it a pass. :D
*I probably should have made that one reply. Ah well.*
If hes still powered by magic as the original then the buss not crumpling makes sense. In the comics hes one of the few people who can go toe-to-toe with superman because his powers are magic based. To which Superman is vulnerable. Or was well into the 90s. Wonder Woman is another who can for similar reasons.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 28, 2020, 07:33:39 PM
Quote from: jhkim on December 28, 2020, 06:26:48 PM
I feel like if this was coming out in an ordinary holiday time alongside other blockbusters, it would be a total flop. But people just really want *something* new.
I hear WW84 is doing well financially. I expect a large part of it is people wanting a fun movie during their Covid stress.
It made $19 million in theaters its opening weekend. Plus a lot more on streaming.
Quote from: Omega on December 29, 2020, 12:25:02 AM
If hes still powered by magic as the original then the buss not crumpling makes sense. In the comics hes one of the few people who can go toe-to-toe with superman because his powers are magic based. To which Superman is vulnerable. Or was well into the 90s. Wonder Woman is another who can for similar reasons.
The Kingdom Come miniseries has Shazam facing off with Superman in an apocalyptic future scenario. Wonder Woman also has a sword and her golden armor in that one.
I have a weird pet peeve that I realize not that many people agree with; what is it with Hollywood movies about heroic characters and portraying their childhood? I get that it's about establishing characters but I rarely like it. Superman is supposed to be superb at nearly everything, smashing bad guys with his bare hands, but wait, what was he like as a baby?? Even Conan the barbarian has had his childhood covered twice, but all Robert E Howard ever said was that he was born on the battlefield. And now they had to go back to WW's childhood....again (it was done better the first time).
Quote from: Trond on December 29, 2020, 10:53:48 AM
I have a weird pet peeve that I realize not that many people agree with; what is it with Hollywood movies about heroic characters and portraying their childhood? I get that it's about establishing characters but I rarely like it. Superman is supposed to be superb at nearly everything, smashing bad guys with his bare hands, but wait, what was he like as a baby?? Even Conan the barbarian has had his childhood covered twice, but all Robert E Howard ever said was that he was born on the battlefield. And now they had to go back to WW's childhood....again (it was done better the first time).
One big difference between film and books is that film tends to be a more emotional medium. Humans instinctively empathize with facial expressions especially, moreso than with words on a page. Being able to see the actor's face in close-up means the audience tends to have closer identification with the film's protagonist. As a result, mainstream films tend to have more of a relatable protagonist whose face is onscreen.
Seeing someone's childhood is one way of making them relatable, plus a child's face is even more instinctively emotional to people than an adult's.
So I'm not really surprised at film adaptations where they make the protagonist into a more likeable, relatable character -- and including childhood scenes.
That said, there are a lot better ways to do this - and to buck the trend while still being successful.
Quote from: jhkim on December 29, 2020, 12:29:21 PM
Quote from: Trond on December 29, 2020, 10:53:48 AM
I have a weird pet peeve that I realize not that many people agree with; what is it with Hollywood movies about heroic characters and portraying their childhood? I get that it's about establishing characters but I rarely like it. Superman is supposed to be superb at nearly everything, smashing bad guys with his bare hands, but wait, what was he like as a baby?? Even Conan the barbarian has had his childhood covered twice, but all Robert E Howard ever said was that he was born on the battlefield. And now they had to go back to WW's childhood....again (it was done better the first time).
One big difference between film and books is that film tends to be a more emotional medium. Humans instinctively empathize with facial expressions especially, moreso than with words on a page. Being able to see the actor's face in close-up means the audience tends to have closer identification with the film's protagonist. As a result, mainstream films tend to have more of a relatable protagonist whose face is onscreen.
Seeing someone's childhood is one way of making them relatable, plus a child's face is even more instinctively emotional to people than an adult's.
So I'm not really surprised at film adaptations where they make the protagonist into a more likeable, relatable character -- and including childhood scenes.
That said, there are a lot better ways to do this - and to buck the trend while still being successful.
I think they also wanted to show Themyscara again.
The problem with superhero movie sequels is that they're past the 'origin story', but there's a lot of backstory that need to be explained for someone new jumping into the series.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 29, 2020, 01:47:24 PM
I think they also wanted to show Themyscara again.
The problem with superhero movie sequels is that they're past the 'origin story', but there's a lot of backstory that need to be explained for someone new jumping into the series.
Actually, I feel that it's an annoying trend to always have an origin story as the first movie. One of the reasons I liked "Spider-Man: Homecoming" was that it rebooted without trying to do the origin story again. Likewise, while Guardians of the Galaxy has a flashback to pre-origin, it starts with Star-Lord already as superhero-y as he's going to get. Origin stories have their place, but characters don't need to start with their origin story. That's not how it is in most of the comics.
I think needing to start with origin stories was mostly because mainstream audiences weren't used to superheroes, so they need an explanation to handle "How could someone possibly be a superhero?" But once one accepts that, then we can just start with characters already as superheroes.
Quote from: jhkim on December 29, 2020, 03:22:37 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 29, 2020, 01:47:24 PM
I think they also wanted to show Themyscara again.
The problem with superhero movie sequels is that they're past the 'origin story', but there's a lot of backstory that need to be explained for someone new jumping into the series.
Actually, I feel that it's an annoying trend to always have an origin story as the first movie. One of the reasons I liked "Spider-Man: Homecoming" was that it rebooted without trying to do the origin story again. Likewise, while Guardians of the Galaxy has a flashback to pre-origin, it starts with Star-Lord already as superhero-y as he's going to get. Origin stories have their place, but characters don't need to start with their origin story. That's not how it is in most of the comics.
I think needing to start with origin stories was mostly because mainstream audiences weren't used to superheroes, so they need an explanation to handle "How could someone possibly be a superhero?" But once one accepts that, then we can just start with characters already as superheroes.
I think the thing the recent Marvel Cinematic Universe got right is that it brought non-comic fans up to speed on the characters though their origin stories. As a comic fan, I'll roll with the idea of an amazon princess who fights crime, but that's a huge buy in for Joe Movie Goer, and needs some explanation so they can get into the concept.
Once the MCU movies had established a world full of super hero stuff, they could relax the origin stories a bit. It helps that Star Lord is (in the first movie) more a Star Wars type character than a superhero character.
Plus, I think the origin story is the strongest story for these characters. It tends to be personal, simpler and a more coherent story. Once you start adding in comic bizzareness like star gods and invisible jets and time travelling versions of existing characters side-by-side with their current versions, things get a little too bizzare for the average moviegoer.
I think the MCU managed to wrangle comic bizzareness towards the end, but I don't think they could have kept it up for much longer. And now that the Infinity War arc is over, I expect the movies to either back way off and kind of soft-reboot, or flounder and finally fall off the pop culture radar.
(Plus, Robert Downey Junior carried that franchise on his back. With him retiring from being Tony Stark, I think the franchise is going to lose an important keystone that kept the edifice standing.)
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 29, 2020, 04:45:56 PM
I think the thing the recent Marvel Cinematic Universe got right is that it brought non-comic fans up to speed on the characters though their origin stories. As a comic fan, I'll roll with the idea of an amazon princess who fights crime, but that's a huge buy in for Joe Movie Goer, and needs some explanation so they can get into the concept.
Once the MCU movies had established a world full of super hero stuff, they could relax the origin stories a bit. It helps that Star Lord is (in the first movie) more a Star Wars type character than a superhero character.
Right. Yes, this sounds what I was trying to say. I would add that with so many more mainstream superhero movies in general, this need for an origin story can be relaxed even outside the MCU. That is, after a decade of mainstream superhero movies, Joe Movie Goer is now more accepting of the idea of a crimefighting superhero - and doesn't require as huge a buy-in.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 29, 2020, 04:45:56 PM
Plus, I think the origin story is the strongest story for these characters. It tends to be personal, simpler and a more coherent story. Once you start adding in comic bizzareness like star gods and invisible jets and time travelling versions of existing characters side-by-side with their current versions, things get a little too bizzare for the average moviegoer.
I think the MCU managed to wrangle comic bizzareness towards the end, but I don't think they could have kept it up for much longer. And now that the Infinity War arc is over, I expect the movies to either back way off and kind of soft-reboot, or flounder and finally fall off the pop culture radar.
It depends on the character, of course, but I often find that the origin story isn't very strong. I feel the origin story formula tends to be very expository - trying to
explain all the qualities of the character, instead of just
showing them.
A good intro story, I think, is a simple story that shows off the character in their classic action. It shouldn't involve complexities or bizarreness, but rather a clean story about who they are. Like an introduction to Sherlock Holmes doesn't have to focus on his childhood or how he became that way -- it should rather show off Holmes being Holmes.
Quote from: jhkim on December 29, 2020, 06:10:28 PM
A good intro story, I think, is a simple story that shows off the character in their classic action. It shouldn't involve complexities or bizarreness, but rather a clean story about who they are. Like an introduction to Sherlock Holmes doesn't have to focus on his childhood or how he became that way -- it should rather show off Holmes being Holmes.
Sure, but Sherlock Holmes has a lot less buy-in than a superhero. If Sherlock Holmes dressed up as a wombat and had a belt full of gadgets, there would be a lot more questions compared to him being just a really good detective.
It also doesn't help that IMO the superhero sequel movies, with very few notable exceptions, have been much less entertaining than the first films which tend to feature origin stories. I can't tell if that's because the sequels are bad, or because they're not origin stories though. Still chewing on that one.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 29, 2020, 06:41:55 PM
Quote from: jhkim on December 29, 2020, 06:10:28 PM
A good intro story, I think, is a simple story that shows off the character in their classic action. It shouldn't involve complexities or bizarreness, but rather a clean story about who they are. Like an introduction to Sherlock Holmes doesn't have to focus on his childhood or how he became that way -- it should rather show off Holmes being Holmes.
Sure, but Sherlock Holmes has a lot less buy-in than a superhero. If Sherlock Holmes dressed up as a wombat and had a belt full of gadgets, there would be a lot more questions compared to him being just a really good detective.
It also doesn't help that IMO the superhero sequel movies, with very few notable exceptions, have been much less entertaining than the first films which tend to feature origin stories. I can't tell if that's because the sequels are bad, or because they're not origin stories though. Still chewing on that one.
I think there's a survivors bias here. Movies that suck tend to do poorly in the box office, and not get a sequel produced. So the first movie of a franchise tends to be better, even if the later movies are strictly average.
That said, I'm not convinced that sequels are so frequently inferior - though obviously that is subjective taste. Personally, I thought Superman II was superior to the original; X2 was superior to The X-Men; The Dark Knight was better than Batman Begins; Captain America: The Winter Soldier was superior to The First Avenger; and Ant-Man and the Wasp was superior to Ant-Man. Plus there are some very good non-origin standalones like Black Panther and Spider-Man: Homecoming. There are plenty of bad sequels as well, though, but I think those are enough to make the record mixed.
Saw Monster Hunter. Amusingly, it shows us how Rifts does SDC/MDC. In the other world,
the MDC monsters are immune to bullets and even an anti-armor rocket from our (obviously SDC) world, but are vulnerable to swords and arrows from their own world.
I finally got around to seeing Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. It has some good moments, but not nearly enough, and the story inexplicably goes off the rails about two-thirds of the way through, leading up to a very underwhelming ending. Ultimately, it's an alternate history of the Manson murders, told from the perspective of people with almost no involvement. There's some nice character work, but it really doesn't come together in the end.
Just finished the 4h+ Snyder version of Justice League. I liked it far more than the Whedon version. Better characters and the story felt like it fit together a lot better. Of course, both of things are made easier when you double the run time, but I found it enjoyable.
I'm about halfway through it. So far I think the Snyder Cut illustrates that Joss Whedon had the right idea. Comparing scenes, it is clear to me how much more effective Whedon's edits and dialog are.
Some of the stuff added for the Snyder cut is nice, but it is wildly uneven. There are some nice new effects, but also a lot of places where the effects look rushed and unconvincing. Four minutes in, there is a lovingly crafted shot of the new Steppenwolf, followed immediately by a poorly-photoshopped shot of Lex Luthor standing in a pool of water that wouldn't have passed muster on Hercules and Xena.
Story-wise, it's also hit and miss. There's a scene where Barry saves Iris West, but it's not that great, and then we see Barry crushing on Wonder Woman. There is a lot more interplay between Cyborg and his dad, and most of that is good, but overall the movie is still just way too damn long. And IMHO, the things that were weak in the theatrical cut are still weak in the Snyder cut, they're just drawn out twice as long.
Well. I just rewatched The Man from U.N.C.L.E.
... The film by Guy Ritchie, not the old TV Show (which... I guess I should watch?).
I am reminded that Alicia Vikander is... an actress.
No, I seriously have to wonder how she got so much press and so much attention (even, I believe, an award for playing a robot or something), all the up through her reprisal of Lara Croft. She made zero impact on me the first watch through this film (four years ago?), and knowing who she was for the second watch through I realized all her BEST scenes were ones where she didn't speak*, or spoke only a little to accentuate the physical acting. I assume she was cast for her (lack of) height, in order to make Armie Hammer look even bigger, which in turn was to make up for the tall, and more importantly massive, Henry Cavill, having to be impressed by Hammer's size/physicality.
Still, its a damn charming movie, though one does wish they'd put more time in for the Villian, played by Elizabeth Debricki (Spelling?), who ironically is taller even than Armie Hammer I believe.
*For Stalkerish Trufans of ms Vikander, that's actually meant to be somewhat complimentary. She did and OUTSTANDING job with the more silent, physical parts of her acting, while her dialog delivery was... adequet.
Ultimately, I don't think the Snyder Cut fixes Justice League. That's because the problem with Justice League is that it has Death of Superman jammed into the middle of it. Death of Superman is an end-of-cycle storyline, and they're putting it into the origin, and that doesn't work. All it does is bring the movie to a crashing halt for a half hour.
It doesn't do any justice to Death of Superman, either.
Quote from: Lurkndog on March 22, 2021, 10:00:10 AM
Ultimately, I don't think the Snyder Cut fixes Justice League. That's because the problem with Justice League is that it has Death of Superman jammed into the middle of it. Death of Superman is an end-of-cycle storyline, and they're putting it into the origin, and that doesn't work. All it does is bring the movie to a crashing halt for a half hour.
It doesn't do any justice to Death of Superman, either.
There seems to be a pattern. Synder likes certain stories and wants them to recreate them, but then he doesn't bring along enough context. Miller's Superman v. Batman fight from Dark Knight Returns is another example. They're dropped into stories about other things, without enough development to make them compelling.
Makes me think of Star Trek, Into Darkness. A lot of that movies drama relies on having watched Wrath of Khan, and the characters established in that film.
But Into Darkness is a reboot, and that characterization hasn't been established for these characters. Culminating in the utterly cringey scene where Spock calls out "Kaaahn!" over the death of a character he didn't really seem to like in the first place. :o
I'm going to star calling it a Drama Hijack, where a story tries to borrow drama from another source without putting in the work to build up it's own characters and situations.
---
I do kinda want to watch the Snyder cut, after watching the RLM review. Leads me to believe that if it's still not good, it's at least palatable with some interesting scenes.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 22, 2021, 06:43:23 PM
Makes me think of Star Trek, Into Darkness. A lot of that movies drama relies on having watched Wrath of Khan, and the characters established in that film.
But Into Darkness is a reboot, and that characterization hasn't been established for these characters.
Yes! Also, Ricardo Montalban in
The Star Seed was bigger and more muscular than Shatner, he looked like he could kick Kirk's ass. Benedict Cumberbatch is a fine actor, but not nearly so physically intimidating.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 22, 2021, 06:43:23 PM
I do kinda want to watch the Snyder cut, after watching the RLM review. Leads me to believe that if it's still not good, it's at least palatable with some interesting scenes.
If you want to watch it, watch it. Just don't pay a lot of money to watch it.
Quote from: Pat on March 22, 2021, 10:48:13 AM
There seems to be a pattern. Synder likes certain stories and wants them to recreate them, but then he doesn't bring along enough context. Miller's Superman v. Batman fight from Dark Knight Returns is another example. They're dropped into stories about other things, without enough development to make them compelling.
They come across as fan service, rather than a fully-fleshed storyline in their own right. And they rob future movies of stories that could be great if done at the right point in the series.
I didn't finish watching because their review was too long, but Red Letter Media made an interesting point about the Snyder cut: It should have been 2 movies, like the Infinity Stone saga. The fight with Steppenwolf (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-7uwshsfFI) at the 2 hour mark would have served as the perfect break.
I havent watched the Snyder cut and im not going to. Ive seen the original, im just not interested. Now the thing that has interested me are the articles and vids on youtube about other possible 4 hour long adaptations. Hollywood will not scrape the botton of the barrel, it will remove it and dig into the ground to find anything resembling interest or nostalgia it seems. I really dont want to know this was the start of a trend. Who knows if it would ever stop escalating.
For those So Bad it's Good movies go to tubi.tv
Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2021, 10:59:46 PM
For those So Bad it's Good movies go to tubi.tv
How are these different from Amazon Prime's "So Bad It's Painful" collection?
Quote from: HappyDaze on April 01, 2021, 05:52:13 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 31, 2021, 10:59:46 PM
For those So Bad it's Good movies go to tubi.tv
How are these different from Amazon Prime's "So Bad It's Painful" collection?
No idea, I don't have Amazon Prime because I have to fork out money, tubi is free.
But the ones I found there are from way back when I used to go see two bad kung-fu flicks at the cinema.
Took the kids to see Godzilla vs Kong today. It had way more monster action than Godzilla 2014 and way fewer stupid parts than KoAM. It's not a work of art but these days I can appreciate a movie that's just entertaining. It isn't woke, but does have the improbably diverse cast we've all come to expect from modern movies. Fortunately, it's also lacking a Chicom insert character. There are plenty of references to other Godzilla movies, both the classic ones and the ones never shown in the US, so it was clearly made by someone that respects the source material.
Overall, the Monsterverse is similar to the DCEU in that their isn't a consistent theme or style running through all the movies. This one is probably closest to Skull Island in how most of the monster fights take place in the daytime with clear skies so you can tell what's happening.
I took a quick look at Tubi today. It reminds me a lot of the early days of Hulu.
Thanks for the heads-up, GeekyBugle.
Saw the movie Nobody with Bob Odenkirk few days back. Its like John Wick but way less cynical and over the top. The movie manages to keep one interested as in not breaking the suspension of disbelief. John Wick is still John Wick thou.
Friend of mine, for reasons unfatomable, forked out 30$ to see Raya and the Last Dragon. And was oddly un-impressed and impressed at the same time. Apparently looks nice and they liked the chain-sword. But did not linger long enough in each land visited to enjoy the differences. They also did not like the message near the end as it came across badly. Apparently others felt the same to some degree.
From their description sounded like someone in writing liked Final Fantasy: Spirits Within... ahem. 8)
That Shang-Chi trailer looks awesome. Marvel martial arts flick? Hell yes.
The special effects look decent, don't really have any feel for what the movie is about or the character. And it's nothing like the Shang-Chi comics I used to read, but that's okay. A lot of the comics stuff wouldn't translate well to the screen, like all his inner dialog while fighting.
I agree it looks nothing like the original comics so far. But that really is par for the course. None of the Marvel movies have been all that close to their comics and with each movie after, they drift further and further away.
I figured they would either ditch or replace Fu Manchu with some other villain. Points for not making it yet another eeeeevil white guy which would have totally broke it.
Parts of the trailer look like they were meant for some asian fantasy movie. Not sure what that will entail. Could be flashbacks to the origins of the Mandarin's rings which seems to be the crux of the movie.
They couldnt have the Mandarin be Chinese in Iron Man 3 because "we gotta play nice with the chinese so they watch our movies. Can't make them (or the SJWs) think we're racists"
So they went with a white mandarin with Ben Kingsley as his front because he was frikking Gandhi once and nobody complained about that.
But in Shang-Chi its fine to have a chinese villain because the hero is chinese too, yay. Nice one, Disney.
Mortal Kombat was fucking dumb fun. The story is absolute steaming garbage, and the person who wrote it needs to be fired out of a cannon in to the sun.
The fights were good, the fatalities were great, and Kano was an absolute treat.
Quote from: Thornhammer on April 25, 2021, 11:15:39 PM
Mortal Kombat was fucking dumb fun. The story is absolute steaming garbage, and the person who wrote it needs to be fired out of a cannon in to the sun.
The fights were good, the fatalities were great, and Kano was an absolute treat.
I thought that the fight between Scorpion and Subzero seemed oddly slow compared to the other fights, like it had a very different fight choreographer.
Quote from: Thornhammer on April 25, 2021, 11:15:39 PM
Mortal Kombat was fucking dumb fun. The story is absolute steaming garbage, and the person who wrote it needs to be fired out of a cannon in to the sun.
The fights were good, the fatalities were great, and Kano was an absolute treat.
You just described every Mortal Kombat movie ever.
I actually like the second movie. I think it captured the feel more of the games than the first did.
This week I watched Hotel Artemis, which was a 2018 movie about a bad day at a black market hospital in near future Los Angeles. It features an ensemble cast including Dave Bautista, Jodie Foster, Charlie Day, Sofia Boutella, Zachary Quinto, and Jeff Goldblum. Take one part film noir, one part sci fi supermedicine, one part cyberpunk, and one part crime movie, mix well, and garnish with violence and regret.
I thought it was a well made mix of genres, and I'll probably buy the blu-ray at some point.
Quote from: Lurkndog on April 29, 2021, 07:36:53 PM
This week I watched Hotel Artemis, which was a 2018 movie about a bad day at a black market hospital in near future Los Angeles. It features an ensemble cast including Dave Bautista, Jodie Foster, Charlie Day, Sofia Boutella, Zachary Quinto, and Jeff Goldblum. Take one part film noir, one part sci fi supermedicine, one part cyberpunk, and one part crime movie, mix well, and garnish with violence and regret.
I thought it was a well made mix of genres, and I'll probably buy the blu-ray at some point.
Yeh - I enjoyed it. Seemed like a concept that would fit nicely in the John Wick setting.
Yeah, it had similarities in some ways. Both movies present shadowy organizations with strict rules of conduct, and play out the consequences when the rules are broken, for good or for evil.
Both Waikiki and John Wick are criminals with a heart of gold.
They both have themes of imposing one's personal morality on a fundamentally immoral world. I'm not 100% behind that as a worldview, but I do like movies where heroes choose to do the right thing even when it's the hard way.
Anyone watched Without Remorse yet?
I have about half of the last episode of Generation Kill to finish tonight, and then I'll start in on it.
Quote from: Thornhammer on May 01, 2021, 04:16:02 PM
Anyone watched Without Remorse yet?
I was also curious about this. Because it's Amazon, I'm afraid that all the action from the trailer will be in one episode and the rest of the show will just be people sitting around talking. Also, I can't really take Michael B Jordan seriously as an action hero.
Right now though, my daughter and I are working our way through season 1 of Demon Slayer, so I don't have much free time.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 03, 2021, 10:09:16 AM
Quote from: Thornhammer on May 01, 2021, 04:16:02 PM
Anyone watched Without Remorse yet?
I was also curious about this. Because it's Amazon, I'm afraid that all the action from the trailer will be in one episode and the rest of the show will just be people sitting around talking. Also, I can't really take Michael B Jordan seriously as an action hero.
Right now though, my daughter and I are working our way through season 1 of Demon Slayer, so I don't have much free time.
It's a movie, not a series. Plot is weak. Dialogue is weak. Action is OK. Pacing is terrible. I put it at 🌟 🌟 at best.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 03, 2021, 10:09:16 AM
I was also curious about this. Because it's Amazon, I'm afraid that all the action from the trailer will be in one episode and the rest of the show will just be people sitting around talking. Also, I can't really take Michael B Jordan seriously as an action hero.
It was forgettable, is about the long and short of it. It is a film whose purpose is to deliver unto you the two minute mid-credits scene, which explicitly spells out where they're going next.
MBJ did a decent job. Others, not as much.
I think this is probably something they should have turned into a short series - maybe 3 or 4 episodes tops - instead of trying to cram it into one movie.
Does Without Remorse bear any resemblance whatsoever to the original Tom Clancy novel?
Well...the movie and the book share the same name.
The main character is John Kelly. And there's a character named Pam.
Couple movies I really liked and dont know if they have been mentioned here were L.A. Confidential and Snatch. I like both movies a whole lot as they are pretty good at incorporating multiple interesting characters and story lines at one time. I have always like the move Prophecy as well, its low budget, but I thought Christopher Walken as an angel with an attitude was fantastic.
Quote from: Thornhammer on May 01, 2021, 04:16:02 PM
Anyone watched Without Remorse yet?
Sadly, I did :(
Let's ignore the fact that the main character in the books is white (in a novel he muses that he could be played in a movie by Tom Selleck). This isn't "Without Remorse". Not even remotely. I wonder if they took another script and slapped the name on it. It is not even a good movie. Boring and implausible storyline, flat characters, listless direction... Not even the action scenes are any good.
(The best way to infiltrate Russia is to openly violate their airspace and try to reach Murmansk onboard a normal plane...)
As someone who grew up with Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, James Earl Jones, Harry Czerny and Harris Yulin (not to mention Willem Dafoe as Clark) playing various Clancy's characters so well that I now picture them as these actors in the novels, there is nothing in this movie that makes me think of Clancy.
Yep. It was about as "based on the novel by Tom Clancy" as the film The Lawnmower Man was "based on the story by Stephen King."
Quote from: Lurkndog on April 29, 2021, 07:36:53 PM
This week I watched Hotel Artemis, which was a 2018 movie about a bad day at a black market hospital in near future Los Angeles. It features an ensemble cast including Dave Bautista, Jodie Foster, Charlie Day, Sofia Boutella, Zachary Quinto, and Jeff Goldblum. Take one part film noir, one part sci fi supermedicine, one part cyberpunk, and one part crime movie, mix well, and garnish with violence and regret.
I thought it was a well made mix of genres, and I'll probably buy the blu-ray at some point.
I am a little behind, but that is a really unusable ensemble. How did they work together in terms of performance?
Quote from: Reckall on May 15, 2021, 06:18:52 AM
Quote from: Thornhammer on May 01, 2021, 04:16:02 PM
Anyone watched Without Remorse yet?
Sadly, I did :(
Let's ignore the fact that the main character in the books is white (in a novel he muses that he could be played in a movie by Tom Selleck). This isn't "Without Remorse". Not even remotely. I wonder if they took another script and slapped the name on it. It is not even a good movie. Boring and implausible storyline, flat characters, listless direction... Not even the action scenes are any good.
(The best way to infiltrate Russia is to openly violate their airspace and try to reach Murmansk onboard a normal plane...)
As someone who grew up with Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, James Earl Jones, Harry Czerny and Harris Yulin (not to mention Willem Dafoe as Clark) playing various Clancy's characters so well that I now picture them as these actors in the novels, there is nothing in this movie that makes me think of Clancy.
That is too bad, if the book is the same one I am thinking of... IS it the one where Clark waged a private war on street criminals after a prostitute he fell in love with is murdered? That was an excellent book IMO (I like some of Clancy's stuff, but I remember that book being good) even though it did read a bit like "what if Charles Bronson was a SEAL instead of a doctor"?
Read the wiki recap of the movie "without remorse"....holy crap its nothing like the book I am thinking of at all. The movie recap reads like a huge anti russia propaganda piece. Why did they gender swap the Admiral? It also seems odd to race swap Clark, i mean the guy in charge in the book is Greer....ah well I guess boxes have to checked.
Because blackfacing characters is all the rage in Idiotlwood, again. Just pushed this time to even more stupid levels than the last iteration did.
Expect to see more and more offensive redoes soon.
Quote from: Omega on May 16, 2021, 01:00:02 AM
Because blackfacing characters is all the rage in Idiotlwood, again. Just pushed this time to even more stupid levels than the last iteration did.
Expect to see more and more offensive redoes soon.
Well, the thing is, I do not think I would mind if Clark is now a black guy in the movie....but it seems to be for no reason other than to just make him black. In the book Greer is the high ranking officer, the person with real power and influence. Clark is just a former SEAL who is pissed and from what I remember more or less unemployed, a nobody in the context of the world (beyond his past exploits and accomplishments). On any scale Greer is a the black guy and a much bigger fish. So it does perplex me as to why they gender swapped Greer, and made Clark black just to be black....I guess they though Mike Jordan was going to draw bigger numbers than any white dude they could find, but heck they changed the story completely from the book anyway, so why not just make a different story with different characters and just do that? Art by committee is a shit show.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 16, 2021, 09:13:03 PMthey changed the story completely from the book anyway, so why not just make a different story with different characters and just do that?
Because the vast majority of people have no idea what the original story is about and they just think "I like Tom Clancy movies". Of course, it doesn't take too many of these for it to turn into "Tom Clancy movies suck".
The real question is why do IP holders seem to care so little if their IP get attached to crappy projects?
Wasn't it this line of reasoning that killed the Die Hard franchise? Not sure about Die Hard 4.0, but definitely A Good Day to Die Hard was a generic spy thriller with McClane bolted on for brand recognition.
Quote from: Godfather Punk on May 17, 2021, 02:51:30 AM
Wasn't it this line of reasoning that killed the Die Hard franchise? Not sure about Die Hard 4.0, but definitely A Good Day to Die Hard was a generic spy thriller with McClane bolted on for brand recognition.
I know this, John McClane leveled up his character like nothing I have ever seen before. He went from a lucky grunt to a guy who makes John Matrix run and hide when he comes around.
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on May 15, 2021, 12:49:40 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on April 29, 2021, 07:36:53 PM
This week I watched Hotel Artemis, which was a 2018 movie about a bad day at a black market hospital in near future Los Angeles. It features an ensemble cast including Dave Bautista, Jodie Foster, Charlie Day, Sofia Boutella, Zachary Quinto, and Jeff Goldblum. Take one part film noir, one part sci fi supermedicine, one part cyberpunk, and one part crime movie, mix well, and garnish with violence and regret.
I thought it was a well made mix of genres, and I'll probably buy the blu-ray at some point.
I am a little behind, but that is a really unusable ensemble. How did they work together in terms of performance?
The movie holds together quite well. Jodie Foster is in full character actor mode, playing the Nurse who runs the black market hospital as a collection of quirks masking her inner insecurity, and this is effective. Bautista plays the hospital's orderly/bouncer, and he does a good job being loyal but conflicted, and staying on the same page as the other actors. Charlie Day plays a scumbag, and Sofia Boutella plays an assassin whose personal history gets tangled up in her mission. The actor playing Waikiki does a good job as a gangster with a heart of gold.
If you like a good B-movie, I think you will be entertained at the very least.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 16, 2021, 10:17:42 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 16, 2021, 09:13:03 PMthey changed the story completely from the book anyway, so why not just make a different story with different characters and just do that?
Because the vast majority of people have no idea what the original story is about and they just think "I like Tom Clancy movies". Of course, it doesn't take too many of these for it to turn into "Tom Clancy movies suck".
The real question is why do IP holders seem to care so little if their IP get attached to crappy projects?
Well, for starters, Clancy died in 2013. Death of the primary creator is usually when things start to unravel unless someone steps into the role of wrangling the idiots. The Tolkien estate is facing this with Christopher Tolkien's demise, and I strongly believe Good Omens avoided sucking because Neil Gaiman was there with Pratchett's notes to step on the necks of the retards.
Also, Hollywood is by and large a sausage-making machine. By which I mean whatever you get out of the meetings may only bear a passing resemblance to what you fed into it. Well before wokeist crap was a thing, executive meddling and lawyers could fuck up a production in fascinating ways.
Hollywood loves waving fat gobs of cash at people for their IPs, and they don't always even make it into movies. That's a heck of an inducement if you're not J.K. Rowling and can wipe your ass with $100 bills. Clive Cussler optioned out 'Raise The Titanic' disliked the result, avoided doing it again for the longest time, and then I guess he needed to pay some bills and optioned out the rights for 'Sahara'... which was a disaster. Cussler then committed a very stupid move and sued over it, lost the suit, and pretty much spent the rest of his days cranking out potboilers to pay off the judgement. Sometimes the wisest decision is to walk away.
Sometimes they make these movies by slapping the name of one IP on the script for another simply to retain the IP and cut losses on scripts bought.
Cash is a big motivator. As a creative person, lets say some Hollywood studio wanted to option a story or novel I wrote. I am not at all interested in my work being used for pushing Hollywood propaganda, but if I could get 5-10 million and live comfortably for the rest of my life without ever having to work again? Not ruling it out.
Quote from: Godfather Punk on May 17, 2021, 02:51:30 AM
Wasn't it this line of reasoning that killed the Die Hard franchise? Not sure about Die Hard 4.0, but definitely A Good Day to Die Hard was a generic spy thriller with McClane bolted on for brand recognition.
The Die Hard movies have one singular theme. The bad guy wants to do a heist, tricks the police into thinking its about something else like terrorism, and McClane is there in the middle, just minding his own business and caught up with having to stop it.
Basically, the bad guys are just trying to steal something in the guise of being fanatics as a diversion.
That pretty much describes the first 3 movies. 4.0 might be about cyberterrorism but I dont remember what the actual heist is.
Only thing I remember about the last one is that they're trying to steal something from the abandoned Chernobyl and a CIA agent trying to stop it.. Remove Bruce Willis character and it would not much different a movie.
Quote from: Wntrlnd on May 19, 2021, 06:46:55 PM
Quote from: Godfather Punk on May 17, 2021, 02:51:30 AM
Wasn't it this line of reasoning that killed the Die Hard franchise? Not sure about Die Hard 4.0, but definitely A Good Day to Die Hard was a generic spy thriller with McClane bolted on for brand recognition.
The Die Hard movies have one singular theme. The bad guy wants to do a heist, tricks the police into thinking its about something else like terrorism, and McClane is there in the middle, just minding his own business and caught up with having to stop it.
Actually, the second and third and fifth Die Hard movies were all generic thrillers with McClane bolted on for brand recognition. The second movie was based on Walter Wager's 1987 novel 58 Minutes. The third movie was based on a spec script called Simon Says by Jonathan Hensleigh, that the studios originally wanted to make into a Lethal Weapon sequel. I think the closest thing to an original was the fourth movie, which adapted material from a non-fiction article, but the plot was at least written for McClane.
And the first movie was adapted from the 1979 novel Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp, though with a bunch of changes.
The first fifteen minutes of Army of the Dead are absolute perfection.
Boobs, zombies ripping people apart, somebody getting torn to gobbets with a .50 cal machine gun, A-10s hammering the Vegas Strip, all with Richard Cheese belting out Viva Las Vegas.
Saw some of Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Its one idiot plot after another wrapped in woke agenda.
Called it that they would replace Captain America with jackass John Walker Cap.
Quote from: Omega on May 23, 2021, 06:22:58 AM
Saw some of Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Its one idiot plot after another wrapped in woke agenda.
Called it that they would replace Captain America with jackass John Walker Cap.
I think it's amusing that most of the people talking about Falcon & the Winter Soldier think it's woke because of stuff like a patriotic white guy set up as the villain, and the scene where the Falcon is threatened by a cop because he's black. But a significant minority seem to think it's anti-woke, because the white villain gets redeemed, the real villains are basically Antifa, and one of the key scenes has faux-Antifa literally being beaten to death with an American flag (Cap's shield). Critical Drinker is an example in the first category, Tim Pool in the second. I haven't seen it myself, so I can't reconcile the opposing views.
Quote from: Omega on May 18, 2021, 11:34:48 AM
Sometimes they make these movies by slapping the name of one IP on the script for another simply to retain the IP and cut losses on scripts bought.
That's what happened with
Starship Troopers. They took an unrelated script and slapped the name on it.
It's really frustrating because the movie is supposedly a satire/parody of the book but utterly fails in every way.
Namely, Johnny is
Filipino. Sure, he grew up in Brazil but ethnically his family is Filipino. He speaks Tagalog!
The book is also very progressive for the time (http://www.bookinginheels.com/2021/01/starship-troopers-review-by-robert-a-heinlein.html/) in terms of representing racial diversity, women, and persons with disabilities in the military. If Heinlein had written it now, then I suspect he'd include brief references to marines being LGBT+ or autistic.
We don't get a lot of insight into how the Terran Federation is actually run. It's extremely vague and comes across as extremely cynical about human nature in spots (e.g. a teacher dismissing the Declaration of Independence as idealistic nonsense, when ironically nowadays only far leftists think that), but it's definitely not obviously fascist as detractors claim (https://www.tor.com/2016/09/06/a-genre-cornerstone-starship-troopers-by-robert-a-heinlein/) (or dystopian, or utopian, either). It's basically Heinlein saying "I think human nature sucks, I'm angry about that, I'm not sure my fictional government can fix the problems."
I don't know how you could make a genuine satire of the book given that it doesn't provide much material to work with. Maybe depict the Federation as some kind of neutropia/uchronia where it's both militaristic and socialist? I bet that would make heads explode on both sides of the political isle. A society that is both socialist and respects the armed forces couldn't possibly exist, could it?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on May 23, 2021, 12:21:15 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 18, 2021, 11:34:48 AM
Sometimes they make these movies by slapping the name of one IP on the script for another simply to retain the IP and cut losses on scripts bought.
That's what happened with Starship Troopers. They took an unrelated script and slapped the name on it.
It's really frustrating because the movie is supposedly a satire/parody of the book but utterly fails in every way.
Namely, Johnny is Filipino. Sure, he grew up in Brazil but ethnically his family is Filipino. He speaks Tagalog!
The book is also very progressive for the time (http://www.bookinginheels.com/2021/01/starship-troopers-review-by-robert-a-heinlein.html/) in terms of representing racial diversity, women, and persons with disabilities in the military. If Heinlein had written it now, then I suspect he'd include brief references to marines being LGBT+ or autistic.
We don't get a lot of insight into how the Terran Federation is actually run. It's extremely vague and comes across as extremely cynical about human nature in spots (e.g. a teacher dismissing the Declaration of Independence as idealistic nonsense, when ironically nowadays only far leftists think that), but it's definitely not obviously fascist as detractors claim (https://www.tor.com/2016/09/06/a-genre-cornerstone-starship-troopers-by-robert-a-heinlein/) (or dystopian, or utopian, either). It's basically Heinlein saying "I think human nature sucks, I'm angry about that, I'm not sure my fictional government can fix the problems."
I don't know how you could make a genuine satire of the book given that it doesn't provide much material to work with. Maybe depict the Federation as some kind of neutropia/uchronia where it's both militaristic and socialist? I bet that would make heads explode on both sides of the political isle. A society that is both socialist and respects the armed forces couldn't possibly exist, could it?
He grew up in Argentina. Which is one reason I suspect they made him white in the movie, because all they knew about him was being from Argentina and his name. Which I will add, I never gave a thought as to his race and I only remember one character's ethnicity discussed (other than very briefly where they finally mention he is filipino), and that was the Japanese recruit in his company who would test the Drill Instructor in the hand to hand combat sparring.
But maybe they just made him white because hollywood thought it would sell better, I sort of have doubts they know Argentina is pretty pasty, and I think Buenos Ares is really Pasty.
The godawful adaptation of Starship Troopers has always been irritating to me, because the CG-animated series was even better and closer to the source material.
Heinlein, IMO, holds to the view of the 'constrained vs unconstrained' (as per Thomas Sowell). Short form, humans are fallible, mortal, and prone to fuckery; so we should build our institutions in such a way that if we DO get a bad egg in there, we can limit the damage they do. This is the 'constrained' viewpoint. In SST, there's a hard gate to any form of elected office or the franchise: tangible service to said government. Think of it as 'skin in the game'. It's not perfect, but it acts as a filter for petty time-servers and sociopaths.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 24, 2021, 08:34:16 AM
The godawful adaptation of Starship Troopers has always been irritating to me, because the CG-animated series was even better and closer to the source material.
Heinlein, IMO, holds to the view of the 'constrained vs unconstrained' (as per Thomas Sowell). Short form, humans are fallible, mortal, and prone to fuckery; so we should build our institutions in such a way that if we DO get a bad egg in there, we can limit the damage they do. This is the 'constrained' viewpoint. In SST, there's a hard gate to any form of elected office or the franchise: tangible service to said government. Think of it as 'skin in the game'. It's not perfect, but it acts as a filter for petty time-servers and sociopaths.
Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles was closer in the sense that it didn't hate its source material, but it's only very loosely similar to the source material. It essentially takes place in the same setting as the novel, but the plot is completely new. Which I think is for the better, because the novel can get pretty boring.
Too bad the show is so difficult to get ahold of now. It's not available on streaming and the DVDs are OOP.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on May 24, 2021, 10:49:02 AM
... because the novel can get pretty boring.
The slim novel that's packed with action is...
boring?
Getting back to the movie, I liked it. It's an entertaining satire in itself. It's just not a good adaptation of the novel.
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2021, 12:16:08 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on May 24, 2021, 10:49:02 AM
... because the novel can get pretty boring.
The slim novel that's packed with action is... boring?
Getting back to the movie, I liked it. It's an entertaining satire in itself. It's just not a good adaptation of the novel.
The movie is interesting mostly in that it presents itself as a propaganda film, whose its schtick is that it's supposed to subvert the propaganda you're viewing. However, if you take the movie at face value on what it presents -- Then a reasonable viewer is probably going to look at what's going on and say that the society we see isn't so bad, and makes sense in a world with humans fighting for survival against a sophisticated and deadly alien threat.
The film ends up revealing its own subversive message as the real propaganda. It's a tremendous self-own that I'd almost say was genius if I had any confidence at all that Verhoeven intended it.
Quote from: Pat on May 23, 2021, 12:16:38 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 23, 2021, 06:22:58 AM
Saw some of Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Its one idiot plot after another wrapped in woke agenda.
Called it that they would replace Captain America with jackass John Walker Cap.
I think it's amusing that most of the people talking about Falcon & the Winter Soldier think it's woke because of stuff like a patriotic white guy set up as the villain, and the scene where the Falcon is threatened by a cop because he's black. But a significant minority seem to think it's anti-woke, because the white villain gets redeemed, the real villains are basically Antifa, and one of the key scenes has faux-Antifa literally being beaten to death with an American flag (Cap's shield). Critical Drinker is an example in the first category, Tim Pool in the second. I haven't seen it myself, so I can't reconcile the opposing views.
It is weird really as it ping pongs back and fourth like theres two opposing writers or something. As for my ref to Walker, was more that it was a given they'd toss him in as the next cap. He was part of the 90s iteration of SJW push. Though in the comics hes a jerk and doesnt much change that attitude all the way to becomming USAgent. Pretty much a Guy Gardner wanna be. Only much less abrasive and utterly unlikable. Still unlikable though. But then Gardner set a really low bar to beat. If they can pull Walker out of the gutter thats ok.
But the background is just, ugh. Unfortunately anything Marvel/Disney related is pretty much doomed anyhoo. If it isnt fucked up. They WILL fuck it up.
Quote from: Pat on May 23, 2021, 12:16:38 PMBut a significant minority seem to think it's anti-woke, because the white villain gets redeemed, the real villains are basically Antifa,
In situations like these, I generally think about the person (or entity) making the product.
Disney is in general woke, I would say believes 70% of what they say, but also make generally tepid takes and are primarily motivated by money over any other principle.
If the money split was equal, and they had a choice, I believe they would support wokeness all the way. Thats how your 'friends' tell you to think in hollywood.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 25, 2021, 09:29:59 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 23, 2021, 12:16:38 PMBut a significant minority seem to think it's anti-woke, because the white villain gets redeemed, the real villains are basically Antifa,
In situations like these, I generally think about the person (or entity) making the product.
Disney is in general woke, I would say believes 70% of what they say, but also make generally tepid takes and are primarily motivated by money over any other principle.
If the money split was equal, and they had a choice, I believe they would support wokeness all the way. Thats how your 'friends' tell you to think in hollywood.
I don't think that Disney as a *company* believes even a 10% fraction of what they say. They might put forward some creative types who are 70% believers and lean Democrat, but the corporate controllers just want to make money - and that is the primary function.
Minor spoilers for the series, but I thought it hit a bunch of conservative themes as well as liberal ones. They'd played up Sam as a small-town Southerner just trying to help his working-class family. And Bucky was obsessed with redeeming his past of horrific communist mind-control. And both of them are military veterans. As Pat notes, the main villains are antifa - and the revealed extra villain at the end is the political elite.
It seems to me that Disney is doing a very skillful dance of blending in different themes, such that people can see the side that they want to in it. Black Panther was masterful in this - winning praise as one of the most conservative films of the decade in multiple lists, while also winning lots of liberal praise.
Quote from: jhkim on May 26, 2021, 01:50:24 AMI don't think that Disney as a *company* believes even a 10% fraction of what they say. They might put forward some creative types who are 70% believers and lean Democrat, but the corporate controllers just want to make money - and that is the primary function.
True. But from my familiarity with the corporations, they believe more of their BS than people say. Especially on the creative team side.
As for the series: I don't give a rats behind. I was done with marvel superheroes since the first avegers. Everything since then has just been more noise and general blandness.
When we say Disney as a *company* we mean the top officers of the corporation and the Board of directors right? Well list off who those people are and lets dig into what they do or do not believe. I will bet my left pinkie over 70 percent of them contributed money to the democratic party. Like lots of democrats, especially the ones with shitloads of money, they keep their finances super conservative but sure to trumpet out about those liberal causes and what "is good for small folk". I mean they gave millions of dollars to BLM. Parse what you will about a person's super secret real thoughts, but when you give millions to an openly marxist organization, I think that says a whole lot more about you than whatever super secret "real" belief you may have.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 26, 2021, 10:34:53 AM
True. But from my familiarity with the corporations, they believe more of their BS than people say. Especially on the creative team side.
As for the series: I don't give a rats behind. I was done with marvel superheroes since the first avegers. Everything since then has just been more noise and general blandness.
I thought a number of the later movies were actually less bland than the original ones. The originals were mostly origin stories without much individual style. But some of the later individual movies were a lot more stylish. Guardians of the Galaxy with its in-character 70s soundtrack was great fun, and Doctor Strange had its amazing psychedelic visuals, Ant-Man with its size-changing and perspective-changing gimmicks, and Spider-Man was a refreshing take on the teen superhero. One of my favorites was Thor: Ragnarok with its quirky humor and heavy metal soundtrack, though I know some people hated it.
I did think that the big event movies were noisy and bland - Ultron, Civil War, and especially Infinity War which I hated. I did like Endgame, but I had low expectations after Infinity War.
Quote from: jhkim on May 26, 2021, 06:30:55 PMI thought a number of the later movies were actually less bland than the original ones.
It's like a 5% difference to me. Structure, art, direction, design, story...Nearly everything but a slight gimmick-wise, all the marvel films are near indistinguishable.
It's a mass-manufactured malibu Stacy, with a different hat. Every film feels like its just fiddling with the comedy/action/drama knobs just a little bit, with maybe a minor aesthetic twinge. But execution wise everything is nearly the same.
Quote from: Zelen on May 25, 2021, 12:37:27 AM
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2021, 12:16:08 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on May 24, 2021, 10:49:02 AM
... because the novel can get pretty boring.
The slim novel that's packed with action is... boring?
Getting back to the movie, I liked it. It's an entertaining satire in itself. It's just not a good adaptation of the novel.
The movie is interesting mostly in that it presents itself as a propaganda film, whose its schtick is that it's supposed to subvert the propaganda you're viewing. However, if you take the movie at face value on what it presents -- Then a reasonable viewer is probably going to look at what's going on and say that the society we see isn't so bad, and makes sense in a world with humans fighting for survival against a sophisticated and deadly alien threat.
The film ends up revealing its own subversive message as the real propaganda. It's a tremendous self-own that I'd almost say was genius if I had any confidence at all that Verhoeven intended it.
The only way I can enjoy the film is as a self-own. It's an unintentional parody of a satire of fascism.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on May 24, 2021, 10:49:02 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 24, 2021, 08:34:16 AM
The godawful adaptation of Starship Troopers has always been irritating to me, because the CG-animated series was even better and closer to the source material.
Heinlein, IMO, holds to the view of the 'constrained vs unconstrained' (as per Thomas Sowell). Short form, humans are fallible, mortal, and prone to fuckery; so we should build our institutions in such a way that if we DO get a bad egg in there, we can limit the damage they do. This is the 'constrained' viewpoint. In SST, there's a hard gate to any form of elected office or the franchise: tangible service to said government. Think of it as 'skin in the game'. It's not perfect, but it acts as a filter for petty time-servers and sociopaths.
Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles was closer in the sense that it didn't hate its source material, but it's only very loosely similar to the source material. It essentially takes place in the same setting as the novel, but the plot is completely new. Which I think is for the better, because the novel can get pretty boring.
Too bad the show is so difficult to get ahold of now. It's not available on streaming and the DVDs are OOP.
What made the movie interesting to me was that it hated the source material. It felt like a conversation with the book. I thought the book was great. It is one of my favorites. But I also thought the movie was equally good. Politically I probably am closer to the movie (and Verhoeven in general) but with movies and books, if they make a compelling case for their point of view, and do it in an entertaining way, I am pretty open minded. With Starship Troopers the book, I found he made a compelling case for his position even if I ultimately disagree with it, and there were some moments where the text was just captivating to read. Also I like that they are so different from one another, people who go to the book because of the movie (which today is probably the most common path) will have quite a surprise. This was my experience. I saw the movie when it came out, and I had a conversation with my friend Bill about it, and he mentioned the book. But he described it as not being satyrical at all (and I just assumed he missed the satire, because it didn't occur to me the movie and book would have contrary messages). When I sat down to read the book for the first time, I actually found it thrilling that it was so different from the movie. And that it had a substantive way of presenting its position.
Also I think that the movie went over many peoples' heads, which I always found surprising, is a mark in its favor. It seems on the nose, but obviously it wasn't on the nose enough for a lot of people.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on May 23, 2021, 12:21:15 PM
Quote from: Omega on May 18, 2021, 11:34:48 AM
Sometimes they make these movies by slapping the name of one IP on the script for another simply to retain the IP and cut losses on scripts bought.
That's what happened with Starship Troopers. They took an unrelated script and slapped the name on it.
It's really frustrating because the movie is supposedly a satire/parody of the book but utterly fails in every way.
Namely, Johnny is Filipino. Sure, he grew up in Brazil but ethnically his family is Filipino. He speaks Tagalog!
The book is also very progressive for the time (http://www.bookinginheels.com/2021/01/starship-troopers-review-by-robert-a-heinlein.html/) in terms of representing racial diversity, women, and persons with disabilities in the military. If Heinlein had written it now, then I suspect he'd include brief references to marines being LGBT+ or autistic.
We don't get a lot of insight into how the Terran Federation is actually run. It's extremely vague and comes across as extremely cynical about human nature in spots (e.g. a teacher dismissing the Declaration of Independence as idealistic nonsense, when ironically nowadays only far leftists think that), but it's definitely not obviously fascist as detractors claim (https://www.tor.com/2016/09/06/a-genre-cornerstone-starship-troopers-by-robert-a-heinlein/) (or dystopian, or utopian, either). It's basically Heinlein saying "I think human nature sucks, I'm angry about that, I'm not sure my fictional government can fix the problems."
I don't know how you could make a genuine satire of the book given that it doesn't provide much material to work with. Maybe depict the Federation as some kind of neutropia/uchronia where it's both militaristic and socialist? I bet that would make heads explode on both sides of the political isle. A society that is both socialist and respects the armed forces couldn't possibly exist, could it?
My understanding, and it could be wrong, is the screen writer was a fan of the book. But Verhoeven couldn't get past the militarism and what he felt was a fascist message. I think it is probably better he never finished the book, because the movie surely would have turned out very different in its details and what we got on the screen works (it is a kind of weird political satire that feels like beverly hills 90210 fascism in space-----which makes sense given it was made by the guy who did Robocop as his interpretation of American Jesus). Obviously there is a lot more nuance in the book, which is one of the things that make it such a compelling read.
Heinlein was progressive in a lot of ways (in ways that coincide with a lot of Verhoeven's progressivism oddly enough). But I don't think that was the issue Verhoeven had with the book. His issue was the militarism.
Also I don't think it is a parody of the book. I think what happened was Verhoeven signed on to do a film based on the book, but when he started reading it, just had an instinctual dislike of the message. And so he made a movie that was a parody of militaristic fascism. Whether the book itself has a fascist message, I think is somewhat debatable. I see it more as a militaristic message. But I've met plenty of smart science fiction fans (including a history professor who was no political reactionary) who felt it had fascist undertones. Honestly I would need to give it a thorough reading again to really weigh in as it has been about 7 years since I last read it (which for me is enough time to forget crucial details). But I remember feeling like it wasn't fascist, as much as it was written by someone who had familiarity or background with military matters and was presenting a pro-military point of view (but it is possible I am forgetting some key detail about the government in the book).
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on May 28, 2021, 08:11:56 PM
Also I think that the movie went over many peoples' heads, which I always found surprising, is a mark in its favor. It seems on the nose, but obviously it wasn't on the nose enough for a lot of people.
That aspect makes me uneasy. While watching the movie, I felt like Verhoeven was sitting on my chest with a bullhorn in my face screaming "FASCISM IS BAD!" for two hours. I can't imagine anyone missing that message unless they were in a coma.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 28, 2021, 09:15:30 PM
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on May 28, 2021, 08:11:56 PM
Also I think that the movie went over many peoples' heads, which I always found surprising, is a mark in its favor. It seems on the nose, but obviously it wasn't on the nose enough for a lot of people.
That aspect makes me uneasy. While watching the movie, I felt like Verhoeven was sitting on my chest with a bullhorn in my face screaming "FASCISM IS BAD!" for two hours. I can't imagine anyone missing that message unless they were in a coma.
It was like Verhoeven just couldn't bring himself to actually -portray- the book, much less read it.
There's so much busted in the SST film it's hard to know where to start. The tactics and gear are wrong -- in the book, troopers wear powered armor and certainly do not use stupid WW1/WW2 era tactics. Training is strictly segregated by gender (that whole coed shower scene was absurd) to the point where in the book there's a joke made about one recruit insisting he saw a girl and nobody believes him. Speaking of training, the live-fire ranges with no way to block stray shots? Really? They combine the characters of Rasczak and DuBois, which is just strange. And they don't even give Carmen a short haircut (in the book she shaves her head because long hair is a pain to manage in zero-g).
The kindest thing I can say is that it might've gotten people interested in reading Heinlein's work. But nowadays especially, I don't want Hollyweird anywhere near my favorite authors. They fuck it up more often than not.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 28, 2021, 09:15:30 PM
That aspect makes me uneasy. While watching the movie, I felt like Verhoeven was sitting on my chest with a bullhorn in my face screaming "FASCISM IS BAD!" for two hours. I can't imagine anyone missing that message unless they were in a coma.
That's what the director wants to beat you over the head with, but the movie itself shows a bunch of heroic, good-looking people bravely putting it all on the line to save the human race.
Sorry Paul, I'm not going to root against the continuation of the human species. Anyone who does is evil.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 29, 2021, 12:24:07 AM
There's so much busted in the SST film it's hard to know where to start. The tactics and gear are wrong -- in the book, troopers wear powered armor and certainly do not use stupid WW1/WW2 era tactics.
I was always disappointed that we never got to see the Marauder suits on screen. In the movie, the fights are massed close combat, with the mobile infantry almost shoulder to shoulder, wearing what looks like cheap plastic armor that doesn't seem to do anything, and running around like ordinary people with exposed faces. It's tight, close, personal, and human scale. They frequently faces hordes of enemies, but they're treated as cheap and disposable.
In the fbookilm, they wear massive suits that makes them look like giant metal gorillas, with jets they can use to bounce across the battlefield, while spraying massive amounts of firepower, including strings of baby nukes. They're widely distributed, the distances covered are vast, they have enough firepower to take out cities, and they have sensor arrays that make modern fighters look blind.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 28, 2021, 09:15:30 PM
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on May 28, 2021, 08:11:56 PM
Also I think that the movie went over many peoples' heads, which I always found surprising, is a mark in its favor. It seems on the nose, but obviously it wasn't on the nose enough for a lot of people.
That aspect makes me uneasy. While watching the movie, I felt like Verhoeven was sitting on my chest with a bullhorn in my face screaming "FASCISM IS BAD!" for two hours. I can't imagine anyone missing that message unless they were in a coma.
I thought it was too obvious to miss too when I first saw it in the theater, but I kept running into people who thought it was a film promoting fascism.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 29, 2021, 12:24:07 AM
The kindest thing I can say is that it might've gotten people interested in reading Heinlein's work. But nowadays especially, I don't want Hollyweird anywhere near my favorite authors. They fuck it up more often than not.
I think it just got more people to believe the books are fascist indoctrination pamphlets and avoided it. I hated the movie and Kat detested it.
As for modern adaptions. Expect more and expect hollowood to rape as many characters as they can. Because no one can just tinker with stuff anymore for tinkerings sake. No. They have to make it into another agenda platform.
Quote from: Pat on May 29, 2021, 09:37:38 AMIn the fbookilm, they wear massive suits that makes them look like giant metal gorillas, with jets they can use to bounce across the battlefield, while spraying massive amounts of firepower, including strings of baby nukes. They're widely distributed, the distances covered are vast, they have enough firepower to take out cities, and they have sensor arrays that make modern fighters look blind.
The anime series adaption plays to the book alot better than the movies. It still takes alot of liberties with things.
(https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/starshiptroopers/images/3/3c/St%281988%29-poweredsuit-ep01-heshell.jpg)
When a director who probably feels Dirty Harry is a fascist makes a movie trying to portray a government body as fascist he fails badly IMO. I think Paul wanted to make that message, "Fascism is BAD!!" But he also showed a government that tells the public pretty much the whole story all the time. That is not, IMO ever a real portrayal at all of a totalitarian fascist government (again the only type of fascist there is). He does portray the military as complete fucktards though, since they are attacking huge monsters with small arms that are largely ineffective. In the book they used the proper gear for the fight.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 02, 2021, 03:23:34 PM
When a director who probably feels Dirty Harry is a fascist makes a movie trying to portray a government body as fascist he fails badly IMO. I think Paul wanted to make that message, "Fascism is BAD!!" But he also showed a government that tells the public pretty much the whole story all the time. That is not, IMO ever a real portrayal at all of a totalitarian fascist government (again the only type of fascist there is). He does portray the military as complete fucktards though, since they are attacking huge monsters with small arms that are largely ineffective. In the book they used the proper gear for the fight.
The part in training where Zim intenionally breaks a recruit's arm when sparring, and later throws a knife and intentionally impales a recruit's hand shows to me that Verhoeven was/is in the childish mindset that the military is bad because they're too mean, and so he crafted a strawman that directly contradicts the book, in which Zim accidentally breaks a recruit's arm when sparring and apologizes.
The difference between those scenes encapsulates my issues with the film as an adaptation.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 03, 2021, 03:59:18 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 02, 2021, 03:23:34 PM
When a director who probably feels Dirty Harry is a fascist makes a movie trying to portray a government body as fascist he fails badly IMO. I think Paul wanted to make that message, "Fascism is BAD!!" But he also showed a government that tells the public pretty much the whole story all the time. That is not, IMO ever a real portrayal at all of a totalitarian fascist government (again the only type of fascist there is). He does portray the military as complete fucktards though, since they are attacking huge monsters with small arms that are largely ineffective. In the book they used the proper gear for the fight.
The part in training where Zim intenionally breaks a recruit's arm when sparring, and later throws a knife and intentionally impales a recruit's hand shows to me that Verhoeven was/is in the childish mindset that the military is bad because they're too mean, and so he crafted a strawman that directly contradicts the book, in which Zim accidentally breaks a recruit's arm when sparring and apologizes.
The difference between those scenes encapsulates my issues with the film as an adaptation.
I agree, leaving out the recruit (I dont remember his name, just that he was the son of a Judo/martial arts master) who actually beat Zim in a few goes during sparring and Zim takes it with a grin, pat on the back and a willingness to go again and encourages recruits to learn from it, also shows us why writers who have NEVER BEEN IN THE MILITARY should get some sort of professional advice. Reminds me of the high school football trope....2nd string quarterback who is almost always some artistic romantic type has to take over the team mid season and is an "outsider" and wants to give long rousing speeches (that football players wouldnt get) or create intricate plays on the field in a huddle. That does not happen in HS, at least not in top end programs. Football players are like athletic drones, you wind them up and they do as programmed. There is no re writing the program in real time.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 03, 2021, 07:48:26 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 03, 2021, 03:59:18 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 02, 2021, 03:23:34 PM
When a director who probably feels Dirty Harry is a fascist makes a movie trying to portray a government body as fascist he fails badly IMO. I think Paul wanted to make that message, "Fascism is BAD!!" But he also showed a government that tells the public pretty much the whole story all the time. That is not, IMO ever a real portrayal at all of a totalitarian fascist government (again the only type of fascist there is). He does portray the military as complete fucktards though, since they are attacking huge monsters with small arms that are largely ineffective. In the book they used the proper gear for the fight.
The part in training where Zim intenionally breaks a recruit's arm when sparring, and later throws a knife and intentionally impales a recruit's hand shows to me that Verhoeven was/is in the childish mindset that the military is bad because they're too mean, and so he crafted a strawman that directly contradicts the book, in which Zim accidentally breaks a recruit's arm when sparring and apologizes.
The difference between those scenes encapsulates my issues with the film as an adaptation.
I agree, leaving out the recruit (I dont remember his name, just that he was the son of a Judo/martial arts master) who actually beat Zim in a few goes during sparring and Zim takes it with a grin, pat on the back and a willingness to go again and encourages recruits to learn from it, also shows us why writers who have NEVER BEEN IN THE MILITARY should get some sort of professional advice. Reminds me of the high school football trope....2nd string quarterback who is almost always some artistic romantic type has to take over the team mid season and is an "outsider" and wants to give long rousing speeches (that football players wouldnt get) or create intricate plays on the field in a huddle. That does not happen in HS, at least not in top end programs. Football players are like athletic drones, you wind them up and they do as programmed. There is no re writing the program in real time.
I've heard the bit with Shujumi (I believe that was the recruit's name you're looking for) is based on some actual training doctrines. A recruit who possesses skills at that level may be tapped to assist in training. He still has to comport himself as a recruit and possesses no actual rank, but he is allowed to work with other recruits with the blessing of the instructors. Rare, but not unheard of.
But yeah. The film depiction of Zim is like a bad parody of R. Lee Ermey from Full Metal Jacket. Verhoeven is a hack.
There's also no shortage of chuckleheads who get their opinion of the book from detractors and wikipedia summaries without actually reading it. I talked to one who thought Heinlein was an "asshole" and a "fascist" because he didn't recount SST before he died. This idiot thinks SST is a bad evil book because it supposedly promotes capital punishment.
There is one scene where a convicted rapist serial killer is executed, but it's such a minor element that you could cut it entirely and lose nothing of value.
I don't support corporal punishment or capital punishment because they're abuse. Full stop. No studies have shown them to have any efficacy and there's plenty of examples of innocent people being executed or corporal punishment increasing likelihood of antisocial behavior. I'm not going to demonize people who think it does work, because there's no shortage of hypocritical leftist fascists who claim to oppose capital punishment but openly support imprisonment, rape, and outright extrajudicial murder of people (particularly women) who don't agree with them.
If you tweaked the execution scene so that the criminal was a lesbian being executed for refusing to have sex with a transwoman, then the twitterati would be praising the book as "stunning" and brave" (and "antiracist" for featuring a Filipino protagonist). I'm not going to take advice on SST from those sick fucks.
I can buy that capital punishment as carried out in the USA is usually unfair, can not be undone, and does not deter the crimes it is there for. It is also hideously expensive. That said, if I caught a person who killed, or say, sexually assaulted my wife or kids, I would have no issue torturing them to death for a few days.
There are, however, two good arguments in favor of capital punishment:
One, you won't have to feed, house, or deal with that person again.
Two, their chance of recidivism is zero.
That being said, the huge issues we have been seeing with our judicial system make me disinclined to support the death penalty. Too many errors, too many dirty prosecutions, too much crap. So yeah, sorry, I can't support it.
Self-defense is a thing, however, and if you die because you kicked in the wrong door, well... think of it as evolution in action.
The problem is human nature.
Reject humanity, embrace the bugs.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 04, 2021, 06:40:38 PM
There are, however, two good arguments in favor of capital punishment:
One, you won't have to feed, house, or deal with that person again.
Two, their chance of recidivism is zero.
That being said, the huge issues we have been seeing with our judicial system make me disinclined to support the death penalty. Too many errors, too many dirty prosecutions, too much crap. So yeah, sorry, I can't support it.
Self-defense is a thing, however, and if you die because you kicked in the wrong door, well... think of it as evolution in action.
Wayyy off topic. But that is my view too. Especially after seeing just how badly the judicial system is now.
Cull out the corrupt in the system and then the death sentence works because then theres little to no chance a killer can cheat their way free.
Back on topic thats been the subject of a few movies and TV, especially CSI, and even the second of the PC RPGs Freedom Force where one of the superheroes, Tombstone, is falsely tried for the murder of his wife and sentenced to death.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 04, 2021, 06:22:31 PM
I can buy that capital punishment as carried out in the USA is usually unfair, can not be undone, and does not deter the crimes it is there for. It is also hideously expensive. That said, if I caught a person who killed, or say, sexually assaulted my wife or kids, I would have no issue torturing them to death for a few days.
There's a big difference between the legal process and personal reaction. If someone harmed my immediate family, I'd likely have a similar reaction. But I'm also glad that we have a legal system to prevent everyone from going there when a person is victimized. I think it would soon devolve into vigilante justice, which is always lurking underneath our attempts to create law and order.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 05, 2021, 05:51:56 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 04, 2021, 06:22:31 PM
I can buy that capital punishment as carried out in the USA is usually unfair, can not be undone, and does not deter the crimes it is there for. It is also hideously expensive. That said, if I caught a person who killed, or say, sexually assaulted my wife or kids, I would have no issue torturing them to death for a few days.
There's a big difference between the legal process and personal reaction. If someone harmed my immediate family, I'd likely have a similar reaction. But I'm also glad that we have a legal system to prevent everyone from going there when a person is victimized. I think it would soon devolve into vigilante justice, which is always lurking underneath our attempts to create law and order.
Vigilante justice also lurks just beneath when it is pretty clear the law will not be applied the same way to everyone. I already know a rapist or child molester will not get the death penalty, and it should be a capital crime, if we are going to have capital crimes. But I agree I like an impartial justice system. I am just not too convinced our justice system in the USA is fair or impartial, and has never really been.
Forbidden Empire (Viy in the original Russian). The name is utterly generic, and has nothing to do with the film (there are no empires; it's almost entirely set in a village). The cover is utterly generic as well. And I'm pretty sure I picked up it up at a dollar store, though it was apparently the highest grossing film in Russia in 2014. But there were problems with international distribution, so ended up direct to video in most countries. The dub isn't great. I had a hard time keeping the characters straight, because too many look alike. The plot doesn't seem like it's going anywhere for a lot of the film, and relies too heavily on a twist ending.
But it's spectacular. The special effects aren't the best I've ever seen, but they're great in a cheesy way, and very imaginative. It draws from Russian folklore rather than standard fantasy tropes, so it's distinctly different from generic Western fantasies without being completely unfamiliar. The plot is convoluted, but mostly holds together, and all the early scenes that initially seemed random or disconnected become essential parts of the climax. Reminds me most of Gilliam's The Brothers Grimm, or maybe Van Helsing.
It's very much an Age of Enlightenment fairy tale, mixing the wondrous and the meta. There are ugly little fairies, terrifying ghostly wolves, a weird eye creature, witches, horned beasts, body horror transformations, Science!, overly religious villagers, deception, betrayals, cartography, and an extended fight with a coffin. If you're running a fantasy game with fairy tale or weird fantasy elements, it's probably worth a watch. In fact, the whole thing could be adapted into an interesting adventure.
Speaking of Russian movies, I enjoyed the Movies Nightwatch and Daywatch. I thought there was supposed to be a third, but if memory serves the director got sucked into hollywood and never did the third movie.
They're very different movies (more Russian World of Darkness), so I avoided making a direct comparison, but a few of the mythological elements in Forbidden Empire do have a similar feel to the Day/Nightwatch duology. (Which I also recommend.)
Quote from: Pat on June 05, 2021, 08:25:43 PM
They're very different movies (more Russian World of Darkness), so I avoided making a direct comparison, but a few of the mythological elements in Forbidden Empire do have a similar feel to the Day/Nightwatch duology. (Which I also recommend.)
Urban fantasy. The genre you're trying to name is Urban Fantasy. There are over 60,000 urban fantasy books being sold on Amazon right now. Urban fantasy in its modern form has been around since the late 70s.
It's not "Russian World of Darkness" by a long shot. Russian Lost Girl is a much more apt comparison. It uses the same Light/Dark distinction.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 05, 2021, 09:19:41 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 05, 2021, 08:25:43 PM
They're very different movies (more Russian World of Darkness), so I avoided making a direct comparison, but a few of the mythological elements in Forbidden Empire do have a similar feel to the Day/Nightwatch duology. (Which I also recommend.)
Urban fantasy. The genre you're trying to name is Urban Fantasy. There are over 60,000 urban fantasy books being sold on Amazon right now. Urban fantasy in its modern form has been around since the late 70s.
It's not "Russian World of Darkness" by a long shot. Russian Lost Girl is a much more apt comparison. It uses the same Light/Dark distinction.
Patronizing much? I've read more than my fair share of authors like de Lint, Bull, and Gaiman. If I wanted to name the genre, I would have. But it's an RPG forum, so I made an RPG analogy instead. And note I said World of Darkness, not Vampire: The Whatever. That includes Changeling. And the corporate stuff in *watch is similar to that across several Storyteller games. Lost Girl isn't an RPG, and it's already partly Russian anyway, with Kenzi and episodes like the one with Baga Yaga.
Quote from: Pat on June 05, 2021, 09:41:59 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 05, 2021, 09:19:41 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 05, 2021, 08:25:43 PM
They're very different movies (more Russian World of Darkness), so I avoided making a direct comparison, but a few of the mythological elements in Forbidden Empire do have a similar feel to the Day/Nightwatch duology. (Which I also recommend.)
Urban fantasy. The genre you're trying to name is Urban Fantasy. There are over 60,000 urban fantasy books being sold on Amazon right now. Urban fantasy in its modern form has been around since the late 70s.
It's not "Russian World of Darkness" by a long shot. Russian Lost Girl is a much more apt comparison. It uses the same Light/Dark distinction.
Patronizing much? I've read more than my fair share of authors like de Lint, Bull, and Gaiman. If I wanted to name the genre, I would have. But it's an RPG forum, so I made an RPG analogy instead. And note I said World of Darkness, not Vampire: The Whatever. That includes Changeling. And the corporate stuff in *watch is similar to that across several Storyteller games. Lost Girl isn't an RPG, and it's already partly Russian anyway, with Kenzi and episodes like the one with Baga Yaga.
I just despise World of Darkness (and not just because the owners are psycho SJWs) and wish that there were other games in the genre with communities worth discussing with. Sorry if I came across as patronizing.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 06, 2021, 03:02:22 PM
I just despise World of Darkness (and not just because the owners are psycho SJWs) and wish that there were other games in the genre with communities worth discussing with. Sorry if I came across as patronizing.
Appreciate the de-escalation. It's a nice change from the norm. The wording in my reaction was probably a bit too strong, as well.
I don't disagree with you about World of Darkness (though I probably don't care as much), but it is the default reference point in the RPG world for the genre, and it shares a number of elements with Night/Daywatch, because they draw from the same urban fantasy tradition. Though it's worth noting that's a specific subset of urban fantasy in general -- de Lint is from a very different tradition, for instance.
Think mentioned this before. But since we are on the topic of Russian movies.
Picked up a copy of Koma and overall was an interesting idea. Really uneven, but interesting. Reminded me a tiny bit of the old superhero Horror series Dream Warriors.
Older Russian movies have liked include the various live action and animated tellings of the folk hero Ilya Muromets.
And the original unedited version of Cesta do praveku (Road to Prehistory), dubbed back in the 50s as Journey to the Beginning of Time is actually fairly entertaining and well done. Moves at a glacial pace but part of the point is the journey itself.
And if East Germany/Poland counts then there is The Silent Star, AKA: First Spaceship on Venus. Based off the Stanislaw Lem book. And speaking of whom. Theres at least 3 Solaris movies now. 2 Russian made and one rather lacking US remake.
Rewatched the Exorcist III the other day (and did a podcast on it): https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-nyag2-105be97
I first saw this one working in a local video store back when it came out and remember being surprised by how good it was (Part III's at that time, I think had a somewhat bad reputation, and Exorcist II wasn't very well loved). But this is a totally different feel from the first movie, and is more crime thriller, police procedural, with possession thrown in. It has a pretty cool core premise, and one of the most well constructed jump scares I have ever seen in a movie. Plus an entertaining performance from George C. Scott
Going to be doing a debate on whether Sleepwalkers (1992) is terrible or enjoyable soon
Near Extinction: Shangri-La: This is a weird one. Post-apocalypse. The world's frozen. There's a war between the surviving humans and the konglings. This is all established in a voiceover narration before the movie starts. The action starts in media res, with no idea who anybody is, or what they're doing. But they feel like a party of PCs. Everyone has a distinct appearance and quirky personality, a backstory with pathos, and a schtick or powers. But while the party is established fairly quickly, who is fighting who and why isn't clear. The start is really confusing. It's not clear the movie is going anywhere, it just feels like a random mess.
This is a fault, but it's also clearly a deliberate choice made by the movie's creators. There are a couple major twists, and they're holding back details to set up big reveals. But they do clear up most of the mess as the movie progresses, relying very heavily on flashbacks to both establish characters, and to establish the world. And there's a lot of world. Factions, complicated backstory, different allies, different enemies, a MacGuffin hunt or three, and so on. Again, it feels like an RPG, in particular someone's homebrew setting. I'm not going to pretend it all makes sense, but if you accept the the internal logic (lasers caused an ice age?), the plot mostly comes together. It's not great, but it is interesting in a weird way.
But even so, it feels like the pilot episode in a series. There's plot, but it's fairly light. The movie is mostly about establishing the world, the characters, and the mission; ends at the start of a quest rather than at the end; and there are a lot of loose ends, or just bizarre things that aren't explained (why everyone sleeps together half naked, for instance).
Definitely low budget. All the secret bases and high tech labs that are clearly just warehouses or empty offices. But not zero budget. They have practical and CGI special effects, and they're not complete garbage. Acting isn't amazing, but mostly seems serviceable. I'd watch a sequel.
Saw the trailer for it and passed. Seemed like an interesting post-apoc feeling premise. But the trailer I saw was really disjointed. Like I was seeing clips from 3 or 4 different shows. Makes more sense now that some of those must be flashbacks. Just didnt click for some reason.
I'm surprised anyone's heard of it, at all. It's a weird little thing.
Netflix just put up the first three Gundam movies.
My first exposure to Gundam was an untranslated, bootleg VHS tape that I think was a condensed version, like these films. It's been a long time, so I'm not sure if it's the exact same thing.
Anyway, gonna watch these.
https://www.netflix.com/title/70014611
Been bingewatching classic Chuck Norris movies on Prime. Love movies like Lone Wolf McQuade and Octagon. Just finished A Force of One, where he is a karate instructor and champion karate competitor, moonlighting with local law enforcement to take on cop killing drug dealers. By the end of the movie it it becomes personal and that leads to a big showdown with Bill "Superfoot" Wallace. It was made in 1979 and still has some of that 70s grit. These are pretty straightforward types of martial arts action films, with a clear good guy and a somewhat predictable but emotionally rewarding plot. Maybe growing up on this stuff is part of it, but for me this just works.
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on June 24, 2021, 07:36:48 PM
Been bingewatching classic Chuck Norris movies on Prime. Love movies like Lone Wolf McQuade and Octagon. Just finished A Force of One, where he is a karate instructor and champion karate competitor, moonlighting with local law enforcement to take on cop killing drug dealers. By the end of the movie it it becomes personal and that leads to a big showdown with Bill "Superfoot" Wallace. It was made in 1979 and still has some of that 70s grit. These are pretty straightforward types of martial arts action films, with a clear good guy and a somewhat predictable but emotionally rewarding plot. Maybe growing up on this stuff is part of it, but for me this just works.
Octagon annoyed the shit out of me with him whispering to himself in his head the whole movie. Lone Wolf McQuade will make a teenager grow chest hair just watching it (I mean, how manly is it to drink a hot beer and then drive your supercharged bronco out from under being buried alive with sheer horsepower and Manliness). I always loved the fight scene with Chuck and Bill where he kicks the suitcase full of cocaine out of the air in their battle. I could be remembering that wrong, but I thought it happened just before he beats a coke charged Bill up.
You are giving me a nostalgia overload, these are the movies I saw as a kid when they were new.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 25, 2021, 08:56:59 AM
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on June 24, 2021, 07:36:48 PM
Been bingewatching classic Chuck Norris movies on Prime. Love movies like Lone Wolf McQuade and Octagon. Just finished A Force of One, where he is a karate instructor and champion karate competitor, moonlighting with local law enforcement to take on cop killing drug dealers. By the end of the movie it it becomes personal and that leads to a big showdown with Bill "Superfoot" Wallace. It was made in 1979 and still has some of that 70s grit. These are pretty straightforward types of martial arts action films, with a clear good guy and a somewhat predictable but emotionally rewarding plot. Maybe growing up on this stuff is part of it, but for me this just works.
Octagon annoyed the shit out of me with him whispering to himself in his head the whole movie. Lone Wolf McQuade will make a teenager grow chest hair just watching it (I mean, how manly is it to drink a hot beer and then drive your supercharged bronco out from under being buried alive with sheer horsepower and Manliness). I always loved the fight scene with Chuck and Bill where he kicks the suitcase full of cocaine out of the air in their battle. I could be remembering that wrong, but I thought it happened just before he beats a coke charged Bill up.
You are giving me a nostalgia overload, these are the movies I saw as a kid when they were new.
It was some kind of square metal box for holding drugs (can't remember if it was coke or powdered heroin---or something else....but exploded in a blast of white powder). That was a cool scene. Basically Bill was on the ground, chuck had just shown mercy at the urging of the detective, and bill then got up and threw the box at Chuck if I recall (just saw it the other day but might be fuzzy on the precise flow of action in that scene). I loved how evil Bill Superfoot Wallace was in that movie.
The whispering never really bothered me too much in the Octagon but I could see that getting on someone's nerves.
I was too young to see a force of one when it came out (was probably 3 years old) but I remember seeing Chuck Norris movies as they came out in the mid-80s and I remember watching films like A Force of One on television (tons of those 70s crime thriller and action movies were on the syndication channels). And we watched a ton of these movies on video at the time.
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on June 25, 2021, 10:08:43 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 25, 2021, 08:56:59 AM
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on June 24, 2021, 07:36:48 PM
Been bingewatching classic Chuck Norris movies on Prime. Love movies like Lone Wolf McQuade and Octagon. Just finished A Force of One, where he is a karate instructor and champion karate competitor, moonlighting with local law enforcement to take on cop killing drug dealers. By the end of the movie it it becomes personal and that leads to a big showdown with Bill "Superfoot" Wallace. It was made in 1979 and still has some of that 70s grit. These are pretty straightforward types of martial arts action films, with a clear good guy and a somewhat predictable but emotionally rewarding plot. Maybe growing up on this stuff is part of it, but for me this just works.
Octagon annoyed the shit out of me with him whispering to himself in his head the whole movie. Lone Wolf McQuade will make a teenager grow chest hair just watching it (I mean, how manly is it to drink a hot beer and then drive your supercharged bronco out from under being buried alive with sheer horsepower and Manliness). I always loved the fight scene with Chuck and Bill where he kicks the suitcase full of cocaine out of the air in their battle. I could be remembering that wrong, but I thought it happened just before he beats a coke charged Bill up.
You are giving me a nostalgia overload, these are the movies I saw as a kid when they were new.
It was some kind of square metal box for holding drugs (can't remember if it was coke or powdered heroin---or something else....but exploded in a blast of white powder). That was a cool scene. Basically Bill was on the ground, chuck had just shown mercy at the urging of the detective, and bill then got up and threw the box at Chuck if I recall (just saw it the other day but might be fuzzy on the precise flow of action in that scene). I loved how evil Bill Superfoot Wallace was in that movie.
The whispering never really bothered me too much in the Octagon but I could see that getting on someone's nerves.
I was too young to see a force of one when it came out (was probably 3 years old) but I remember seeing Chuck Norris movies as they came out in the mid-80s and I remember watching films like A Force of One on television (tons of those 70s crime thriller and action movies were on the syndication channels). And we watched a ton of these movies on video at the time.
I think a big problem for me with the Octagon, is I thought it was a little light on the action ( as a kid watching it) and I probably saw it 20 times on HBO; it always felt like I was watching a whole bunch of whispering to finally see Chuck face off against the Alpha Ninja (not his adopted brother (Sho kiyosoge I think, but dont remember and I dont try to use google to cover memory), but the big one played by I think; Richard Norton? Who if I remember correctly was also a doofus in another role in the same movie) which to me as a kid was a very cool scene.
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on June 24, 2021, 07:36:48 PM
Been bingewatching classic Chuck Norris movies on Prime. Love movies like Lone Wolf McQuade and Octagon.
Octagon is pretty good. Lots of quirky characters.
I watched Amazon's movie The Tomorrow War with Chriss Pratt and I agree with the general assessment that the time travel part doesn't make any sense.
That got me thinking ... Are there any good time travel movies that actually hold up to scrutiny? Even ones that are serious, like Primer, fall apart of you think about them too much. The only one that seems to work out is The Terminator. Skynet sends back a T-800 and the humans send someone to protect Sarah Connor who ends up being the father of the man that Skynet was trying to get rid of. A nice neat loop that fits together. Of course, it ceases to work with T2.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 07, 2021, 02:13:13 PM
I watched Amazon's movie The Tomorrow War with Chriss Pratt and I agree with the general assessment that the time travel part doesn't make any sense.
That got me thinking ... Are there any good time travel movies that actually hold up to scrutiny? Even ones that are serious, like Primer, fall apart of you think about them too much. The only one that seems to work out is The Terminator. Skynet sends back a T-1000 and the humans send someone to protect Sarah Connor who ends up being the father of the man that Skynet was trying to get rid of. A nice neat loop that fits together. Of course, it ceases to work with T2.
Amusingly enough, I think the whole Back to the Future series manages this. The Time Travel is consistent in how it works, and they don't handwave any of it.
(The T-1000 was the liquid metal one from T2. The T-800 was the model from the first film.)
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 07, 2021, 02:17:25 PMAmusingly enough, I think the whole Back to the Future series manages this. The Time Travel is consistent in how it works, and they don't handwave any of it.
I liked these movies but the idea that a picture would slowly start to disappear because the people in the picture no longer exists is pretty silly. Especially since time travel in these movies create alternate histories so it shouldn't matter to the time traveling Marty if the Marty in that universe doesn't exist.
But you are correct in that at least they are consistent and nobody does anything that's blatantly stupid.
Quote(The T-1000 was the liquid metal one from T2. The T-800 was the model from the first film.)
Fixed
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 07, 2021, 02:25:10 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 07, 2021, 02:17:25 PMAmusingly enough, I think the whole Back to the Future series manages this. The Time Travel is consistent in how it works, and they don't handwave any of it.
I liked these movies but the idea that a picture would slowly start to disappear because the people in the picture no longer exists is pretty silly. Especially since time travel in these movies create alternate histories so it shouldn't matter to the time traveling Marty if the Marty in that universe doesn't exist.
But you are correct in that at least they are consistent and nobody does anything that's blatantly stupid.
I was actually thinking about this point after typing out my reply.
It's consistent in that someone outside of their original time, who has altered history, have a period where the changes are "catching up" to them. When they return to their original time, the changes have caught up. That's why Biff (in the deleted scene) dissapeared when he got out of the Delorean, and Hill Valley was changed both times when Marty returned to 1985.
There are alternate histories, but they replace the current history. Marty coudn't simply return to his 1985, he had to alter events so that his 1985 was the current one.
It's a movie convention, so that Marty could know that history had been changed, and have an opportunity to alter it again, but it's consistent in that he didn't return to his original time to find out. Then it would have been "too late".
*Edit* I think I'm quibbiling now.
As you said, Ratman, at least BttF was consistent in how it worked. Even Avengers Endgame managed to fuck it up (Loki's escape should've had all sorts of repercussions).
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 07, 2021, 02:13:13 PM
I watched Amazon's movie The Tomorrow War with Chriss Pratt and I agree with the general assessment that the time travel part doesn't make any sense.
That got me thinking ... Are there any good time travel movies that actually hold up to scrutiny? Even ones that are serious, like Primer, fall apart of you think about them too much. The only one that seems to work out is The Terminator. Skynet sends back a T-800 and the humans send someone to protect Sarah Connor who ends up being the father of the man that Skynet was trying to get rid of. A nice neat loop that fits together. Of course, it ceases to work with T2.
Is that in any way related to the Forever War?
I am sure some do, I can't think of any off the top of my head. I try not to be too pedantic with time travel stuff. It something really leaps out immediately as off or as violating the rules they lay out, it bothers me. But its more about what rules they cleave to (like the first bill and ted just seems to have that one big rule that the clock in the present is always running, and they stick to it---in the first movie at least---so that is good enough for me even if they aren't worried about the other time travel issues)
I agree the time travel in Tomorrow War didn't really work. For instance, if we use the rafts analogy, how did they make the first jump back in the first place? And they ignore whether events in the present can affect the future, which leads to some really big questions that should be answered but aren't.
But I have a bigger issue with the entire third act. It seems to exist for no reason except to it wants to make all the major characters big heroes, except they don't become big heroes and their actions almost ended the world.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 08, 2021, 08:19:23 AM
Even Avengers Endgame managed to fuck it up (Loki's escape should've had all sorts of repercussions).
So, there's this entire show called "Loki" that covers exactly this. They went with "bug as feature" and embraced that it should have had repercussions...and why it (maybe?) didn't.
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on July 08, 2021, 10:19:20 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 07, 2021, 02:13:13 PM
I watched Amazon's movie The Tomorrow War with Chriss Pratt and I agree with the general assessment that the time travel part doesn't make any sense.
That got me thinking ... Are there any good time travel movies that actually hold up to scrutiny? Even ones that are serious, like Primer, fall apart of you think about them too much. The only one that seems to work out is The Terminator. Skynet sends back a T-800 and the humans send someone to protect Sarah Connor who ends up being the father of the man that Skynet was trying to get rid of. A nice neat loop that fits together. Of course, it ceases to work with T2.
Is that in any way related to the Forever War?
Nope. I'm kinda glad. Nowadays I don't want any more adaptations of my favorite books turned into shit by Hollyweird.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 08, 2021, 03:21:01 PM
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on July 08, 2021, 10:19:20 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 07, 2021, 02:13:13 PM
I watched Amazon's movie The Tomorrow War with Chriss Pratt and I agree with the general assessment that the time travel part doesn't make any sense.
That got me thinking ... Are there any good time travel movies that actually hold up to scrutiny? Even ones that are serious, like Primer, fall apart of you think about them too much. The only one that seems to work out is The Terminator. Skynet sends back a T-800 and the humans send someone to protect Sarah Connor who ends up being the father of the man that Skynet was trying to get rid of. A nice neat loop that fits together. Of course, it ceases to work with T2.
Is that in any way related to the Forever War?
Nope. I'm kinda glad. Nowadays I don't want any more adaptations of my favorite books turned into shit by Hollyweird.
God, yes. I don't look forward to movies anymore, I just kinda hope a few decent ones squeak by the Process they use to generate their bland but noisy garbage.
Dune, Foundation, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc, etc...
Tomorrow war did have the "bad" time travel. I have only ever seen one movie where the time travel was made to look like anything that could actually follow a consistent rule/law (Primer) and there is no way the modern movie audience is going to watch that movie en masse. To be honest the time travel was about 4th on my list of WTF!! on really, really bad ideas people in the future seemed to be overflowing with. I guess maybe that was intentional given the path society is taking, a massive alien invasion fought 30 years down the road by the folks I see reimagining society...well its a lost cause.
That said, bad time travel and some other REALLY bad ideas for how to handle the problem at hand, it entertained me and honestly that is all I am looking for from a movie these days.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 08, 2021, 03:41:36 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 08, 2021, 03:21:01 PM
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on July 08, 2021, 10:19:20 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 07, 2021, 02:13:13 PM
I watched Amazon's movie The Tomorrow War with Chriss Pratt and I agree with the general assessment that the time travel part doesn't make any sense.
That got me thinking ... Are there any good time travel movies that actually hold up to scrutiny? Even ones that are serious, like Primer, fall apart of you think about them too much. The only one that seems to work out is The Terminator. Skynet sends back a T-800 and the humans send someone to protect Sarah Connor who ends up being the father of the man that Skynet was trying to get rid of. A nice neat loop that fits together. Of course, it ceases to work with T2.
Is that in any way related to the Forever War?
Nope. I'm kinda glad. Nowadays I don't want any more adaptations of my favorite books turned into shit by Hollyweird.
God, yes. I don't look forward to movies anymore, I just kinda hope a few decent ones squeak by the Process they use to generate their bland but noisy garbage.
Dune, Foundation, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc, etc...
It's kind of heartbreaking in a way. I'd love to see an adaptation of some of David Weber's works.
But I don't trust Hollywood. Honestly, I haven't trusted them to not fuck it up for a long time. The current day just cements my opinion on the issue. I'd sooner turn the treatment over to Bollywood (India's homegrown cinema industry) even if we got jank sFX and weird musical numbers.
Quote from: Pat on July 08, 2021, 01:03:24 PM
I agree the time travel in Tomorrow War didn't really work. For instance, if we use the rafts analogy, how did they make the first jump back in the first place? And they ignore whether events in the present can affect the future, which leads to some really big questions that should be answered but aren't.
When the people from 2061 show up in 2021, it was clear that they were from an alternate future as the people of 2061 didn't experience the time travel 40 years ago. This is explicit when they have death records for everyone sent forward in time even though they died of other reasons. So there is no reason for the people of 2021 to send poorly equipped and untrained citizens to the future when that future isn't the future that they will experience.
Quote from: oggsmash on July 08, 2021, 05:34:00 PM
Tomorrow war did have the "bad" time travel. I have only ever seen one movie where the time travel was made to look like anything that could actually follow a consistent rule/law (Primer) and there is no way the modern movie audience is going to watch that movie en masse.
I liked Primer but it didn't make sense for them to physically travel back in time just to play the stock market when it would have been easier for them to send a newspaper back in time instead and make their stock trades with that information. This is especially true once the people find out that time travel damages their nervous system (which, itself, doesn't make sense as they aren't making copies of themselves but are just sitting in a box).
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 09, 2021, 09:07:14 AM
Quote from: Pat on July 08, 2021, 01:03:24 PM
I agree the time travel in Tomorrow War didn't really work. For instance, if we use the rafts analogy, how did they make the first jump back in the first place? And they ignore whether events in the present can affect the future, which leads to some really big questions that should be answered but aren't.
When the people from 2061 show up in 2021, it was clear that they were from an alternate future as the people of 2061 didn't experience the time travel 40 years ago. This is explicit when they have death records for everyone sent forward in time even though they died of other reasons. So there is no reason for the people of 2021 to send poorly equipped and untrained citizens to the future when that future isn't the future that they will experience.
Yep, that's the mess I was referring to. The entire plot requires a single timeline, while the details only make sense with alternate timelines. Two more details that add to the confusion are the wave of worldwide nihilism after the connection is cut, and the way only people who were recorded as having died between the two time periods are qualified to make the jump. As I hinted, the narration spends almost no time on explaining how time travel works, so there's never even an attempt at in-movie explanation. Which is probably a smart move -- if the time travel in your movie makes no sense, it's probably better not to draw attention to it, and hope people just get swept up in the action and don't think about it.
I watched a few reviews on YouTube that seemed to entirely miss this. They just assume changes in the present make changes in the future, and treat that as established fact, despite all the details that contradict it.
Quote from: Pat on July 09, 2021, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 09, 2021, 09:07:14 AM
Quote from: Pat on July 08, 2021, 01:03:24 PM
I agree the time travel in Tomorrow War didn't really work. For instance, if we use the rafts analogy, how did they make the first jump back in the first place? And they ignore whether events in the present can affect the future, which leads to some really big questions that should be answered but aren't.
When the people from 2061 show up in 2021, it was clear that they were from an alternate future as the people of 2061 didn't experience the time travel 40 years ago. This is explicit when they have death records for everyone sent forward in time even though they died of other reasons. So there is no reason for the people of 2021 to send poorly equipped and untrained citizens to the future when that future isn't the future that they will experience.
Yep, that's the mess I was referring to. The entire plot requires a single timeline, while the details only make sense with alternate timelines. Two more details that add to the confusion are the wave of worldwide nihilism after the connection is cut, and the way only people who were recorded as having died between the two time periods are qualified to make the jump. As I hinted, the narration spends almost no time on explaining how time travel works, so there's never even an attempt at in-movie explanation. Which is probably a smart move -- if the time travel in your movie makes no sense, it's probably better not to draw attention to it, and hope people just get swept up in the action and don't think about it.
I watched a few reviews on YouTube that seemed to entirely miss this. They just assume changes in the present make changes in the future, and treat that as established fact, despite all the details that contradict it.
I think the best way to view it is as I did Pacific Rim. The drift technology in that movie is just fucking stupid, and so are lot of other things. Then I realized...I am here to WATCH GIANT ROBOTS PUNCH GIANT MONSTERS!!! and let my brain relax and enjoyed what I was looking for from the movie. I have to shut my brain off for probably 99 percent of movies that fight scenes are there, so I just pretend all movies are in some magical universe where stuff is just different.
Quote from: oggsmash on July 09, 2021, 02:28:55 PM
I think the best way to view it is as I did Pacific Rim. The drift technology in that movie is just fucking stupid, and so are lot of other things. Then I realized...I am here to WATCH GIANT ROBOTS PUNCH GIANT MONSTERS!!! and let my brain relax and enjoyed what I was looking for from the movie. I have to shut my brain off for probably 99 percent of movies that fight scenes are there, so I just pretend all movies are in some magical universe where stuff is just different.
Agreed. My bigger issues are the stupid third act and that they didn't utilize Chris Pratt very well. His comedic charm didn't get enough play. But overall, it works as a forgettable popcorn movie.
Quote from: Pat on July 09, 2021, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on July 09, 2021, 02:28:55 PM
I think the best way to view it is as I did Pacific Rim. The drift technology in that movie is just fucking stupid, and so are lot of other things. Then I realized...I am here to WATCH GIANT ROBOTS PUNCH GIANT MONSTERS!!! and let my brain relax and enjoyed what I was looking for from the movie. I have to shut my brain off for probably 99 percent of movies that fight scenes are there, so I just pretend all movies are in some magical universe where stuff is just different.
Agreed. My bigger issues are the stupid third act and that they didn't utilize Chris Pratt very well. His comedic charm didn't get enough play. But overall, it works as a forgettable popcorn movie.
Yeah, you would think a guy who can smuggle you into Russia would have a sat link you could at least send an email with very specific GPS coordinates before doing something so foolish. It made no sense, for the one person who had a good idea (find out where the problem originated) to go in solo and hope for the best. Now one thing that did occur to me, I was a big fan of the Dark Horse run on Alien years and years ago. In that series, the government tries to turn the xenomorphs into bioweapons. In this case, there is an alien space craft and accompanying technology along with what is an uber bio weapon. I can understand to a degree being distrustful of the same people who can not give straight answers about virology labs they did, or did not have any connection to.
That, and if there is one things humans do on the regular, is make mistakes.
Quote from: HappyDaze on July 08, 2021, 02:10:00 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 08, 2021, 08:19:23 AM
As you said, Ratman, at least BttF was consistent in how it worked. Even Avengers Endgame managed to fuck it up (Loki's escape should've had all sorts of repercussions).
So, there's this entire show called "Loki" that covers exactly this. They went with "bug as feature" and embraced that it should have had repercussions...and why it (maybe?) didn't.
So, I haven't seen any of the Loki series, but I really liked that Endgame at least could fit with a logically consistent branching scheme. I'm disappointed that it sounds like the Loki series doesn't stick to the branching scheme, but I haven't seen it.
Open-loop movies like "Back to the Future" have a mystic one true timeline, and if you stray from it too far there are supposed problems - but it makes no sense because it leads to out-of-sync points -- like Marty disappears from his own photo and his hand starts to fade, but he can see his own head disappear. Not to mention the ethical oddity that it's supposedly wrong to make yourself rich, but somehow it is OK to get a cool and better new life by other means.
In Endgame, the rule that they say is that the past is unchangeable. If you go back, you create a branched timeline. That's a consistent and sensible rule for time travel, and the movie plot perfectly fits with this -- they don't change the past at all, but just use the past to change their own future. The only unclear point is when Steve Rogers appears as an old man. Since he doesn't appear on the platform, some suggest that he rewrote the main timeline and old man Steve was actually around all the time in the background of the previous movies. However, it's also consistent that he lived out his life in a branched timeline, but some time over the decades his suit broke, and he had to use an alternate means to jump back (like getting help from the Hank Pym in his branch).
Quote from: oggsmash on July 09, 2021, 04:19:25 PMIn that series, the government tries to turn the xenomorphs into bioweapons. In this case, there is an alien space craft and accompanying technology along with what is an uber bio weapon. I can understand to a degree being distrustful of the same people who can not give straight answers about virology labs they did, or did not have any connection to.
While it would have been cool in Tomorrow War if the government swooped in at the last minute to steal an alien for "research", it's a nice change of pace for a movie to just be a standalone movie and not sequel bait for a new franchise.
...
...
And they just announced Tomorrow War 2.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 09, 2021, 06:52:37 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on July 09, 2021, 04:19:25 PMIn that series, the government tries to turn the xenomorphs into bioweapons. In this case, there is an alien space craft and accompanying technology along with what is an uber bio weapon. I can understand to a degree being distrustful of the same people who can not give straight answers about virology labs they did, or did not have any connection to.
While it would have been cool in Tomorrow War if the government swooped in at the last minute to steal an alien for "research", it's a nice change of pace for a movie to just be a standalone movie and not sequel bait for a new franchise.
...
...
And they just announced Tomorrow War 2.
LOL yeah, I was just thinking that myself when I saw that announcement. I do wish creatives would take some time to be...creative.
Watched Black Widow. I like almost all of the Marvel films, but this one just didn't hold my attention. IMO, it was mediocre at best (on par with Iron Man 3).
Spoiler warnings for Endgame...
Quote from: HappyDaze on July 11, 2021, 03:03:37 PM
Watched Black Widow. I like almost all of the Marvel films, but this one just didn't hold my attention. IMO, it was mediocre at best (on par with Iron Man 3).
I was pleasantly surprised by Black Widow. I think the major problem with it is in the way it was released. It's a prequel where the main character was already killed off without much ceremony in the last big event, and it doesn't give much direction to the plot going forward. I think with a few changes, this could have been a great follow-up to Civil War that sets up for Phase 3, and could have made her struggle and death so much more memorable in Endgame. But released as it is, it's a struggle to engage with it.
That said, I thought it had some great material. I loved David Harbour as Red Guardian and Florence Pugh as Yelena. And it nicely kept up that Natasha is the Avenger who consistently outsmarts her opponents. It's a clever superspy movie within the MCU background.
I tried to watch The Tomorrow War. I figured "Chris Pratt, Yvonne Strahovski, that sounds pretty good." It wasn't.
It's like a bunch of A-List scripts were involved in a horrible car accident. There's the one movie that has Chris Pratt leading a ragtag group of civilians into combat for the first time, and that's pretty compelling. There's another one where Chris Pratt is a would-be scientist who's stuck teaching high school, and that's OK too. There's a time travel movie with Chris Pratt going into the future and meeting Yvonne Strahovski, and that's also really good stuff. There's one where Chris Pratt is trying to be a good father to his kid while reconciling with his crazy paramilitary dad. And there's a bad video game where Chris Pratt has to shoot a bunch of aliens that look like Spider-man villains.
All of these get slammed together at 100 MPH, and it doesn't do good things to any of them. After the accident, they had to graft together what was left into a grotesque mockery of a movie. Storylines start up, get going, build some momentum, and then crash to halt when the movie suddenly switches tracks, and the audience is left hanging. There are multiple places where it feels like the movie should have ended there and it would have been OK. Eventually, I just got tired of being yanked around at random, and just hit stop.
Your mileage may vary. If you have Amazon Prime, it's free at least.
I agree about Black Widow. It reminds me of Solo. A prequel (midquel?) movie that are just supposed to tie up some loose ends but doesn't really have any important twists to validate releasing it after Endgame.
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 20, 2021, 07:26:11 AM
I agree about Black Widow. It reminds me of Solo. A prequel (midquel?) movie that are just supposed to tie up some loose ends but doesn't really have any important twists to validate releasing it after Endgame.
They have a similar problem - telling the story of a character who just died in the main plotline. But Solo set out to be an origin story, and I felt it was much more about filling in holes. ("It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs!") There was no way it could have been released in order as the first film.
While it has flashbacks to her childhood, Black Widow is mostly about her as the already-established character around the time of the Civil War movie. With just a few tweaks, Black Widow *could* have been released during the main sequence of movies, and along with Black Panther it might have been a nice bridge between the Earth-bound plotlines of the earlier movies and the cosmic clash of Infinity War.
Quote from: jhkim on July 20, 2021, 11:18:26 AM
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 20, 2021, 07:26:11 AM
I agree about Black Widow. It reminds me of Solo. A prequel (midquel?) movie that are just supposed to tie up some loose ends but doesn't really have any important twists to validate releasing it after Endgame.
They have a similar problem - telling the story of a character who just died in the main plotline. But Solo set out to be an origin story, and I felt it was much more about filling in holes. ("It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs!") There was no way it could have been released in order as the first film.
While it has flashbacks to her childhood, Black Widow is mostly about her as the already-established character around the time of the Civil War movie. With just a few tweaks, Black Widow *could* have been released during the main sequence of movies, and along with Black Panther it might have been a nice bridge between the Earth-bound plotlines of the earlier movies and the cosmic clash of Infinity War.
I heard a reviewer say that Black Widow should have been released in the place of Captain Marvel, A super powerful character shoehorned in at the last minute who went on to have fuckall to do with the Infinity War business.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 20, 2021, 12:08:33 PM
Quote from: jhkim on July 20, 2021, 11:18:26 AM
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 20, 2021, 07:26:11 AM
I agree about Black Widow. It reminds me of Solo. A prequel (midquel?) movie that are just supposed to tie up some loose ends but doesn't really have any important twists to validate releasing it after Endgame.
They have a similar problem - telling the story of a character who just died in the main plotline. But Solo set out to be an origin story, and I felt it was much more about filling in holes. ("It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs!") There was no way it could have been released in order as the first film.
While it has flashbacks to her childhood, Black Widow is mostly about her as the already-established character around the time of the Civil War movie. With just a few tweaks, Black Widow *could* have been released during the main sequence of movies, and along with Black Panther it might have been a nice bridge between the Earth-bound plotlines of the earlier movies and the cosmic clash of Infinity War.
I heard a reviewer say that Black Widow should have been released in the place of Captain Marvel, A super powerful character shoehorned in at the last minute who went on to have fuckall to do with the Infinity War business.
Still.
Captain Marvel did at least introduce the Skrulls as well as Monica Rambeau. It fleshed out the Kree a bit more than Guardians of the Galaxy did. It set up Fury's drive to create the Avengers and also likely lead to splitting S.H.I.E.L.D into two with S.W.O.R.D
CM set up more for future movies than BW who pretty much only sets up a Dark Avengers and
maybe some russian superteam in the future with Red Guardian and Ursa Major (the huge guy that arm wrestles with Red Guardian.)
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 20, 2021, 12:48:04 PM
Captain Marvel did at least introduce the Skrulls as well as Monica Rambeau. It fleshed out the Kree a bit more than Guardians of the Galaxy did. It set up Fury's drive to create the Avengers and also likely lead to splitting S.H.I.E.L.D into two with S.W.O.R.D
CM set up more for future movies than BW who pretty much only sets up a Dark Avengers and maybe some russian superteam in the future with Red Guardian and Ursa Major (the huge guy that arm wrestles with Red Guardian.)
I think the two movies have very different focuses. Captain Marvel is about setting up a connection between SHIELD and the cosmic plot.
Black Widow is about closing off Earth plots. All three of Winter Soldier, Age of Ultron, and Civil War had featured Hydra as an enemy - but they were never rooted out and dealt with on their own ground after being exposed in Winter Soldier. Instead, they were red herrings and eventually became overshadowed by the giant cosmic plot. Black Widow gives a decisive win as a transition point to the cosmic plot.
I gotta say Im amazed how people keeping going to see marvel films. Its like the same cake over and over with different frosting.
They are painfully formulaic. I felt the series reached its peak by Avengers 1. Everything since then could only be more of the same but biggerererer.
Which it has been with a few minor variants.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on July 20, 2021, 04:32:22 PM
I gotta say Im amazed how people keeping going to see marvel films. Its like the same cake over and over with different frosting.
They are painfully formulaic. I felt the series reached its peak by Avengers 1. Everything since then could only be more of the same but biggerererer.
Which it has been with a few minor variants.
Oh, I agree. I hit saturation with the first Avengers movie, coasted to Ant Man (which I really liked as a change of pace) and only watched some of the subsequent movies because they were on and I had nothing better to do. Watched Infinity War and Endgame because my brother/roommate is still an MCU fan so I watched them out of the corner of my eye while doing other stuff, for example.
I think they're really going to run the franchise into the ground with "Phase 4". They've told the big story, and what's left is one big anticlimax. It's time to put this franchise on the shelf and be proud of what they've accomplished, but doing that means going out and taking a chance on something new instead.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 21, 2021, 02:46:08 AMI think they're really going to run the franchise into the ground with "Phase 4".
I sure hope so. Because that will give me hope that modern audiences can get sick of SOMETHING.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on July 21, 2021, 02:49:48 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 21, 2021, 02:46:08 AMI think they're really going to run the franchise into the ground with "Phase 4".
I sure hope so. Because that will give me hope that modern audiences can get sick of SOMETHING.
The live action Transformers series cured me of that hope.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 21, 2021, 02:46:08 AM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on July 20, 2021, 04:32:22 PM
I gotta say Im amazed how people keeping going to see marvel films. Its like the same cake over and over with different frosting.
They are painfully formulaic. I felt the series reached its peak by Avengers 1. Everything since then could only be more of the same but biggerererer.
Oh, I agree. I hit saturation with the first Avengers movie, coasted to Ant Man (which I really liked as a change of pace) and only watched some of the subsequent movies because they were on and I had nothing better to do. Watched Infinity War and Endgame because my brother/roommate is still an MCU fan so I watched them out of the corner of my eye while doing other stuff, for example.
Interesting. The first phase were some of my least favorite, mostly because they were generic origin stories - which I found dull. The Avengers was quite good, but where I thought the series got the most interesting was when it started branching out. I found the later solo movies the most interesting because they had more distinct style and difference, and got out of being generic origin stories.
For example, Guardians of the Galaxy isn't a generic superhero story the way that the first phase were. While Doctor Strange is a standard-ish origin story, it at least was really visually distinct and creative. I liked that the Spider-Man movies skipped having an origin, and got straight to doing interesting stuff with the character.
The Avengers was better than the team-up sequels (with Infinity War being particularly dull for me) -- but I thought the solo movies got more interesting and varied over time, and those are my favorites of the series. All series have their ups and downs - but by the standards of action movie franchises, I think it's been quite good.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 21, 2021, 03:44:06 AM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on July 21, 2021, 02:49:48 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 21, 2021, 02:46:08 AMI think they're really going to run the franchise into the ground with "Phase 4".
I sure hope so. Because that will give me hope that modern audiences can get sick of SOMETHING.
The live action Transformers series cured me of that hope.
In defense, everyone knew what they were getting into with the live-action TF films. Two words: Michael Bay.
(I do love the guy, he does great pyrotechnics work and sFX and he's got a work ethic that keeps films coming in on time and within budget. But I don't have any illusions either. :) )
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 21, 2021, 02:46:08 AM
I think they're really going to run the franchise into the ground with "Phase 4". They've told the big story, and what's left is one big anticlimax. It's time to put this franchise on the shelf and be proud of what they've accomplished, but doing that means going out and taking a chance on something new instead.
IMHO we hit "peak Marvel" around Infinity War. They told the big story, and they are losing a lot of their top stars as they age out of action movie roles, or just want to do other things. They've also cherry-picked a lot of the classic storylines, and the content coming out of present day Marvel Comics is decidedly inferior.
The problem is, the movie biz is the only thing keeping Marvel afloat. The comics side of the business has already gone financially bankrupt in the 1990s, and is probably not breaking even at present. They have enough money in the bank to keep the lights on in the Marvel bullpen for decades to come, but if the movies falter, the comics industry won't save them.
I'm wondering if Marvel won't completely reboot the MCU at some point. That would allow them to recast their tentpole characters, and properly integrate Fantastic Four and X-Men from day one.
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 21, 2021, 11:55:12 AMI'm wondering if Marvel won't completely reboot the MCU at some point. That would allow them to recast their tentpole characters, and properly integrate Fantastic Four and X-Men from day one.
Between all the alternate timelines and multi-verses they shouldn't have any trouble introducing "new" versions of old characters. I'm surprised that they haven't announced any plans for an
X-Men X-Force movie.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 21, 2021, 06:16:51 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 21, 2021, 11:55:12 AMI'm wondering if Marvel won't completely reboot the MCU at some point. That would allow them to recast their tentpole characters, and properly integrate Fantastic Four and X-Men from day one.
Between all the alternate timelines and multi-verses they shouldn't have any trouble introducing "new" versions of old characters. I'm surprised that they haven't announced any plans for an X-Men X-Force movie.
The first hint will be s casting call looking for actors with tiny feet.
Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2021, 04:07:16 AMInteresting. The first phase were some of my least favorite, mostly because they were generic origin stories - which I found dull. The Avengers was quite good, but where I thought the series got the most interesting was when it started branching out. I found the later solo movies the most interesting because they had more distinct style and difference, and got out of being generic origin stories.
Then you have a much higher threshold for repitition then I do. Its like watching the same movie with 90% repeats and 10% original footage.
Ant man is a marvel film with a dash of hiest
Captain america is a marvel film with a dash of spy thriller (emphasis on dash)
Spiderman is fucking nothing the movie and has butfuck anything to do with Spiderman or his themes.
This is Malibu stacey with a new hat. Yes the original series malibu stacey didn't come with a hat but it was by itself original.
QuoteFor example, Guardians of the Galaxy isn't a generic superhero story
Its a largely generic hero story - IN SPAAAAACE!
Villian, Music, Cinematography, Dialoge, Artstyle, Story Structure....All largely the same and executed the same way. I guess there are less superpowers.
QuoteDoctor Strange is a standard-ish origin story, it at least was really visually distinct and creative.
This is where I will heavily differ. I really hate how marvel does its special effects, with a focus on busy visually blobby effects (because those are easier to do through disposable render farms in korea).
Compare The original spiderman films to any marvel film if you want a example of something that is executed and feels different. In terms of music choice, dialogue, effects etc.
I think we have had this exact discussion as before, and I called the Marvel films as the Activision blizzard to Michael bays Electronic Arts.
Both shallow and formulaic, but AB general attracts a larger audience through superior (yet still shallow) execution of mass appeal. Also they both suck up to china.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on July 21, 2021, 07:24:31 PM
Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2021, 04:07:16 AMInteresting. The first phase were some of my least favorite, mostly because they were generic origin stories - which I found dull. The Avengers was quite good, but where I thought the series got the most interesting was when it started branching out. I found the later solo movies the most interesting because they had more distinct style and difference, and got out of being generic origin stories.
Then you have a much higher threshold for repitition then I do. Its like watching the same movie with 90% repeats and 10% original footage.
Ant man is a marvel film with a dash of hiest
Captain america is a marvel film with a dash of spy thriller (emphasis on dash)
Spiderman is fucking nothing the movie and has butfuck anything to do with Spiderman or his themes.
This is Malibu stacey with a new hat. Yes the original series malibu stacey didn't come with a hat but it was by itself original.
QuoteFor example, Guardians of the Galaxy isn't a generic superhero story
Its a largely generic hero story - IN SPAAAAACE!
Villian, Music, Cinematography, Dialoge, Artstyle, Story Structure....All largely the same and executed the same way. I guess there are less superpowers.
QuoteDoctor Strange is a standard-ish origin story, it at least was really visually distinct and creative.
This is where I will heavily differ. I really hate how marvel does its special effects, with a focus on busy visually blobby effects (because those are easier to do through disposable render farms in korea).
Compare The original spiderman films to any marvel film if you want a example of something that is executed and feels different. In terms of music choice, dialogue, effects etc.
I think we have had this exact discussion as before, and I called the Marvel films as the Activision blizzard to Michael bays Electronic Arts.
Both shallow and formulaic, but AB general attracts a larger audience through superior (yet still shallow) execution of mass appeal. Also they both suck up to china.
I have a feeling the formula worked for him and me much better because we grew up reading marvel comics and saw MANY attempts that were pretty terrible to adapt those stories to tv and screen. Now if you were a marvel fan as a youngster, maybe not the case. I am assuming you did not grow up in the USA on marvel comics (and spin off cartoons and so forth). The movies were in effect the world's most expensive TV series that was able to absolutely hijack nostalgia and apply it for people who grew up in the 70's,80's and 90's on Marvel and similar productions comic books.
That said, the run is over for me. I saw the infinity thing to a close, but I am likely done with marvel movies from here on out. I suspect if they end up on some tv channel I surf I may watch one, but since they are likely to be held hostage on Disney channel for perpetuity, not likely I see another one. I agree about the repetition, I was sucked in from a nostalgic gravity well I could not escape.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on July 21, 2021, 07:24:31 PM
Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2021, 04:07:16 AMInteresting. The first phase were some of my least favorite, mostly because they were generic origin stories - which I found dull. The Avengers was quite good, but where I thought the series got the most interesting was when it started branching out. I found the later solo movies the most interesting because they had more distinct style and difference, and got out of being generic origin stories.
Then you have a much higher threshold for repitition then I do. Its like watching the same movie with 90% repeats and 10% original footage.
Ant man is a marvel film with a dash of hiest
Captain america is a marvel film with a dash of spy thriller (emphasis on dash)
Spiderman is fucking nothing the movie and has butfuck anything to do with Spiderman or his themes.
This is Malibu stacey with a new hat. Yes the original series malibu stacey didn't come with a hat but it was by itself original.
QuoteFor example, Guardians of the Galaxy isn't a generic superhero story
Its a largely generic hero story - IN SPAAAAACE!
Villian, Music, Cinematography, Dialoge, Artstyle, Story Structure....All largely the same and executed the same way. I guess there are less superpowers.
QuoteDoctor Strange is a standard-ish origin story, it at least was really visually distinct and creative.
This is where I will heavily differ. I really hate how marvel does its special effects, with a focus on busy visually blobby effects (because those are easier to do through disposable render farms in korea).
I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them
too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 22, 2021, 07:36:45 PM
I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.
The best CGI are the ones you never notice. So I reckon there is a amount of movies out there you have watched and never noticed the CGI
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 23, 2021, 07:06:36 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 22, 2021, 07:36:45 PM
I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.
The best CGI are the ones you never notice. So I reckon there is a amount of movies out there you have watched and never noticed the CGI
Maybe. One example that I detest is the "roller coaster" shots, where the "camera" zooms in and around and through things. Compare the opening shot of the castle in Dark Crystal. Moody and full of wonder and interest - with the opening scene in Age of Resistance where the camera zooms quickly from the underground to the surface, and it's just a kalidescope of colors and shapes and I felt more bewildered than anything. Or the space combat from Wrath of Khan to any of the JJ Abrams Trek space combats.
Or all of the damn action scenes where the hero does or goes through incredibly comical action scenes. Everyone is Neo from the Matrix now, even people without powers or abilities. And the worst of it is when they lack weight and momentum. I laughed at Black Panther's car chase scene. I don't expect it was meant to be funny, and it set the tone of the film for me that this was an unintentional comedy.
Quote from: oggsmash on July 22, 2021, 02:10:25 PM
I have a feeling the formula worked for him and me much better because we grew up reading marvel comics and saw MANY attempts that were pretty terrible to adapt those stories to tv and screen. Now if you were a marvel fan as a youngster, maybe not the case. I am assuming you did not grow up in the USA on marvel comics (and spin off cartoons and so forth). The movies were in effect the world's most expensive TV series that was able to absolutely hijack nostalgia and apply it for people who grew up in the 70's,80's and 90's on Marvel and similar productions comic books.
Not exactly true for me. I only got into comics after I got to college - and the comics I got into were independent-ish comics like Sandman, Strangers in Paradise, and Astro City. I was exposed to more mainstream superhero comics as my son grew up, but that was alongside the MCU movies coming out so I wouldn't call it nostalgia.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 22, 2021, 07:36:45 PM
I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.
I agree that CGI is hugely overused and serves as a crutch way too often. There are some later CGI movies I thought were good -- Forrest Gump and Fury Road come to mind, along with Gravity and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
But there's no really getting away from CGI within sci-fi/fantasy movies these days. In my experience, the MCU films have more practical effects than most other mainstream sci-fi/fantasy movies. I would add to the above list the first half of Captain America as an excellent use of CGI, though it was ruined by the dull second half.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2021, 10:02:52 PM
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 23, 2021, 07:06:36 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 22, 2021, 07:36:45 PM
I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.
The best CGI are the ones you never notice. So I reckon there is a amount of movies out there you have watched and never noticed the CGI
Maybe. One example that I detest is the "roller coaster" shots, where the "camera" zooms in and around and through things. Compare the opening shot of the castle in Dark Crystal. Moody and full of wonder and interest - with the opening scene in Age of Resistance where the camera zooms quickly from the underground to the surface, and it's just a kalidescope of colors and shapes and I felt more bewildered than anything. Or the space combat from Wrath of Khan to any of the JJ Abrams Trek space combats.
Or all of the damn action scenes where the hero does or goes through incredibly comical action scenes. Everyone is Neo from the Matrix now, even people without powers or abilities. And the worst of it is when they lack weight and momentum. I laughed at Black Panther's car chase scene. I don't expect it was meant to be funny, and it set the tone of the film for me that this was an unintentional comedy.
I don't know gow you feel about youtube. Maybe you are one of those who have decided to boycott it. But here is a not to long video made about the subject. Take a look, and maybe you will come away with "Wait. THAT was CGI??!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 07, 2021, 02:25:10 PMI liked these movies but the idea that a picture would slowly start to disappear because the people in the picture no longer exists is pretty silly. Especially since time travel in these movies create alternate histories so it shouldn't matter to the time traveling Marty if the Marty in that universe doesn't exist.
But you are correct in that at least they are consistent and nobody does anything that's blatantly stupid.
In Back to the Future there are not different timelines. Changes in the past ripple forward to erase or modify the future. So the photo changes, eventually everything changes.
So it stays fairly consistent.
Another one is the original Time Machine movie. The traveler never does anything that contradicts or changes what has happened and seems to be careful in this. Taking things to help the future from the point he left, rather than trying to go back and undo anything.
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 24, 2021, 05:35:20 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2021, 10:02:52 PM
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 23, 2021, 07:06:36 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 22, 2021, 07:36:45 PM
I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.
The best CGI are the ones you never notice. So I reckon there is a amount of movies out there you have watched and never noticed the CGI
Maybe. One example that I detest is the "roller coaster" shots, where the "camera" zooms in and around and through things. Compare the opening shot of the castle in Dark Crystal. Moody and full of wonder and interest - with the opening scene in Age of Resistance where the camera zooms quickly from the underground to the surface, and it's just a kalidescope of colors and shapes and I felt more bewildered than anything. Or the space combat from Wrath of Khan to any of the JJ Abrams Trek space combats.
Or all of the damn action scenes where the hero does or goes through incredibly comical action scenes. Everyone is Neo from the Matrix now, even people without powers or abilities. And the worst of it is when they lack weight and momentum. I laughed at Black Panther's car chase scene. I don't expect it was meant to be funny, and it set the tone of the film for me that this was an unintentional comedy.
I don't know gow you feel about youtube. Maybe you are one of those who have decided to boycott it. But here is a not to long video made about the subject. Take a look, and maybe you will come away with "Wait. THAT was CGI??!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24
That's not my point. I am not against CGI in principle. It's just another tool. My argument that the video seems to agree with, is that there's a lot of bad CGI. But maybe more importantly, my point is that it allows filmmakers the freedom to do things that maybe aren't a great idea.
Again, back to Age of Resistance as an example. Digitally removing the puppeteers is neat. Using CGI to make a Skeksis jump around like a hyperactive jack in the box? Terrible, no matter what effects technique they used, but CGI facilitated that bad decision.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on July 21, 2021, 02:49:48 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 21, 2021, 02:46:08 AMI think they're really going to run the franchise into the ground with "Phase 4".
I sure hope so. Because that will give me hope that modern audiences can get sick of SOMETHING.
It took a while but looks like the mainstream have gotten tired of zombie movies and series finally as their interminable proliferation in everything hit saturation years ago.
We'll see the same with superhero shows just like the last two waves.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 21, 2021, 03:44:06 AM
The live action Transformers series cured me of that hope.
The movies werent as prolific and were so forgettable. Much like the horrible TMNT efforts lately. The Transformers have seen some dramatic lowring in quality across the board.
Neanwhile in Japan its been puttering along with quite a few series, some of which have not made it to the US far as know like Beast Wars II and Beast Wars Neo, Scramble City and a few others.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 24, 2021, 09:40:43 AM
That's not my point. I am not against CGI in principle. It's just another tool. My argument that the video seems to agree with, is that there's a lot of bad CGI. But maybe more importantly, my point is that it allows filmmakers the freedom to do things that maybe aren't a great idea.
Again, back to Age of Resistance as an example. Digitally removing the puppeteers is neat. Using CGI to make a Skeksis jump around like a hyperactive jack in the box? Terrible, no matter what effects technique they used, but CGI facilitated that bad decision.
CGI used for cleanup is fine, its no different from older methods like hand touching up to remove wires and the like..
CGI used for some effects is fine. Also no different from stop motion or minis. Except for the feeling of fakeness CGI has thats different from seeing a miniature.
CGI used for every damn thing is the problem. Some movies are more cartoon now than live action. Moreso because more companies are uing CGI not just for pose processing of small things, but in larger things as well and often with stupidly short deadlines. The Black Panther movie was a severe victim of this.
Quote from: Omega on July 24, 2021, 10:55:32 AM
CGI used for every damn thing is the problem. Some movies are more cartoon now than live action. Moreso because more companies are uing CGI not just for pose processing of small things, but in larger things as well and often with stupidly short deadlines. The Black Panther movie was a severe victim of this.
I agree that the Black Panther movie used way too much CGI. However, that trend is true of *all* mainstream fantasy and sci-fi movies. I feel that compared to its peers, the MCU tends to use *more* practical effects and stunts - and more often merges CGI and practical effects. Black Widow, for example, has a lot of good stunt work. Captain America also has had a lot of good stunt work -- the elevator fight in Winter Soldier is a classic.
There's still a lot of overuse of CGI, but that's true for the vast majority of mainstream fantasy/sci-fi, not something particular to the MCU.
I am not a big fan of CGI. Some movies have done it well. Some movies I enjoy despite the CGI, because otherwise the films are well crafted. But I find pretty consistently CGI creates this lighter than air effect where nothing seems to contact anything else. It feels very cartoony for me. I find it works best for things like lighting effects or energy effects . say you want to show someone showing a bolt of lightning from their finger, there it makes sense, but when it is other characters that actors are supposed to be interacting with or fighting with, or when its cars doing physically impossible things, it just takes me out of the movie: it is also not why I go to an action flick (I want to see real stunts in a movie, not CGI.
Lately I've been going back and watching a lot of 60s, 70s, and 80s movies, and really am enjoying the practical effects. Sometimes they fall well short of success, but even then they are at least something physical that is in the actor's hands.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 24, 2021, 09:40:43 AM
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 24, 2021, 05:35:20 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2021, 10:02:52 PM
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 23, 2021, 07:06:36 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 22, 2021, 07:36:45 PM
I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.
The best CGI are the ones you never notice. So I reckon there is a amount of movies out there you have watched and never noticed the CGI
Maybe. One example that I detest is the "roller coaster" shots, where the "camera" zooms in and around and through things. Compare the opening shot of the castle in Dark Crystal. Moody and full of wonder and interest - with the opening scene in Age of Resistance where the camera zooms quickly from the underground to the surface, and it's just a kalidescope of colors and shapes and I felt more bewildered than anything. Or the space combat from Wrath of Khan to any of the JJ Abrams Trek space combats.
Or all of the damn action scenes where the hero does or goes through incredibly comical action scenes. Everyone is Neo from the Matrix now, even people without powers or abilities. And the worst of it is when they lack weight and momentum. I laughed at Black Panther's car chase scene. I don't expect it was meant to be funny, and it set the tone of the film for me that this was an unintentional comedy.
I don't know gow you feel about youtube. Maybe you are one of those who have decided to boycott it. But here is a not to long video made about the subject. Take a look, and maybe you will come away with "Wait. THAT was CGI??!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24
That's not my point. I am not against CGI in principle. It's just another tool. My argument that the video seems to agree with, is that there's a lot of bad CGI. But maybe more importantly, my point is that it allows filmmakers the freedom to do things that maybe aren't a great idea.
Again, back to Age of Resistance as an example. Digitally removing the puppeteers is neat. Using CGI to make a Skeksis jump around like a hyperactive jack in the box? Terrible, no matter what effects technique they used, but CGI facilitated that bad decision.
I agree that a big part of the problem seems to be this 'well we can do it so we should' attitude that has crept in with CGI. I also suspect it is just a part of how movies are made today with CGI and special effects being outsourced the way they are. I do remember being very impressed when I saw Jurassic Park for the first time. And there have been a few movies that managed that well for me (I liked how interstellar used CGI but also used practical effects in instances where they thought it was needed).
Quote from: jhkim on July 24, 2021, 09:15:43 PMI agree that the Black Panther movie used way too much CGI. However, that trend is true of *all* mainstream fantasy and sci-fi movies.
Not just fantasy and SF. CGI is infesting just about everything now on the larger and even mid-range budget movies.
Weird thing is. Some of the smaller budget shows actually intigrate oft extensive CGI into a movie far far better than the big budget ones.
I've seen far too many rubbery monsters to consider practical effects to be superior to CGI, and the masks and makeup they used to use to age actors were usually found deep in the uncanny valley.
That said, a lot of very visible CGI is terrible. Monsters and digital super heroes still don't move right (Black Panther immediately comes to mind), and there are often problems with texture and conveying grime. While it's worth remembering that this is just the tip of the CGI iceberg, most of which is invisible to the viewer, that doesn't doesn't erase the terrible examples, either.
Are scenes shot in "the Volume" considered CGI?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bErPsq5kPzE
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on July 25, 2021, 01:16:59 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 24, 2021, 09:40:43 AM
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 24, 2021, 05:35:20 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2021, 10:02:52 PM
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 23, 2021, 07:06:36 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 22, 2021, 07:36:45 PM
I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.
The best CGI are the ones you never notice. So I reckon there is a amount of movies out there you have watched and never noticed the CGI
Maybe. One example that I detest is the "roller coaster" shots, where the "camera" zooms in and around and through things. Compare the opening shot of the castle in Dark Crystal. Moody and full of wonder and interest - with the opening scene in Age of Resistance where the camera zooms quickly from the underground to the surface, and it's just a kalidescope of colors and shapes and I felt more bewildered than anything. Or the space combat from Wrath of Khan to any of the JJ Abrams Trek space combats.
Or all of the damn action scenes where the hero does or goes through incredibly comical action scenes. Everyone is Neo from the Matrix now, even people without powers or abilities. And the worst of it is when they lack weight and momentum. I laughed at Black Panther's car chase scene. I don't expect it was meant to be funny, and it set the tone of the film for me that this was an unintentional comedy.
I don't know gow you feel about youtube. Maybe you are one of those who have decided to boycott it. But here is a not to long video made about the subject. Take a look, and maybe you will come away with "Wait. THAT was CGI??!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24
That's not my point. I am not against CGI in principle. It's just another tool. My argument that the video seems to agree with, is that there's a lot of bad CGI. But maybe more importantly, my point is that it allows filmmakers the freedom to do things that maybe aren't a great idea.
Again, back to Age of Resistance as an example. Digitally removing the puppeteers is neat. Using CGI to make a Skeksis jump around like a hyperactive jack in the box? Terrible, no matter what effects technique they used, but CGI facilitated that bad decision.
I agree that a big part of the problem seems to be this 'well we can do it so we should' attitude that has crept in with CGI. I also suspect it is just a part of how movies are made today with CGI and special effects being outsourced the way they are. I do remember being very impressed when I saw Jurassic Park for the first time. And there have been a few movies that managed that well for me (I liked how interstellar used CGI but also used practical effects in instances where they thought it was needed).
I will say that one issue is HD. We have movies and TV shows that are magnitudes more "crisp" than before. And that's not very kind to practical effects. Again with the Resistance, because that's where I first really noticed it. The puppets looked worse than the ones from the original Dark Crystal IMO, and I think that's because we could see so much more detail. They're great puppets, but they looked more puppet-like.
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 25, 2021, 01:41:21 PM
Are scenes shot in "the Volume" considered CGI?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bErPsq5kPzE
Why do you ask?
it's a pretty neat tool, if used effectively. Since it projects a CGI environment on a screen around the actors, I'd say yes, it's CGI.
The first I learned of the thing was on The Mandalorian, and that show generally does many things right.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 25, 2021, 05:26:20 PM
I will say that one issue is HD. We have movies and TV shows that are magnitudes more "crisp" than before. And that's not very kind to practical effects. Again with the Resistance, because that's where I first really noticed it. The puppets looked worse than the ones from the original Dark Crystal IMO, and I think that's because we could see so much more detail. They're great puppets, but they looked more puppet-like.
That's very true for TV, but much less true for feature films. Projected feature films have always been in high definition, and puppets have always looked puppet-ish. The difference between 1980s film projection and 2020s is relatively minor - it's more that audiences are keyed to expect more of special effects these days.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 25, 2021, 05:26:20 PM
I will say that one issue is HD. We have movies and TV shows that are magnitudes more "crisp" than before. And that's not very kind to practical effects. Again with the Resistance, because that's where I first really noticed it. The puppets looked worse than the ones from the original Dark Crystal IMO, and I think that's because we could see so much more detail. They're great puppets, but they looked more puppet-like.
Also, HD/60FPS remasters of older material (even relatively recent stuff) can look very, very odd.
I watched a Rifftrax of the 1994 Street Fighter movie, and the crisper video actually made some of the dated SFX look terrible (granted, the dated SFX were the LEAST of that movie's problems. But it really sticks out at a higher framerate).
Anyone have any news regarding the Conan the Barbarian series netflix is supposed to be making? I had some hopes the show might actually be good, but given Netflix's track record... I am unsure of what direction they will take and do not care to see a Soynan the seamstress instead. I always thought the tales Howard told would easily make for a series (well produced series anyway) of tales that would lend well to screen. If smart, Netflix will stick to the toxic masculinity and dismembering, and steer clear of making current year Conan.
Quote from: oggsmash on July 22, 2021, 02:10:25 PMI have a feeling the formula worked for him and me much better because we grew up reading marvel comics and saw MANY attempts that were pretty terrible to adapt those stories to tv and screen.
I grew up with marvel comics. I actually bought them at the corner shop in my home country reliably for over a decade.
In addition because of how TV worked in my home country, TV shows and the like where on something of a 10 year delay. So I grew up with 90s animated adaptations of Marvel stuff (its own mini universe in a way).
I just see no benefit to film adaptations. In terms of adaptation, a film is the WORST medium for a ongoing or long story. Maybe books (of a certain length) adapt sorta well to film. But thats about it. Give me animated series with a good voice cast and talented animation crew, if I want a adaptation at all.
Why would I want a hyper condensed version of the original stories condensed into the same bland formula? Like yeah they did make it more streamlined and cut the fat in parts, but in other ways they really removed the OOMPH from so many stories because they had to follow the exact same goddam formula.
And I am so fucking tired of films with buckets of animation in them. Just fucking make a animated film at that point and get somebody with a talented design aesthetic.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on July 26, 2021, 09:10:23 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on July 22, 2021, 02:10:25 PMI have a feeling the formula worked for him and me much better because we grew up reading marvel comics and saw MANY attempts that were pretty terrible to adapt those stories to tv and screen.
I grew up with marvel comics. I actually bought them at the corner shop in my home country reliably for over a decade.
In addition because of how TV worked in my home country, TV shows and the like where on something of a 10 year delay. So I grew up with 90s animated adaptations of Marvel stuff (its own mini universe in a way).
I just see no benefit to film adaptations. In terms of adaptation, a film is the WORST medium for a ongoing or long story. Maybe books (of a certain length) adapt sorta well to film. But thats about it. Give me animated series with a good voice cast and talented animation crew, if I want a adaptation at all.
Why would I want a hyper condensed version of the original stories condensed into the same bland formula? Like yeah they did make it more streamlined and cut the fat in parts, but in other ways they really removed the OOMPH from so many stories because they had to follow the exact same goddam formula.
And I am so fucking tired of films with buckets of animation in them. Just fucking make a animated film at that point and get somebody with a talented design aesthetic.
Fair enough, and I agree about film being a poor long term story telling medium. I am curious as to how the next phase of marvel movies profit. They will do it without me, but no idea how fatigued the general public is of the super hero movies. I expected big budget deconstructions to start, but those tend to be a touch cynical and depressing.
Quote from: oggsmash on July 27, 2021, 08:32:43 AM
Fair enough, and I agree about film being a poor long term story telling medium. I am curious as to how the next phase of marvel movies profit. They will do it without me, but no idea how fatigued the general public is of the super hero movies. I expected big budget deconstructions to start, but those tend to be a touch cynical and depressing.
Other film genres like gangster movies and westerns had heydays that lasted multiple decades, continuing well after their basic tropes had gotten very tired.
I don't feel that quality is a simple function of time. Some of my favorite westerns were from after the peak, like Silverado and Unforgiven. There are many great classics - but it's also true that a lot of the early and middle period westerns were pretty dull.
Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2021, 07:44:52 PM
Other film genres like gangster movies and westerns had heydays that lasted multiple decades, continuing well after their basic tropes had gotten very tired.
We might have another 5-8 years of this. Joy. But that sounds pretty accurate.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on July 27, 2021, 08:51:21 PMWe might have another 5-8 years of this. Joy. But that sounds pretty accurate.
That depends on when you start counting. The modern super-hero movie trend started with Batman in 1989 (IMHO) so it's been going for 30 years now. I'd like to return to the days when we only got one super-hero movie every two years or so. That was pretty tolerable.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 27, 2021, 11:58:27 PM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on July 27, 2021, 08:51:21 PMWe might have another 5-8 years of this. Joy. But that sounds pretty accurate.
That depends on when you start counting. The modern super-hero movie trend started with Batman in 1989 (IMHO) so it's been going for 30 years now. I'd like to return to the days when we only got one super-hero movie every two years or so. That was pretty tolerable.
The mere existence of a few movies, which you don't have to watch, is
intolerable?
You must have a lot of difficulty with everyday life.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2021, 01:32:22 AM
The mere existence of a few movies, which you don't have to watch, is intolerable?
You must have a lot of difficulty with everyday life.
You can't manage to detect simple
hyperbole and exaggeration?
You must have a lot of difficulty with everyday life.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on July 28, 2021, 08:04:13 AM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2021, 01:32:22 AM
The mere existence of a few movies, which you don't have to watch, is intolerable?
You must have a lot of difficulty with everyday life.
You can't manage to detect simple hyperbole and exaggeration?
You must have a lot of difficulty with everyday life.
Exactly.
We live in a world where fun killers think it's okay to police what other people like. I think it's better to avoid their rhetoric and say something like hey, I'm not a fan of that myself, but if other people are having fun that's awesome!
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2021, 02:21:57 PMWe live in a world where fun killers think it's okay to police what other people like.
Thats called having different taste and said world has existed since the beggining of time. Id say the opposite has been very much true recently: more people have been needing hype more then the actual product itself and so need everybody to validate their opinion.
If you like what you like, what does it matter to you if somebody else finds your decisions poor? If your fun is founded in intentional ignorance, then thats a very fragile kind of fun.
As for me, more people liking sequels and remakes validates Hollywood to make more of said trash which effects me because I have less stuff to talk to people about. And I think it gets people to think in a very dependant fashion. Instead of taking the values from the products they take this consumeristic mindset instead.
Thats why I shake my head at idiots that want Star Wars to be 'returned to form'. Star Wars itself was inspired by previous stuff, but your dependant on it and not its ideas.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2021, 01:32:22 AMThe mere existence of a few movies, which you don't have to watch, is intolerable?
I'm using the term "tolerable" in the sense of how many super-hero movies can the market tolerate. IOW, how many super-hero movies can be released each year before they begin to cannibalize their own audience. The average person only goes to the movie theater 2.3 times a year. So we are at a point where there are so many super-hero moves that most people will pick and choose one over another. Back before MCU went full steam it was easy to see every major super-hero movie in the theater every year.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 28, 2021, 08:59:10 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2021, 01:32:22 AMThe mere existence of a few movies, which you don't have to watch, is intolerable?
I'm using the term "tolerable" in the sense of how many super-hero movies can the market tolerate. IOW, how many super-hero movies can be released each year before they begin to cannibalize their own audience. The average person only goes to the movie theater 2.3 times a year. So we are at a point where there are so many super-hero moves that most people will pick and choose one over another. Back before MCU went full steam it was easy to see every major super-hero movie in the theater every year.
Okay, that's very different.
But I think assessments of the movie-going public will have to wait a bit, because the 15 very long days of lockdown could have killed theatres entirely or there could be a huge rebound, and might have made everyone stick of streaming or increased their threshold. I think it'll lead to a net upswing in viewing time, and tolerance of long stretches of binge watching, but we'll have to see.
Coming back a little bit on superhero movies, as much as I hated Suicide Squad and Justice League (theatre cut), The Suicide Squad is FUN. More bloody juvenile fun than the average summer 'comedy'.
Not perfect, there's some slow moments and the story still follows the basic blockbuster beats, but it has more gore than the 2 Deadpools combined in the opening act alone, has some brief frontal full male nudity. And appears to care about the characters. And unlike many DC movies they don't shy away from using colour; that final Boss :o ;D .
After Druk and Black Widow, SS was my third theatre experience since the lockdowns ended. Druk (Another Round) is a good character movie, Black Widow was a missed opportunity for an interesting character, but The Suicide Squad was a bonkers anti-hero extravaganza. I'm glad I skipped FF9 and watched this one instead.
(disclaimer: I never read a single Suicide Squad comic, and did not watch Birds of Prey. So I even didn't pick up on when Harley mentions her former abusive lover, she was talking about Joker).
edit: for what it's worth, it's currently at 97% on Rotten Tomatoes and the one negative critic says "It's about as anti-woke as you could possibly fathom, and there's a complete disregard for what might be offensive to some viewers." as if that were a bad thing in a Suicide Squad film.
Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2021, 07:44:52 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on July 27, 2021, 08:32:43 AM
Fair enough, and I agree about film being a poor long term story telling medium. I am curious as to how the next phase of marvel movies profit. They will do it without me, but no idea how fatigued the general public is of the super hero movies. I expected big budget deconstructions to start, but those tend to be a touch cynical and depressing.
Other film genres like gangster movies and westerns had heydays that lasted multiple decades, continuing well after their basic tropes had gotten very tired.
I don't feel that quality is a simple function of time. Some of my favorite westerns were from after the peak, like Silverado and Unforgiven. There are many great classics - but it's also true that a lot of the early and middle period westerns were pretty dull.
Genres definitely get stuffy and can die without enough new life in them. A lot of genres get reinvigorated when people start breathing new life into them. I think gangster movies and wuxia are two good examples of that. They both have waves where the quality shoots up a bit. Some of my favorite wuxia films are ones in the 70s where you can tell the directors are intentionally drawing on other genres or movies and trying to mix them in for a new result (a movie like Killer Constable which is at the tail end of the Shaw Brothers reign---when they start throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks---it always struck me as a blend of wuxia with Dirty Harry and films in that style). Intimate Confessions of a Chinese Courtesan blends in a lot of horror movie visuals for interesting effect (it isn't a horror movie, nothing supernatural outside the standard stuff you find in wuxia, but many of the shots, especially of the antagonist, have an 'enter the vampire' feel to them and there are lots vampiric mannerisms with the character: much more to the film than this, but it is one of the things that stands out). And tons of those 70s wuxia films started blending in spaghetti western elements, including things like Ennio Morricone tracks (which I think works really well, and gives them an interesting remixed vibe).
I am not as into westerns but agree. I remember watching Silverado and Pale Rider when they came out and both made a really strong impression on me (even though it was a genre I thought of as my grandfather's by that time).
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 25, 2021, 01:41:21 PM
Are scenes shot in "the Volume" considered CGI?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bErPsq5kPzE
No if the backgrounds are real or mattes. Yes if the backgrounds are CGI.
Its just a new version of backscreening I believe it was called. A process that goes way the heck back.
The problem with it is the same. It can produce some odd perspecta quirks. Though I think the new systems may deal better with that.
Quote from: Omega on July 29, 2021, 10:37:11 AM
Quote from: Wntrlnd on July 25, 2021, 01:41:21 PM
Are scenes shot in "the Volume" considered CGI?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bErPsq5kPzE
No if the backgrounds are real or mattes. Yes if the backgrounds are CGI.
Its just a new version of backscreening I believe it was called. A process that goes way the heck back.
The problem with it is the same. It can produce some odd perspecta quirks. Though I think the new systems may deal better with that.
There is a movie called Legend of the Demon Cat, which does make heavy use of CGI but considering how much it used, did a great job blending it with real elements. One of the big things that made it work was they pretty much designed a song dynasty city set, so while I am sure CGI was used to touch things up, the locations felt very solid and real. Which worked well when the more fantastical CGI stuff happened (not all the CGI was perfect, but even when it wasn't the colors and stuff were artfully done so it didn't bother as much as a bunch of ugly muddy things moving all over the screen)
Watched a pretty cool Kung Fu revenge film called White Butterfly Killer the other night. It stars Hsu Feng, the actress from a Touch of Zen and The Fate of Lee Khan. Enjoyed the fight sequences a lot. Quite liked the unique weapon of Hsu Feng's character (a cut braid that she could make heart to bludgeon or stab with, or soft to whip with). Basically the movie is all set at an inn/brothel/gambling hall, where she has set up a revenge scheme after being raped and watching her grandfather killed by bandits six years ago (we don't see it, but presumably she has spent the last six years training and dedicating herself to revenge, and picking up some female disciples to help her in her endeavor-----it is a little unclear how planned or happenstance the revenge is). The opening fight scene really won me over. It spends a good amount of time building backstory and tension between fight scenes. It does make for a slower pace at times, but I felt all that effort made the revenge sequences more emotionally rewarding. It is an older movie, and it shows. Still it is good quality in terms of the fight choreography and the story works well. Hsu Feng really elevates the material as well. I ended up just watching the Wu Tang Collection version for free on youtube (not issues with cropping and not being able to see all the movements as sometimes happens on youtube with these films). It is available on prime to rent or buy but I didn't want to spend the extra money at the time (had just bought another film the previous night). The wu tang version is subtitles. You can see it here: https://youtu.be/unGJGBT_LT8
Did a podcast review of it in more depth here: https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-j9d23-10a2490
I live in a non-english speaking country so I didn't have to read 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' in highschool. And I never played Pendragon nor Lion & Dragon.
But I like Dev Patel, so I watched Green Knight in the theatre yesterday. Let's just say I was not the target audience for this movie; maybe you all will get more out of it. Or not.
Beautiful imagery of the Irish/Scottish landscape, which you'll have ample time to admire as there isn't anything else happening in most of the movie. I did some search on Wikipedia after watchin the movie and I think they did a bit of a Hobbit on this one as well, adding characters and storylines to pad the original poem into a +2hrs art-house experiment.
So if you like Arthurian legends and people travelling and talking a bit between long minutes of silence, then this may be something for you.
But if you expect an action packed fantasy movie or a fun night at the cinema, another Excalibur or First Knight or A Knight's Tale or even Holly Grail, then this is not it.
Beautiful but boring.
Quote from: Godfather Punk on July 29, 2021, 01:06:26 AM
Coming back a little bit on superhero movies, as much as I hated Suicide Squad and Justice League (theatre cut), The Suicide Squad is FUN. More bloody juvenile fun than the average summer 'comedy'.
Not perfect, there's some slow moments and the story still follows the basic blockbuster beats, but it has more gore than the 2 Deadpools combined in the opening act alone, has some brief frontal full male nudity. And appears to care about the characters. And unlike many DC movies they don't shy away from using colour; that final Boss :o ;D .
After Druk and Black Widow, SS was my third theatre experience since the lockdowns ended. Druk (Another Round) is a good character movie, Black Widow was a missed opportunity for an interesting character, but The Suicide Squad was a bonkers anti-hero extravaganza. I'm glad I skipped FF9 and watched this one instead.
(disclaimer: I never read a single Suicide Squad comic, and did not watch Birds of Prey. So I even didn't pick up on when Harley mentions her former abusive lover, she was talking about Joker).
edit: for what it's worth, it's currently at 97% on Rotten Tomatoes and the one negative critic says "It's about as anti-woke as you could possibly fathom, and there's a complete disregard for what might be offensive to some viewers." as if that were a bad thing in a Suicide Squad film.
I'm tempted to watch SS only because... are we not spoiling it? The Big End Villian!
Quote from: Ratman_tf on August 11, 2021, 06:53:10 AM
I'm tempted to watch SS only because... are we not spoiling it? The Big End Villian!
Better than Scrappy Doo, that's for sure.
Quote from: Godfather Punk on July 29, 2021, 01:06:26 AMedit: for what it's worth, it's currently at 97% on Rotten Tomatoes and the one negative critic says "It's about as anti-woke as you could possibly fathom, and there's a complete disregard for what might be offensive to some viewers." as if that were a bad thing in a Suicide Squad film.
Having now watched this movie, I really disagree with the assessment that it's somehow "anti-woke". While it might have been offensive, it was only offensive to the same groups of people that Hollywood says it's ok to offend: men, "homophobes", people who like America, etc. It was really a safe comedy.
But the main reason I didn't like it was that it wasn't a superhero movie or even a parody of a superhero movie (like Deadpool). Instead it was a parody of 80s action movies. The plot was basically Commando combined with the team from Predator (with a little bit of XXX thrown in). Overall the story didn't make any amount of sense but not in a way that pokes fun at old action movies. Mostly just in a way that doesn't make sense.
BTW- Did anyone else have trouble streaming this from HBO Max? I've streamed movies without issues on pretty much every streaming platform (even 4k movies) and this one buffered every three to five minutes.
Enjoyed Free Guy earlier this weekend. I set without any expectations and found it to be a fun film.
To me, The Suicide Squad (2021) asks the question "How grotesque can we make superheroes before the audience starts to tune out?" A question which, I warn you, it answers in excruciating detail.
I think after seeing the movie, you will have a pretty good idea where to draw that line.
From here on out, when a character in the DC Universe says "I've seen some weird shit," you will think of this movie.
It's not a badly made movie, it's just one I found difficult to enjoy.
Quote from: Lurkndog on August 17, 2021, 08:33:58 AM
To me, The Suicide Squad (2021) asks the question "How grotesque can we make superheroes before the audience starts to tune out?" A question which, I warn you, it answers in excruciating detail.
I think after seeing the movie, you will have a pretty good idea where to draw that line.
From here on out, when a character in the DC Universe says "I've seen some weird shit," you will think of this movie.
It's not a badly made movie, it's just one I found difficult to enjoy.
I liked the interactions between IE and JC, but felt that the movie pays too much attention to MR's HQ in a "GM's girlfriend" sort of way after watching interviews.
Finally watched Friends of Eddie Coyle. Great Boston crime film. Very slow paced even for the early 70s. I think it really boils down to whether you enjoy hanging out with these characters. I loved the dialogue. Found it to be quite authentic in terms of being a Boston film. Some of the accents fall a bit short, but everything else looked more real to me (some Boston movies spend a lot of time giving views and shots people who live here wouldn't even see most of the time: like the view of the state house in the departed---which was great but pretty alien to me). This looked and felt like the places I drive around. Very interesting ending as well. Like watching a slow moving train crash: https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-8piv9-10b7d7a
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 17, 2021, 09:02:43 AM
I liked the interactions between IE and JC, but felt that the movie pays too much attention to MR's HQ in a "GM's girlfriend" sort of way after watching interviews.
I thought Idris Elba was a huge upgrade from Will Smith, and his HR Giger helmet was pretty cool. His ability to unfold a packet of gum into an antitank rifle a la Iron Man 2 was cool looking but preposterous, but at least it was his own thing.
Margot Robbie has still got it, but I tend to agree with your about the "GM's girlfriend" feel. Yes, she should succeed wildly a lot of the time, but she should also fail wildly a lot of the time, and it would be every bit as entertaining. She's the wild card, not the ace.
Quote from: Lurkndog on August 18, 2021, 02:31:28 PM
Margot Robbie has still got it, but I tend to agree with your about the "GM's girlfriend" feel. Yes, she should succeed wildly a lot of the time, but she should also fail wildly a lot of the time, and it would be every bit as entertaining. She's the wild card, not the ace.
The Colossal Screw-ups of Harley Quinn would make a great movie. Focus on all the times things went south, in spectacular ways.
Quote from: Lurkndog on August 18, 2021, 02:31:28 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 17, 2021, 09:02:43 AM
I liked the interactions between IE and JC, but felt that the movie pays too much attention to MR's HQ in a "GM's girlfriend" sort of way after watching interviews.
I thought Idris Elba was a huge upgrade from Will Smith, and his HR Giger helmet was pretty cool. His ability to unfold a packet of gum into an antitank rifle a la Iron Man 2 was cool looking but preposterous, but at least it was his own thing.
Margot Robbie has still got it, but I tend to agree with your about the "GM's girlfriend" feel. Yes, she should succeed wildly a lot of the time, but she should also fail wildly a lot of the time, and it would be every bit as entertaining. She's the wild card, not the ace.
I loved The Suicide Squad. Classic James Gunn.
The Harley Quinn solo stuff did feel a lot like a private session between GM and GM's Girlfriend - I could just imagine the look on the poor neckbeard's face when she (post-coitus) promptly blows away his poor GM's-Expy character. :D
It's certainly not explicitly anti-woke, and Gunn's politics are clearly Left-Liberal, but he equally clearly hates Deep State Democrats just as much as he hates Gun-Ho Republicans, so I was ok with that. And he's a fan of dank memes, I kept seeing weird stuff and thinking "Wait, is that a reference to ...surely not?!"
The actual plot is a mix of Action Movie themes, notably
The Expendables - only done much much much better* - with a bit of
Where Eagles Dare. I thought it worked fine for a black comedy, where plausibility takes a back seat to snappy one-liners and groteseque situations.
*As a world-builder nerd I pay attention to stuff like the population figures of the crappy Latin dictatorships and how well they could support the military resources shown, the hordes of fanatical mooks, their hardware etc.
The Suicide Squad gave the banana republic's capital city a population in the 'millions'; in
The Expendables AIR it was said to be 6,000!
Rented the Snake Eyes movie last night. Action scenes are fun, and the acting is fine (although the Baroness seems to struggle at keeping a consistent accent). However, the story features way more magic and monsters than I expected. Sure, they had some of that in the old cartoons, so it's not entirely unprecedented, but it still felt weird.
I think The Dirty Dozen was the primary movie influence on the Suicide Squad comic book.
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 20, 2021, 07:44:25 AM
Rented the Snake Eyes movie last night. Action scenes are fun, and the acting is fine (although the Baroness seems to struggle at keeping a consistent accent). However, the story features way more magic and monsters than I expected. Sure, they had some of that in the old cartoons, so it's not entirely unprecedented, but it still felt weird.
I did not like it simply because its A: another damn origin story. B: Snake Eyes without the mask? And talking? Its like making the turtles in TMNT all look different. It rather absolutely misses the point.
Quote from: Omega on August 22, 2021, 09:56:01 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 20, 2021, 07:44:25 AM
Rented the Snake Eyes movie last night. Action scenes are fun, and the acting is fine (although the Baroness seems to struggle at keeping a consistent accent). However, the story features way more magic and monsters than I expected. Sure, they had some of that in the old cartoons, so it's not entirely unprecedented, but it still felt weird.
I did not like it simply because its A: another damn origin story. B: Snake Eyes without the mask? And talking? Its like making the turtles in TMNT all look different. It rather absolutely misses the point.
I kept.expecting him to get his face and vocal cords messed up before the end of the film, but...nope. That was a letdown.
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 23, 2021, 03:28:57 AMI kept.expecting him to get his face and vocal cords messed up before the end of the film, but...nope. That was a letdown.
The actor probably demanded facetime, or the writers thought you can't be expressive with a character that wears a mask. Not everybody can be cool like Karl Urban.
I've read that working in a mask can be genuinely tricky as it requires a certain amount of over-exaggeration so your body language can transmit what your face normally would. It also requires some specific camera work.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 24, 2021, 08:14:55 AM
I've read that working in a mask can be genuinely tricky as it requires a certain amount of over-exaggeration so your body language can transmit what your face normally would. It also requires some specific camera work.
I wonder if that's similar to the over-exaggeration of facial expressions to replace vocal tone seen in those using sign language? I have a friend that teaches sign, and she says that some people just don't really have the face for it (not expressive enough).
Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 24, 2021, 08:14:55 AMI've read that working in a mask can be genuinely tricky as it requires a certain amount of over-exaggeration so your body language can transmit what your face normally would. It also requires some specific camera work.
It has worked for characters like Vader, Rorschach, and Deadpool. But for Snake Eyes, part of the appeal of the character is that you don't know what he's thinking or feeling. The producers of the movie could have leaned into that and made Snake Eyes silent through the majority of the film, say infiltrating an enemy compound, and interspersed that with short, targeted flashbacks to explain the character and situation.
But that would have been a risky move. I guess what defines Hollywood today is making the safe choice, but failing anyway.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 24, 2021, 09:45:19 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 24, 2021, 08:14:55 AMI've read that working in a mask can be genuinely tricky as it requires a certain amount of over-exaggeration so your body language can transmit what your face normally would. It also requires some specific camera work.
It has worked for characters like Vader, Rorschach, and Deadpool. But for Snake Eyes, part of the appeal of the character is that you don't know what he's thinking or feeling. The producers of the movie could have leaned into that and made Snake Eyes silent through the majority of the film, say infiltrating an enemy compound, and interspersed that with short, targeted flashbacks to explain the character and situation.
But that would have been a risky move. I guess what defines Hollywood today is making the safe choice, but failing anyway.
There are ways to emote that don't even require vocalization, let alone have a visible face.
But then, like you said, it would've been risky as well as tricky to pull off.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 24, 2021, 09:45:19 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 24, 2021, 08:14:55 AMI've read that working in a mask can be genuinely tricky as it requires a certain amount of over-exaggeration so your body language can transmit what your face normally would. It also requires some specific camera work.
It has worked for characters like Vader, Rorschach, and Deadpool. But for Snake Eyes, part of the appeal of the character is that you don't know what he's thinking or feeling. The producers of the movie could have leaned into that and made Snake Eyes silent through the majority of the film, say infiltrating an enemy compound, and interspersed that with short, targeted flashbacks to explain the character and situation.
But that would have been a risky move. I guess what defines Hollywood today is making the safe choice, but failing anyway.
Vader might have the most distinctive voice in all of cinema, and Rorschach and Deadpool, in very different ways, aren't far behind. And Deadpool in particular conveys a lot through exaggerated body language.
An interesting approach to Snake Eyes might have been to offload his characterization to the supporting cast. Snake Eyes remains an expressionless cipher, but other characters are brought in to express emotion during pivotal moments, which allows the audience to learn who Snake Eyes is through the reactions of others.
Deadpool is only kind of wearing a mask, they overlay it with CGI to add in some expression.
Quote from: Pat on August 24, 2021, 10:50:38 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 24, 2021, 09:45:19 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 24, 2021, 08:14:55 AMI've read that working in a mask can be genuinely tricky as it requires a certain amount of over-exaggeration so your body language can transmit what your face normally would. It also requires some specific camera work.
It has worked for characters like Vader, Rorschach, and Deadpool. But for Snake Eyes, part of the appeal of the character is that you don't know what he's thinking or feeling. The producers of the movie could have leaned into that and made Snake Eyes silent through the majority of the film, say infiltrating an enemy compound, and interspersed that with short, targeted flashbacks to explain the character and situation.
But that would have been a risky move. I guess what defines Hollywood today is making the safe choice, but failing anyway.
Vader might have the most distinctive voice in all of cinema, and Rorschach and Deadpool, in very different ways, aren't far behind. And Deadpool in particular conveys a lot through exaggerated body language.
An interesting approach to Snake Eyes might have been to offload his characterization to the supporting cast. Snake Eyes remains an expressionless cipher, but other characters are brought in to express emotion during pivotal moments, which allows the audience to learn who Snake Eyes is through the reactions of others.
I think it can be done. The Boys amazon series has a character, Black Noir, that I think can convey quite a bit just with body posture and how characters around him act and react to him. Matter of fact Black Noir is basically a super powered Snake eyes/batman already, so for certain it could be done, especially with a good actor to play off of him.
Edward Norton managed to convey a lot of emotion, not only by voice but by his body language in Kingdom of Heaven.
I'm sure if King Baldwin had been a mute, he would have pulled that of too.
But again, talent in front and behind the camera...
Candyman 2021 is a sequel to the 1992 classic.
I loved the opening credits scene. A variation of those from Devil, but more claustrophobic and definitely not for people who suffer from vertigo.
The music paid homage to Glass' themes but was it's own thing.
The story tells a good horror tale with the required spilling of blood, and what's blood for if not for shedding? Beautiful imagery, good acting and script.
I enjoyed this movie.
It also has Peele's fingerprints all over it, if there was any doubt about that, so if that raises your hackles you will find ample opportunity to rant.
Watched Seven for the first time with the family.
We came about satisfied with a feeling that this felt like....A deconstruction of deconstructive literature in a way. Its so over the top, but it makes you feel its serious all the way till the end at which point it exposes itself as a farce.
https://collider.com/new-the-rocketeer-movie-remake-disney-plus/
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HsKeDcAKXvA/hqdefault.jpg)
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 01, 2021, 01:04:07 PM
https://collider.com/new-the-rocketeer-movie-remake-disney-plus/
The race swapping isn't a surprise. But what shocks me is that Disney thinks that some throwaway movie from the 90s is a franchise still has potential to be exploited. It sort of mirrors the MCU in how they are really digging deep in their IP library to come up with anything even remotely interesting to reboot.
The comics the movie is based on still have a following. Despite the bestoefforts of others to drag it down.
The CGI animated series had the right idea. Pass the rocket on to the next generation. His daughter.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 01, 2021, 01:04:07 PM
https://collider.com/new-the-rocketeer-movie-remake-disney-plus/
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HsKeDcAKXvA/hqdefault.jpg)
Outrage marketing. Its intended to get exactly the above reaction. Make fans scream and that will attract the curious. Some will watch it just to see how bad it is. Profit.
Quote from: Omega on September 01, 2021, 09:55:48 PMThe CGI animated series had the right idea. Pass the rocket on to the next generation. His daughter.
Ok. The movie makes more sense now. They already sex-swapped the character so they had no choice but to do a race-swap.
Quote from: Omega on September 01, 2021, 09:57:07 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 01, 2021, 01:04:07 PM
https://collider.com/new-the-rocketeer-movie-remake-disney-plus/
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HsKeDcAKXvA/hqdefault.jpg)
Outrage marketing. Its intended to get exactly the above reaction. Make fans scream and that will attract the curious. Some will watch it just to see how bad it is. Profit.
Making a whole movie around that idea seems like a big investment for a few curiosity watches.
It's one of those movies that should never be remade. I could see sequels but set in and around the WWII period. It's a period piece and that's very important to its appeal.
To the surprise of literally everyone, Shang-Chi is expected to bring in $90 million over the 4-day Labor Day weekend, literally tripling the previous Labor Day Weekend record ($30 million for Halloween in 2007).
https://news.yahoo.com/shang-chi-blows-past-labor-192430392.html
Quote from: Pat on September 06, 2021, 06:24:41 PM
To the surprise of literally everyone, Shang-Chi is expected to bring in $90 million over the 4-day Labor Day weekend, literally tripling the previous Labor Day Weekend record ($30 million for Halloween in 2007).
https://news.yahoo.com/shang-chi-blows-past-labor-192430392.html
I liked it a lot. Action and humor were both good, and Awkwafina wasn't overdoing the goofiness for laughs (I haven't really liked any of her other works). Effects were nice, and I actually preferred this version of the not-Mandarin and his rings (bracelets) better than the old comic version.
For me 1981's "Dragonslayer" remains an AD&D-style classic.
"Excalibur" and the animated 1970's "The Hobbit" were inspiring, too.
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 06, 2021, 08:27:55 PM
Quote from: Pat on September 06, 2021, 06:24:41 PM
To the surprise of literally everyone, Shang-Chi is expected to bring in $90 million over the 4-day Labor Day weekend, literally tripling the previous Labor Day Weekend record ($30 million for Halloween in 2007).
https://news.yahoo.com/shang-chi-blows-past-labor-192430392.html
I liked it a lot. Action and humor were both good, and Awkwafina wasn't overdoing the goofiness for laughs (I haven't really liked any of her other works). Effects were nice, and I actually preferred this version of the not-Mandarin and his rings (bracelets) better than the old comic version.
Critical Drinker does a good job demolishing the plot and characters, and says the CGI toward the end is distractingly fake looking, but thinks there are some good fight scenes, and a good story underneath with an opportunity for strong character building, especially between Shang-Chi and the replacement for his canceled father Fu Manchu, but it ends up scattered and fragmented.
Spoilers ahoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLJGVikolJs
Quote from: Omega on July 24, 2021, 09:46:54 AM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on July 21, 2021, 02:49:48 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 21, 2021, 02:46:08 AMI think they're really going to run the franchise into the ground with "Phase 4".
I sure hope so. Because that will give me hope that modern audiences can get sick of SOMETHING.
It took a while but looks like the mainstream have gotten tired of zombie movies and series finally as their interminable proliferation in everything hit saturation years ago.
We'll see the same with superhero shows just like the last two waves.
What I found most frustrating about the zombie trend was how derivative it was. There are basically only three types of zombies: slow zombies, fast zombies, and talky zombies.
All Flesh Must Be Eaten devised numerous fascinating takes on zombies in the 2000s. Without any exaggeration, it's more creative than the entire rest of the zombie genre combined.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 07, 2021, 05:07:45 PM
All Flesh Must Be Eaten devised numerous fascinating takes on zombies in the 2000s. Without any exaggeration, it's more creative than the entire rest of the zombie genre combined.
I felt they where more gimmicky then anything. Zombies are scariest as a disease or a plague. Everything else is a gimmick.
'Zombies BUT IN VEE AARR!!!'
The Matrix, Ressurection announced.
https://www.polygon.com/22640030/matrix-4-trailer-resurrections-release-date
Hey guys, remember that movie about a dude stuck in a simulation? Let's do it again!
What's left to say about the Matrix? I feel like they covered the topic in the original three films. I didn't have the hate for the sequels that other fans seem to have had.
But I'm failing to have any enthusiasm for this announcement.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 10, 2021, 05:13:11 PM
Hey guys, remember that movie about a dude stuck in a simulation? Let's do it again!
Its a meta commentary on the nature of repetative sequels because he gets stuck in a simulation - AGAIN. ;P
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 10, 2021, 05:56:23 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 10, 2021, 05:13:11 PM
Hey guys, remember that movie about a dude stuck in a simulation? Let's do it again!
Its a meta commentary on the nature of repetative sequels because he gets stuck in a simulation - AGAIN. ;P
We can only hope the movie is that self-aware.
Sadly, my local movie theater has closed down. This was not unexpected, the entire mini mall it was in has been scheduled for demolition for some time. Unfortunately the multi-plex that was supposed to replace it has not yet opened, though construction should have been completed some time ago.
I'll miss the place, though. I'd been going there since the 1980s, and tickets were a bargain.
I probably won't see Black Widow or Shang-chi until I reactivate my Disney+ at the end of the year for Book of Boba Fett.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 01, 2021, 11:52:01 PM
Quote from: Omega on September 01, 2021, 09:55:48 PMThe CGI animated series had the right idea. Pass the rocket on to the next generation. His daughter.
Ok. The movie makes more sense now. They already sex-swapped the character so they had no choice but to do a race-swap.
Well not so much Sex swap as just passing the mantle on to the kid. Thats actually a recurring thing in comics though dont think it happened in the actual Rocketeer Comics though there was a backup installment that would have fit right in with the CGI series. Bunch of young girls playing Space Ranger.
But this new so-called Rocketeer? Nah. Its the same ol same ol woke blackfacing everything.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 02, 2021, 10:35:54 AM
Making a whole movie around that idea seems like a big investment for a few curiosity watches.
Marketing keeps pushing that this is the road to riches. And companies across the board keep listening. Partially because it does work. But the loss usually far outweighs the gain.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 10, 2021, 05:13:11 PM
The Matrix, Ressurection announced.
https://www.polygon.com/22640030/matrix-4-trailer-resurrections-release-date
Hey guys, remember that movie about a dude stuck in a simulation? Let's do it again!
What's left to say about the Matrix? I feel like they covered the topic in the original three films. I didn't have the hate for the sequels that other fans seem to have had.
But I'm failing to have any enthusiasm for this announcement.
Plot cant go any weirder than what they did with the MMO.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 10, 2021, 05:13:11 PM
The Matrix, Ressurection announced.
https://www.polygon.com/22640030/matrix-4-trailer-resurrections-release-date
Hey guys, remember that movie about a dude stuck in a simulation? Let's do it again!
What's left to say about the Matrix? I feel like they covered the topic in the original three films. I didn't have the hate for the sequels that other fans seem to have had.
But I'm failing to have any enthusiasm for this announcement.
I think the issue with the sequels wasn't that they were bad (they were entertaining). It's that the first movie was so good, and so complete on its own, that the sequels kind of lowered the quality of the first one by existing. Normally I don't let bad sequels affect my appreciation of a part 1. But I do have to admit, found it hard not to allow the sequels to color my opinion. I also think while the first one definitely had these concepts and ideas behind it, the sequels might have gotten lost in the weeds delving into those ideas.
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on September 15, 2021, 12:14:04 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 10, 2021, 05:13:11 PM
The Matrix, Ressurection announced.
https://www.polygon.com/22640030/matrix-4-trailer-resurrections-release-date
Hey guys, remember that movie about a dude stuck in a simulation? Let's do it again!
What's left to say about the Matrix? I feel like they covered the topic in the original three films. I didn't have the hate for the sequels that other fans seem to have had.
But I'm failing to have any enthusiasm for this announcement.
I think the issue with the sequels wasn't that they were bad (they were entertaining). It's that the first movie was so good, and so complete on its own, that the sequels kind of lowered the quality of the first one by existing. Normally I don't let bad sequels affect my appreciation of a part 1. But I do have to admit, found it hard not to allow the sequels to color my opinion. I also think while the first one definitely had these concepts and ideas behind it, the sequels might have gotten lost in the weeds delving into those ideas.
I thought they were bad, at least in a story telling (writing) context. It felt, while watching them, like the work of people who had a fully finished complete product in the first movie, and were prodded to do more movies because of the huge success of the first movie. Sort of like they were just making shit up as they went along instead of having a specific game plan for a trilogy from the beginning. It led to a good deal of shark jumping, shitting on some of your established characters, and well, a bit of a hot mess.
Quote from: oggsmash on September 15, 2021, 01:25:48 PM
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on September 15, 2021, 12:14:04 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 10, 2021, 05:13:11 PM
The Matrix, Ressurection announced.
https://www.polygon.com/22640030/matrix-4-trailer-resurrections-release-date
Hey guys, remember that movie about a dude stuck in a simulation? Let's do it again!
What's left to say about the Matrix? I feel like they covered the topic in the original three films. I didn't have the hate for the sequels that other fans seem to have had.
But I'm failing to have any enthusiasm for this announcement.
I think the issue with the sequels wasn't that they were bad (they were entertaining). It's that the first movie was so good, and so complete on its own, that the sequels kind of lowered the quality of the first one by existing. Normally I don't let bad sequels affect my appreciation of a part 1. But I do have to admit, found it hard not to allow the sequels to color my opinion. I also think while the first one definitely had these concepts and ideas behind it, the sequels might have gotten lost in the weeds delving into those ideas.
I thought they were bad, at least in a story telling (writing) context. It felt, while watching them, like the work of people who had a fully finished complete product in the first movie, and were prodded to do more movies because of the huge success of the first movie. Sort of like they were just making shit up as they went along instead of having a specific game plan for a trilogy from the beginning. It led to a good deal of shark jumping, shitting on some of your established characters, and well, a bit of a hot mess.
The problem is the first movie didn't need a sequel at all. They shouldn't have made sequels. Period. You have a perfect movie. Anything more will muck it up. It functioned as a contained story, and any expansion of that world was only going to weaken it. I think the sequels were average movies. They definitely had storytelling problems, many average films do. But following on the heels of the matrix, the contrast was pretty severe. My reaction to them was very negative. But I was comparing them to a film that blew me away (and the sequels felt more like some kind of cyberpunk world of darkness fan fiction). I also do think they let their big ideas and concepts take over the story too much (because there are also certainly weird choices in those movies). I just feel if they were released individually, they'd be entertaining enough but pretty forgettable, not bad per se.
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on September 15, 2021, 01:45:10 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 15, 2021, 01:25:48 PM
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on September 15, 2021, 12:14:04 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 10, 2021, 05:13:11 PM
The Matrix, Ressurection announced.
https://www.polygon.com/22640030/matrix-4-trailer-resurrections-release-date
Hey guys, remember that movie about a dude stuck in a simulation? Let's do it again!
What's left to say about the Matrix? I feel like they covered the topic in the original three films. I didn't have the hate for the sequels that other fans seem to have had.
But I'm failing to have any enthusiasm for this announcement.
I think the issue with the sequels wasn't that they were bad (they were entertaining). It's that the first movie was so good, and so complete on its own, that the sequels kind of lowered the quality of the first one by existing. Normally I don't let bad sequels affect my appreciation of a part 1. But I do have to admit, found it hard not to allow the sequels to color my opinion. I also think while the first one definitely had these concepts and ideas behind it, the sequels might have gotten lost in the weeds delving into those ideas.
I thought they were bad, at least in a story telling (writing) context. It felt, while watching them, like the work of people who had a fully finished complete product in the first movie, and were prodded to do more movies because of the huge success of the first movie. Sort of like they were just making shit up as they went along instead of having a specific game plan for a trilogy from the beginning. It led to a good deal of shark jumping, shitting on some of your established characters, and well, a bit of a hot mess.
The problem is the first movie didn't need a sequel at all. They shouldn't have made sequels. Period. You have a perfect movie. Anything more will muck it up. It functioned as a contained story, and any expansion of that world was only going to weaken it. I think the sequels were average movies. They definitely had storytelling problems, many average films do. But following on the heels of the matrix, the contrast was pretty severe. My reaction to them was very negative. But I was comparing them to a film that blew me away (and the sequels felt more like some kind of cyberpunk world of darkness fan fiction). I also do think they let their big ideas and concepts take over the story too much (because there are also certainly weird choices in those movies). I just feel if they were released individually, they'd be entertaining enough but pretty forgettable, not bad per se.
yes. When the first movie leaves with the main character as essentially a god....there is nothing else to say. People's imagination will tell a better story than trying to create challenges for the now OP main character.
Amazon Prime tops Netflix, Hulu, and all the others when it comes to some truly dismal, low budget movies.
Two I just ran across are Trump vs. the Illuminati (2.36/10 on IMDB) about a Chinese clone of the 45th president traveling into the future to fight the Illuminati in space and in hell; and Righteous Villains (4.9/10, many reviews seem to be shills), which seems to be a critique of Woke culture with Satan, and also the Illuminati.
I'm not sure I dare.
Quote from: Pat on October 11, 2021, 12:51:48 AM
Amazon Prime tops Netflix, Hulu, and all the others when it comes to some truly dismal, low budget movies.
Two I just ran across are Trump vs. the Illuminati (2.36/10 on IMDB) about a Chinese clone of the 45th president traveling into the future to fight the Illuminati in space and in hell; and Righteous Villains (4.9/10, many reviews seem to be shills), which seems to be a critique of Woke culture with Satan, and also the Illuminati.
I'm not sure I dare.
Did they hire some writers from SyFy? The original SyFy movies were (are) notorious for being on a par with half-assed Asylum Studios mockbusters.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 11, 2021, 08:58:46 AM
Quote from: Pat on October 11, 2021, 12:51:48 AM
Amazon Prime tops Netflix, Hulu, and all the others when it comes to some truly dismal, low budget movies.
Two I just ran across are Trump vs. the Illuminati (2.36/10 on IMDB) about a Chinese clone of the 45th president traveling into the future to fight the Illuminati in space and in hell; and Righteous Villains (4.9/10, many reviews seem to be shills), which seems to be a critique of Woke culture with Satan, and also the Illuminati.
I'm not sure I dare.
Did they hire some writers from SyFy? The original SyFy movies were (are) notorious for being on a par with half-assed Asylum Studios mockbusters.
Compared to a lot of the movies on Amazon Prime, SyFy and Asylum movies are Citizen Kane. I've watch a few that looked like they were shot with handheld cameras in someone's basement, and not in the cinema verite sense. Though based on the trailer, the Villains movie looks more like the low end of Asylum. Speaking of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMU_2ZaV3Hk
And I found the Trump v. Illuminati trailer as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kups2nlK54U
I don't even.
I think there are a lot of people making movies that nobody ever sees.
It makes you wonder how they're paying for it.
I grant that moviemaking has been getting less expensive for a while now -- you can get excellent picture quality with a freaking smartphone, and a copy of Adobe Aftereffects isn't gonna set you back much.
But still. I'd sooner watch some Dust shorts on Youtube than some of that Amazon Prime crap :)
Quote from: Pat on October 11, 2021, 09:50:39 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 11, 2021, 08:58:46 AM
Quote from: Pat on October 11, 2021, 12:51:48 AM
Amazon Prime tops Netflix, Hulu, and all the others when it comes to some truly dismal, low budget movies.
Two I just ran across are Trump vs. the Illuminati (2.36/10 on IMDB) about a Chinese clone of the 45th president traveling into the future to fight the Illuminati in space and in hell; and Righteous Villains (4.9/10, many reviews seem to be shills), which seems to be a critique of Woke culture with Satan, and also the Illuminati.
I'm not sure I dare.
Did they hire some writers from SyFy? The original SyFy movies were (are) notorious for being on a par with half-assed Asylum Studios mockbusters.
Speaking of! Anyone want to watch the new Dune movie?
Quote
Compared to a lot of the movies on Amazon Prime, SyFy and Asylum movies are Citizen Kane. I've watch a few that looked like they were shot with handheld cameras in someone's basement, and not in the cinema verite sense. Though based on the trailer, the Villains movie looks more like the low end of Asylum. Speaking of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMU_2ZaV3Hk
And I found the Trump v. Illuminati trailer as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kups2nlK54U
I don't even.
I think there are a lot of people making movies that nobody ever sees.
That Trump v. the Illuminati sounds crazy enough to be fun. The trailer looks like a bunch of terrible CGI though.
Dear God. They actually got Sean Young in that?
That looks like a bad Tremors-in-Space clone. Jeez. Someone get Burt Gummer, STAT!
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 11, 2021, 10:34:14 AM
Dear God. They actually got Sean Young in that?
I think it's a step up for her, at this point.
Quote from: Pat on October 11, 2021, 12:51:48 AM
Amazon Prime tops Netflix, Hulu, and all the others when it comes to some truly dismal, low budget movies.
Two I just ran across are Trump vs. the Illuminati (2.36/10 on IMDB) about a Chinese clone of the 45th president traveling into the future to fight the Illuminati in space and in hell; and Righteous Villains (4.9/10, many reviews seem to be shills), which seems to be a critique of Woke culture with Satan, and also the Illuminati.
I'm not sure I dare.
You could probably make some hilarious movies with these scripts/ideas basically being exactly the same if the right people were in charge
Quote from: Pat on October 11, 2021, 12:51:48 AM
Amazon Prime tops Netflix, Hulu, and all the others when it comes to some truly dismal, low budget movies.
Amazon does have lots of garbage, but at least it also has the ability to hide movies that you know you'll never watch. Both Disney+ and HBO Max desperately need this feature. Netflix lets you block shows but only for accounts designated as "Kids".
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 11, 2021, 08:58:46 AM
Did they hire some writers from SyFy? The original SyFy movies were (are) notorious for being on a par with half-assed Asylum Studios mockbusters.
[/quote]
Thats because a huge chunk of SyFy movies ARE from Asylum. 8)
Quote from: Omega on October 15, 2021, 11:48:09 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 11, 2021, 08:58:46 AM
Did they hire some writers from SyFy? The original SyFy movies were (are) notorious for being on a par with half-assed Asylum Studios mockbusters.
Thats because a huge chunk of SyFy movies ARE from Asylum. 8)
I am shocked. Shocked! Well, not that shocked. :)
Some of Asylum's productions arent too bad. The rest... well...
Say what you will though. They are prolific. Over 200 movies so far.
Quote from: Omega on October 17, 2021, 10:45:52 PM
Some of Asylum's productions arent too bad. The rest... well...
Say what you will though. They are prolific. Over 200 movies so far.
Supposedly, their mockbuster of Battleship was actually better than the 'real' movie. Granted, that's an amazingly low bar to clear.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 18, 2021, 08:07:49 AM
Quote from: Omega on October 17, 2021, 10:45:52 PM
Some of Asylum's productions arent too bad. The rest... well...
Say what you will though. They are prolific. Over 200 movies so far.
Supposedly, their mockbuster of Battleship was actually better than the 'real' movie. Granted, that's an amazingly low bar to clear.
I liked Battleship. :-\ I mean, it was like a Michael Bay movie but 100X less annoying and stupid.
Maybe that is a low bar...
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 12:21:45 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 18, 2021, 08:07:49 AM
Quote from: Omega on October 17, 2021, 10:45:52 PM
Some of Asylum's productions arent too bad. The rest... well...
Say what you will though. They are prolific. Over 200 movies so far.
Supposedly, their mockbuster of Battleship was actually better than the 'real' movie. Granted, that's an amazingly low bar to clear.
I liked Battleship. :-\ I mean, it was like a Michael Bay movie but 100X less annoying and stupid.
Maybe that is a low bar...
I liked it, too. Battleship is a stupid movie, but it's kind of fun.
Just saw that movie Nobody.
https://youtu.be/wZti8QKBWPo
Fun movie. I hope this character is in the same universe as John Wick.
I've been on an 80's kick, hunting down movies I haven't seen in decades. Recently watched "My Science Project" and "The Ice Pirates". The robots in that were fantastic, funnier than the actors most times.. "The Party Animal" for pure juvenile comedy. And one of my all time favorites "Night Patrol". Dumb offensive comedy. Maybe Pat Morita's finest performance. :D
Quote from: Mind Crime on October 20, 2021, 10:58:40 PM
I've been on an 80's kick, hunting down movies I haven't seen in decades. Recently watched "My Science Project" and "The Ice Pirates". The robots in that were fantastic, funnier than the actors most times.. "The Party Animal" for pure juvenile comedy. And one of my all time favorites "Night Patrol". Dumb offensive comedy. Maybe Pat Morita's finest performance. :D
Ahahaha, 'My Science Project' was such a weird little gem. I enjoyed the hell out of it as a kid.
"Sherman, what's he sayin'?"
"...He's going to kick our ass."
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 21, 2021, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Mind Crime on October 20, 2021, 10:58:40 PM
I've been on an 80's kick, hunting down movies I haven't seen in decades. Recently watched "My Science Project" and "The Ice Pirates". The robots in that were fantastic, funnier than the actors most times.. "The Party Animal" for pure juvenile comedy. And one of my all time favorites "Night Patrol". Dumb offensive comedy. Maybe Pat Morita's finest performance. :D
Ahahaha, 'My Science Project' was such a weird little gem. I enjoyed the hell out of it as a kid.
"Sherman, what's he sayin'?"
"...He's going to kick our ass."
So many fun unknown movies like this. One reason I lurk threads like these, find those gems I haven't seen or barely remember.
Lightyear Trailer
A fictional toy based on a fictional sci fi franchise, presented as a real movie? My brain hurts. Looks great though.
*Edit* I hit edit instead of adding a new post and effed up this one. Durp.
The Spine of NightI just heard about this tonight. It's a blatant homage (rip off?) of Ralph Bakshi style rotoscoping, and crazy 80's animation like Heavy Metal.
Just watching the trailer, the crisp line art contrasts so badly with the backgrounds. But the story itself looks crazy gonzo good.
I might have to watch this after I get some money in the ole checkin' account.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on November 02, 2021, 01:48:15 AM
The Spine of Night
I just heard about this tonight. It's a blatant homage (rip off?) of Ralph Bakshi style rotoscoping, and crazy 80's animation like Heavy Metal.
Just watching the trailer, the crisp line art contrasts so badly with the backgrounds. But the story itself looks crazy gonzo good.
I might have to watch this after I get some money in the ole checkin' account.
Poor innocent natives, slaughtered for no reason by white men, fight back using their native powers (which are far superior to the white man's, even though he is somehow oppressing them). And the female protagonist (who seems to defeat those white men in combat). Oh, and Patton Oswald. This is going to be woke trash. Don't insult Heavy Metal by invoking it here (nor its truly legitimate female protagonist).
Quote from: Pat on October 18, 2021, 12:40:22 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2021, 12:21:45 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 18, 2021, 08:07:49 AM
Quote from: Omega on October 17, 2021, 10:45:52 PM
Some of Asylum's productions arent too bad. The rest... well...
Say what you will though. They are prolific. Over 200 movies so far.
Supposedly, their mockbuster of Battleship was actually better than the 'real' movie. Granted, that's an amazingly low bar to clear.
I liked Battleship. :-\ I mean, it was like a Michael Bay movie but 100X less annoying and stupid.
Maybe that is a low bar...
I liked it, too. Battleship is a stupid movie, but it's kind of fun.
Battleship was one of those oddballs where executive meddling helped derail it. Also Hasbro was wanting a die in with their Unit-E concept and the Space Battleship board game. None of which you see in the movie really.
Overall its a muddled mess with a few interesting bits lost in the morass.
Not sure if mentioned this one before. But before my accident came across an interesting little movie called Train Quest. Though it does not say in the credits. This is obviously either a Full Moon or their kids line Moonbeam movie.
Basically a model train fan gets a job at a strange train shop. But ends up shrunken down into the train diorama and racing the clock to escape before he gradually turns into a mini figure. Some nice effects too. Especially the figure people.
Seems like probably one of Full Moons last movies?
My wife and a friend wanted to see eternals so we went.....
Holy shit that was bad. A lot of the jokes didn't work. Acting was some of the worst I've seen in a superhero movie. The plot was a plot hole.
Quote from: Trond on November 07, 2021, 12:09:54 AM
My wife and a friend wanted to see eternals so we went.....
Holy shit that was bad. A lot of the jokes didn't work. Acting was some of the worst I've seen in a superhero movie. The plot was a plot hole.
I heard a rumor that the straight white make eternal is made into the villain of the movie. Is that true?
Quote from: Trond on November 07, 2021, 12:09:54 AM
My wife and a friend wanted to see eternals so we went.....
Holy shit that was bad. A lot of the jokes didn't work. Acting was some of the worst I've seen in a superhero movie. The plot was a plot hole.
Saw the trailer. Does not feel at all like the Eternals from the comics so yet another "in name only" thing.
This was the first Marvel movie where I actually thought about leaving the cinema. It was 2h37 and it felt every minute like it.
(No time to die was about that runtime too, but al least there was some spectacle on the screen there, even if it was only to deconstruct demolish the 007 franchise).
Long, tedious, boring, with talk scenes that were either repetitive or so cliché I actually yawned, and when there was a fight scene it felt like any other cgi fight of the past decade.
And you have Rob Stark and Jonn Snow both wooing a woman named Cersi. I shit you not.
I'm a fan of Salma Hayek, but here her talent was wasted. And Jolie... was in there too somewhere.
The rest of the cast were a bunch of (to me) lesser known 'stars' that recite their bland lines
(Ma Dong-seok was good in Train to Busan but I don't know him from anything else;
Kumail Nanjiani I don't know; his character was always halfway between entertaining and then again failed jokes (and Karun is a weak copy of Happy);
Lia McHugh is young, so I'm going to cut her some slack, but again her performance felt forced:
Barry Keoghan specialises in not-emoting; I completely forgot he was in Dunkirk, disliked him in Green Knight, and found he was good but still the weakest actor in Chernobyl);
Lauren Ridloff is deaf so she gets to play a deaf character; we can't have actors playing against type or representing minorities they're not really part of; until the final part I even forgot she was in the intro;
Gemma Chan I should know from other roles she played, but here I didn't feel she was the right actress to play the lead role;
and Brian Tyree Henry also disappears from the movie after the first act, only to return for the finale; not sure if he represents a minority he's part of in real life).
According to some YouTube commenters this is a deep, meaningful movie with lots of symbolism, so I'm probably a rube who doesn't get it. Or just maybe those edgy artist should try and do their own thing and keep it out of our action blockbusters.
Ok, on a positive note, some of the visuals were impressive (Arishem rising). But the rest looked like an enhanced level from Prince of Persia or taken from Gods of Egypt or any other Marvel City Mayhem movie.
----
Also, to get rid of the bad taste, I just watched Free Fire 8)
And though it has Brie Larson in it, and though it was just a 90 minute shoot'em-up in one location, I enjoyed it very much.
Quote from: Godfather Punk on November 07, 2021, 07:54:15 AM
This was the first Marvel movie where I actually thought about leaving the cinema. It was 2h37 and it felt every minute like it.
(No time to die was about that runtime too, but al least there was some spectacle on the screen there, even if it was only to deconstruct demolish the 007 franchise).
Long, tedious, boring, with talk scenes that were either repetitive or so cliché I actually yawned, and when there was a fight scene it felt like any other cgi fight of the past decade.
And you have Rob Stark and Jonn Snow both wooing a woman named Cersi. I shit you not.
I'm a fan of Salma Hayek, but here her talent was wasted. And Jolie... was in there too somewhere.
The rest of the cast were a bunch of (to me) lesser known 'stars' that recite their bland lines
(Ma Dong-seok was good in Train to Busan but I don't know him from anything else;
Kumail Nanjiani I don't know; his character was always halfway between entertaining and then again failed jokes (and Karun is a weak copy of Happy);
Lia McHugh is young, so I'm going to cut her some slack, but again her performance felt forced:
Barry Keoghan specialises in not-emoting; I completely forgot he was in Dunkirk, disliked him in Green Knight, and found he was good but still the weakest actor in Chernobyl);
Lauren Ridloff is deaf so she gets to play a deaf character; we can't have actors playing against type or representing minorities they're not really part of; until the final part I even forgot she was in the intro;
Gemma Chan I should know from other roles she played, but here I didn't feel she was the right actress to play the lead role;
and Brian Tyree Henry also disappears from the movie after the first act, only to return for the finale; not sure if he represents a minority he's part of in real life).
According to some YouTube commenters this is a deep, meaningful movie with lots of symbolism, so I'm probably a rube who doesn't get it. Or just maybe those edgy artist should try and do their own thing and keep it out of our action blockbusters.
Ok, on a positive note, some of the visuals were impressive (Arishem rising). But the rest looked like an enhanced level from Prince of Persia or taken from Gods of Egypt or any other Marvel City Mayhem movie.
----
Also, to get rid of the bad taste, I just watched Free Fire 8)
And though it has Brie Larson in it, and though it was just a 90 minute shoot'em-up in one location, I enjoyed it very much.
I agree, and I'm also a Salma Hayek fan. . The only "deep" thing about it is that it sort of tried to create some moral ambiguity. Although the right thing to do is still so obvious that it really isn't very ambiguous.
As an added cherry on top it takes several heavy-handed turns into SJW territory; we learn that the ancient Babylonians were nice, the Aztecs were nice, but the conquistadors were bad, and Americans during WWII were bad.
I saw Eternals. It was not good. Definitely on the bottom of MCU films, but it's still not a The Last Jedi level of bad.
I don't watch movies anymore. I watch the Pitch Meeting on You Tube. Those two guys are hilarious.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife was not what I was expecting, but it was really good and was what it needed to be - passing the baton to the next generation. The kids are really the focus, the OG team is in it just enough.
Harold Ramis' passing hit me pretty hard back when it happened, as silly as that sounds, and this movie was a perfect way to say goodbye to an old friend.
There is a mid-credit scene that is pretty good (when you see a big name and think "hold on, I didn't see this person" just wait about three seconds), and a post-credit scene with Winston that cannot be missed.
Cowboy Bebop Live action series on Netflix.
Just watch the original series.
I watched the first episode, and it's a shot for shot remake of the anime. Things that work in animation look really bad in live action. And since it's the same story, you're not missing anything.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on November 19, 2021, 10:46:35 PM
Cowboy Bebop Live action series on Netflix.
Just watch the original series.
I watched the first episode, and it's a shot for shot remake of the anime. Things that work in animation look really bad in live action. And since it's the same story, you're not missing anything.
If one isn't a fan of the anime medium and have never seen the original anime, is the live action worth watching for the story/characters? I don't really care if the effects are crap--afterall, I watch movies on Amazon Prime.
Quote from: HappyDaze on November 19, 2021, 11:58:07 PM
If one isn't a fan of the anime medium and have never seen the original anime, is the live action worth watching for the story/characters? I don't really care if the effects are crap--afterall, I watch movies on Amazon Prime.
Uncertain. There is something nebulously "off" about it. Enough that I pick up on it, not enough that I can flat out say what it is.
The first episode is pretty much a straight up port of the first episode of the anime, with some changes here and there (most notably the introduction of Faye), so that will give you a pretty good idea of what to expect.
Quote from: Thornhammer on November 21, 2021, 12:16:19 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on November 19, 2021, 11:58:07 PM
If one isn't a fan of the anime medium and have never seen the original anime, is the live action worth watching for the story/characters? I don't really care if the effects are crap--afterall, I watch movies on Amazon Prime.
Uncertain. There is something nebulously "off" about it. Enough that I pick up on it, not enough that I can flat out say what it is.
For me, it looked like one of the Disney live action remakes of their animated movies. It's funky to see them not just make a live action version, but to attempt to make a live action version that looks somewhat like the animation. Usually involving simple costumes with exaggerated colors and accessories.
(https://www.etonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/max_970x546/public/images/2020-12/batb_gaston-lefou_1280.jpg?h=c673cd1c&itok=TxoSbIn8)
(https://cdn.pastemagazine.com/www/articles/2021/11/12/cowboy-bebop-netflix-main3.jpg)
Well, looks like the show goes off the rails later in the season.
https://www.cbr.com/cowboy-bebop-changes-overarching-antagonist/
Quote from: Ratman_tf on November 21, 2021, 01:55:16 PM
It's funky to see them not just make a live action version, but to attempt to make a live action version that looks somewhat like the animation. Usually involving simple costumes with exaggerated colors and accessories.
Yep, I think that nails down a fair chunk of what was bothering me.
The Netflix Cowboy Bebop is a good example of how something can be reasonably faithful, and clearly expensive to make, and still fail hard.
They go to great lengths to replicate the costuming, mecha designs, and atmosphere of the original, and they keep the soundtrack, which is one of the all-time great anime soundtracks.
But the costumes look like cosplay, the lighting makes everything look cheap, the depth of field effects and color balance of the CGI makes it look like model shots and not match the live action bits, and the sound mix is off, so the soundtrack sounds muted and tinny instead of kicking things up to 11 like it does in the anime.
Also Spike is suddenly Asian, and Faye suddenly isn't. Also, Faye is basically Girl Spike now, when she was her own character in the anime.
Pro Tip: if you haven't watched the original anime, you need to. Even if you don't like anime, you will probably like this. It has a great English dub, arguably as good or better than the Japanese, so you won't have to read subtitles. Great music, great animation, and just a whole lot of fun.
Quote from: Lurkndog on November 22, 2021, 12:19:34 PM
The Netflix Cowboy Bebop is a good example of how something can be reasonably faithful, and clearly expensive to make, and still fail hard.
They go to great lengths to replicate the costuming, mecha designs, and atmosphere of the original, and they keep the soundtrack, which is one of the all-time great anime soundtracks.
But the costumes look like cosplay, the lighting makes everything look cheap, the depth of field effects and color balance of the CGI makes it look like model shots and not match the live action bits, and the sound mix is off, so the soundtrack sounds muted and tinny instead of kicking things up to 11 like it does in the anime.
Also Spike is suddenly Asian, and Faye suddenly isn't. Also, Faye is basically Girl Spike now, when she was her own character in the anime.
Pro Tip: if you haven't watched the original anime, you need to. Even if you don't like anime, you will probably like this. It has a great English dub, arguably as good or better than the Japanese, so you won't have to read subtitles. Great music, great animation, and just a whole lot of fun.
How many of your criticisms would matter to someone that never watched the original anime? Costuming, lighting, and CGI still would, but "suddenly Asian/not-Asian" probably makes no difference whatsoever. Soundtrack probably matters to most, but I personally don't care (soundtracks are not something I care for/about).
Quote from: Lurkndog on November 22, 2021, 12:19:34 PM
Pro Tip: if you haven't watched the original anime, you need to. Even if you don't like anime, you will probably like this. It has a great English dub, arguably as good or better than the Japanese, so you won't have to read subtitles. Great music, great animation, and just a whole lot of fun.
It's a very "western" (pun not intended?) style of show, which I think makes it accessible to non-anime-fan viewers.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on November 21, 2021, 01:55:16 PMIt's funky to see them not just make a live action version, but to attempt to make a live action version that looks somewhat like the animation.
As an animator, I hope every person that goes see these live action adaptations suffers a non-life threadining but extremly painful condition on the anniversary of the day they went to see these movies every year for the rest of their lives. If they watch that film at home, they suffer the issue that day as well.
I can not get upset at the general public for allot of stupidiy, but their general disrespect for animation makes my blood boil.
People going to see these fifth rate adaptations is the reason why their not making more Animated things.
If you went to see this, unless it was under the threat of some really bad thing, I hope you stub your toe.
Quote from: HappyDaze on November 22, 2021, 12:47:22 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on November 22, 2021, 12:19:34 PM
The Netflix Cowboy Bebop is a good example of how something can be reasonably faithful, and clearly expensive to make, and still fail hard.
They go to great lengths to replicate the costuming, mecha designs, and atmosphere of the original, and they keep the soundtrack, which is one of the all-time great anime soundtracks.
But the costumes look like cosplay, the lighting makes everything look cheap, the depth of field effects and color balance of the CGI makes it look like model shots and not match the live action bits, and the sound mix is off, so the soundtrack sounds muted and tinny instead of kicking things up to 11 like it does in the anime.
Also Spike is suddenly Asian, and Faye suddenly isn't. Also, Faye is basically Girl Spike now, when she was her own character in the anime.
Pro Tip: if you haven't watched the original anime, you need to. Even if you don't like anime, you will probably like this. It has a great English dub, arguably as good or better than the Japanese, so you won't have to read subtitles. Great music, great animation, and just a whole lot of fun.
How many of your criticisms would matter to someone that never watched the original anime? Costuming, lighting, and CGI still would, but "suddenly Asian/not-Asian" probably makes no difference whatsoever. Soundtrack probably matters to most, but I personally don't care (soundtracks are not something I care for/about).
I haven't seen it, and haven't been paying any real attention. But the costumes in the pic above look really goofy, so goofy it would be hard to take the show seriously. It feels like something that might appeal to kids into the Power Rangers, but it's going to a major clash for a show like Cowboy Bepop that's heavily focused on existential ennui.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 22, 2021, 01:32:48 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on November 21, 2021, 01:55:16 PMIt's funky to see them not just make a live action version, but to attempt to make a live action version that looks somewhat like the animation.
As an animator, I hope every person that goes see these live action adaptations suffers a non-life threadining but extremly painful condition on the anniversary of the day they went to see these movies every year for the rest of their lives. If they watch that film at home, they suffer the issue that day as well.
I can not get upset at the general public for allot of stupidiy, but their general disrespect for animation makes my blood boil.
People going to see these fifth rate adaptations is the reason why their not making more Animated things.
If you went to see this, unless it was under the threat of some really bad thing, I hope you stub your toe.
The only Disney live action adaptation I've watched was Aladdin. All through it I was thinking they could tell a different type of story. One better suited to live action. The idea of the Genie living a mortal life was relly cool, and IMO the best part. The rest was a slavish recreation of a story I'd already seen.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on November 22, 2021, 03:47:07 PMThe only Disney live action adaptation I've watched was Aladdin. All through it I was thinking they could tell a different type of story. One better suited to live action.
Then why was it an adaptation of the
ANIMATED MUSICAL? Alladin is bloody public domain!
If you want to tell a different kind of story - TELL A DIFFERENT KIND OF STORY!
Because nobody would go see it thinking 'Oh yeah remember the animated version? Why see an inferious version?'
This is pure nostaglia marketting and I hate the public at large for not respecting animation.
Quote from: Pat on November 22, 2021, 02:22:59 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on November 22, 2021, 12:47:22 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on November 22, 2021, 12:19:34 PM
The Netflix Cowboy Bebop is a good example of how something can be reasonably faithful, and clearly expensive to make, and still fail hard.
They go to great lengths to replicate the costuming, mecha designs, and atmosphere of the original, and they keep the soundtrack, which is one of the all-time great anime soundtracks.
But the costumes look like cosplay, the lighting makes everything look cheap, the depth of field effects and color balance of the CGI makes it look like model shots and not match the live action bits, and the sound mix is off, so the soundtrack sounds muted and tinny instead of kicking things up to 11 like it does in the anime.
Also Spike is suddenly Asian, and Faye suddenly isn't. Also, Faye is basically Girl Spike now, when she was her own character in the anime.
Pro Tip: if you haven't watched the original anime, you need to. Even if you don't like anime, you will probably like this. It has a great English dub, arguably as good or better than the Japanese, so you won't have to read subtitles. Great music, great animation, and just a whole lot of fun.
How many of your criticisms would matter to someone that never watched the original anime? Costuming, lighting, and CGI still would, but "suddenly Asian/not-Asian" probably makes no difference whatsoever. Soundtrack probably matters to most, but I personally don't care (soundtracks are not something I care for/about).
I haven't seen it, and haven't been paying any real attention. But the costumes in the pic above look really goofy, so goofy it would be hard to take the show seriously. It feels like something that might appeal to kids into the Power Rangers, but it's going to a major clash for a show like Cowboy Bepop that's heavily focused on existential ennui.
I watched most of the first episode before turning it off. I doubt I'd have cared for the anime any more than the live action though.
Quote from: Pat on November 22, 2021, 02:22:59 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on November 22, 2021, 12:47:22 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on November 22, 2021, 12:19:34 PM
The Netflix Cowboy Bebop is a good example of how something can be reasonably faithful, and clearly expensive to make, and still fail hard.
They go to great lengths to replicate the costuming, mecha designs, and atmosphere of the original, and they keep the soundtrack, which is one of the all-time great anime soundtracks.
But the costumes look like cosplay, the lighting makes everything look cheap, the depth of field effects and color balance of the CGI makes it look like model shots and not match the live action bits, and the sound mix is off, so the soundtrack sounds muted and tinny instead of kicking things up to 11 like it does in the anime.
Also Spike is suddenly Asian, and Faye suddenly isn't. Also, Faye is basically Girl Spike now, when she was her own character in the anime.
Pro Tip: if you haven't watched the original anime, you need to. Even if you don't like anime, you will probably like this. It has a great English dub, arguably as good or better than the Japanese, so you won't have to read subtitles. Great music, great animation, and just a whole lot of fun.
How many of your criticisms would matter to someone that never watched the original anime? Costuming, lighting, and CGI still would, but "suddenly Asian/not-Asian" probably makes no difference whatsoever. Soundtrack probably matters to most, but I personally don't care (soundtracks are not something I care for/about).
I haven't seen it, and haven't been paying any real attention. But the costumes in the pic above look really goofy, so goofy it would be hard to take the show seriously. It feels like something that might appeal to kids into the Power Rangers, but it's going to a major clash for a show like Cowboy Bepop that's heavily focused on existential ennui.
Not sure what you mean by the colours other than they are NOT the usual hyper washed out tones movies have been using for the last 20 years. Its rather nice to see something that is fucking drab blacks and greys. Or fuzzy blue.
The Bebop series just never interested me. Sorry. Some nice music though and the art is good and from what I saw its a fairly dynamic anime.
Womp womp.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/cowboy-bebop-canceled-netflix-1235060256/
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 09, 2021, 08:20:52 PM
Womp womp.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/cowboy-bebop-canceled-netflix-1235060256/
Damn. That was quick. The numbers must've been shit-awful.
Quote from: Godfather Punk on August 11, 2021, 04:46:11 AM
I live in a non-english speaking country so I didn't have to read 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' in highschool. And I never played Pendragon nor Lion & Dragon.
But I like Dev Patel, so I watched Green Knight in the theatre yesterday. Let's just say I was not the target audience for this movie; maybe you all will get more out of it. Or not.
Beautiful imagery of the Irish/Scottish landscape, which you'll have ample time to admire as there isn't anything else happening in most of the movie. I did some search on Wikipedia after watchin the movie and I think they did a bit of a Hobbit on this one as well, adding characters and storylines to pad the original poem into a +2hrs art-house experiment.
So if you like Arthurian legends and people travelling and talking a bit between long minutes of silence, then this may be something for you.
But if you expect an action packed fantasy movie or a fun night at the cinema, another Excalibur or First Knight or A Knight's Tale or even Holly Grail, then this is not it.
Beautiful but boring.
I know I'm super late for this discussion, but I wanted to give my two cents on Gawain's casting.
I don't want to be a racist who disallows ethnically British people (and gifted/skilled actors) from appearing in ethnically British stories just because their race is historically inaccurate (whether that even makes sense for an ahistorical fantasy mythos). The pre-modern Arthurian mythos does feature ethnically/racially Moorish characters, including mixed-race characters like Feirefiz (who has been retroactively diagnosed with vitiligo too). So it wouldn't be completely absurd that some Romani or some hero out of the
Ramayana made their way all the way to Camelot and got themselves ingratiated with the nobility. Camelot never actually existed, so where it fits in a real world timeline isn't important. It could be in the distant future for all that it matters (which is the premise of at least two Arthurian adaptations I know of, one an 80s cartoon and the other a 90s RPG).
The part that
maybe doesn't fit is racebending Gawain and Morgan le Fay specifically as opposed to inserting a new British Indian knight without pre-existing baggage. I know the Arthurian mythos doesn't have a canon, but this implies a big difference in who Morgan and Arthur's parents were compared any of the known versions. Of course, I'm probably overthinking something that the production team never considered because it just wasn't relevant to the story they were trying to tell. Arthurian stories have that issue where they contradict each other because the author was trying to make a point rather than create a shared universe.
The story is about Gawain and the Green Knight. Who his grandparents were and how they met is irrelevant. It's hardly the first time his family has been changed (https://www.timelessmyths.com/arthurian/roundtable.html#Family).
But if SJWs complain that other adaptations depict Gawain and Morgan as lily-white when they "should" be Indian...
One of my players got the movie "Boss Level" with the actor from Captain America who played Crossbones as the main character. A former soldier caught up in a time loop and trying to figure out why hes being attacked by a hoard of assassins.
The movie was surprisingly good and had quite a few funny moments as he gets killed in various ways and figures out creative ways to avoid getting killed.
Gonna save you all some money: don't go watch the Matrix 4.
Or more importantly, save you all some time you'll never get back.
Or do, so I can say 'told ya so'.
Quote from: Godfather Punk on December 23, 2021, 05:02:04 PM
Gonna save you all some money: don't go watch the Matrix 4.
Or more importantly, save you all some time you'll never get back.
Or do, so I can say 'told ya so'.
Elaborate, please. What was terrible about it?
I should not be bored during a Matrix movie. The action should be groundbreaking, setting the standards for the next decade. Not a lesser copy of the original. At least Neo should do more than wince and airbend, like maybe throw the odd punch, or maybe try that gun-fu stuff the kids are into. I shouldn't be preached at for 120 minutes in self referential deconstructing bullshit, like I was taken hostage by the Architect.
I don't mind the odd subversion, a callback now and then, or characters having logically changed over time. But this was all the movie was, turned up to 11 and not in a good way.
There are folks on YouTube who can explain better, but for me, I never thought I would leave the theatre more disappointed than after Marvel Eternals.
Ugh..
https://www.screengeek.net/2021/12/23/the-matrix-resurrections-red-pill-political-right/
I'm tempted to watch it just to point and laugh. But really, beneath the crying fit over the "right" stealing their kewl catchphrase idea, I can't imagine anything interesting Ressurections could add to the franchise.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 24, 2021, 07:12:26 PMBut really, beneath the crying fit over the "right" stealing their kewl catchphrase idea, I can't imagine anything interesting Ressurections could add to the franchise.
The only thing that can snatch anything from another group is corporate advertising. Make a red-pill add about coke and have it go viral.
I suppose Keanu needed to get some dinero to pass the time till John Wick 4 releases next year.
Saw Matrix Resurrections on HBOMax. I'm glad it didn't cost me anything more than the usual monthly cost of the servoce, because it was not very entertaining. They should have started the film with a voiceover (Neo or Trinity or Morphius, doesn't matter) saying "We've seen this all happen before..." just so it's clear that you're not really getting anything new.
They actually said "Why would you use old code to write something new?" at the beginning.
Word of mouth on Matrix 4 is poor.
I hear lots of good things about Ghostbusters: Afterlife, though. I'm going to make an effort to go see it while it is still in theaters.
And of course, Book of Boba Fett drops on Wednesday. I'll be turning off Netflix, and reactivating Disney+.
I watched Gundam: Hathaway on Netflix last night. It looked gorgeous, but the story was kinda meh, and if you are new to Gundam OC it might be hard to figure out. I'm hoping the light novel it is based on gets released in English.
Quote from: Lurkndog on December 26, 2021, 09:25:49 AM
And of course, Book of Boba Fett drops on Wednesday. I'll be turning off Netflix, and reactivating Disney+.
I feel kind of spurned by Book of Boba Fett. What I liked about The Mandalorian is that it gave us a ton of new characters, including a new main. Boba Fett seems to be tracking more towards Season 2 of The Mandalorian. Rehashing old characters.
Let me know what you think. I'm on the fence about watching it.
I just say let the friggin franchise go. Unless you want slightly different flavors of OT done ten quintillion times, and somehow the old EU doesn't cover it, just move on already.
If the best of the show is fanservice of the creativity of the past, you have a turgid universe and a generally vapid fanbase.
As for the problem with The Matrix : Resurrections... it's a 120-minute nostalgia-fest. A few things are retconned here and there, there are a number of biting self-referential references ("our parent company has decided to make a sequel...") and I left the theatre feeling snarky and drained, which (in theory) is not what you should feel when you've seen a movie.
Watch it if you want. I'm not saying you can't.
But don't be disappointed if you don't like it.
Lately I have mostly been watching older movies and been pretty content. Once in a while I will catch something that is recent, but on the whole, I find newer films have a look (just in terms of how they are physically made and edited) that doesn't feel as much like a 'movie' to me. I don't have the vocabulary to express the idea, but there is a sense when I watch older movies, even not so great ones, that they are part of the movie medium, and when I watch newer ones, that feeling isn't there as often. I think this might have been what Scorsese was getting at when he called marvel films 'rides' but I find it even applies to movies that would occupy the same space as a Scorsese film (just the look and feel).
But what is interesting to me is when I talk to a lot of people they have almost the opposite reaction (older movies look odd to them). So it might just be a matter of expectations.
Quote from: Lurkndog on December 26, 2021, 09:25:49 AM
Word of mouth on Matrix 4 is poor.
I am hearing the same and have no intention of spending time on it. After the second Matrix, I had no real interest in the franchise (and the third one was even worse but at that point I just didn't care about the story any more). I was surprised when they announced Matrix 4, because parts 2 and 3 were so universally reviled (particularly in comparison to the 1st movie which was outstanding on its own).
I still might watch the new Bill and Ted as I heard some good things about it.
I think nostalgia's all they got left. Because God knows they don't have the creativity to fill a thimble.
So it's a lot less 'look at this cool new thing we came up with' and more 'hey, remember when this was cool before? We did it again!'
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 28, 2021, 11:18:04 AM
I think nostalgia's all they got left. Because God knows they don't have the creativity to fill a thimble.
So it's a lot less 'look at this cool new thing we came up with' and more 'hey, remember when this was cool before? We did it again!'
Yeah, that's my feelings on the OSR too.
Quote from: HappyDaze on December 28, 2021, 11:52:54 AMYeah, that's my feelings on the OSR too.
As a complete non-OSR fan, I have seen some OSR things that impressed me. When OSR wants to innovate its fantastic, but it generally doesn't.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 28, 2021, 12:28:26 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on December 28, 2021, 11:52:54 AMYeah, that's my feelings on the OSR too.
As a complete non-OSR fan, I have seen some OSR things that impressed me. When OSR wants to innovate its fantastic, but it generally doesn't.
Things like Fight On! or Santicore are more interesting than Clone-with-a-Few-House-Rules-#39394.
But back to the Matrix ReR-ed, Id wager they just don't get directing gigs no more because all their films have been bombs. So this is like Shamamalama getting a big 'blockbuster' if its based on a older property.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 28, 2021, 12:47:02 PM
But back to the Matrix ReR-ed, Id wager they just don't get directing gigs no more because all their films have been bombs. So this is like Shamamalama getting a big 'blockbuster' if its based on a older property.
We're overdue for a 7th sense movie, aren't we?
Quote from: Pat on December 28, 2021, 12:56:50 PMWe're overdue for a 7th sense movie, aren't we?
The twist is that the kid this time just wanted attention and bruce willis sucks at talking with his wife.
I saw the new Matrix. Is awful.
I wouldn't even say it's "nostalgia porn" - it's so on the nose, and meta, it's silly. They created plotholes that did not need to even exist. It *pretends* to honor the previous trilogy, but is so utterly ham-fisted in its attempt, I honestly wonder wtf they were thinking or why they even bothered.
The premise is kinda okay... the execution was janky as fuck and failed some very basic fundamental story-telling requirements.
4/10
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 28, 2021, 12:47:02 PM
But back to the Matrix ReR-ed, Id wager they just don't get directing gigs no more because all their films have been bombs. So this is like Shamamalama getting a big 'blockbuster' if its based on a older property.
Watching the trailers for Matrix 4, I kept thinking "From the team who brought you Jupiter Ascending!"
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 28, 2021, 05:45:02 PM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 28, 2021, 12:47:02 PM
But back to the Matrix ReR-ed, Id wager they just don't get directing gigs no more because all their films have been bombs. So this is like Shamamalama getting a big 'blockbuster' if its based on a older property.
Watching the trailers for Matrix 4, I kept thinking "From the team who brought you Jupiter Ascending!"
Hey, I like Jupiter Ascending. :P
Quote from: Pat on December 28, 2021, 07:48:22 PMHey, I like Jupiter Ascending. :P
I liked it too but in the same vein as Battlefield Earth.
Quote from: Pat on December 28, 2021, 07:48:22 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 28, 2021, 05:45:02 PM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 28, 2021, 12:47:02 PM
But back to the Matrix ReR-ed, Id wager they just don't get directing gigs no more because all their films have been bombs. So this is like Shamamalama getting a big 'blockbuster' if its based on a older property.
Watching the trailers for Matrix 4, I kept thinking "From the team who brought you Jupiter Ascending!"
Hey, I like Jupiter Ascending. :P
Nothing personal, man. :)
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 28, 2021, 07:52:21 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 28, 2021, 07:48:22 PMHey, I like Jupiter Ascending. :P
I liked it too but in the same vein as Battlefield Earth.
Neh. Jupiter Ascending is nonsense, but it's pretty romantic nonsense with a touch of charm. Dog-ears, bees, scrubbing toilets, skating through the air, gorgeous gowns, dealing with cosmic bureaucracy, cool spaceships... it's not a great film, but it's fun if that appeals and you can turn off your brain. Even the completely passive nebbish of a heroine works, because she's more of an everywoman stand-in for audience projection than a real character.
There's a quote from Neil Gaiman about Moby Dick that I can't be bothered to look up, but it essentially says that for some people Melville's masterpiece is about the end, and for other people it's about the journey. I'm 100% in the journey camp, because I got lost in the imagery and the word play and the allusions and the segues and the colorful characters... and I never really cared for or paid much attention to the tale of revenge that framed all the verbal and seafaring eddies and excursions that were much more important to me. Jupiter Ascending nowhere near the same quality, but the type of appeal is similar. It's just fun to watch and get lost in, without worrying about petty details like plot or coherence or whether Mila Kunis actually does anything.
Can't say that about Battlefield Earth. Though I can say the two films compete on the bad overacting front (it's a tossup between John Travlota and Eddie Redmayne).
Quote from: Pat on December 28, 2021, 08:12:07 PMCan't say that about Battlefield Earth. Though I can say the two films compete on the bad overacting front (it's a tossup between John Travlota and Eddie Redmayne).
I have said before: I like battlefield Earth Borderline unironically. Its the film I think I have genuinly watched the most in my lifetime. It generally has cool visuals. When its stupid its funny, and its good moments stand as well. What I like from EB I can get in few other media pieces.
I like Jupiter ascending for a similar reason. I really liked the presentation of its massive space beurocracy, and call me a sucker, but I really liked the family telescope scene at the end. I just like happy families.
I reactivated my Disney+ (and turned off my Netflix).
So far I've watched:
- Black widow (Not bad, but not good)
- Hawkeye (binge-watched, actually pretty good. Jeremy Renner has still got it, Hailee Steinfeld puts in a solid performance, and Florence Pugh does a guest shot as Yelena and totally steals the show.)
Book of Boba Fett drops tomorrow.
On Netflix I watched:
- Squid Game (Must-see, your players will be riffing on this, guaranteed. Kinda brutal, though.)
- Red Notice (shlock, but pretty fun shlock. Reynolds and The Rock have great chemistry, Gal Gadot is good, but somewhat underused.)
- Is It Wrong to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon? (Fan-service-y as all get out, the story and background don't hold together all that well.)
- Blackpink: Light Up The Sky (pretty solid documentary on the KPop girl group.)
- Gundam: Hathaway (anime sequel to Char's Counterattack, adapted from part 1 of a Yoshiyuki Tomino light novel. Gorgeous animation, a bit too much fanservice, and kind of a weak storyline. Still, if you're a fan of Sunrise Animation, you'll enjoy the ride.)
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 28, 2021, 08:52:55 PM
Quote from: Pat on December 28, 2021, 08:12:07 PMCan't say that about Battlefield Earth. Though I can say the two films compete on the bad overacting front (it's a tossup between John Travlota and Eddie Redmayne).
I have said before: I like battlefield Earth Borderline unironically. Its the film I think I have genuinly watched the most in my lifetime. It generally has cool visuals. When its stupid its funny, and its good moments stand as well. What I like from EB I can get in few other media pieces.
I like Jupiter ascending for a similar reason. I really liked the presentation of its massive space beurocracy, and call me a sucker, but I really liked the family telescope scene at the end. I just like happy families.
Can't object to that. Maybe I'll give BE another chance.
There's a touch of Terry Gilliam in the bureaucracy. Not a lot, but a bit.
The thing about Battlefield Earth is that while the book isn't terrible (although there's a chunk of zeerust from Hubbard's weak grasp of physics), the movie is... not well done. There are massive plot holes, the Dutch tilt is EVERYWHERE, the Psychlos look bizarre, and the guy playing Johnny has about as much emotional range as a cabbage.
Quote from: Lurkndog on December 28, 2021, 09:12:31 PM
I reactivated my Disney+ (and turned off my Netflix).
So far I've watched:
- Black widow (Not bad, but not good)
- Hawkeye (binge-watched, actually pretty good. Jeremy Renner has still got it, Hailee Steinfeld puts in a solid performance, and Florence Pugh does a guest shot as Yelena and totally steals the show.)
Book of Boba Fett drops tomorrow.
On Netflix I watched:
- Squid Game (Must-see, your players will be riffing on this, guaranteed. Kinda brutal, though.)
- Red Notice (shlock, but pretty fun shlock. Reynolds and The Rock have great chemistry, Gal Gadot is good, but somewhat underused.)
- Is It Wrong to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon? (Fan-service-y as all get out, the story and background don't hold together all that well.)
- Blackpink: Light Up The Sky (pretty solid documentary on the KPop girl group.)
- Gundam: Hathaway (anime sequel to Char's Counterattack, adapted from part 1 of a Yoshiyuki Tomino light novel. Gorgeous animation, a bit too much fanservice, and kind of a weak storyline. Still, if you're a fan of Sunrise Animation, you'll enjoy the ride.)
For me Black Widow was very meh. Hawkeye had its moments and at least wasnt as ham handed as Falcon & Winter Soldier.
Squid Game was interesting in its execution. But Im really getting tired of all these "Death Game" movies.
Which is funny as just recently came across the Werewolf Game movie series and its actually not bad in some of the movies, and so-so in others. Each move plays around with one or more rules changes. The get alot done with so little. Villager Side follows the villagers and is the roughest of the set being the first. I liked Werewolf Side though as it followed the werewolf players and it became a matter of will they be found out or not. Crazy Fox was a pretty good one too as it all hinged on if the Fox player could survive to the end or not. The Lovers was interesting but a bit disjointed and Mad Land had some rather perplexing things happen that still make no sense. But guess thats par for the course with this set. Think they are up to 8 movies now.
Is It Wrong to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?: I have the first season and have to say its bot very fan servicy really. It seems like it could at any moment but actually tends to veer off just about every time you think something will happen. I agree though its a confusing as all hell setting and you really have to either take notes whenever the "gods" are talking... or read the books which fill in more gaps. 2nd season is where things start to heat up as some of the things hinted at begin to take form.
Gundam is a really odd series. Some of the series is solid, some is not so much and others you need scorecards to keep track of whos doing what. I had the first couple of episodes of the first series on VHS way back. Interesting and not what expected really. Also had War in the Pocket which is well done and takes things in another unexpected way. Zeta though is the one most famillar with as it was fairly popular during the anime boom. Though never came to the US far as know. Had Wing but just didnt eally like it. And Im still trying to figure out what the heck that weird Gundam superhero series was. Aside from weird!
Took the family to see the new Spider man movie a few days before Christmas. I am NOT a fan of the Tom Holland movies (I have not watched any of them, but I do enjoy his cameos in other movies as spider man) and I was not a fan of the Garfield movies (did not watch them).
I saw a few non spoiler reviews that said it was good. Had some plot holes and some odd behavior for heroes that made problems, but I have to admit I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was pretty much done with super hero movies (capstone to the series with endgame was my last one), and do not look forward to any (did not look forward to this one) these days, but this movie entertained me the entire time. I strongly recommend it if you have even a passing interest.
Well. High Guardian Spice, against all odds, came out to everyones surprise and whooo-eeeee is this one 'special'...
Most glaring is the animation. Arts fine in a Steven Universe meets (fake)She-Ra sort of way.
But actual animation is a mess. I spotted bad flash techniques that were bad back in the early 2000s and somehow they actually used it worse. Walking animations sometimes match the ground, But I am starting to suspect that is accidental. Sometimes the mouths do not match the words and I am not sure, but I could swear sometimes in long shots they do not even bother to animate the mouth at all. To a lesser degree, and this might be personal due to my need to key off expressions to understand what people say... But the eyes of characters have this weird tendency to just kind-of stare into the void as it were at odd moments. Then again I've seen this in alot of other animation. But for some reason it stood out a little in this. Possibly because of the occasional off kilter lip movements? Who knows.
Most appalling is that the characters will "clip" through scenery. Because the the backgrounds are flat and apparently no one in the animation department ever learned to add pass-through cells to cover that. Or just not have objects in the path of motion that the characters might cross. Doesnt happen often that I recall. But this is something that basic animation should have caught.
Then theres the story. What a mess. I have to agree with some other reviews that far as I could tell. They not once actually explain what a "Guardian" is in the show. Then theres the LGBT elements that in one case was really well done. Only to be undone by the main female character going off on this hateful little rant about how guys can never have real feelings of friendship like girls can, and other antics. It says alot when your side character has more depth than the main characters. And in competent hands this guys struggle with his sexuality and the choice of if to go trans or not would be great. Here one of the teachers later reveals He used to be a She and that they did it with a spell that needs to be renewed. Which undermines their prior advice that changing gender was something that one should consider carefully. When this character can just stop any time and go back. gah!
Another weird thing is the settings magic system. You have old magic which takes time to learn and uses the casters own energy to power far as can tell. With alot of alchemical elements tossed in. Then you have new magic which seems to be better in every way. Easier to learn. More powerful. Has no cost to use. etc etc. Personal guess is that whats really going on is some sort of Dark Sun Defiler magic or Dragon Storm Necro magic process as its shown that parts of the land are being effected by some sort of corrupting blight.
Then theres the tone of the show. Crunchyroll slaps a "This is an adult animated show" warning on it. But the art and overall tone is bog standard kids show. Theres occasional blood, occasional death, and swearing for no reason other than to toss it in. And some inuendo some of the older side characters/teachers are getting it on. But thats about it. Remove those brief elements and it would fit right in on Nickelodeon.
Overall I liked the voicing. Some odd choices here and there, but it worked. But theres occasions where certain characters talk or are recorded in a way that for me is near unintelligible. Might be they are meant to be that way and even not understanding some of what one character was saying. He was still funny.
I think had the show been not in the hands of at least two women who are totally reprehensible and the promotional vid not been an agenda screed. AND not been using money supposedly meant to promote and help anime... it would not have gotten a then the flack it deservedly got and is still getting.
Wasted potential.
Quote from: oggsmash on January 01, 2022, 06:19:45 PMHad some plot holes and some odd behavior for heroes that made problems, but I have to admit I thoroughly enjoyed it.
It looked to me that this movie was written with the end in mind. To try and come up with a story that 1) brought back all the spider-men and villains from the Sony movies, and 2) completely separate the Tom Holland Spider-Man from the MCU so that Sony doesn't have to give away 25% of their profits.
Because of these two goals, I can see why the story was a bit shaky in parts.
Watched A Quiet Place Part 2.
Not bad, essentially more of the same as Part 1 with just a bit more talking. Setup for a third.
No further explanation of the aliens, just "here are some Tyranids, enjoy." If you liked the first one, you'll like this one.
Quote from: Thornhammer on January 11, 2022, 09:08:13 PM
Watched A Quiet Place Part 2.
Not bad, essentially more of the same as Part 1 with just a bit more talking. Setup for a third.
No further explanation of the aliens, just "here are some Tyranids, enjoy." If you liked the first one, you'll like this one.
Hm. I really liked A Quiet Place, but I don't think I'm interested in a sequel. It's fine as it is.
Quote from: Omega on January 01, 2022, 08:56:09 AM
Gundam is a really odd series. Some of the series is solid, some is not so much and others you need scorecards to keep track of whos doing what. I had the first couple of episodes of the first series on VHS way back. Interesting and not what expected really. Also had War in the Pocket which is well done and takes things in another unexpected way. Zeta though is the one most famillar with as it was fairly popular during the anime boom. Though never came to the US far as know. Had Wing but just didnt eally like it. And Im still trying to figure out what the heck that weird Gundam superhero series was. Aside from weird!
There are a lot of weird things under the Gundam umbrella. Like the SD Gundam kiddie cartoons they did with the superdeformed versions of the characters. But it was a mega-franchise, with all kinds of spinoffs.
War in the Pocket is great, I also liked 008th Mobile Suit Division, and Char's Counterattack is a must-see.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 12, 2022, 04:07:06 AM
Quote from: Thornhammer on January 11, 2022, 09:08:13 PM
Watched A Quiet Place Part 2.
Not bad, essentially more of the same as Part 1 with just a bit more talking. Setup for a third.
No further explanation of the aliens, just "here are some Tyranids, enjoy." If you liked the first one, you'll like this one.
Hm. I really liked A Quiet Place, but I don't think I'm interested in a sequel. It's fine as it is.
I just could not stand the first movie. The characters came across as the dumbest people in earth and its a wonder they survived as long as they did.
Not a movie, but I have been enjoying the hell out of Peacemaker.
Quote from: Thornhammer on January 23, 2022, 03:03:31 PM
Not a movie, but I have been enjoying the hell out of Peacemaker.
The TV series?
Hear of, seen a few stills from it and one of my players saw an episode apparently. From their description it doesnt sound like the character I knew way back. But could say that of any of these DC shows characters. Was nice to see Vigilante though.
Quote from: Omega on January 23, 2022, 08:39:17 PM
Quote from: Thornhammer on January 23, 2022, 03:03:31 PM
Not a movie, but I have been enjoying the hell out of Peacemaker.
The TV series?
Hear of, seen a few stills from it and one of my players saw an episode apparently. From their description it doesnt sound like the character I knew way back. But could say that of any of these DC shows characters. Was nice to see Vigilante though.
The intro dance credits and song are pretty awesome.
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 23, 2022, 09:28:52 PM
Quote from: Omega on January 23, 2022, 08:39:17 PM
Quote from: Thornhammer on January 23, 2022, 03:03:31 PM
Not a movie, but I have been enjoying the hell out of Peacemaker.
The TV series?
Hear of, seen a few stills from it and one of my players saw an episode apparently. From their description it doesnt sound like the character I knew way back. But could say that of any of these DC shows characters. Was nice to see Vigilante though.
The intro dance credits and song are pretty awesome.
Does John Cena praise the Chinese Communist Party?
Quote from: Pat on January 23, 2022, 10:04:28 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 23, 2022, 09:28:52 PM
Quote from: Omega on January 23, 2022, 08:39:17 PM
Quote from: Thornhammer on January 23, 2022, 03:03:31 PM
Not a movie, but I have been enjoying the hell out of Peacemaker.
The TV series?
Hear of, seen a few stills from it and one of my players saw an episode apparently. From their description it doesnt sound like the character I knew way back. But could say that of any of these DC shows characters. Was nice to see Vigilante though.
The intro dance credits and song are pretty awesome.
Does John Cena praise the Chinese Communist Party?
Not in the song/dance intro. Maybe elsewhere.
My friend described Peacemaker as "very Super Patriot" which does not seem right at all for the character?
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 24, 2022, 08:03:47 AM
Quote from: Pat on January 23, 2022, 10:04:28 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 23, 2022, 09:28:52 PM
Quote from: Omega on January 23, 2022, 08:39:17 PM
Quote from: Thornhammer on January 23, 2022, 03:03:31 PM
Not a movie, but I have been enjoying the hell out of Peacemaker.
The TV series?
Hear of, seen a few stills from it and one of my players saw an episode apparently. From their description it doesnt sound like the character I knew way back. But could say that of any of these DC shows characters. Was nice to see Vigilante though.
The intro dance credits and song are pretty awesome.
Does John Cena praise the Chinese Communist Party?
Not in the song/dance intro. Maybe elsewhere.
Shame when artists aren't suppressed like that. Hopefully DC will give him the chance to body slam the Dalai Lama in a future episode!
Oh joy. Critical Role has their own adult D&D animated series now...
Looks good. But the trailer did not impress.
Having missed it in theaters, I preordered the blu-ray of Ghostbusters: Afterlife.
I'm experiencing some buyers' regret.
It's not a bad movie, certainly heaps better than the 2016 movie. But it feels incomplete, like they sketched out a quirky supernatural thriller without a whole lot of comedy, or even a fully fleshed-out supporting cast, hit send and called it a day.
It's not the cynical cash grab the 2016 movie was, but it's definitely a subset of a Ghostbusters movie. Egon's granddaughter is pretty well fleshed-out, if a bit too precocious, but most of the rest of the characters basically exist to feed her lines. Finn Wolfhard's character exists solely to get Ecto-1 running, and spends the rest of the movie going through the barest outlines of a romantic subplot. And when there's busting to do, they kinda write him out of it. It's like the only reason he's there is that his feet can reach the pedals on Ecto-1.
I really wish they'd done another pass on the script to flesh it out some more.
It's worth a watch if you can get it for free, but don't buy the movie.
Quote from: Lurkndog on February 02, 2022, 10:21:04 PM
It's worth a watch if you can get it for free, but don't buy the movie.
Yeah. No desire to see this one. Sounds like a bunch of fan slobber and not enough comedy.
Had a glance at not one but two new War of the Worlds TV series.
The BBC one was as expected. Trash.
The FOX one was barely even In Name Only. Robot... Dogs... And one of the most brain stunted main characters possible. What the hell is this womans INT score? 3?
Oh and for added HG Wells remakes.
Apparently they did a remake of Time after Time as a TV series. Odds are its junk as well.
Quote from: Omega on February 03, 2022, 06:53:38 PM
Had a glance at not one but two new War of the Worlds TV series.
Heh. Have you seen the one from 1988?
I remember watching it on the Sci-Fi Channel and I kept trying to find the episode where the apocalypse happened (didn't know they had just completely shifted gears between the two seasons). But hey, season 2 had Adrian Paul.
Quote from: Thornhammer on February 04, 2022, 04:41:51 PM
Quote from: Omega on February 03, 2022, 06:53:38 PM
Had a glance at not one but two new War of the Worlds TV series.
Heh. Have you seen the one from 1988?
I remember watching it on the Sci-Fi Channel and I kept trying to find the episode where the apocalypse happened (didn't know they had just completely shifted gears between the two seasons). But hey, season 2 had Adrian Paul.
Yep. That one started out as a sequel to the original movie so didnt count it as its its own thing really. Then along came the final season and... wha? They kill off alot of the cast and things get pretty bleak. Odd decision to be sure.
Its weird that the original Pal movie despite its numerous deviations still has more a feel for the book than anything after. Aside from Hines' very true to the book, but low budget movie that came out same time as that 'other' WotW movie. (Well to other as Asylum put one out as well.)
I watched the Series "Reacher" over the weekend. We intended to watch a few episodes, but it was considerably better than I expected. Might be worth checking out IMO.
I watched the first ep of Reacher yesterday as well. Something is off, can't quite put my finger on it. Not off enough to stop watching since I have heard it improves.
Fight in the bathroom was absolutely brutal.
Raised By Wolves, season 1 went batshit crazy and not in a positive fashion. I don't think I have enough patience for season 2.
Quote from: Thornhammer on February 07, 2022, 01:11:21 PM
I watched the first ep of Reacher yesterday as well. Something is off, can't quite put my finger on it. Not off enough to stop watching since I have heard it improves.
Fight in the bathroom was absolutely brutal.
Raised By Wolves, season 1 went batshit crazy and not in a positive fashion. I don't think I have enough patience for season 2.
It gets quite a bit better. I do think the first episode sort of dove right in with not a whole lot of character development what so ever, and some really odd decisions from experienced detectives and putting a couple guys in a real prison on a very short turn around. All of the fights scenes are pretty well done for what I expect from Hollywood.
Watched the second and third episodes, yep the story does improve.
Reacher says he wants a gun. Love interest pulls down box from closet. I pause. "She's going to give him a Desert Eagle, the big one."
HOLY SHIT I'M PSYCHIC.
Is it particularly popular with women? Because they spend an awful lot of time with Reacher shirtless and there hasn't been boob one.
Smartassery aside, I like it.
Also, as an item of note unrelated to Reacher - as of last Friday, 2/4, Ghostbusters: Afterlife has outearned Ghostbusters 2016 at the domestic box office. In 2/3 the time. During a pandemic.
Just saw the Many Saints of Newark. I have been waiting about 6 months after movies come out to see them so that the online cultural conversation around them isn't as much of an influence on my viewing. I had heard some negative reactions to it, so I wasn't expecting to like it. I do think people will have pretty different reactions to the movie, but I rather enjoyed it. A few things I might have done differently, but overall I liked the focus on Christopher's father. I enjoyed most of the performances (though I did think characters like Silvio felt a little too on the nose----he is supposed to be much younger so I thought they could have toned down that performance a bit). I did like the Harold character, and I thought the riots worked well as a back drop, but I think he would have been more interesting if his motives stemmed less from the politics and were more personal (he did have personal motivations though). It is kind of an odd movie. But for me it works as a Sopranos prequel and I think it sets up the possibility of a movie centered more around Tony.
I give my very sleep deprived thoughts on it for about 40 minutes here: https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-egig3-11c5cb2
Quote from: Thornhammer on February 11, 2022, 10:27:53 PM
Watched the second and third episodes, yep the story does improve.
Reacher says he wants a gun. Love interest pulls down box from closet. I pause. "She's going to give him a Desert Eagle, the big one."
HOLY SHIT I'M PSYCHIC.
Is it particularly popular with women? Because they spend an awful lot of time with Reacher shirtless and there hasn't been boob one.
Smartassery aside, I like it.
Also, as an item of note unrelated to Reacher - as of last Friday, 2/4, Ghostbusters: Afterlife has outearned Ghostbusters 2016 at the domestic box office. In 2/3 the time. During a pandemic.
As much as Reacher gets naked, and even more shirtless....I started to wonder if there is a director or producer who really likes Alan Ritchson...maybe a little too much. I think the DE was from the books? I have not read them, BUT it does seem like the sort of pistol I would expect a British dude to think an American would want.
Quote from: oggsmash on March 10, 2022, 07:29:57 PM
As much as Reacher gets naked, and even more shirtless....I started to wonder if there is a director or producer who really likes Alan Ritchson...maybe a little too much. I think the DE was from the books? I have not read them, BUT it does seem like the sort of pistol I would expect a British dude to think an American would want.
I have to imagine Ritchson said something akin to "hey, I didn't spend the effort turning myself into a damn Space Marine to
not take my shirt off." And I cannot fault that logic.
Also. Watched the first episode of "Our Flag Means Death" with the wife. We enjoyed it, Rhys Darby is really entertaining. They start out by attacking a two-man fishing boat (more of an oversized canoe) and fire a "warning shot" by dropping one cannonball over the side of the ship near the canoe.
Quote from: oggsmash on March 10, 2022, 07:29:57 PM
As much as Reacher gets naked, and even more shirtless....I started to wonder if there is a director or producer who really likes Alan Ritchson...maybe a little too much. I think the DE was from the books? I have not read them, BUT it does seem like the sort of pistol I would expect a British dude to think an American would want.
As an American, Desert Eagles are pretty goddamn useless. Not reliable enough to do 44 magnum things, and twice as heavy as they need to be for everything else. They're for poseurs, and being obnoxious at indoor ranges.
(PSA: When considering being obnoxious at indoor firing ranges, you should first consider that everyone around you will have a gun.)
Season 1 is taken from the first Jack Reacher book. It's broadly faithful. The book has additional amusement value due to the little mistakes Englishman Lee Child makes when writing about America. Things like making wide right turns and tight lefts coming out of a driveway, or a McMansion with a gravel driveway, or drinking hot coffee out of a red plastic cup. IMHO they lent the book a certain ramshackle charm.
I like Alan Ritchson as Reacher. He's supposed to be a big tough bastard. Tom Cruise was just Tom Cruise.
Oh I know all about the sweet desert eagle. It seems Brits, authors, hollywood, and all the other people who do not ever shoot guns seem to love them. I think shooting one, .44 or .50 would quickly convince them otherwise. But then again lots of them are the sorts of people who say they have PTSD after shooting an AR-15.
I would think Reacher, being in the actual military and actually shooting a lot, would have gone 9mm or .45. Maybe .40.
The 'go to' for a lot of pointy-end types has been the .45 because of its reliability as well as being less prone to overpenetrate (this is explicitly mentioned in Charlie Beckwith's book on founding Delta Force as to why they went with the .45).
The 9mm got a lot of bad press initially but loads and FPS have improved enough that it's a reliable round as well.
So yeah, why Reacher is using a .50AE Desert Eagle is beyond me unless it's the writers wanking off.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on March 18, 2022, 08:32:14 AM
The 'go to' for a lot of pointy-end types has been the .45 because of its reliability as well as being less prone to overpenetrate (this is explicitly mentioned in Charlie Beckwith's book on founding Delta Force as to why they went with the .45).
The 9mm got a lot of bad press initially but loads and FPS have improved enough that it's a reliable round as well.
So yeah, why Reacher is using a .50AE Desert Eagle is beyond me unless it's the writers wanking off.
Yeah the 9 got a lot of "bad press" after the FBI decided to have a shootout with mediocre loaded 9mms against the Alpha phase of Florida Man, who had brought a rifle and his zombie-ness to the party.
Quote from: oggsmash on March 18, 2022, 09:14:44 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on March 18, 2022, 08:32:14 AM
The 'go to' for a lot of pointy-end types has been the .45 because of its reliability as well as being less prone to overpenetrate (this is explicitly mentioned in Charlie Beckwith's book on founding Delta Force as to why they went with the .45).
The 9mm got a lot of bad press initially but loads and FPS have improved enough that it's a reliable round as well.
So yeah, why Reacher is using a .50AE Desert Eagle is beyond me unless it's the writers wanking off.
Yeah the 9 got a lot of "bad press" after the FBI decided to have a shootout with mediocre loaded 9mms against the Alpha phase of Florida Man, who had brought a rifle and his zombie-ness to the party.
> The FBI
Somehow, I question how much of that was due to the 9mm, and how much was due to the people using it.
As Weaponsman, God rest his soul, would say: the tools only take you halfway.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on March 18, 2022, 10:13:17 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on March 18, 2022, 09:14:44 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on March 18, 2022, 08:32:14 AM
The 'go to' for a lot of pointy-end types has been the .45 because of its reliability as well as being less prone to overpenetrate (this is explicitly mentioned in Charlie Beckwith's book on founding Delta Force as to why they went with the .45).
The 9mm got a lot of bad press initially but loads and FPS have improved enough that it's a reliable round as well.
So yeah, why Reacher is using a .50AE Desert Eagle is beyond me unless it's the writers wanking off.
Yeah the 9 got a lot of "bad press" after the FBI decided to have a shootout with mediocre loaded 9mms against the Alpha phase of Florida Man, who had brought a rifle and his zombie-ness to the party.
> The FBI
Somehow, I question how much of that was due to the 9mm, and how much was due to the people using it.
As Weaponsman, God rest his soul, would say: the tools only take you halfway.
Well, they shot him 12 times. I think he was probably on something, and he was a military vet, and the FBI knew going in he was violent and crazy as hell. From what I remember seeing a documentary about it and my father talking about it quite a bit (the FBI liked to show their fuck ups as technical issues with firepower in training documents for LEO's all around the country) their tactics for that stop, knowing he had a rifle and both guys were the ride or die sort, were horrible. Shootouts where he has a rifle and you have a pistol are bad ideas out of the gate, and the guy literally would not quit till they shot him through the spinal cord. They let the 9mm take most of the heat (and from memory, my father is a gun nut, those 9mm loads were really light in the ass) and called the guys heroes (though I feel for the guys injured and killed, I think they really expected these two crazy men to just give up when they stopped them) and not focus too much on bad assumptions.
Anybody watch the first episode of Halo?
It wasn't bad, overall. They're doing their own thing with the lore.
Notes:
Five hundred years inna future, when we have FTL...colonists are still using modern day AKs and pickup trucks. Not "a futuristic take on an AK-47 and a pickup." Off the shelf stuff you can buy today.
The theme music sucked hard. Hard, hard, hard. "Hey, I know - let's take that iconic monk bit at the beginning, but fuck it up."
Covenant show up early, no grunts. The Elites looked okay to my eyes.
Master Chief and the other members of his team looked pretty good. He keeps his helmet on for most of the episode. I'm not happy with that and I'm less happy with the horseshit excuse Pablo Schreiber gave for it - "His helmet always had to come off for the audience to connect." Ass, no. Karl Urban made it work in Dredd, and Pedro Pascal made it work for a whole season in The Mandalorian and you know damned well how mindblowingly popular that was.
Cortana doesn't show up in this episode. She's mentioned once.
The plot wasn't bad. Acting wasn't awful. I'll watch episode two.
So I finished Season 1 of Reacher. Overall a satisfactory ending.
I didn't like the denouement, though. After setting things aright, finding love and righting wrongs, Reacher just stomps off into the sunset.
It's the lone hero cliche, but it kind of doesn't make any sense. If he was the kind of person to just bail, IMHO he would have bailed when the trouble began.
I also question his abandoning clothes everywhere he goes. A real hobo keeps hold of a decent jacket at least, and probably some rain gear. He should at least have a backpack. And at 6'8" he's not going to find clothes that fit him everywhere he goes.
Quote from: Lurkndog on March 25, 2022, 12:31:33 PM
So I finished Season 1 of Reacher. Overall a satisfactory ending.
I didn't like the denouement, though. After setting things aright, finding love and righting wrongs, Reacher just stomps off into the sunset.
It's the lone hero cliche, but it kind of doesn't make any sense. If he was the kind of person to just bail, IMHO he would have bailed when the trouble began.
I also question his abandoning clothes everywhere he goes. A real hobo keeps hold of a decent jacket at least, and probably some rain gear. He should at least have a backpack. And at 6'8" he's not going to find clothes that fit him everywhere he goes.
He is like Qui Chang Cain, and honestly at times I think the author may have watched Pulp Fiction and realized Julius had the best idea ever for a literary/movie concept. Go off, and have adventures.
But yeah, his ignoring of all practicalities does beg some questions. His pension however, will cover him on any needs he is ever going to have on clothing, 3-4k a month go a long ways when you have zero bills and do not mind sleeping just about any where.
I thought the ending was way corny, like texas ranger corny, where every character got a personalized "Boss Fight", but I get they were likely sticking to the book, and the book is cheesy. Personally I like a little cheesy, the boss fights were a bit heavy on the cheese.
I was just impressed the people who adapted it were able to do a very good job with giving the supporting characters a nice arc and able to have a main character who checks the wrong boxes be highly competent....though I could use a few less naked/shirtless scenes in the 2nd season. John Cena might want to be careful, I think he might get replaced in Hollywood (IMO he is the "budget" version of THE ROCK).
Saw Shin Godzilla finally and hate to say it but Japan somehow made a stupider Godzilla movie than the two american ones combined. Even the one with the Zombie Ghost Godzilla was more entertaining and thought out than this.
Quote from: Omega on March 26, 2022, 04:23:54 PM
Saw Shin Godzilla finally and hate to say it but Japan somehow made a stupider Godzilla movie than the two american ones combined. Even the one with the Zombie Ghost Godzilla was more entertaining and thought out than this.
I kind of liked Shin Godzilla. Though it's less a monster movie, and more a disaster response movie celebrating the bureaucracy.
Reminds me a lot of the anime Gate (rah-rah military), or How a Realist Hero Rebuilt the Kingdom (which gets really bad).
I liked the Heisei era series. The SDF overall got their heads handed to them. But eventually got to the point they could just about break even and get him to go away for a while. Usually at great cost. They were also frequently stuck in a "lesser of two evils" conundrum and indirectly siding with Godzilla to deal with something potentially worse.
Then things go more or less back to heck with the Millennium set of movies and build up again.
Quote from: Thornhammer on March 24, 2022, 10:48:46 PM
Anybody watch the first episode of Halo?
It wasn't bad, overall. They're doing their own thing with the lore.
Notes:
Five hundred years inna future, when we have FTL...colonists are still using modern day AKs and pickup trucks. Not "a futuristic take on an AK-47 and a pickup." Off the shelf stuff you can buy today.
The theme music sucked hard. Hard, hard, hard. "Hey, I know - let's take that iconic monk bit at the beginning, but fuck it up."
Covenant show up early, no grunts. The Elites looked okay to my eyes.
Master Chief and the other members of his team looked pretty good. He keeps his helmet on for most of the episode. I'm not happy with that and I'm less happy with the horseshit excuse Pablo Schreiber gave for it - "His helmet always had to come off for the audience to connect." Ass, no. Karl Urban made it work in Dredd, and Pedro Pascal made it work for a whole season in The Mandalorian and you know damned well how mindblowingly popular that was.
Cortana doesn't show up in this episode. She's mentioned once.
The plot wasn't bad. Acting wasn't awful. I'll watch episode two.
Something about the look didn't feel quite right to me. I can't explain it, but the people that were real looked like CGI and the CGI looked about the same. Maybe that's what they were going for--if you can't make the CGI look completely real, then make the completely real look indistinguishable from the CGI?
Why is it that the little miniseries that barely touches on Halo stuff till the last 2 episodes is more Halo than this Halo series???
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 27, 2022, 05:37:01 PM
Quote from: Thornhammer on March 24, 2022, 10:48:46 PM
Anybody watch the first episode of Halo?
It wasn't bad, overall. They're doing their own thing with the lore.
Something about the look didn't feel quite right to me. I can't explain it, but the people that were real looked like CGI and the CGI looked about the same. Maybe that's what they were going for--if you can't make the CGI look completely real, then make the completely real look indistinguishable from the CGI?
I just noticed fairly bad CGI in general. Fairly bad acting as well; this really struck me several times, so I wasn't impressed. Parts seemed like they were actually going for the computer game look intentionally. I don't think this will really work either; you might as well play the games if you want to see more of that. I know nothing about the Halo games though so....
Quote from: Omega on March 27, 2022, 08:41:41 PM
Why is it that the little miniseries that barely touches on Halo stuff till the last 2 episodes is more Halo than this Halo series???
Are you referring to the webseries Forward Unto Dawn, which followed the military cadets?
Quote from: Ghostmaker on March 28, 2022, 09:05:57 AM
Quote from: Omega on March 27, 2022, 08:41:41 PM
Why is it that the little miniseries that barely touches on Halo stuff till the last 2 episodes is more Halo than this Halo series???
Are you referring to the webseries Forward Unto Dawn, which followed the military cadets?
Yes. Once the attack started it got pretty interesting. Brief, but interesting.
Quote from: Omega on March 29, 2022, 10:22:49 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on March 28, 2022, 09:05:57 AM
Quote from: Omega on March 27, 2022, 08:41:41 PM
Why is it that the little miniseries that barely touches on Halo stuff till the last 2 episodes is more Halo than this Halo series???
Are you referring to the webseries Forward Unto Dawn, which followed the military cadets?
Yes. Once the attack started it got pretty interesting. Brief, but interesting.
What amused me about that series was that they either deliberately ignored, or missed, a vital aspect. The Corbulo Academy is named after Gnaeus Domitus Corbulo, a Roman general and brother in law to Caligula. The school's motto, 'Axios' (I am worthy) is invoked often.
What isn't brought up is that Corbulo died (by his own hand) because he got tangled up in political maneuvering (namely, two attempts to depose Nero). That was why he died; Nero decided he was too dangerous to keep around and had him commit suicide.
Who knows. They likely selected the name based on the fact was a general and possibly the motto. And anything else was irrelevant.
Usually these things happen just because the name sounds interesting or exotic.
Quote from: Toadmaster on January 05, 2018, 03:18:18 AM
Speaking of older movies, I recently watched the 1970s Invasion of the Body Snatchers again. I hadn't seen it in years and it was much better and scarier than I expected. Proof that re-makes don't always suck or just retread the same old story with different faces.
The 1970s Body Snatchers has its moments (like Kevin McCarthy's cameo), but it has the critical flaw that all of the characters are unlikeable San Franciscans. In the 1956 original, I liked the small town locals way more. Especially Dana Wynter.
I watched the first episode of Marvel's Moon Knight series. Didn't like it. The problem is, as a viewer, and with a vague knowledge of the comic book, I figured out what was going on pretty much instantly. Unfortunately, the viewpoint character was clueless and useless the whole episode, and as a result I got really tired of him, and the storyline just went around in circles the whole time.
I pretty much want Wu or Doctor Strange to show up, push loserboi's spirit out of Moon Knight's body, and send him straight to hell. (He doesn't have to suffer in hell, he can just work there and make everyone else suffer for eternity.)
Quote from: Lurkndog on April 02, 2022, 08:09:33 PM
Quote from: Toadmaster on January 05, 2018, 03:18:18 AM
Speaking of older movies, I recently watched the 1970s Invasion of the Body Snatchers again. I hadn't seen it in years and it was much better and scarier than I expected. Proof that re-makes don't always suck or just retread the same old story with different faces.
The 1970s Body Snatchers has its moments (like Kevin McCarthy's cameo), but it has the critical flaw that all of the characters are unlikeable San Franciscans. In the 1956 original, I liked the small town locals way more. Especially Dana Wynter.
That was my problem with it as well when saw it at the Drive-In. The characters lack just about any points in their CHA scores. But then most characters in modern and post modern horror movies have an annoying tendency to.
Quote from: Lurkndog on April 02, 2022, 08:20:02 PM
I watched the first episode of Marvel's Moon Knight series. Didn't like it. The problem is, as a viewer, and with a vague knowledge of the comic book, I figured out what was going on pretty much instantly. Unfortunately, the viewpoint character was clueless and useless the whole episode, and as a result I got really tired of him, and the storyline just went around in circles the whole time.
I collected Moon Knight for a good while when it came out and this just is not Moon Knight. But its Marc Spector himself they really screw up. So far it plays like they cribbed notes from the Fist of Khonshu arc and his later breakdown. And if the first episode and the writers and actors comments are any indicator. The focus is pushed more to this split personality gag than the superheroing.
Quote from: Omega on April 02, 2022, 09:19:50 PM
I collected Moon Knight for a good while when it came out and this just is not Moon Knight. But its Marc Spector himself they really screw up. So far it plays like they cribbed notes from the Fist of Khonshu arc and his later breakdown. And if the first episode and the writers and actors comments are any indicator. The focus is pushed more to this split personality gag than the superheroing.
Yeah, in the Moon Knight that I read, long ago, Moon Knight's gimmick was that he maintained a bunch of fake identities. He could go around as a cabbie, for instance, and get the "word on the street." Switching IDs also made him very difficult for the bad guys to track down. He wasn't crazy, though, just a master of disguise.
I'm quite sure he had MPD in comics but he was more in control with personalities cooperating and so on. At least that's what I remember - though my only comic contact really was Ultimate Moon Knight who was just MPD Vigilante without any magical mythological element to him (still cool).
I expect this is sort of origin story - he starts in the dark, he gonna become full Moon Knight in the end (Spector personality clearly is already on board with it).
Finally got around to watching the Eternals. Feels more like the Cliff's or Spark's notes of several movies, than a real movie. They set up a lot (a lot) of emotional moments, but none of them connected because they didn't spend the time setting up the characters and background. In many cases, we don't even learn about the background until after. Which, to make an aside, is a perfect example of why I've begun to hate the excessive use of flashbacks in so many movies and TV shows. If you add a flashback to introduce context to an event that just happened, that means the emotional response created by that context is just an afterimage. And even if you jam in a context-setting flashback right before an event, it just feels cheap and manipulative. The only way it works is to develop characters, over time. And they just had too many characters and events, so none of them really mattered. Didn't help that the main protagonist and supposed emotional heart of the movie, Sersei, didn't have have any character and her actor had the emotional range of a turnip. It also didn't help that the movie spent far too much time telling not showing, huge chunks of the plot and many character actions made no sense even by the standards of a super hero move, and there wasn't a lot of action. If they stripped out about 1/2 to 2/3rds of the characters and focused on a few key events, it could have been a good movie.
On the positive side, I liked the first third or so of the movie, because I don't mind slow builds and languid pacing. The problem is it felt like it never stopped. At some point, a movie needs to shift from the scrolling text and background setting scenes, and start the main story, but the Eternals never felt like it made that transition. Also, the circle things gave the Eternal/Celestial tech a distinctive feel, and the fingers were fun. And while some of the people involved in the film jumped on social media to announce their horrible racism and sexism, and the results of their bigotry are apparent in the blatant by-the-numbers tokenization of the cast, it's purely skin deeep. The nu-Nazism of Woke progressivism isn't part of the story. What I find disappointing is they didn't even try to explain the diversity. They're alien constructs created to defend and presumably blend into humanity, so having them created in the image of humanity from different places and being given different assignments could make sense, but they just showed up everywhere as a group, and then went where ever they wanted on their own.
The biggest disappointment is most of the characters do sound interesting, with compelling character traits and backgrounds, and in the broad outline their character arcs are strong. It feels like there are all the components needed for an epic tale of love, tragedy, betrayal, and the exploration of their inner natures. But it remained just an outline. For instance, Sprite is one of the most developed characters, but her inner conflict about her permanently arrested development and her resultant inability to live a full life, combined with unrequited love, and the external conflict hinted at by the playful but nasty teasing by the other Eternals, is barely explored. Kro is another example; he becomes sapient, mentions a few very deep issues and is apparently set up as a great antagonist who can really highlight the different competing philosophies, and then vanishes and only shows up again as a disconnected tertiary fight.
And it's not really a comment on the movie itself, but Pip the Troll from the after-credits scene was far far into the uncanny valley of creepy CGI effects.
I think Eternals... just like No Way Home should be miniseries for them to really delve deep into concepts and make interesting narratives.
Then I could even forgive flashbacks to certain degree - like we meet Eternals in 2023, and we have no idea what they are and then flashbacks in first 3-4 episodes explain to us their relations and nature and so on. I have mixed feelings about Eternals being changed from genetically engineered offshot of mankind to some robots but dunno if it would work better (though now it's even weirder as they announced Eros as both Eternal and brother of Thanos in MCU).
But what Eternals really mess is history - and why I can get some woke elements, other elements are just... DUMB. Big D Dumb. Real Aliens on Discovery Channel Dumb.
I wrote a note on FB after watching it, I'm gonna try and translate it:
"So I watched those whole "Eternals". As usually in case of capeshit it was mix of vaguely interesting ideas marinated in colourless marvelositis.
But the most funny thing was their relation to history.
Everlastings, whose duty is to defend intelligent life from Deviants (basically Edge of Tommorow's Mimics) arrive on Earth about 7000 BC, you know about 200 000 years after Homo sapiens came to be, and somehow survived and managed to spread across all Earth.
So they land somewhere on Mesopotamia coast, and help some wanna-be-fishermen, and then helpy them to do civilisation, and we jump to Babylon. At 575 BC (you know, 1,5 k years since Babylon was city state, fuck all Sumerians and Sargon of Akkad), and Babylon is shown as city-fortress against Deviants where poor hillbillies of Middle East gathers to escape Deviants. Everlastings are ruling there as basically god-kings, Hammurabi and Asyria were unheard about, and our heroes are just now slightly nervous that first conflicts start to ignite between men.
Then we have second major timejump to Teotihuacan, where poor Aztec nibbas are genocided by powerful, superiorly armed Spanish Army destroying everything in their way. So one of Everlasting, with power of mind control (for me best character in move, why the hell this Chinese boob main heroine really.) takes all Spanish and all Aztecs, and walks away, and after 500 years we realise they walked away TO AMAZON RAINFOREST where he rules as telepathic Marlon Brando over their comune/paraguayan reduction. So not only writers lack knowledge about humanity timeline, but also about... distance.
We also have crying negro-gey-Hephaestos, who after Hiroshima bombing, literally in a middle of FUCKING A-bomb ruins, because apparently by accident he was... around, and he cries that he should not give mankind ploughs because they advanced too much, and that's his fault.
And about plough he shows it as new fancy technology development in Babylon. 575 BC. Only 3000 years after neolithic farmers in Czech Republic. Black guys as usually, three millenia behind freaking krtek, ah-yoy!"
QuoteWhat I find disappointing is they didn't even try to explain the diversity. They're alien constructs created to defend and presumably blend into humanity, so having them created in the image of humanity from different places and being given different assignments could make sense, but they just showed up everywhere as a group, and then went where ever they wanted on their own.
Considering their origin it would really the best if they were shapeshifter. That could lead to interesting developments (I mean if it was miniseries with time for it) where they slowly drift from faceless gods, to embracing more specific identities and therefore humanise themselves.
QuoteThe biggest disappointment is most of the characters do sound interesting, with compelling character traits and backgrounds, and in the broad outline their character arcs are strong. It feels like there are all the components needed for an epic tale of love, tragedy, betrayal, and the exploration of their inner natures. But it remained just an outline. For instance, Sprite is one of the most developed characters, but her inner conflict about her permanently arrested development and her resultant inability to live a full life, combined with unrequited love, and the external conflict hinted at by the playful but nasty teasing by the other Eternals, is barely explored. Kro is another example; he becomes sapient, mentions a few very deep issues and is apparently set up as a great antagonist who can really highlight the different competing philosophies, and then vanishes and only shows up again as a disconnected tertiary fight.
As I said in my terribly translated quasi-review - marvelositis shall kill all interesting concepts.
I totally agree. Or if not miniseries - due Eternals 1 where they fight with Kro and evolution of Deviants is shown and deliberated upon, and then Eternals 2 - where Secret Fate of All Humanoid Alien Robots is unfold. Alas we got what we got. And that's clearly problem with MCU - more crowded movies, not enough time to do all things that should be done.
I think a mini-series would lose some of potential for epic cinematic stuff, but maybe not. CGI (except for that damn troll) has gotten a lot better. And a mini-series could certainly handle the character background and emotional development better.
Alternatively, just trim the cast brutally. For the main themes of the story, you need Ajax, Ikarus, and Sersei. That's it. Focus on them. It's okay to introduce the other Eternals, or even a whole horde (like in the comics, and would make the Uni-Mind more plausible), but make them background characters, who don't have significant arcs on their own, and who are primarily there to develop the main characters. Same with Kro. His rise to sapience can foreshadow a future conflict, but leave that thread hanging instead of abruptly cutting it off. Then recast the protagonists, because Ikarus and Sersei have the personality and chemistry of two cement blocks, and follow their love story through history. Then create some sense of urgency by giving the Emergence a specific time frame and have them rush to do something more than lackadaisically getting the band back together.
Especially if the concept of a wider Terran Eternal community is introduced, this could be a great setup for a TV series. After the cosmic threat of the Emergence threat is resolved, it would be time to explore the background characters, giving them time to do justice to Phaesto's regret, Kingo's many lives, Sprite's desire to be a real girl, Druig's utopian experiments, Gilgamesh and Thena's damaged warrior vibe, whatever the hell Makkari was up to (she's the most underutilized character of all), Jon Snow's ancestry and family relations, and so on. Kro would make a great recurrent villain.
Watched Moon Knight. Feels more like a suspense thriller than a comic book story, except for the final scene. The Moon Knights I'm familiar were mentally unstable, but didn't have DID. However, the character has been reinvented a bunch of times and I'm not sure where the comics are the moment, so I'm willing to give it a chance. I like the mummy wrappings look.
Is it me, or is DID way overrepresented in comic book movies and TV? Split, Legion, Doom Patrol, and now (perhaps?) Moon Knight. That's huge number for an extremely rare condition.
Quote from: Wrath of God on April 03, 2022, 05:17:02 AM
I'm quite sure he had MPD in comics but he was more in control with personalities cooperating and so on. At least that's what I remember - though my only comic contact really was Ultimate Moon Knight who was just MPD Vigilante without any magical mythological element to him (still cool).
I expect this is sort of origin story - he starts in the dark, he gonna become full Moon Knight in the end (Spector personality clearly is already on board with it).
Not in the original run. All the way to the end he was just running disguises. I do not recall any signs of it in the 89 Marc Spector series either. I am not sure about Fist of Konshu or later iterations where he was actually being possessed by Khonshu for a time and got a redesign of sorts.
Obviously that changed at some point. But it must have been much later or after some fucked up 'reboot'.
Quote from: Pat on April 03, 2022, 10:12:15 PM
Watched Moon Knight. Feels more like a suspense thriller than a comic book story, except for the final scene. The Moon Knights I'm familiar were mentally unstable, but didn't have DID. However, the character has been reinvented a bunch of times and I'm not sure where the comics are the moment, so I'm willing to give it a chance. I like the mummy wrappings look.
Is it me, or is DID way overrepresented in comic book movies and TV? Split, Legion, Doom Patrol, and now (perhaps?) Moon Knight. That's huge number for an extremely rare condition.
All sorts of mental conditions are over represented in hollywood produced material. I suspect the reason being people with those rare conditions are way over represented in Hollywood.
Quote from: oggsmash on April 04, 2022, 08:45:21 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 03, 2022, 10:12:15 PM
Watched Moon Knight. Feels more like a suspense thriller than a comic book story, except for the final scene. The Moon Knights I'm familiar were mentally unstable, but didn't have DID. However, the character has been reinvented a bunch of times and I'm not sure where the comics are the moment, so I'm willing to give it a chance. I like the mummy wrappings look.
Is it me, or is DID way overrepresented in comic book movies and TV? Split, Legion, Doom Patrol, and now (perhaps?) Moon Knight. That's huge number for an extremely rare condition.
All sorts of mental conditions are over represented in hollywood produced material. I suspect the reason being people with those rare conditions are way over represented in Hollywood.
That might make sense with bipolar or depression or any of the litany of common mental illnesses, but DID is just too rare. I think it's just a fascination with extreme mental conditions.
Quote from: Pat on April 04, 2022, 12:34:22 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 04, 2022, 08:45:21 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 03, 2022, 10:12:15 PM
Watched Moon Knight. Feels more like a suspense thriller than a comic book story, except for the final scene. The Moon Knights I'm familiar were mentally unstable, but didn't have DID. However, the character has been reinvented a bunch of times and I'm not sure where the comics are the moment, so I'm willing to give it a chance. I like the mummy wrappings look.
Is it me, or is DID way overrepresented in comic book movies and TV? Split, Legion, Doom Patrol, and now (perhaps?) Moon Knight. That's huge number for an extremely rare condition.
All sorts of mental conditions are over represented in hollywood produced material. I suspect the reason being people with those rare conditions are way over represented in Hollywood.
That might make sense with bipolar or depression or any of the litany of common mental illnesses, but DID is just too rare. I think it's just a fascination with extreme mental conditions.
It's an easy way to make a character "damaged" that doesn't require special effects or props for a non-disabled actor to pull off. Black Bolt's muteness in the (pretty terrible) Inhumans series was along the same lines. Beyond that, most people don't know enough about the actual mental condition to tell them they're doing it wrong, unlike with blindness, deafness, or a variety of more familiar disabilities that might get them the stink eye from those actually having the disability.
Quote from: Pat on April 04, 2022, 12:34:22 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 04, 2022, 08:45:21 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 03, 2022, 10:12:15 PM
Watched Moon Knight. Feels more like a suspense thriller than a comic book story, except for the final scene. The Moon Knights I'm familiar were mentally unstable, but didn't have DID. However, the character has been reinvented a bunch of times and I'm not sure where the comics are the moment, so I'm willing to give it a chance. I like the mummy wrappings look.
Is it me, or is DID way overrepresented in comic book movies and TV? Split, Legion, Doom Patrol, and now (perhaps?) Moon Knight. That's huge number for an extremely rare condition.
All sorts of mental conditions are over represented in hollywood produced material. I suspect the reason being people with those rare conditions are way over represented in Hollywood.
That might make sense with bipolar or depression or any of the litany of common mental illnesses, but DID is just too rare. I think it's just a fascination with extreme mental conditions.
I think they are simply trying to write characters that are more goofed than they are, and since they are pretty forked up, they have to go rare.
QuoteI think a mini-series would lose some of potential for epic cinematic stuff, but maybe not. CGI (except for that damn troll) has gotten a lot better. And a mini-series could certainly handle the character background and emotional development better.
I must say honestly aside of Celestial rising - which was also kinda fucked up geographically,like he already emerged partially, he's not nearly big enough to explode all Earth, though all countries around Indian Ocean would be fucked - there was not that much of turbo good CGI. Energetic weapons had neat design, but energetic weapons are also like probably lowest level of CGI ever.
QuoteAlternatively, just trim the cast brutally. For the main themes of the story, you need Ajax, Ikarus, and Sersei. That's it. Focus on them. It's okay to introduce the other Eternals, or even a whole horde (like in the comics, and would make the Uni-Mind more plausible), but make them background characters, who don't have significant arcs on their own, and who are primarily there to develop the main characters. Same with Kro. His rise to sapience can foreshadow a future conflict, but leave that thread hanging instead of abruptly cutting it off. Then recast the protagonists, because Ikarus and Sersei have the personality and chemistry of two cement blocks, and follow their love story through history. Then create some sense of urgency by giving the Emergence a specific time frame and have them rush to do something more than lackadaisically getting the band back together.
I think Robb Stark made decent repeat of his PTSD soldier from "Bodyguard" miniseries, but yeah Sersei is bland as fuck those two together simply won't work.
Make Druig and Makkari main characters and it would be way better.
QuoteIs it me, or is DID way overrepresented in comic book movies and TV? Split, Legion, Doom Patrol, and now (perhaps?) Moon Knight. That's huge number for an extremely rare condition.
Comic books were always about weird shit and DID is weird.
But that's like two DID heroes for Marvel and one for DC... not that lot.
Now Wikipedia states:
"The son of a rabbi, Marc Spector served as a Marine and briefly as a CIA operative before becoming a mercenary alongside his friend Jean-Paul "Frenchie" DuChamp. During a job in Sudan, Spector is appalled when fellow ruthless mercenary Raoul Bushman attacks and kills archeologist Dr. Alraune in front of the man's daughter and colleague, Marlene Alraune. After fighting Bushman and being left for dead, a mortally wounded Spector reaches Alraune's recently unearthed tomb and is placed before a statue of the Egyptian moon god Khonshu. Spector dies, then suddenly revives, fully healed. He claims Khonshu wants him to be the "moon's knight", the left "Fist of Khonshu", redeeming his life of violence by now protecting and avenging the innocent. While early stories imply Spector is merely insane, it is later revealed Khonshu is real, one of several entities from the Othervoid (a dimension outside normal time and space) once worshipped by ancient Earth people. On his return to the United States, Spector invests his mercenary profits into becoming the crimefighter "Moon Knight", aided by Frenchie and Marlene Alraune, who becomes his lover and eventually the mother of his daughter. Along with his costumed alter ego, he primarily uses three other identities to gain information from different social circles: billionaire businessman Steven Grant, taxicab driver Jake Lockley, and suited consultant Mr. Knight.
It is later revealed Moon Knight has dissociative identity disorder (incorrectly referred to as schizophrenia in some stories) and that the alter known as Grant and Lockley originally manifested during his childhood. Other subsequent identities who do not assume the Moon Knight identity have emerged at other points during his adulthood, including a red-haired little girl known as the Inner Child, a werewolf-fighting astronaut, and a Khonshu impersonator. It is debated in different stories whether Spector has genuine DID due to childhood trauma or if his similar symptoms are the result of "brain damage" caused by his psychic connection to Khonshu, a connection compelling his personality to shift between the four major aspects of the moon god's multi-faceted nature ("the traveler", "the pathfinder", "the embracer", and "the defender of those who travel at night"). Khonshu claims he created a psychic connection with Spector/Grant when the latter were young, decades before they became Moon Knight.[2]"
So yeah it seems DID was retcon of Moon Knight. When I was introduced to MK - he was already clearly multi-man.
Quote from: Pat on April 04, 2022, 12:34:22 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 04, 2022, 08:45:21 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 03, 2022, 10:12:15 PM
Watched Moon Knight. Feels more like a suspense thriller than a comic book story, except for the final scene. The Moon Knights I'm familiar were mentally unstable, but didn't have DID. However, the character has been reinvented a bunch of times and I'm not sure where the comics are the moment, so I'm willing to give it a chance. I like the mummy wrappings look.
Is it me, or is DID way overrepresented in comic book movies and TV? Split, Legion, Doom Patrol, and now (perhaps?) Moon Knight. That's huge number for an extremely rare condition.
All sorts of mental conditions are over represented in hollywood produced material. I suspect the reason being people with those rare conditions are way over represented in Hollywood.
That might make sense with bipolar or depression or any of the litany of common mental illnesses, but DID is just too rare. I think it's just a fascination with extreme mental conditions.
It doesnt pop up as often as you'd think. And alot of characters dont start that way. See below.
Ones I can think of. Aurora from Alpha Flight, Green Goblin, technically the Hulk and the Lizard and more than a few other characters who transform and take on new personalities. Though thats more a Hyde type thing.
BUT
What does happen all too often is you will have a character who maintains one or more secret identities suddenly ret-conned into being muiltiple personalities, or DID as the new magic word is now. Blindness is another one that characters oft get afflicted with, usually temporary. For possibly all of his 80s run Moon Knight and Spector was perfectly normal. He had disguises and maintained them. But he in no way suffered from multiple personalities. Thats a new thing thats been inflicted on more than a few characters. Batman has been hit with it more than a few times by writers who apparently cant think their way out of a paper bag.
It shows a complete lack of thought on the writers side. As if anyone method acting or in deep cover MUST be insane and really have some sort of split personality. Its also a lazy way of turning a character "bad" or even evil. Not counting any temporary personality flips due to brainwashing, magic, bumps on the head, possession by entities and so on that are one and done.
Hollywood is hollywood and the execs and marketing can be expected to thing of things only in the most simplistic, and allways overblown, terms.
I agree it can get out of hand, though for me it was fitting to this whole "not really willing" pawn of not exactly sane Egyptian demon-god.
Would be harder to get if it was just normal super-spy.
But then if I was observing character from 80s I could get different feel.
Quote from: Wrath of God on April 05, 2022, 08:25:40 PM
I agree it can get out of hand, though for me it was fitting to this whole "not really willing" pawn of not exactly sane Egyptian demon-god.
Would be harder to get if it was just normal super-spy.
But then if I was observing character from 80s I could get different feel.
That is another problem. Changing who Khonshu is.
They changed so much you could have changed the costume and called it Captain Anubis and his Amazing Split Personalities and no one would know the source.
I really like the look of Khonshu and they made him menacing at the start, but then they did their best to present him as a joke, and gave him a flippant modern one-liner. That killed the gravitas they'd been building.
I do like the different aspects having different costumes, though. They even seem to fit in logically. The nebbish becomes Gentleman Moon Knight, while the merc seeking redemption becomes a superhero. The outfits reflect their aspirations.
They seem to be attempting to play a bit of an is-it-real? game with the monsters no one else can see, but they undercut that by having the costume visible, and the glass trick.
Some okay ideas, but it's not really gelling.
Yeah. The more it plays out the more jarring and absolutely NOT Moon Knight it gets. And it was not very Moon Knight to begin with.
This is just one more script for something else with some IP place names slapped on. Probably a failed Star Wars script. Khonshu is Sith Lord Jar-Jar and Moon Knight is Rey... 8)
Anybody know if The Northman will be worth watching?
Quote from: Omega on April 06, 2022, 11:38:31 PM
Yeah. The more it plays out the more jarring and absolutely NOT Moon Knight it gets. And it was not very Moon Knight to begin with.
This is just one more script for something else with some IP place names slapped on. Probably a failed Star Wars script. Khonshu is Sith Lord Jar-Jar and Moon Knight is Rey... 8)
I think that a line like, "the more it plays out," is premature considering that there are only two episodes currently available.
If someone is used to MK I doubt much will change.
I'm used to DID insane Moon Knight of Ultimate Universe so for me actual Egyptian Gods are novelty here, otherwise I have no qualms.
Then I generally very rarely have qualms about superheroes because most of them were rehashed and rewritten so many times, and that's way way before WOKE came, that Canon is meaningless in their case.
Quote from: HappyDaze on April 07, 2022, 07:37:35 AM
I think that a line like, "the more it plays out," is premature considering that there are only two episodes currently available.
I think thats more than enough to see where this is going. The gag of "just keep watching! It will get betterrrrrrrrrr!" wore off long long ago.
This isnt Moon Knight so no. Its not going to get beterrrrrrrr.
Quote from: Wrath of God on April 07, 2022, 06:30:33 PM
If someone is used to MK I doubt much will change.
I'm used to DID insane Moon Knight of Ultimate Universe so for me actual Egyptian Gods are novelty here, otherwise I have no qualms.
Then I generally very rarely have qualms about superheroes because most of them were rehashed and rewritten so many times, and that's way way before WOKE came, that Canon is meaningless in their case.
Ultimates has been a plague on Marvel since nearly the get-go.
What can I say - I like them :3
Watched Shang-Chi.
The setup at the start that was supposed to establish a bond between Shang-chi and the annoying friend didn't work. They just came across as arrogant, entitled, and annoying. She did get better, but still isn't a great character, and her power-up seemed really forced.
The sister's reversal and bond with Shang-chi also didn't work. They really needed to spend more time on these core relationships.
Didn't help that the best actor was Trevor Slattery. Though Michelle Yeoh was also great.
The loss of Fu Manchu really hurt the story. Dad was pretty bland. He just felt like a thug. The romance was never really plausible. Turning the rings into generic power boomerangs and whips didn't help.
The themes were kind of broken. For instance, one of the key ideas is that Shang-chi feels shame about killing, and about hiding that from his friend. Except they had a fight earlier in the movie where he was literally throwing people off the side of a skyscraper. From the powerups to the themes, most of it felt like it didn't quite connect.
The whole thing felt more like a mash-up of a high budget Kung Fu flick, Iron Fist, and generic kid learns he's special story than anything I've ever read in the Master of Kung Fu comic book series. None of the MI-6 spying, only one scene where he took of his shirt, and none of that inner dialog setting up and explaining what turned out to be a single blow that ended the fight. Instead, it was endless back and forth Kung Fu with no real sense anyone is better than anyone else.
Liked the bestiary of oriental animals. Anyone familiar with D&D would recognize the phoenix, ki-rin, foo lions, and more. Shame they didn't do more with them. The short history that claimed it was basically a Chinese world of Wakanda added nothing.
In general, watchable but forgettable. Unlike Eternals, which felt like like they just spent too little time to develop the vast cast, this felt like they threw a lot at the characters, themes, and plots but it never really gelled.
I thought Shang-chi was a decent flick. I at least liked the characters, and the final act was actually better than it seemed on first viewing.
They managed to have a big CGI fight at the end without it seeming like a bad videogame or an X-Men finale.
I don't know if I'll remember anything from it in a year, and I'm not likely to buy the blu-ray, but I enjoyed it.
Quote from: Lurkndog on April 09, 2022, 09:42:22 AM
I thought Shang-chi was a decent flick. I at least liked the characters, and the final act was actually better than it seemed on first viewing.
They managed to have a big CGI fight at the end without it seeming like a bad videogame or an X-Men finale.
I don't know if I'll remember anything from it in a year, and I'm not likely to buy the blu-ray, but I enjoyed it.
I think it was watchable, but they could have made it lot stronger with some real character development. The relationship between Shang-Chi and his father had a lot of potential for drama and pathos, and should be the center of the film, but it never really felt like it connected. Same with the other two most important relationships -- Shang-Chi and his sister, and their father and mother's romance.
I passed on Shang Chi as it just didnt look very Shang Chi at all. It looks rather generic american martial arts wanna-be really. Its connection to the source seemed even more trenuous than Inhumans.
One of my local gaming group went to see Morbius and didnt think much of it. Havent gotten the details yet. From what saw of the trailers it looked like it might have potential. Morbious had a pretty simple origin so it in theory it should be easy to work into a movie and run from there. This being a Marvel movie of course I guess they messed it up somehow.
Quote from: Omega on April 10, 2022, 02:51:30 AM
This being a Marvel movie of course I guess they messed it up somehow.
To be fair, the problem isn't Marvel per se... pretty much everything made by Hollywood post 2016 (the year the Left went completely off it's meds and plunged into a full blown psychotic break and has no idea how batshit insane it sounds) has been crap.
I've got theater gift cards from years ago that I still haven't used because there hasn't been anything in theaters worth even spending other peoples' money on viewing.
QuoteOne of my local gaming group went to see Morbius and didnt think much of it. Havent gotten the details yet. From what saw of the trailers it looked like it might have potential. Morbious had a pretty simple origin so it in theory it should be easy to work into a movie and run from there. This being a Marvel movie of course I guess they messed it up somehow.
I mean technically it's Sony movie.
From what I see Morbius is simply boring movie. The plot is without any signifcant thrill or surprise or suspense.
QuoteThe loss of Fu Manchu really hurt the story. Dad was pretty bland. He just felt like a thug. The romance was never really plausible. Turning the rings into generic power boomerangs and whips didn't help.
I mean he is just renamed (like in comics, though Wenwu is more correct as Chinese first name). And comics merged Fu Manchu/Zheng Zu with Mandarin before I think.
But they just made his powers and rings very boring compared to what rings were in comics, and compared to Zheng Zu being also a sorcerer.
Here he is warlord - supposedly to avoid bad stereotypes going with Asian secret society, but really he is boring warlord without much purpose, shoehorned into history in most unbelievable way.
They really should make him like 120 years old pre-commie Chinese (I'd make him of Manchurian origin as sort of wink-wink) and much more Asian mafioso than this.
Srsly making him 1000 years old do nothing to the story besides trying to make him not-a-criminal. Doesn't work despite good actor.
And they should also simply link this magical village to Seven Heavenly Cities, rather than making it some parallel reality bullshit (where people despite being from other world are Chinese speaking perfect Chinese... so are all Asians aliens from different dimension.. I need answers! That cannot be solved by Universal Translators of Kree civilisation), though I must admit at least on paper Cthulhu as main baddie in wuxia movie was kinda bold move.
QuoteThe themes were kind of broken. For instance, one of the key ideas is that Shang-chi feels shame about killing, and about hiding that from his friend. Except they had a fight earlier in the movie where he was literally throwing people off the side of a skyscraper. From the powerups to the themes, most of it felt like it didn't quite connect.
With that I disagree. Shang-Chi is ashamed of ASSASSINATION he did on his father orders. That's VERY VERY different than simply killing guys attacking you in nefarious reasons in self-defence, and I am damned tired of superhero comics trying to imply self-defence is murder, fuck them. Batman was better when he was shooting gangsters with glock. Superman was better when he just smashed entire plane squadrons of III Reich. :P
Quote from: Omega on April 10, 2022, 02:51:30 AM
One of my local gaming group went to see Morbius and didnt think much of it. Havent gotten the details yet. From what saw of the trailers it looked like it might have potential. Morbious had a pretty simple origin so it in theory it should be easy to work into a movie and run from there. This being a Marvel movie of course I guess they messed it up somehow.
Saw this one last night. I was pretty bored with it within the first 45 minutes or so, and as the special effects were a big part of what bored me, it just got worse from there. The after credits scenes were fairly lame too.
Quote from: Wrath of God on April 12, 2022, 02:50:06 PM
QuoteThe themes were kind of broken. For instance, one of the key ideas is that Shang-chi feels shame about killing, and about hiding that from his friend. Except they had a fight earlier in the movie where he was literally throwing people off the side of a skyscraper. From the powerups to the themes, most of it felt like it didn't quite connect.
With that I disagree. Shang-Chi is ashamed of ASSASSINATION he did on his father orders. That's VERY VERY different than simply killing guys attacking you in nefarious reasons in self-defence, and I am damned tired of superhero comics trying to imply self-defence is murder, fuck them. Batman was better when he was shooting gangsters with glock. Superman was better when he just smashed entire plane squadrons of III Reich. :P
That's not the conversation that Shang-Chi had.
And fuck your complete failure to multi-quote. You alone make threads much harder to read, and it's completely avoidable. At the very least don't combine quotes from two different people into the same post if you're going to strip out every last trace of attribution.
Quote from: PatThat's not the conversation that Shang-Chi had.
You mean conversation where he admits to Aquafina that he fullfilled mission his father send him to do in USA. Which is to assassinate some of dad's enemies?
Soooooo... Bits and pieces of info are coming out about the Flash/Flashpoint movie. And whooooeee is it looking bad. One of the proposals was to erase the main male characters and replace them with female ones. Supergirl, Batgirl, etc. Then changes and more changes. I'll be surprised if it even makes it to production at this rate.
Quote from: Omega on April 17, 2022, 02:42:12 PM
Soooooo... Bits and pieces of info are coming out about the Flash/Flashpoint movie. And whooooeee is it looking bad. One of the proposals was to erase the main male characters and replace them with female ones. Supergirl, Batgirl, etc. Then changes and more changes. I'll be surprised if it even makes it to production at this rate.
I'm starting to agree with YoungRippa that multiverses (and alternate realities and timelines) are always bad. It isn't that you can't make a good multiverse movie, it's just that they are always used in a lazy way to swap out actors or bring old characters back. Plus they really do lower the stakes in a movie since character death doesn't matter. Even relatively decent ones, like Into the Spider-verse, still lessen the impact of character death. Spider-man dies early in that movie but no one cares because a new Spider-man just shows up a few minutes later.
Also, I noticed this morning that The Batman is now on HBO Max so if you have a subscription to that service you can watch it.
In Flashpoints case its not a multiverse problem. Its the damn over over over over over used time travel reset gag.
In the Flashpoint comic it was just used to do another "what if" story. But in the proposed movie it was to sideline or outright get rid of male characters. What the new scripts will do is anyones guess.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 18, 2022, 11:49:13 AM
I'm starting to agree with YoungRippa that multiverses (and alternate realities and timelines) are always bad. It isn't that you can't make a good multiverse movie, it's just that they are always used in a lazy way to swap out actors or bring old characters back. Plus they really do lower the stakes in a movie since character death doesn't matter. Even relatively decent ones, like Into the Spider-verse, still lessen the impact of character death. Spider-man dies early in that movie but no one cares because a new Spider-man just shows up a few minutes later.
I cared. Killing off the real Peter Parker kind of ruined it for me, and substituting a lesser Parker didn't help. Also, the Kingpin is not the Hulk.
I finished the Mandalorian.
Wow. I never expected a positive and masculine portrayal of fatherhood from Disney.
Quote from: Pat on April 20, 2022, 07:32:14 PM
I finished the Mandalorian.
Wow. I never expected a positive and masculine portrayal of fatherhood from Disney.
I'm looking forward to Season 3. Which we should be getting by the end of the year (2022) .
There was a rumor that Mando S3 could debut as early as this summer, but I don't believe that. They have Kenobi coming out in May, and the Cassian Andor series after that. It looks like Ahsoka will come out after Mando S3, as it is apparently filming now.
Quote from: Lurkndog on April 21, 2022, 10:53:44 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 20, 2022, 07:32:14 PM
I finished the Mandalorian.
Wow. I never expected a positive and masculine portrayal of fatherhood from Disney.
I'm looking forward to Season 3. Which we should be getting by the end of the year (2022) .
There was a rumor that Mando S3 could debut as early as this summer, but I don't believe that. They have Kenobi coming out in May, and the Cassian Andor series after that. It looks like Ahsoka will come out after Mando S3, as it is apparently filming now.
I was mildly disappointed with Ahsoka. They didn't do much with her, or really explore why she rejected the Child. But a show should allow her room for development.
Season 2 felt like a shift toward cinematic heroism. While it's appealing from a fanservice perspective, I'm not sure it's the best path for the show. I felt the best episodes of the Mandalorian were the stand-alone ones, really playing up on the Man with No Name tropes, with small stakes, the sense that even ordinary foes could be dangerous, and victories that were achieved through cleverness. Not taking on hordes of stormtroopers with no real sense of risk.
Quote from: Pat on April 21, 2022, 01:51:15 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on April 21, 2022, 10:53:44 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 20, 2022, 07:32:14 PM
I finished the Mandalorian.
Wow. I never expected a positive and masculine portrayal of fatherhood from Disney.
I'm looking forward to Season 3. Which we should be getting by the end of the year (2022) .
There was a rumor that Mando S3 could debut as early as this summer, but I don't believe that. They have Kenobi coming out in May, and the Cassian Andor series after that. It looks like Ahsoka will come out after Mando S3, as it is apparently filming now.
I was mildly disappointed with Ahsoka. They didn't do much with her, or really explore why she rejected the Child. But a show should allow her room for development.
Season 2 felt like a shift toward cinematic heroism. While it's appealing from a fanservice perspective, I'm not sure it's the best path for the show. I felt the best episodes of the Mandalorian were the stand-alone ones, really playing up on the Man with No Name tropes, with small stakes, the sense that even ordinary foes could be dangerous, and victories that were achieved through cleverness. Not taking on hordes of stormtroopers with no real sense of risk.
There were only so many episodes of
Lone Wolf and Cub to be ripped off before Disney had to revert to its mean...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 21, 2022, 03:30:29 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 21, 2022, 01:51:15 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on April 21, 2022, 10:53:44 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 20, 2022, 07:32:14 PM
I finished the Mandalorian.
Wow. I never expected a positive and masculine portrayal of fatherhood from Disney.
I'm looking forward to Season 3. Which we should be getting by the end of the year (2022) .
There was a rumor that Mando S3 could debut as early as this summer, but I don't believe that. They have Kenobi coming out in May, and the Cassian Andor series after that. It looks like Ahsoka will come out after Mando S3, as it is apparently filming now.
I was mildly disappointed with Ahsoka. They didn't do much with her, or really explore why she rejected the Child. But a show should allow her room for development.
Season 2 felt like a shift toward cinematic heroism. While it's appealing from a fanservice perspective, I'm not sure it's the best path for the show. I felt the best episodes of the Mandalorian were the stand-alone ones, really playing up on the Man with No Name tropes, with small stakes, the sense that even ordinary foes could be dangerous, and victories that were achieved through cleverness. Not taking on hordes of stormtroopers with no real sense of risk.
There were only so many episodes of Lone Wolf and Cub to be ripped off before Disney had to revert to its mean...
I haven't read Lone Wolf and Cub, but there was a shift in season two. A shitton more characters from the EU and films showing up. While there were a few great epsiodes in season two, there was a lot of stuff that felt very "Star Wars Status Quo" as well.
Quote from: Pat on April 21, 2022, 01:51:15 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on April 21, 2022, 10:53:44 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 20, 2022, 07:32:14 PM
I finished the Mandalorian.
Wow. I never expected a positive and masculine portrayal of fatherhood from Disney.
I'm looking forward to Season 3. Which we should be getting by the end of the year (2022) .
There was a rumor that Mando S3 could debut as early as this summer, but I don't believe that. They have Kenobi coming out in May, and the Cassian Andor series after that. It looks like Ahsoka will come out after Mando S3, as it is apparently filming now.
I was mildly disappointed with Ahsoka. They didn't do much with her, or really explore why she rejected the Child. But a show should allow her room for development.
Season 2 felt like a shift toward cinematic heroism. While it's appealing from a fanservice perspective, I'm not sure it's the best path for the show. I felt the best episodes of the Mandalorian were the stand-alone ones, really playing up on the Man with No Name tropes, with small stakes, the sense that even ordinary foes could be dangerous, and victories that were achieved through cleverness. Not taking on hordes of stormtroopers with no real sense of risk.
Mandalorian Season One did more with a single TIE Fighter or Scout Walker than the sequel films did with entire Death Stars and fleets of ships.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 21, 2022, 04:10:42 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 21, 2022, 01:51:15 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on April 21, 2022, 10:53:44 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 20, 2022, 07:32:14 PM
I finished the Mandalorian.
Wow. I never expected a positive and masculine portrayal of fatherhood from Disney.
I'm looking forward to Season 3. Which we should be getting by the end of the year (2022) .
There was a rumor that Mando S3 could debut as early as this summer, but I don't believe that. They have Kenobi coming out in May, and the Cassian Andor series after that. It looks like Ahsoka will come out after Mando S3, as it is apparently filming now.
I was mildly disappointed with Ahsoka. They didn't do much with her, or really explore why she rejected the Child. But a show should allow her room for development.
Season 2 felt like a shift toward cinematic heroism. While it's appealing from a fanservice perspective, I'm not sure it's the best path for the show. I felt the best episodes of the Mandalorian were the stand-alone ones, really playing up on the Man with No Name tropes, with small stakes, the sense that even ordinary foes could be dangerous, and victories that were achieved through cleverness. Not taking on hordes of stormtroopers with no real sense of risk.
Mandalorian Season One did more with a single TIE Fighter or Scout Walker than the sequel films did with entire Death Stars and fleets of ships.
Exactly.
Lone Wolf and Cub is definitely worth reading, there were also some pretty solid Japanese movie adaptations.
How MUCH of it you read is entirely up to you, though. There were 28 volumes of it published by Dark Horse Comics in North America.
I think I own three or four.
I definitely recommend picking up the first volume, which has a lot of the classic bits in it.
Animeigo brought out the movies in North America, and did their usual top-notch job with them, no idea if they are still in print.
I didn't know this existed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN1T1uxQ2g
But I want to see it.
(Everything Everywhere All at Once. Michelle Yeoh. Multiverse. Not Marvel.)
Quote from: Pat on April 22, 2022, 03:49:16 PM
I didn't know this existed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN1T1uxQ2g
But I want to see it.
(Everything Everywhere All at Once. Michelle Yeoh. Multiverse. Not Marvel.)
I just saw this last week with my girlfriend. I liked it, but I should warn that it's extremely busy - a ton of stuff going on visually, jumping about in time and cutting back and forth. It also jumps around a lot from humor to action to sci-fi to drama. It's clearly intentional as part of the style, but I can see some people finding it overwhelming or off-putting.
I have some quibbles that it does the American action thing with lots of fast cuts to show action instead of the Hong Kong style of really getting to see the martial artist perform. Still, I love Michelle Yeoh and the cast in general is great.
Quote from: Pat on April 20, 2022, 07:32:14 PM
I finished the Mandalorian.
Wow. I never expected a positive and masculine portrayal of fatherhood from Disney.
Give em time. Failure is the only option now with Disney. If it aint broke. Break it.
Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2022, 05:38:54 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 20, 2022, 07:32:14 PM
I finished the Mandalorian.
Wow. I never expected a positive and masculine portrayal of fatherhood from Disney.
Give em time. Failure is the only option now with Disney. If it aint broke. Break it.
I think Mando flew under their radar and when it got popular, it got the attention of certain people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Kennedy_(producer)).
Just saw the Northman. Some thoughts:
-Holy shit this was brutal. It does fit the topic though as it is a Germanic/Norse story about revenge.
-I recognized elements from several Norse sagas as well as Hamlet
-Although a bit over the top, it has some goodies for people who are interested in Norse culture. A very nice touch was the tomb the main character enters to find a special sword; the helmet and sword of the old corpse are of the Vendel (pre-Viking) style
-The film was, as a whole, definitely worth watching. It does not feel like anything else coming out of Hollywood lately
Quote from: Trond on April 30, 2022, 10:37:43 PM
Just saw the Northman. Some thoughts:
-Holy shit this was brutal. It does fit the topic though as it is a Germanic/Norse story about revenge.
-I recognized elements from several Norse sagas as well as Hamlet
-Although a bit over the top, it has some goodies for people who are interested in Norse culture. A very nice touch was the tomb the main character enters to find a special sword; the helmet and sword of the old corpse are of the Vendel (pre-Viking) style
-The film was, as a whole, definitely worth watching. It does not feel like anything else coming out of Hollywood lately
Thanks for the review. What you mention about the tomb scene makes it sound like it's inspired by the Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks and the sword Tyrfing.
Quote from: Rhymer88 on May 01, 2022, 07:27:48 AM
Quote from: Trond on April 30, 2022, 10:37:43 PM
Just saw the Northman. Some thoughts:
-Holy shit this was brutal. It does fit the topic though as it is a Germanic/Norse story about revenge.
-I recognized elements from several Norse sagas as well as Hamlet
-Although a bit over the top, it has some goodies for people who are interested in Norse culture. A very nice touch was the tomb the main character enters to find a special sword; the helmet and sword of the old corpse are of the Vendel (pre-Viking) style
-The film was, as a whole, definitely worth watching. It does not feel like anything else coming out of Hollywood lately
Thanks for the review. What you mention about the tomb scene makes it sound like it's inspired by the Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks and the sword Tyrfing.
Yes, I was also thinking of Tyrfing. A few things also made me think of Gisli Sursson, but the main plot is that of Amleth/Hamlet.
Quote from: Trond on April 30, 2022, 10:37:43 PM
Just saw the Northman. Some thoughts:
<snip>
It does not feel like anything else coming out of Hollywood lately
It was a weird movie and I'm surprised that they put up to $90 million into a movie like this. I enjoyed it at first but the tomb scene really took me out of it.
One question though, I have read that Iceland was heavily forested back when the vikings first settled there. And was only deforested as all the trees were chopped down. Yet in the movie, none of the landscape shots showed any trees.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 01, 2022, 11:02:19 AM
Quote from: Trond on April 30, 2022, 10:37:43 PM
Just saw the Northman. Some thoughts:
<snip>
It does not feel like anything else coming out of Hollywood lately
It was a weird movie and I'm surprised that they put up to $90 million into a movie like this. I enjoyed it at first but the tomb scene really took me out of it.
You know what we would call that in my home country? A "haugvette"= barrow wight. The Lord of the Rings movies did not have those but this one did! 😀 They believed in those in Norway until the early 1900s.
The scene was a bit D&D. I liked it, as I never thought of the movie as realistic per se. But you could say that the movie could not quite decide on realism vs myth. Maybe they should have shown the main characters taking mushrooms a bit more often to explain all the visions.
Quote from: Trond on May 01, 2022, 11:37:08 AMBut you could say that the movie could not quite decide on realism vs myth.
[SPOILER WARNING]
This is exactly my issue. The way the scene ended showed that the director just couldn't decide and so he did both. But, later on, the sword was found to have actual magical properties so there isn't a good reason why the fight couldn't have really happened. Taking mushrooms wouldn't explain why no one else could draw the sword during the daytime either.
One thing I think was captured well was the fact that Norse religion was probably quite similar to "shamanistic" religions elsewhere.
Jesus Wept. Now they are going after Rendezvous with Rama apparently.
Quote from: Omega on May 11, 2022, 10:58:10 PM
Jesus Wept. Now they are going after Rendezvous with Rama apparently.
No link or details?
Rama is basically spectacle. The unfolding of a strange environment. Clarke's characters are almost non-existent. There's a ton of room for writers to get creative, but that also can mean there's a ton of room for writers to make their less interesting stories central.
So to prepare for Doctor Strange and MOM I watched Spider Man and AUNT, and I must say it was kinda mess.
Good acting, generally fine chemistry between actors, but to make plot happened they dropped IQ of both Peter and Stephen dramatically, they cherry picked elements from Raimiverse and Webbverse in incoherent way compared to what should they do, and 90% of pep talks between Peters were REALLY BAD. Not to mention magical solution to cure the day was utterly illogical within estabilished realms.
So generally it was kinda fun, but it's very much MEH when I think about it.
Quote from: Wrath of God on May 13, 2022, 03:53:18 AM
So generally it was kinda fun, but it's very much MEH when I think about it.
That's been the way with most of the MCU. The trick is to chew on the eye candy and not to think much about it (save that for more thoughtful movies that have less eye candy).
To certain degree yes. But here the dumbest things sort of goes across whole body of film, in a way that makes it hard to swallow.
I mean I think I can safely say it's dumber than Eternals.
Quote from: Pat on May 12, 2022, 05:57:18 AM
Quote from: Omega on May 11, 2022, 10:58:10 PM
Jesus Wept. Now they are going after Rendezvous with Rama apparently.
No link or details?
Rama is basically spectacle. The unfolding of a strange environment. Clarke's characters are almost non-existent. There's a ton of room for writers to get creative, but that also can mean there's a ton of room for writers to make their less interesting stories central.
Looks like the same as did the latest Dune movie. All I saw was an interview where it looks like Rama is next. Morgan Freeman's been trying to get a Rama movie going for quite a while now.
Personal hope is that whomever was interested in Rama moves on to other targets and Freeman instead gets the backing to go forward.
Rama is indeed a exploration movie foremost. With some political jockying on the side in the first and second books. Mercury in the first and some religious sect in the second. You dont need much character for an exploration show.
The big problem will be the likely insistence on violence or something else equally idiotic. It can go in so so many bad ways considering what a mess hollywood is now.
Quote from: Wrath of God on May 13, 2022, 09:21:30 AM
To certain degree yes. But here the dumbest things sort of goes across whole body of film, in a way that makes it hard to swallow.
I mean I think I can safely say it's dumber than Eternals.
It started off ok. But the main problem is they are still obsessed with using the Ultimates setting as the basis. And considering how bad Ultimates was... it is a perfect fit for fake Disney and their agenda squad. Failure is the only option. Expect it to get worse.
I left off with Halo...oh, I think about 2/3 of the way through episode 3. I just got bored with it and picked something else to watch and didn't go back.
Had not heard another word about it until this week when Master Chief was engaging in coitus. I'm not sad that I missed that.
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds has been surprisingly solid with the first two episodes. No stupid spore drive nonsense, the Enterprise looks great, the cast is pretty good, and the plots are good and self-contained. I place it slightly below Lower Decks and WAY above Discovery and Picard. Haven't bothered with Prodigy.
Quote from: Thornhammer on May 13, 2022, 03:51:27 PM
Had not heard another word about it until this week when Master Chief was engaging in coitus. I'm not sad that I missed that.
Then you must have missed the real point of that scene: MC's partner struggling with whether or not she was going to finger him to death after they fucked.
QuoteIt started off ok. But the main problem is they are still obsessed with using the Ultimates setting as the basis. And considering how bad Ultimates was... it is a perfect fit for fake Disney and their agenda squad. Failure is the only option. Expect it to get worse.
Are they? There was nothing particularly Ultimate! about MCU!Spider-Man, I'd say most Ultimate was Garfield one, with all father's secret subplot and Goblin being partially physically mutated.
I'd say both MCU and Raimi Spider were relatively far from both main Marvel and Ultimate in my general feel, and that's fine.
The most Ultimate thing in MCU for me was making Avengers at least initially tied to government and shield. (And giving Hawkeye family I guess, though that's like only major similarity)
Otherwise - not so much. Ultimate Cap, IM, Hulk, Thor... they were all far removed from bot main-verse and MCU.
And that's fine for me. But then for me Ultimate Marvel started fine, way less convoluted than main, and degenerated with few massive clusterfucks later down the line.
I consider Rami Spider-Man and the first 3 X-men movies to be outside the whole mess overall.
After that its more and more Ultimates till you hit Avengers.
But the whole is a mess of tossing different lines and plots into a blender. Or just make stuff up whole cloth. Which is what they are increasingly doing.
Saw Top Gun: Maverick last week. It had a few moments that demand you turn off your brain and just chew up the visuals, but it was entertaining even while being incredibly predictable.
Strange New Worlds Ep 4: was that some Wrath of Khan music I heard? This episode is heavy as hell with the Enterprise vs Reliant fight...
"Doctor Strange in Multiverse of Madness" was definitely best film of 4th Phase or whatever, and tie as best release overall with "WandaVision".
Raimi did a great job - now it's still MCU movie - but he managed to push more of himself than other estabilished directors like Chloe Zhao. So far only comedy directors managed to push themselves in so far (well at least in recent years, I guess early releases were less Disney controled).
There are few dumb things like always, I guess maybe it should be a little longer (I know most people consider MCU films as too long), but overall it was good fun.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 29, 2022, 06:07:06 AM
Saw Top Gun: Maverick last week. It had a few moments that demand you turn off your brain and just chew up the visuals, but it was entertaining even while being incredibly predictable.
Saw it in imax with the wife today.
Thought it was better than the first one since this one was about a specific mission rather than straight up combat school.
Lot of fun watching it.
Saw a bit of Shang Chi today and good lord the fight scene I saw was well past bad. The Power Rangers have better fight scenes than this.
Saw Morbius. Oddly not bad. Sloooooooooooooooooow as hell. But not bad. Plot is really uneven though. But with Morbius, Blade and Ghost Rider out they have a basis to try a Midnight Sons movie if they could ever untangle the rights to each character
Was completely unimpressed with Doctor Strange 2
Hints of what the upcoming movies will be like makes me even less interested.
Just saw the remake of Death on the Nile and damn it was good.
Also it showed how to be progressive without being woke. The movie added 2 black women since Christie never included black characters in any level above servant, made them strong and believable and dealt with the racism of the 30s fairly.
This was how to deal with real historical issues fairly, not wokism. I recommend it.
QuoteSaw a bit of Shang Chi today and good lord the fight scene I saw was well past bad. The Power Rangers have better fight scenes than this.
Which one was this?
For me they get worse as they went.
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 06, 2022, 08:15:17 AM
Just saw the remake of Death on the Nile and damn it was good.
Also it showed how to be progressive without being woke. The movie added 2 black women since Christie never included black characters in any level above servant, made them strong and believable and dealt with the racism of the 30s fairly.
This was how to deal with real historical issues fairly, not wokism. I recommend it.
Still sounds like woke co-opting.
Quote from: Omega on June 07, 2022, 02:57:45 PM
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 06, 2022, 08:15:17 AMAlso it showed how to be progressive without being woke. The movie added 2 black women since Christie never included black characters in any level above servant, made them strong and believable and dealt with the racism of the 30s fairly.
Still sounds like woke co-opting.
Woke done right is still Woke. It has gotten to the point where if I even get a whiff of some woke-mandated character tokenization, I'll avoid the movie. And I'm not alone as Death on the Nile made less than half the money of the previous movie in the series.
Well, people can feel as they want. The fact is AC was a fairly wealthy white englisn woman to whom racism was normal. She ever wrote a story called ''10 little nixxers''.
Putting real black people and real racism in one of her stories was a legitimate revision of an age she falsely idealized. I hate woke and still liked this movie.
Now if they turned poirot gay or black, FUCK THAT!!!!!
But hey, don't watch it if you want, it's stil a good movie.
Abd there is such a thing as too anti woke.
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 08, 2022, 10:26:30 AM
Well, people can feel as they want. The fact is AC was a fairly wealthy white englisn woman to whom racism was normal. She ever wrote a story called ''10 little nixxers''.
Putting real black people and real racism in one of her stories was a legitimate revision of an age she falsely idealized. I hate woke and still liked this movie.
I'll say the same thing I said about Tolkien, Lovecraft, REH, George Lucas, etc. If the producers hate Agatha Christie so much that they feel the need to "fix" her stories, then they should just make a movie written by someone they don't despise.
it would work out better financially for them. It didn't seem like there were that many people who hate Agatha Christie but also want to see an Agatha Christie movie.
QuoteAbd there is such a thing as too anti woke.
There really isn't. Too anti-woke just means "I like normal things."
Well, you're probably too anti woke then.
LMAO at too anti woke. There should be zero woke. Period. There is no "anti", that is a stupid term, like "anti racist". Nonsense words. Both woke and anti woke. Woke just should not exist.
Go back a way and what we consider basic civil rights today were considered intolareable by a lot of people .
That has zero to do with woke.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 08, 2022, 11:00:09 AM
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 08, 2022, 10:26:30 AM
Well, people can feel as they want. The fact is AC was a fairly wealthy white englisn woman to whom racism was normal. She ever wrote a story called ''10 little nixxers''.
Putting real black people and real racism in one of her stories was a legitimate revision of an age she falsely idealized. I hate woke and still liked this movie.
I'll say the same thing I said about Tolkien, Lovecraft, REH, George Lucas, etc. If the producers hate Agatha Christie so much that they feel the need to "fix" her stories, then they should just make a movie written by someone they don't despise.
By that logic, nobody should be allowed to do a modern version of Shakespeare. Must Romeo & Juliet be set in Verona, with underage actors, all wearing those baggy clothes? If you have a primarily black high school, is their drama club forbidden from performing MacBeth?
Fuck that. Great works are great because they inspire variants and recreations. They're not static, fragile flowers that can never be touched. There's a certain preciousness about modern fandom that's almost as bad as the people who think "cultural appropriation" is anything other than awesome.
Quote from: Pat on June 08, 2022, 02:45:49 PMBy that logic, nobody should be allowed to do a modern version of Shakespeare. Must Romeo & Juliet be set in Verona, with underage actors, all wearing those baggy clothes?
Nobody is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to do anything. Studios can do whatever they want with IP they control. My point was, that if you are going to make an adaption of an established IP, you are better off choosing a producer and director that actually like and respect the IP. That way we end up with more Fistful of Dollars and fewer Rings of Power.
QuoteFuck that. Great works are great because they inspire variants and recreations. They're not static, fragile flowers that can never be touched.
I've seen enough recreations to last a lifetime. For example, we've never had a single X-Men movie where the X-Men look and act like the X-Men. Why don't we get one single accurate X-Men movie before we start working on those variants and recreations. How is it a bad things for people who like a book to want the movie based on the book to actually follow the book?
Speaking of a modern Shakespeare, check out Titus starring Anthony Hopkins. Authentic Shakespearean dialog in a very surreal setting. Hopkins at his best.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 08, 2022, 10:52:34 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 08, 2022, 02:45:49 PMBy that logic, nobody should be allowed to do a modern version of Shakespeare. Must Romeo & Juliet be set in Verona, with underage actors, all wearing those baggy clothes?
Nobody is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to do anything. Studios can do whatever they want with IP they control. My point was, that if you are going to make an adaption of an established IP, you are better off choosing a producer and director that actually like and respect the IP. That way we end up with more Fistful of Dollars and fewer Rings of Power.
QuoteFuck that. Great works are great because they inspire variants and recreations. They're not static, fragile flowers that can never be touched.
I've seen enough recreations to last a lifetime. For example, we've never had a single X-Men movie where the X-Men look and act like the X-Men. Why don't we get one single accurate X-Men movie before we start working on those variants and recreations. How is it a bad things for people who like a book to want the movie based on the book to actually follow the book?
That's called moving the goalposts. You
were complaining about people trying to "fix" stories. Not about whether they like and respect the IP.
Hell, Peter Jackson's LotR is widely loved and considered one of the best adaptations -- and he "fixed" a fair number of things, like dropping Glorfindel to put the emphasis on Arwen and Aragorn, having the elves appear at Helm's Deep, and turning Rhys Davies into the butt of every joke, not to mention all the stuff in the Return of the King. Fixing is inevitable; it's a different medium, with different demands, plus you have to deal with stuff like studio execs who want more romance.
Fans like you claim they want pure adaptations, but that's simply not true. What you want are
good adaptations. When they're good, even the most radical adaptations are fine (do you know what story
Clueless is based on?). But when they're bad, you spout all this crap about fidelity and being true to the authors that's ignored if it's good.
And what people like varies, even among fans. Lots of people think X2 is excellent, or Days of Future Past was flawed but fun. And they might not have worn costumes, but Logan may be the single most highly regarded movie based on any Marvel property. That they don't fit your needs... well, tough. Think of the poor Fantastic Four fans.
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 09, 2022, 12:00:07 AM
Speaking of a modern Shakespeare, check out Titus starring Anthony Hopkins. Authentic Shakespearean dialog in a very surreal setting. Hopkins at his best.
I didn't know that existed. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be available for streaming anywhere.
Tius might be worth buying g a dvd of.
Fire and Ice. 1983.
If you like classic fantasy, this frank frazetta Ralph bakshi effort might give you a warm nostalgic glow. It's s pretty standard fantasy flick done in surreal animation and rotoscoping. A beautiful princess who isn't as helpless as some, a handsome young hero in training, a batman wanna be who mentors the hero go up against an evil sorceress and her eviler son plus their orcish minions.
Pretty much an 80s D&D styke fantasy film, well done.
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 09, 2022, 10:20:09 AM
Fire and Ice. 1983.
If you like classic fantasy, this frank frazetta Ralph bakshi effort might give you a warm nostalgic glow. It's s pretty standard fantasy flick done in surreal animation and rotoscoping. A beautiful princess who isn't as helpless as some, a handsome young hero in training, a batman wanna be who mentors the hero go up against an evil sorceress and her eviler son plus their orcish minions.
Pretty much an 80s D&D styke fantasy film, well done.
I watched it last year. Not bad, but mostly forgettable. The animation is the most interesting thing about the movie.
Quote from: Pat on June 09, 2022, 03:42:15 AM
That's called moving the goalposts. You were complaining about people trying to "fix" stories. Not about whether they like and respect the IP.
I thought my previous post was clear but just in case, when I said "fix" in that case, I was specifically talking about deliberately changing to story to update it to modern political correctness and to compensate for a perceived racial bias in the author, which was the issue being discussed. Obviously, when moving a story from one media to another, adjustments will need to be made both to condense the story element for time and adjusting elements of the story to fit the new format (this includes adding comedic elements such as you mentioned from LOTR). In fact I was critical of the recent Dune movie for not making the proper changes to the source material to better fit with the movie format.
QuoteFans like you claim they want pure adaptations, but that's simply not true. What you want are good adaptations.
My point has been consistent. An adaption made by someone that likes and respects the original IP will be much more likely to be good then an adaption by someone that hate or doesn't even know the original IP.
But on a personal level, I'd rather watch a bad movie that is true to the source material than a good movie that shits all over it.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 09, 2022, 02:36:48 PM
My point has been consistent. An adaption made by someone that likes and respects the original IP will be much more likely to be good then an adaption by someone that hate or doesn't even know the original IP.
But on a personal level, I'd rather watch a bad movie that is true to the source material than a good movie that shits all over it.
I don't disagree with that, just the fix part. Though I'm not particularly interested in bad movies that are true to the source material. Fidelity is not the be-all that a lot of fans claim.
People who set work in a historical period and ignore a large segment of the population, plus the huge wrongs dobe to them, deserve some revision. A
Also the movie made another change, it humanized Poirot, which even AC wishes she had done. AC honestly came to see poirot as arrogant, concieted and pompous. She finally killed him off. She couldn't stand him.
DotN made poirot a lot more human, less of a pompous waddling characiture. He admiited to his conceit, and arrogance. He also had a human back-story.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on June 09, 2022, 02:36:48 PM
But on a personal level, I'd rather watch a bad movie that is true to the source material than a good movie that shits all over it.
I'd rather see a good movie over a bad movie. Source material is irrelevant to me when it comes to entertainment.
There is no such thing as woke done right.
Quote
Also the movie made another change, it humanized Poirot, which even AC wishes she had done. AC honestly came to see poirot as arrogant, concieted and pompous. She finally killed him off. She couldn't stand him.
DotN made poirot a lot more human, less of a pompous waddling characiture. He admiited to his conceit, and arrogance. He also had a human back-story.
Dramatic romance backstory does not make one "human".
And obviously his rampant Roman Catholicism was dropped.
Making weird people more normie is not humanizing them - it's making humanity narrower.
Wow, that's a lot of stupid to process. I mean maybe a contard brain can handle the level of fucktardism you just let, but it takes a while for a thinking person to process it.
Look at what you just said: ''Making weird people more normie is not humanizing them - it's making humanity narrower.''
Are you even capable of recognizing the cognitive dissonance in that one sentence? You are saying weird people are not human, and portraying them as human narrows humanity.
Holy fucking idiocy, batman! You decide to narrow the definition of human to people wbo are not 'weird', then say considering weird' people as human narrows humanity.
I guess the contradiction you just made went right past you.
Oh, your avatar? Yeah, Rorschach was not cool, he was not a hero, he was a small minded intolerant self righteous little fuck who could not deal with the idea that anyone who wasn't like him could be anything but evil. He was black and white in a 50, 000 shades of grey world and Manhattan was right to nuke him to save that world.
QuoteYou are saying weird people are not human, and portraying them as human narrows humanity.
I'm saying weird people are perfectly human anyway, a portraying them as more "humane" in normie ways shows normie prejudice against their eccentricities.
Poirot was already portraied 100% human in books, adding some normie shit is not making him more human. It shows normies like Branagh does not consider him human enough because weird.
Here follow line: Book Poirot is perfectly human being though extremely eccentric -> Adding normie "human" characteristic to him, shows normie directors consider you have to have them to be human -> Ergo normie creators consider eccentrics inhuman.
Not me - I fully embrace humanity of weird. They decided to mix it with own "normality".
It was you who said that Poirot is more humane in film.
QuoteOh, your avatar? Yeah, Rorschach was not cool, he was not a hero, he was a small minded intolerant self righteous little fuck who could not deal with the idea that anyone who wasn't like him could be anything but evil. He was black and white in a 50, 000 shades of grey world and Manhattan was right to nuke him to save that world.
Wow, that dumb attack that went from absolutely nowhere.
But to be precise: sure Rorschach is fuck up. That's why we like him. That's what Great Magical Asshole Moore could not understand while trying to bring Rorschach down, he should stick with assshole Randist Question. And quite obviously he wasn't black and white character.
Also: fuck Ozzie and Dr. Manhattan - not only history proved that whole Atomic Scare was mostly scarecrow (but that's again dumb wizard foolish idea) but no I shall not condone genocide, to MAYBE save the world. If that's too black and white, fuck it.
Avatar is there basically because I like the look of it.
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 10, 2022, 11:56:45 PM
Look at what you just said: ''Making weird people more normie is not humanizing them - it's making humanity narrower.''
Are you even capable of recognizing the cognitive dissonance in that one sentence? You are saying weird people are not human, and portraying them as human narrows humanity.
You might want to re-read the sentence. You got it completely backwards.
Saw the newest Jurrasic movie. It was shit. I usually find something positive even in bad movies, but this was just ahit.
I've read Jurassic World synopsis on Wikipedia. It was especially shitty.
Yeah Jurassic World hit new levels of stupid. Dominion builds on that stupid.
Why the fuck can't they just let the Jurassic park line die already???!!!
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 15, 2022, 10:48:23 PM
Why the fuck can't they just let the Jurassic park line die already???!!!
You really have to ask that question?
Clearly, the solution is a Predator vs. Jurassic World movie.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 16, 2022, 09:00:09 AM
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 15, 2022, 10:48:23 PM
Why the fuck can't they just let the Jurassic park line die already???!!!
You really have to ask that question?
I know the answer is money, trumptard. The thing is the movies aren't even making major profit anymore, and they still shit more out.
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 15, 2022, 10:48:23 PM
Why the fuck can't they just let the Jurassic park line die already???!!!
As Goldblum's character says, "Shit finds a way."
Quote from: Battlemaster on June 16, 2022, 10:26:18 AMI know the answer is money, trumptard. The thing is the movies aren't even making major profit anymore, and they still shit more out.
$600 million in two weeks isn't bad money.
I took the kids. They enjoyed it even though most of the enjoyment was from laughing at how stupid it was. As a positive, the bugs were suitably creepy.
It is crazy that they got the Apple CEO Tim Cook to play himself in the movie.
This movie does have the required Diversity insert character: a WOC whose personality is "good at everything" and whose only motivation is "I am a woman therefore I care." What is obvious, though, is that there was a black dude from the first JW movie (Barry played by Omar Sy) who disappears from this film one scene before the new black woman character takes over. So it is clear that they just took Barry's role in the film and substituted the "more diverse" character in his place. A real shame since Omar has 10x the charisma of the actress that replaced him.
I saw Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.
I found it overly woke, and I nearly quit about halfway through, but I finished it and I didn't hate it. Didn't love it either, though.
Some of the bits were neat, like they way they worked in some cameos from Marvel properties that haven't been officially added to the mainline MCU canon yet.
I found it too much of a horror movie for my tastes, though, and I think it should have gotten an R rating.
It should have R-rating and be like umphed in horror 200%.
Sequel to Ghostbusters: Afterlife has a release date in late December of 2023.
To be set back in New York City in the firehouse.
Cautious optimism. Cut the treacle a bit this time and give us a new villain.
Quote from: Thornhammer on June 28, 2022, 06:50:58 PM
Sequel to Ghostbusters: Afterlife has a release date in late December of 2023.
To be set back in New York City in the firehouse.
Cautious optimism. Cut the treacle a bit this time and give us a new villain.
Hope they did a little more work on the script this time. Afterlife had its heart in the right place, but it needed to give the supporting cast their own stories too.
Also, try adding some jokes.
Quote from: Lurkndog on June 28, 2022, 11:27:53 PM
Also, try adding some jokes.
Add Kevin from the 2016 film. Add nothing else from that film.
This is about a movie every gamer should see, somone here should get it.
''At an articulate sphere's behest
an audience learns it's dark tales.
A defender awakes as another earns rest.
And once again, in the end evil fails. ''
Heavy metal?
Quote from: oggsmash on June 29, 2022, 04:31:18 PM
Heavy metal?
You got it.
I'm surprised you got it and a forum for hardcore movie fans didnt. But I knew this was a gamer's movie..
Quote from: HappyDaze on June 28, 2022, 11:44:06 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on June 28, 2022, 11:27:53 PM
Also, try adding some jokes.
Add Kevin from the 2016 film. Add nothing else from that film.
Have I given my theory about why Kevin was the only funny thing in that movie? It may be somewhere up-thread already.
Quote from: Lurkndog on June 29, 2022, 05:44:36 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on June 28, 2022, 11:44:06 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on June 28, 2022, 11:27:53 PM
Also, try adding some jokes.
Add Kevin from the 2016 film. Add nothing else from that film.
Have I given my theory about why Kevin was the only funny thing in that movie? It may be somewhere up-thread already.
I think it's in "Superman is gay." Saw that in a search for Kevin and Ghostbusters. (Didn't want to manually search up-thread, but was curious.)
I switched my Disney+ off, and turned on HBO Max.
I enjoyed The Batman quite a lot, I really liked the emphasis on Batman being the Dark Knight Detective this time around. It gave him much more interesting things to do. I thought Pattinson did a good job as both Batman and Bruce Wayne. They also did a good job making a Catwoman who is walking the gray line between heroine and villain. Jeffrey Wright didn't convince me that he was Jim Gordon, but it was enough for me that he was Jeffrey Wright.
I also watched Death on the Nile. I thought the high-budget cinematography was pretty, but actually took away from the movie because it was distracting. I've read the book, but it was so long ago that I don't remember it clearly. Perhaps I should reread Agatha Christie as an adult. I thought they foreshadowed the murder way too hard, so much so that basically all Gal Gadot got to do was swan around saying stuff like "Gosh, I sure hope nobody murders me. Better stay off the train."
Peacekeeper is a mixed bag for me so far. IMHO James Gunn is writing it too woke, and too many of the characters seem like negative portrayals. Guardians of the Galaxy was much better because Gunn seemed to love all of those characters, which made it more pleasant to spend time with them.
If you have hbo, WATCH WESTWORLD!
I watched Vivarium a few nights back and finished it yesterday. A sci-fi/horror ish thing from a couple of years back about a couple who goes to buy a house and then gets trapped in House Land (and endless block of identical houses that always wrap back around to the one they are assigned) and has to raise Some Weird Kid (a very ham handed play on cuckoo birds).
Weird for the sake of weird, no explanations of anything, and not even a satisfying ending. The ending makes sense, just isn't a gratifying way to end the film.
Seems like it would have made a good SCP object, but isn't.
Quote from: Battlemaster on July 03, 2022, 11:14:18 PM
If you have hbo, WATCH WESTWORLD!
I've already seen the first two seasons. I will probably watch seasons 3 and 4 at some point.
I'm currently watching Peacemaker and The Flight Attendant Season 2.
Season 3 lacked Anthony Hopkins, and the loss was felt keenly.
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 03, 2022, 10:25:47 PMI enjoyed The Batman quite a lot, I really liked the emphasis on Batman being the Dark Knight Detective this time around. It gave him much more interesting things to do. I thought Pattinson did a good job as both Batman and Bruce Wayne.
I wish I hadn't heard that this was a "detective" movie before watching it. The Batman doesn't actually figure anything out before it's too late and the story didn't make much sense. This is why I don't watch movie trailers, as I don't want the movie spoiled by false expectations.
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 03, 2022, 10:25:47 PM
I enjoyed The Batman quite a lot, I really liked the emphasis on Batman being the Dark Knight Detective this time around. It gave him much more interesting things to do. I thought Pattinson did a good job as both Batman and Bruce Wayne. They also did a good job making a Catwoman who is walking the gray line between heroine and villain. Jeffrey Wright didn't convince me that he was Jim Gordon, but it was enough for me that he was Jeffrey Wright.
I was enjoying
The Batman, but I felt that there is a fine line between paying homage to David Fincher and blatantly ripping off
Seven. Also, the final "big scene" was unusually badly shot, but I don't hold it to the movie. The shooting was ravaged by the first wave of COVID and finished with Matt Reese directing the actors and the crew via radio. Not the best way to run a production.
Quote
I also watched Death on the Nile. I thought the high-budget cinematography was pretty, but actually took away from the movie because it was distracting. I've read the book, but it was so long ago that I don't remember it clearly. Perhaps I should reread Agatha Christie as an adult. I thought they foreshadowed the murder way too hard, so much so that basically all Gal Gadot got to do was swan around saying stuff like "Gosh, I sure hope nobody murders me. Better stay off the train."
I never read Agatha Christie. I read almost all Ellery Queen when I was a kid - because I loved the TV show - and then Philip Marlowe. Raymond Chandler, BTW, hated Agatha Christie's novels because "either the plot was stupid or she cheated". I know that I'm unjust towards poor Agatha, but after reading Chandler's rants I never picked up one of her books :D
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 04, 2022, 08:14:34 PM
Quote from: Battlemaster on July 03, 2022, 11:14:18 PM
If you have hbo, WATCH WESTWORLD!
I've already seen the first two seasons. I will probably watch seasons 3 and 4 at some point.
Don't. Just don't. Remember the show for the first two seasons and pretend that the rest doesn't exist.
Quote from: Reckall on July 09, 2022, 10:20:48 AM
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 04, 2022, 08:14:34 PM
Quote from: Battlemaster on July 03, 2022, 11:14:18 PM
If you have hbo, WATCH WESTWORLD!
I've already seen the first two seasons. I will probably watch seasons 3 and 4 at some point.
Don't. Just don't. Remember the show for the first two seasons and pretend that the rest doesn't exist.
To my regret, I failed to do this with BSG, but thankfully I've stuck with it for WW.
Quote from: Reckall on July 09, 2022, 10:09:31 AM
I never read Agatha Christie. I read almost all Ellery Queen when I was a kid - because I loved the TV show - and then Philip Marlowe. Raymond Chandler, BTW, hated Agatha Christie's novels because "either the plot was stupid or she cheated". I know that I'm unjust towards poor Agatha, but after reading Chandler's rants I never picked up one of her books :D
I had never heard that, and I really respect Chandler's work. That's awesome, thanks for sharing!
I've never read Ellery Queen either. Hmm...
The last mysteries I really read were Craig Johnson's Longmire books, because I liked the show. Though, with both show and books, I got to the point where they seemed to wear out the premise, and I stopped before the end.
Quote from: Battlemaster on July 03, 2022, 11:14:18 PM
If you have hbo, Dont WATCH WESTWORLD!
Fixed that for ya. heh.
Though honestly the first and second season are ok overall. But the further the show goes the worse it gets. Eventually things go totally off the rails. YMMV on if/when you hit the "fuck this!" threshold.
While we are on the subject of detective series.
Some years ago I got for Kat some translated episodes of a series called Magistrate Dee, AKA: Amazing Detective Di from 2004 A semi-historical period piece from china with Dee having to solve various crimes and usually someone loses their head. Literally. Rather nice production too.
Way back in the 70s there was a TV pilot based on one of the books.
Quote from: Omega on July 11, 2022, 07:14:03 AM
While we are on the subject of detective series.
Some years ago I got for Kat some translated episodes of a series called Magistrate Dee, AKA: Amazing Detective Di from 2004 A semi-historical period piece from china with Dee having to solve various crimes and usually someone loses their head. Literally. Rather nice production too.
Way back in the 70s there was a TV pilot based on one of the books.
Have you see the more recent Detective Dee movies? I found them to be big, mindless spectacles. Entertaining, but forgettable.
Watching the Villeneuve Dune again... the Liet Kynes switch was the worst kind of diversity casting, serving no purpose except to manage the quota.
It's the absolute worst kind of diversity casting. Pointless, bland, nonsensical.
I don't care about Chani. Zendaya is the flavor of the month, and we don't see enough of her in Dune to know if she's going to make a good Chani, anyways. Like Chalamet, Zendaya will bring in an audience of mindless summer children.
It's the Liet Kynes casting (which also makes no sense given the age of Liet compared to Chani) which is backwards and regressive.
The Dune movie is good as spectacle, but I thought Lynch's movie was even better at spectacle - including the Guildsmen, Vladimir Harkonnen, and all of that... without needing a second movie.
I want to like Dune, but every time I see it, it's so frustratingly uneven.
Quote from: bromides on July 11, 2022, 04:52:32 PM
Watching the Villeneuve Dune again... the Liet Kynes switch was the worst kind of diversity casting, serving no purpose except to manage the quota.
It's the absolute worst kind of diversity casting. Pointless, bland, nonsensical.
That switch, BTW, symbolises how current Hollywood is so preoccupied by virtue signaling that they are forgetting how to write. When the surviving Atreides ask Liet why she didn't warn them about the Harkonnen she says that she serves the Emperor, which is the correct answer... but then we discover that she is a Freemen! So, the Freemen had a secret way to warn the Atreides but they somehow like more the Harkonnen?
To add nonsense to nonsense, she is then immediately killed in a way no Freemen would have allowed for: walking on a crest of a dune in full sight during the day. Soldiers that fought in North Africa were smarter than that. But when you can race, gender
and age switch a character, who needs basic writing skills? See also that horrifying adaptation of Asimov's "Foundation" on Apple+.
Damn, rekall, is foundation that bad? I wanted to see it someday.
Quote from: Battlemaster on July 11, 2022, 08:06:14 PM
Damn, rekall, is foundation that bad? I wanted to see it someday.
The visuals are stunning and Jared Harris embodies how I always imagined Hari Seldon. The end.
"Foundation" to me is the pinnacle of how virtue signalling is now considered the "new storytelling". The biggest offender is Salvor Hardin, who in the show is a black young woman whose job is "Warden of the Foundation". She tries to find ways to fight the militaristic planets that surround Terminus and openly derides the idea that "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" when her father reminds her of it - something akin to sacrilege towards the original text.
Gaal Dornick is another example. Again, now she is a young black woman from a backwater planet who, basically, while being raised on a planet of fishers and farmers, invents mathematics up to psychostoriography out of thin air. The show then goes to astounding narrative extremes to keep her "relevant" to the plot when in the book the character died 100 years before.
But, as amazing as it may sound, these are not the problems of the show. If you want to do something unrecognizable from the book amen to that. The problem is that the plot (which, 30 minutes in, has nothing to do anymore with Asimov's book) is a trainwreck full of plotholes and logic lapses. The IMDB comments page is full of people who say "I haven't read the books so I can't comment about the differences, but
this show is a hot mess" - which is the best proof of how this is another example of "virtue signaling trumps basic storytelling skills".
The irony is that they put in a storyline centered on the Emperor that is completely original - and, as it happens, it is the best part of the show. But this proves, once again, that these hacks will never write their own original story. They do know that they can't write, so never in the World they will renounce to famous "brands" to sell their poo. Next in line will be "The Rings of Amazon" - a show that, right now, is in full panic mode after internet as a whole made clear how they did cross a line too far.
QuoteIt's the Liet Kynes casting (which also makes no sense given the age of Liet compared to Chani) which is backwards and regressive.
Actress playing Liet is 21 years older than Zendaya, so generally speaking I'd say it's possible option.
But yeah Liet is otherwise wasted.
I mean even racegenderswap don't justify changing cool death scene into this bland mess from movie.
Day Shift looks pretty damn entertaining. Can I hope for vampire killing fun and not A Very Special Message?
Snoop Dogg with a minigun, I can't say no to that.
Resident Evil: first episode was mainly focused on teen high school girl drama. A few zombies. A really effing big caterpillar monster. One zombie dog.
No direct explanation about Wesker yet, this version has two daughters and New Racoon City is located in South Africa. Show flips between "three months before zombpocalypse" and sometime in the 2030s (well after the world went to shit - in 2022 mind you - but somehow cell phones still work). It is laying out the foundations for the zombie apocalypse, starting in the happiest place on Earth (Tijuana!)
They used Ghost in the soundtrack, which is a plus. I'm an old fuck and I like Ghost.
Quote from: Pat on July 11, 2022, 11:13:38 AM
Have you see the more recent Detective Dee movies? I found them to be big, mindless spectacles. Entertaining, but forgettable.
I have not. But I have heard from others that it lost its spark from the early seasons.
Finally got around to watching the 2019 Hellboy with David Harbour.
It's pretty damn skippable, IMHO. David Harbour makes a decent Hellboy, but the script is just a louder, gorier, inferior rehashing of the Del Toro films. The only thing it adds are some different cameos from the comic books.
"Kickstart My Heart?" Really?
I saw "The Black Phone" and, while it is not the masterpiece I expected (considering the acclaim surrounding it) it is a very well done movie, with great acting by everyone involved and a nice story that develops logically (a rarity these times). There is a lot of padding, as it is the main story of kid vs. serial killer that is interesting but it covers one hour of run time. The parallel storylines are not boring but clearly arbitrary (I won't spoil, but you can see how they had to reach the 90 minutes mark). Also, there are strong "Stranger Things" vibes - not because the movie is mostly about kids but because of the way the story is shot and told. These events could be happening elsewhere in the world of ST.
The premise is good for a RPG session with one player and one GM. It is the classic "Escape Room" scenario. We are in the late 1970s. A kid is kidnapped by a serial killer called "The Grabber" and imprisoned in a cellar. He knows that he will be killed in a few days, so time is precious. In this cellar there is a disconnected black phone, but this kid starts getting calls from ghostly entities - the previous victims of The Grabber. Each one of them gives him some suggestion about how to escape: they failed, but if the kid acts better and faster maybe he can save himself...
The movie is basically this RPG scenario played out on the screen. The kid can't just rely on the suggestions by the ghosts because they are incomplete and didn't work anyway. It is up to him (or her: gender is not important) to put everything together, add his own findings in the cellar, think a bit out of the loop and find his way out. The movie lays out a lot of peripheral info too, about "The Grabber", his character and his surroundings, which can be useful to a GM if the player tries different routes. Time is crucial but also how the kid behaves is important, as it is clear how "The Grabber" will give him more time or kill him on the spot according to precise whims. In a game, reaching desperation but delaying death can be an interesting dynamic.
Definitely suggested, especially to GMs, but also because of its own merits.
Dave Made a Maze was surprisingly entertaining.
Dude makes a cardboard maze in his living room while the girlfriend is away. It is bigger on the inside than the outside, girlfriend and companions go into the maze to help rescue Dave and become trapped.
Tone is fairly light and goofy, the cardboard maze/labyrinth (they argue the semantics during the film) is really fucking cool, and if you like The Venture Brothers it has James Urbaniak.
Finally got around to watching Wrath of Man with Jason Statham. It's up on Amazon Prime Video at the moment.
It's a solid and worthwhile revenge flick, helmed by Guy Ritchie. Top dollar production values, and an excellent supporting cast including Josh Harnett and Scott Eastwood.
Statham plays his usual Jason Statham character. In this one, he's working undercover as an armored car security guard, but he's clearly a much higher-level operative than that. The movie takes its time unwrapping the layers of what's going on, and the final reel pays off with some excellent tension and visuals.
This is one I'll watch more than once.
I really liked the old Japanese/American sci-fi movie Latitude Zero, especially because it has Cesar Romero in it as the villain.
But what discovered today was that the movie was based on an old Radio serial from the 40s called... Latitude Zero! Some of the oddities of the movie make more sense when viewed as a serial adaption.
I also liked in the movie that contrary to the usual. MacKinzie's sub the Alpha is not the strongest and their only recourse when faced by Malak's Black Shark sub is to run away because they are out-gunned. And it can not be coincidence that Malak's moreau-esque minions are... Bat Men... 8)
Quote from: Thornhammer on July 14, 2022, 10:04:42 PM
Resident Evil: first episode was mainly focused on teen high school girl drama. A few zombies. A really effing big caterpillar monster. One zombie dog.
And BOOM! Canceled after one season. Gosh, who would have thought Resident Evil fans didn't want to watch teen high school girl drama?
Quote from: Thornhammer on August 26, 2022, 10:42:44 PM
Quote from: Thornhammer on July 14, 2022, 10:04:42 PM
Resident Evil: first episode was mainly focused on teen high school girl drama. A few zombies. A really effing big caterpillar monster. One zombie dog.
And BOOM! Canceled after one season. Gosh, who would have thought Resident Evil fans didn't want to watch teen high school girl drama?
The Japanese fanbase in particular was -brutal-. They were not impressed at all.
Quote from: Omega on August 16, 2022, 05:52:52 PM
I really liked the old Japanese/American sci-fi movie Latitude Zero, especially because it has Cesar Romero in it as the villain.
I managed to find this movie at archive.org (decent print but English only). A weird movie that I probably would have loved as a kid.
As I'm a huge fan of movies like Atragon and games like Subculture and Subnautica, it makes me want to run some sort of underwater type RPG. I'm thinking almost as a regular space science fiction game but with subs instead of space ship, underwater bases instead of space stations. The framework of the game would be almost identical as you could do exploration, action, horror, or stick to some sort of trading system and base building.
I just need to figure out a way to explain why they the surface world is too dangerous to live on.
Thirteen Lives is a great dramatization of an impossible rescue. Complete with map. Very good source material for those wanting to bring a bit of gritty realism into their fantasy adventures.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on September 08, 2022, 02:35:16 PM
Quote from: Omega on August 16, 2022, 05:52:52 PM
I really liked the old Japanese/American sci-fi movie Latitude Zero, especially because it has Cesar Romero in it as the villain.
I managed to find this movie at archive.org (decent print but English only). A weird movie that I probably would have loved as a kid.
As I'm a huge fan of movies like Atragon and games like Subculture and Subnautica, it makes me want to run some sort of underwater type RPG. I'm thinking almost as a regular space science fiction game but with subs instead of space ship, underwater bases instead of space stations. The framework of the game would be almost identical as you could do exploration, action, horror, or stick to some sort of trading system and base building.
I just need to figure out a way to explain why they the surface world is too dangerous to live on.
The interesting thing is that Latitude Zero was originally a Radio Serial and the movie is a joint project with the creator.
As for post-apoc undersea RPG campaigns. Way back I talked with Gygax about doing the never produced Rapture of the Deep GW module. Years later the Gamma World group came up with a fan version. Though personally I found it way inferior to what we had been planning. Still. Theres stuff like that and Blue Planet, and especially the French RPG Polaris, and a few others that go this route.
Watched Greyman. Good timea and the sort of movie hollywood pretends is not the best thing It knows how to make.
While in theory it is supposed to be like James Bond, in practice its more Commando.
Trailer for the new Hellraiser movie on Hulu is out. Show starts next month.
The look is right, the feel is right.
The new Pinhead looks weird and sounds weird and I liked what I saw enough to give her a chance.
I thought it was a series, guess it is just a movie. That makes a little more sense.
Quote from: mightybrain on September 08, 2022, 05:50:06 PM
Thirteen Lives is a great dramatization of an impossible rescue. Complete with map. Very good source material for those wanting to bring a bit of gritty realism into their fantasy adventures.
I really liked
Thirteen Lives. It was as claustrophobic as it gets, with Viggo and Colin Farrell doing almost all of the underwater scenes by themselves. It was also nice to see the wide portrayal of all the efforts (and the people) involved in the rescue operation.
I suggest the documentary "The Rescue" as a companion piece. I watched "The Rescue" first but, even if it is the real thing, it actually made me enjoy this movie even more.
Just saw The Secret of NIMH. Interesting story. I also think it was pretty dark for an animated movie. It could not quite decide if it was fantasy or Sci-Fi (sort of a mix) but I still think this was one of the better animated movies I've seen.
Quote from: Trond on September 26, 2022, 04:54:49 PM
Just saw The Secret of NIMH. Interesting story. I also think it was pretty dark for an animated movie. It could not quite decide if it was fantasy or Sci-Fi (sort of a mix) but I still think this was one of the better animated movies I've seen.
Fantasy with a little sci-fi where the books were mostly hard-science with cobble-tech in the same vein as Rescuers and the like.
Overall its a fine movie. Though I didnt like their turning Jenner into a cliche villain.
Word of advice. Avoid the second movie. While it has a few moments, it strays far far from the first in tone, style and even moreso from the second book it is only vaguely based on.
Quote from: Omega on September 27, 2022, 07:35:59 AM
Quote from: Trond on September 26, 2022, 04:54:49 PM
Just saw The Secret of NIMH. Interesting story. I also think it was pretty dark for an animated movie. It could not quite decide if it was fantasy or Sci-Fi (sort of a mix) but I still think this was one of the better animated movies I've seen.
Fantasy with a little sci-fi where the books were mostly hard-science with cobble-tech in the same vein as Rescuers and the like.
Overall its a fine movie. Though I didnt like their turning Jenner into a cliche villain.
Word of advice. Avoid the second movie. While it has a few moments, it strays far far from the first in tone, style and even moreso from the second book it is only vaguely based on.
Another interesting thing about the movie is that I think the main character acted well, despite being animated. You totally buy that she's a mother concerned for her kids.
Quote from: Trond on September 28, 2022, 11:33:18 AM
Quote from: Omega on September 27, 2022, 07:35:59 AM
Quote from: Trond on September 26, 2022, 04:54:49 PM
Just saw The Secret of NIMH. Interesting story. I also think it was pretty dark for an animated movie. It could not quite decide if it was fantasy or Sci-Fi (sort of a mix) but I still think this was one of the better animated movies I've seen.
Fantasy with a little sci-fi where the books were mostly hard-science with cobble-tech in the same vein as Rescuers and the like.
Overall its a fine movie. Though I didnt like their turning Jenner into a cliche villain.
Word of advice. Avoid the second movie. While it has a few moments, it strays far far from the first in tone, style and even moreso from the second book it is only vaguely based on.
Another interesting thing about the movie is that I think the main character acted well, despite being animated. You totally buy that she's a mother concerned for her kids.
Bluth studios did some great work, at a time when Disney was faffing around.
My only critique of Secret of NIMH (and it's a small one) is that the "magic" seemed out of place in a story about genetically modified super smart rodents.
Very. It feels out of place and almost needlessly tacked on. But it works within the movie to a degree.
If you ever get some urge to read the 3rd book. Word of advice. Dont. Its more focused on two human kids and undoes practically everything set up in book 2 by the end.
Just saw Rob Zombie's The Munsters, if you haven't seen it don't, it's shit, there's not a single funny joke in all of the movie.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 30, 2022, 11:34:50 PM
Just saw Rob Zombie's The Munsters, if you haven't seen it don't, it's shit, there's not a single funny joke in all of the movie.
Fuck, really? That's really disappointing.
I just finished binge watching The Good Doctor series on Hulu. The premise is an autistic doctor with savant syndrome becomes a surgical resident after completing his medical schooling. Most of the show revolves around Shaun (the good doctor) and his dealing with autism, other people, and being a "miracle" doctor who pulls insights, cures, techniques out of his head at the dramatically appropriate time.
It's exec produced by David Shore, who also exec produced House MD. If you've watched House, some of the "tricks" will be repeated in TGD. Lots of drama, a hospital cursed with all of the rarest and most exotic medical maladies imaginable, and montages of people walking in slow motion set to maudlin music.
I liked House, and I liked The Good Doctor, for the most part. And now comes the commentary about the culture war, because this show is thick in it. Many times I'd be rolling my eyes at a character proclaiming how racist the world and especially the US is. Some insipid snipes about 'mansplaining', when a male character called female co-workers 'ladies'. There were times where it got so that I was seriously considering dropping the show.
So, season 5 ended on a cliffhanger, and the new season is scheduled to start this week. Not intentional timing on my part, but convenient.
I'll watch season 6 to find out how things turn out.
Quote from: Thornhammer on October 01, 2022, 06:00:19 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 30, 2022, 11:34:50 PM
Just saw Rob Zombie's The Munsters, if you haven't seen it don't, it's shit, there's not a single funny joke in all of the movie.
Fuck, really? That's really disappointing.
They don't even have the kids in the movie? Though apparently Butch Patrick does the voice for a character. Sad.
Quote from: Lurkndog on October 04, 2022, 02:39:47 PM
Quote from: Thornhammer on October 01, 2022, 06:00:19 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 30, 2022, 11:34:50 PM
Just saw Rob Zombie's The Munsters, if you haven't seen it don't, it's shit, there's not a single funny joke in all of the movie.
Fuck, really? That's really disappointing.
They don't even have the kids in the movie? Though apparently Butch Patrick does the voice for a character. Sad.
Kids? Plural? IIRC There's Butch Patrick's character Eddie Munster & the Niece Marylin Munster. You might be thinking of The Addams.
But no, it's only the 3 adults: Grandpa, Lily & Herman.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 04, 2022, 09:23:42 PM
Kids? Plural? IIRC There's Butch Patrick's character Eddie Munster & the Niece Marylin Munster. You might be thinking of The Addams.
But no, it's only the 3 adults: Grandpa, Lily & Herman.
Correct. Eddie was Herman and Lilly's kid and Marilyn as Lilly's niece. Though its very easy to miss and shes more often treated as a daughter. Which makes sense as Herman and Lilly raised her.
As for the new Munsters. Compare it to say Mockingbird Lane that came out in 2012 which was a pretty unusual approach with the supernatural elements ramped up.
Quote from: Omega on October 04, 2022, 11:59:36 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 04, 2022, 09:23:42 PM
Kids? Plural? IIRC There's Butch Patrick's character Eddie Munster & the Niece Marylin Munster. You might be thinking of The Addams.
But no, it's only the 3 adults: Grandpa, Lily & Herman.
Correct. Eddie was Herman and Lilly's kid and Marilyn as Lilly's niece. Though its very easy to miss and shes more often treated as a daughter. Which makes sense as Herman and Lilly raised her.
As for the new Munsters. Compare it to say Mockingbird Lane that came out in 2012 which was a pretty unusual approach with the supernatural elements ramped up.
Didn't watch, hell I didn't even knew it existed, it's a show or a movie?
I love Rob Zombies music, but his films seem to get bad reviews. Haven't seen a one.
Violent Night.
David Harbour plays Action Santa Claus (actual magic Santa Claus with reindeer and teleporting up and down chimneys) going to town on baddies who are holding a family hostage. Die Hard, But Santa. Lot of potential.
Theaters in early December.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2022, 12:47:19 AM
Quote from: Omega on October 04, 2022, 11:59:36 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 04, 2022, 09:23:42 PM
Kids? Plural? IIRC There's Butch Patrick's character Eddie Munster & the Niece Marylin Munster. You might be thinking of The Addams.
But no, it's only the 3 adults: Grandpa, Lily & Herman.
Correct. Eddie was Herman and Lilly's kid and Marilyn as Lilly's niece. Though its very easy to miss and shes more often treated as a daughter. Which makes sense as Herman and Lilly raised her.
As for the new Munsters. Compare it to say Mockingbird Lane that came out in 2012 which was a pretty unusual approach with the supernatural elements ramped up.
Didn't watch, hell I didn't even knew it existed, it's a show or a movie?
I saw it on its one showing I know of. Was a hour long Halloween pilot that was not picked up. Interesting on its own and for third go at a reboot it was not bad really. Feels more Adams Family than Munsters though. Oddly I like it more than the Here Come the Munsters one-off from the 90s. Though the 90s one did hit all the beats of the original. Same for Munsters Today which also hit alot of the beats of the original.
Mockingbird Lane trailer.
Quote from: Omega on October 05, 2022, 02:01:55 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2022, 12:47:19 AM
Quote from: Omega on October 04, 2022, 11:59:36 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 04, 2022, 09:23:42 PM
Kids? Plural? IIRC There's Butch Patrick's character Eddie Munster & the Niece Marylin Munster. You might be thinking of The Addams.
But no, it's only the 3 adults: Grandpa, Lily & Herman.
Correct. Eddie was Herman and Lilly's kid and Marilyn as Lilly's niece. Though its very easy to miss and shes more often treated as a daughter. Which makes sense as Herman and Lilly raised her.
As for the new Munsters. Compare it to say Mockingbird Lane that came out in 2012 which was a pretty unusual approach with the supernatural elements ramped up.
Didn't watch, hell I didn't even knew it existed, it's a show or a movie?
I saw it on its one showing I know of. Was a hour long Halloween pilot that was not picked up. Interesting on its own and for third go at a reboot it was not bad really. Feels more Adams Family than Munsters though. Oddly I like it more than the Here Come the Munsters one-off from the 90s. Though the 90s one did hit all the beats of the original. Same for Munsters Today which also hit alot of the beats of the original.
Mockingbird Lane trailer.
They got the house perfect, everything else? not so much, but they were going for a more serious show I guess.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2022, 04:12:17 PM
Quote from: Omega on October 05, 2022, 02:01:55 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2022, 12:47:19 AM
Quote from: Omega on October 04, 2022, 11:59:36 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 04, 2022, 09:23:42 PM
Kids? Plural? IIRC There's Butch Patrick's character Eddie Munster & the Niece Marylin Munster. You might be thinking of The Addams.
But no, it's only the 3 adults: Grandpa, Lily & Herman.
Correct. Eddie was Herman and Lilly's kid and Marilyn as Lilly's niece. Though its very easy to miss and shes more often treated as a daughter. Which makes sense as Herman and Lilly raised her.
As for the new Munsters. Compare it to say Mockingbird Lane that came out in 2012 which was a pretty unusual approach with the supernatural elements ramped up.
Didn't watch, hell I didn't even knew it existed, it's a show or a movie?
I saw it on its one showing I know of. Was a hour long Halloween pilot that was not picked up. Interesting on its own and for third go at a reboot it was not bad really. Feels more Adams Family than Munsters though. Oddly I like it more than the Here Come the Munsters one-off from the 90s. Though the 90s one did hit all the beats of the original. Same for Munsters Today which also hit alot of the beats of the original.
They got the house perfect, everything else? not so much, but they were going for a more serious show I guess.
Okay, after watching the pilot I've changed my mind, it could have been a good show, if not as funny as the original at least very fun.
That was my impression as well. Lots of potential, especially if viewed as its own thing.
Huh. Sidney Sweeney wants to star in and direct a remake of Barbarella.
As Dale Gribble said: "I'm skeptical that you could, but intrigued that you may."
Seems there is some back and fourth over the rights to a Buck Rogers movie.
One group has the actual Buck Rogers setting. The other grabbed the original Armageddon book when it went public domain and are claiming that their movie will totally not be Buck Rogers because the character is named Anthony Rogers. uh-huh. Yep. Totally different. ::)
My wife and I were just watching the Critical Drinker's eviscerating review of Wakanda Forever, and it suddenly disappeared. We can't find it on his channel anymore.
Quote from: Trond on November 11, 2022, 12:19:33 PM
My wife and I were just watching the Critical Drinker's eviscerating review of Wakanda Forever, and it suddenly disappeared. We can't find it on his channel anymore.
It's back now, if it ever truly left.
https://youtu.be/VPRUAqraFFY
I watched "Barbarian" (a horror movie set in modern day - I won't spoil what the title refers to). The first two acts are really good and, as a European watching from outside, I would tell that they capture many of the anxieties of contemporary United States. Unfortunately all of the good plot strands somehow lead to a very conventional third act. Still. the movie does a good job in keeping the tension and the mystery high for a good chunk of its length. 6/10 in my book.
The trailer, for once, is effective without giving things away. Very tongue in check too ;D
Was going over the history of Will Smith's I, Robot movie and turns out I was right. They really did just slap the title and a few place names on a totally different script.
Quote from: Omega on November 17, 2022, 05:25:08 AM
Was going over the history of Will Smith's I, Robot movie and turns out I was right. They really did just slap the title and a few place names on a totally different script.
That happened with Verhoeven's godawful Starship Troopers adaptation as well.
Got to see the live action Aladin remake. In HD.
Was not bad really. A little woke nonsense change but nothing too bothersome. That being Jazmine wanting to be the sultan and her father not allowing it because she is a girl. But at the end the sultan hands over the title to her and tells her the sultan can change the rules. Well why didnt you do that in the first place? But it fits the slightly more sombre, subdued background tone for this telling.
But that was really surprising was discovering finally what HD really is. And not liking it much. Everything was... TOO real. I was watching it and everything liked like people on a set somehow. Closest I can come to as comparison is to some old TV shows that were filmed live on a stage. Or many soap operas. Except here it is much more pronounced.
It looks good and someone put alot of effort into it all. But the HD kept disconnecting me.
Will Smith made a great Djini and whomever they got to play Jafar did a good job of playing him as this very subdued almost personable character on the surface. Jasmine was another one well played. Not as fiery as she is in the cartoon. Which was odd as shes supposed to be fighting the "patriarchy". But does not do much at all aside from make an end-run for the lamp and make a speech near the end.
Overall not bad and on its own it fares well against older live action versions.
I finally catched Savageland (
it is available for free on Youtube) and I found it as creepy as hell - if you forget the political messaging.
It is a fake documentary, very well done, about what happened in a small town in Arizona, near the border with Mexico, during a single night. The whole population of 57 souls was savagely massacred and killed. The sole survivor, an illegal Mexican immigrant, was accused of being the only culprit. He, however, was an amateur photographer, and shot 36 pictures "showing" (the quotes are necessary) the horror that came to the town. The documentary uses these pictures as a mean to understand what really happened during that horrific night.
Let's put away the elephant in the room. Many people are interviewed about these events and they either condemn the Mexican survivor ("He is one of those people") or defend him without, however, elaborating on the content of the pictures. The problem is that it is simply impossible for one man to brutally kill a whole town. Even the most bigoted person wouldn't believe that this is possible. The police would quickly assume,
at the very least, that other people are involved - maybe a drug cartel enhancing some kind of vendetta. A lawyer would be able to point this out with five words. All of this to say that I understand what the filmmakers wanted to express, but the political "message" comes out as completely forced.
All of this doesn't touch the genuine creepiness of the main story. Using computer maps of the small town, interviews and, above all, those 36 pictures, the movie paints a horrific tale that, for some reason, reminded me of something out of R.E. Howard. Remote towns in the middle of the Southwestern deserts are timeless places where "things" may happen. I won't spoil, but after a while it is very obvious what is going on. That's not the point: the beauty of the movie is
how the tale is told. The fake documentary has a realistic feel, something made by someone that just wants to find the truth. The 36 pictures are among the creepiest things I have seen in a horror movie ever. I wouldn't sleep in a room with a copy of them on the walls. And I liked how the origins of the event are a complete mystery (Again, it is suggested that the police and even the legal system just want to bury everything, but why? If there is a conspiracy, it makes no sense).
Overall, I was creeped for 90 minutes by a movie made with a minuscule budget. Bravo to the first time filmmakers but next time either give a proper context to the political messaging or leave it out. 7 out of 10 in my book.
The full movie:
I watched the first episode of Amazon's The Peripheral. It's an adaptation of a William Gibson book. Chloe Grace Moretz plays Flynne Fisher, a young woman living out in the boondocks of near-future America. She's scraping to get by, working in a 3D printing shop on a dirt road, and taking gigs as a "hired gun" in online video games to make ends meet and take care of her ailing mother. When her neer-do-well brother comes across a new client willing to pay big bucks to play a new game on cutting-edge hardware, she gets drawn into something else entirely...
Short and spoiler-free version: the first episode is good, getting things off to a quick start, and setting up a plot that is, if not believable, than at least internally coherent. Good cast, too.
I say check it out.
Just saw Romancing the Stone again after, what, 35 years?
Boy, I miss these good old, fun adventure movies. Great humor, and with damsels who are occasionally in distress! (script by a woman if it matters)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XjNe1LRwxZ0/T61zg1Q0FpI/AAAAAAAADdI/j0BwYBillC0/s1600/romancing+the+stone+1984+10.jpg)
Watched the first two episodes of Tulsa King - from the Yellowstone guy, stars Sylvester Stallone as a New York mobster who is fresh out of a 25 year prison sentence, gets banished to Tulsa as his reward for keeping his mouth shut.
Good so far, he's trying to figure out how shit has changed in 25 years and finding that some of the old ways are still useful.
Guest appearance by Jonathan Joss in the second episode. One line from the guy and "wait a minute, is that John Redcorn?"
Chinese "shlockbusters".
Here's a video about this genre. Most of these films are on Youtube and come with English subtitles. Of the ones I've watched, I liked Mutant Python and Water Monster 2 (basically a mixture of Creature of the Black Lagoon and Gollum). Some of these movies (and series) can actually provide inspiration for games, especially in pulp settings.
Quote from: Trond on November 25, 2022, 12:15:06 PM
Just saw Romancing the Stone again after, what, 35 years?
Boy, I miss these good old, fun adventure movies. Great humor, and with damsels who are occasionally in distress! (script by a woman if it matters)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XjNe1LRwxZ0/T61zg1Q0FpI/AAAAAAAADdI/j0BwYBillC0/s1600/romancing+the+stone+1984+10.jpg)
Coming out in 1984, it was itself a throwback to earlier movies, in the vein of
Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I've never managed to get through more than 20 minutes of
Jewel on the Nile, though. Does it ever get good?
Quote from: Lurkndog on November 21, 2022, 09:41:27 AM
I watched the first episode of Amazon's The Peripheral. It's an adaptation of a William Gibson book. Chloe Grace Moretz plays Flynne Fisher, a young woman living out in the boondocks of near-future America. She's scraping to get by, working in a 3D printing shop on a dirt road, and taking gigs as a "hired gun" in online video games to make ends meet and take care of her ailing mother. When her neer-do-well brother comes across a new client willing to pay big bucks to play a new game on cutting-edge hardware, she gets drawn into something else entirely...
LOL. You can tell this story was written in 2014, before VaeVictis, Ellie, and the Bully Hunters.
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny?
Woof, that title.
Quote from: Thornhammer on December 01, 2022, 06:22:21 PM
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny?
I remember it well. The year was 1978 and I, as a young lad fresh from school, was forced to use the Dial of Destiny to choose between Happy Days and The Gong Show
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 01, 2022, 07:48:25 PM
I remember it well. The year was 1978 and I, as a young lad fresh from school, was forced to use the Dial of Destiny to choose between Happy Days and The Gong Show
Sunday, Monday, Mola Ram!
Tuesday, Wednesday, Mola Ram!
Thursday, Friday, Mola Ram!
The weekend comes,
My heartbeat drums,
Sacrificin' all week with you!
Quote from: Thornhammer on December 01, 2022, 08:46:52 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 01, 2022, 07:48:25 PM
I remember it well. The year was 1978 and I, as a young lad fresh from school, was forced to use the Dial of Destiny to choose between Happy Days and The Gong Show
Sunday, Monday, Mola Ram!
Tuesday, Wednesday, Mola Ram!
Thursday, Friday, Mola Ram!
The weekend comes,
My heartbeat drums,
Sacrificin' all week with you!
This guy will win a Oscar! No, really!
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/15/9c/3f/159c3fb6ce56d81943e35418e8e13ce2.jpg)
Ope, don't look at it. Shut your eyes, Opie. Don't look at it, no matter what!
Quote from: hedgehobbit on November 30, 2022, 10:12:33 AM
Quote from: Lurkndog on November 21, 2022, 09:41:27 AM
I watched the first episode of Amazon's The Peripheral. It's an adaptation of a William Gibson book. Chloe Grace Moretz plays Flynne Fisher, a young woman living out in the boondocks of near-future America. She's scraping to get by, working in a 3D printing shop on a dirt road, and taking gigs as a "hired gun" in online video games to make ends meet and take care of her ailing mother. When her neer-do-well brother comes across a new client willing to pay big bucks to play a new game on cutting-edge hardware, she gets drawn into something else entirely...
LOL. You can tell this story was written in 2014, before VaeVictis, Ellie, and the Bully Hunters.
I don't know what any of those things are, and formally request a story time, please. :)
Quote from: Thornhammer on December 01, 2022, 06:22:21 PM
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny?
Woof, that title.
Unfortunately, Indy won't be teaming up with Tenacious D.
Quote from: Lurkndog on December 04, 2022, 09:14:14 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on November 30, 2022, 10:12:33 AM
Quote from: Lurkndog on November 21, 2022, 09:41:27 AM
I watched the first episode of Amazon's The Peripheral. It's an adaptation of a William Gibson book. Chloe Grace Moretz plays Flynne Fisher, a young woman living out in the boondocks of near-future America. She's scraping to get by, working in a 3D printing shop on a dirt road, and taking gigs as a "hired gun" in online video games to make ends meet and take care of her ailing mother. When her neer-do-well brother comes across a new client willing to pay big bucks to play a new game on cutting-edge hardware, she gets drawn into something else entirely...
LOL. You can tell this story was written in 2014, before VaeVictis, Ellie, and the Bully Hunters.
I don't know what any of those things are, and formally request a story time, please. :)
Bully Hunters was a group of women who I believe set up a kickstarter and were going to hunt those horrible mans on MMOs and make them stop being mean to women because all men are means to women!
Then they got caught faking a man bullying women on a game. Someone they hired.
Quote from: Omega on December 05, 2022, 12:47:00 AM
Bully Hunters was a group of women who I believe set up a kickstarter and were going to hunt those horrible mans on MMOs and make them stop being mean to women because all men are means to women!
Then they got caught faking a man bullying women on a game. Someone they hired.
Don't forget the part where they were super-leet female FPS gamers, and the idea was if a man said girls sucked at games, they'd turn up and make him rage quit with their leet skills.
Except the footage of them playing was painfully poor, and they'd be lucky to gang up on your average 13yr old COD kid.
None of those things seem relevant to The Peripheral at all.
If anything, I suppose it's odd that Flynne Fisher doesn't have a Twitch stream, but I could see why Gibson might not have gone there.
Firstly, it might end up dating the story prematurely. "Hold up Burton, I'm on my MySpace!"
Secondly, if Flynne was at all famous, the post-singularity douchebags would have found someone else. They seem to be trying to keep this quiet.
Also, Flynne is the viewpoint character, so it makes sense that she's normal apart from being good at video games.
Quote from: Lurkndog on November 27, 2022, 12:16:53 PM
Quote from: Trond on November 25, 2022, 12:15:06 PM
Just saw Romancing the Stone again after, what, 35 years?
Boy, I miss these good old, fun adventure movies. Great humor, and with damsels who are occasionally in distress! (script by a woman if it matters)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XjNe1LRwxZ0/T61zg1Q0FpI/AAAAAAAADdI/j0BwYBillC0/s1600/romancing+the+stone+1984+10.jpg)
Coming out in 1984, it was itself a throwback to earlier movies, in the vein of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I've never managed to get through more than 20 minutes of Jewel on the Nile, though. Does it ever get good?
Apparently Romancing the Stone was written before Raiders, but got delayed in production. When it came out everyone thought it looked a bit like an Indiana Jones copy, at least from the look of the posters etc.
Quote from: Trond on December 05, 2022, 08:40:23 PM
Apparently Romancing the Stone was written before Raiders, but got delayed in production. When it came out everyone thought it looked a bit like an Indiana Jones copy, at least from the look of the posters etc.
Maybe it looks that way, probably put a couple more viewers in the theaters, but Romancing the Stone is its own thing from the get go. For one thing, the romance writer from Manhattan is the main character.
I keep wanting to say it is nothing like Raiders, but there are parallels, like the way the movies ground their main characters by showing their ordinary lives before taking them to the adventure.
Quote from: Lurkndog on December 05, 2022, 03:38:15 PMIf anything, I suppose it's odd that Flynne Fisher doesn't have a Twitch stream, but I could see why Gibson might not have gone there.
Firstly, it might end up dating the story prematurely. "Hold up Burton, I'm on my MySpace!"
I was talking about Peripheral with a friend of mine and he happened to have read the book. According to him, the book lacked detail and most of the details in the show had to be created for it. Gibson, as he put it, was never a technical guy.
But even a mention of Twitch wouldn't date the story any more than the peak [Current Year] protagonist.
I watched Bullet Train which was recently added to Netflix. It was similar in tone to The Suicide Squad but not as funny (and I didn't think TSS was all that funny to begin with). The story feels very much like a manga adaption because most of the story telling takes place through stylized flashbacks. This also makes the movie hard to follow as you don't even know who the characters are most of the film.
My main issues are with the fight scenes which are decent but not enough to carry the film and with continuity issues regarding the train. The train is either packed with people or completely empty seemingly at random. Even from scene to scene passengers appear and disappear.
Finally, there is one character who is referred to as a "little girl" but is played by a 23 year old woman who looks 30. So it is strange when everyone acts like she's a helpless child.
I think it would have been better if everyone in the movie was Japanese. As it is, only 2 of the 11 main characters are.
I'm five episodes into The Peripheral now, and I'm really liking it.
If you have Amazon Prime, you should give it a look before it gets spoiled.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 06, 2022, 09:05:14 AM
I watched Bullet Train which was recently added to Netflix.
Oh shit, was it? Kick ass, something I wanted to see.
I enjoyed Bullet Train. It is easy to spot when a movie is made by a former stuntman and it is a quality I find myself actually looking for in watching a movie. I think waaay too many current day script writers/producers are in a tiny bubble. I know a stunt man at least has had an honest job or two in his past for the most part.
Seven episodes in, and I'm liking The Peripheral a lot less.
I could have done without the transsexual parlor detective Inspector Lowbeer who shows up and basically deprotagonizes our heroes. She is, of course, omniscient and the bestest evar. Sigh.
We'll see if they jump back over the shark in the final episode of the season.
Got ahold of some of the original Japanese episodes of Armored Genesis Mospeada/Genesis Climber Mospeada and an old translation file and been enjoying it a-lot more without the Macheck alterations and things like totally swapping out the music and on and on.
Pretty good so far and a nice departure from the usual alien invasion tale as it is set after the aliens won and has a very post-apoc feel to it. Love the mecha designs. The animation though is a bit cheap in places though. But so far only intermittently.
Now just have to find the rest of Super Dimension Century Orguss and Aura Battler Dunbine. Only ever could find the first few episodes on VHS way back.
Mospeada has aged remarkably well.
Southern Cross, not so much.
Have fun keeping it old school!
Right Stuf has both Orguss and Dunbine on blu-ray.
Quote from: Lurkndog on December 12, 2022, 09:29:11 AM
Mospeada has aged remarkably well.
Southern Cross, not so much.
Mospeada is alot better too without all the editing and changes. So much makes more sense. Mint is though if anything more of a goblin than in the RT version... ahem.
Southern Cross I despised when it was Robotech and the Japanese version did little to dull that feeling.
Was reading up on the sordid history of the original Macross series and alot of the oddities in quality from episode to episode make more sense. The Journey from its initial concept as a romantic comedy to serious space war is interesting. Perry commented on the sheer heck the crew went through getting the series done. But done they got it. Hard to believe that Lupin the III kicked it all off.
Finally got a chance to see the latest Jurassic Park spinoff abomination without in any way financially enriching anyone involved.
...
I knew it was bad, I heard it was bad, I expected it to be bad, but I figured, at least, I could watch it, turn my brain off, and enjoy some CGI dinosauces.
Nope. Nope, nope. I made it through it, mostly because at the time I was editing a paper for a friend and only half paying attention, but even the attention I paid it was wasted. It was beyond stupid, and even the dinosaur scenes weren't very good.
I was just the right age when Jurassic Park came out. I had read the book like a year prior. I was a huge fan of it. I still am. Both the book and the movie. Heck, I even liked the sequel book, kinda. Kinda.
But can we please let this franchise die, already?
Also watched Troll, on Netflix. Unlike Jurassic World: Abomination, I was genuinely looking forward to this one. I was a huge, huge fan of Troll Hunter, and the movie obviously gave off a similar vibe from the trailer.
Disclaimer: I know it's not actually a sequel, but the comparisons are kinda unavoidable.
Sadly, we didn't get a clever, well done movie. What we get is a mess of a movie that can't decide what it really wants to be, and instead comes off as being reminiscent of of the American Godzilla movie... the one with Mathew Broderick, I mean. Which is not a good movie to aspire to be.
I think that train wreck jurassic park movie made a shitload of money. I suppose the leeches that like to completely drain a property before moving on *might* not see if they can fire up the dead dry husk one more time, but since making money is their only goal and it made a ton last run.....expect another one you can not wait to miss to come out again.
Well note that they upped the problem from park, to world. Like they did with the ending of the 28 Days later sequel that shows the virus being spread from England to Europe. Next sequel. 28 Days Later - WORLD!
I figure Jurassic Whatever will eventually be rebranded to Jurassic Space! Then Jurassic Galaxy!
Quote from: Omega on December 13, 2022, 06:41:45 PM
Well note that they upped the problem from park, to world. Like they did with the ending of the 28 Days later sequel that shows the virus being spread from England to Europe. Next sequel. 28 Days Later - WORLD!
I figure Jurassic Whatever will eventually be rebranded to Jurassic Space! Then Jurassic Galaxy!
Look, if we get Jurassic Moon Park, I'm there for it. I'll just say it now.
Jurassic World: Dominion was the #2 movie in the world and made over a billion dollars (one of only two films to do that this year). The franchise is a long way from being dead.
Quote from: Omega on December 13, 2022, 06:41:45 PM
I figure Jurassic Whatever will eventually be rebranded to Jurassic Space! Then Jurassic Galaxy!
I mean...
Yeah, okay.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 14, 2022, 07:40:06 PM
Jurassic World: Dominion was the #2 movie in the world and made over a billion dollars (one of only two films to do that this year). The franchise is a long way from being dead.
They sure are hellbent on killing it. Former wotc employees?
Watched Guillermo del Toro's, sorry, that should be Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio on Netflix tonight, and wishing I could go back to the halcyon days of my youth when I could avoid ruining movies by having to think about what they meant.
Visually, musically and emotionally the thing is utterly spectacular. Philosophically and thematically, it's something of a letdown because del Toro makes the mistake a lot of auteurs make when they decide they want to do their own version of a story: in order to harp on their own preferred message, they change the point of the story so drastically that it really feels like it should just have been a different and original story.
Further discussion is going to involve a lot of spoilers, so last warning here for people who still want to see it to drop out.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
Del Toro's favourite story moral, which you can see in several of his most well-known movies (The Shape of Water most blatantly) is, as he admits in the commentary special, "I am always interested in the outsider ... I thought it was really important to show that you shouldn't have to change to be accepted for who you are." Which manifests, in this film, in the most egregious misunderstanding of the "Pinocchio" story I've ever seen: In this film, Pinocchio does not become a real living human boy at the end of the story in return for learning and practicing good behaviour; instead, he is wished back to life, still as a puppet, by Sebastian the cricket (thus completely obviating the warning Death gives Pinocchio earlier in the film about life being precious because of its brevity and inevitable ending). The biggest arc of moral growth in the film, by contrast, belongs to Geppetto: In this version, Geppetto carved Pinocchio not out of altruistic intent to make a toy children will love (and maybe a little wistful longing for a child he never had), but in a drunken stupor of grief and anger as a replacement for a son lost in an accidental wartime bombing. It ultimately transpires that Geppetto's job is not to teach Pinocchio to be brave, honest and true like Carlo was, but to learn not to try to turn Pinocchio into a copy of Carlo, and to love Pinocchio for who he is. And Pleasure Island, the place where Pinocchio learns the moral danger of running wild and acting like a selfish animal concerned only with your own wants and pleasures, is replaced with a fascist youth training camp (this version of the story being set during Mussolini's rule in WW2) where Pinocchio -- drafted as a potentially immortal and therefore invaluable soldier -- learns the moral danger of mindless obedience and conformity to what leader figures tell you is "good" and "right".
In and of itself I have no problem with the message that it's good to learn to love someone for who they are, regardless of what they may happen to be, or with the message that blind obedience to authority isn't always the right thing ... but those messages are not the Pinocchio story. Pinocchio's story has always, from the beginning, been about how becoming a morally better person is a radical transformation; being accepted as who you are is one thing, but the entire point of Pinocchio being a wooden puppet -- a false imitation of a person -- is that it takes immense effort for him to change and learn and grow, and to understand why the difference between truth and lies, between reality and imitation, matters; that to do those things is the essence of being human and real, and that failure will keep him stuck forever as he is, an ersatz imitation of a human being that will forever fall short of real life. (In the denouement, the film even explicitly depicts Pinocchio inevitably losing all his friends and loved ones to death while he, an immortal puppet, goes on, virtually unchanging, and somehow del Toro wants us to forget the warning of his own Death character and somehow think this is a happy ending?) The trope of redemptive transformation is so utterly fundamental to the Pinocchio character and story arc that if it's abandoned, I honestly think there's no point in keeping the outer trappings that del Toro has such fun reimagining.
Now all that said, as noted before, if all you want is a fantastically depicted stop-motion animation tale with a lot of great music, visuals and performances, this film will not disappoint. But while this thing is less Woke than some modern reimaginings of other stories, there is still a fatal Woke philosophy at the heart of it: It's the world's duty to accept you for who you are despite your differences, even to the extent of simply pretending those differences don't exist if necessary; it's not your duty to learn and grow to become a different and better person, because ultimately that's neither possible nor desirable. In the end, seeing that message ruined it for me.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on December 28, 2022, 04:11:47 AMin order to harp on their own preferred message, they change the point of the story so drastically that it really feels like it should just have been a different and original story.
Thanks for the heads up. I was thinking of watching this with my kids.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 28, 2022, 04:36:40 PMThanks for the heads up. I was thinking of watching this with my kids.
Yeah, it's not really a kids' movie in the final analysis, animation and music notwithstanding. Even those kids with the maturity level to handle its content would not, I think, take away the best message from it.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on December 28, 2022, 04:11:47 AM
In and of itself I have no problem with the message that it's good to learn to love someone for who they are, regardless of what they may happen to be, or with the message that blind obedience to authority isn't always the right thing ... but those messages are not the Pinocchio story. Pinocchio's story has always, from the beginning, been about how becoming a morally better person is a radical transformation; being accepted as who you are is one thing, but the entire point of Pinocchio being a wooden puppet -- a false imitation of a person -- is that it takes immense effort for him to change and learn and grow, and to understand why the difference between truth and lies, between reality and imitation, matters; that to do those things is the essence of being human and real, and that failure will keep him stuck forever as he is, an ersatz imitation of a human being that will forever fall short of real life.
I haven't seen the film, but nearly all modern adaptations of old children's stories have huge changes from the original. I think particularly of MGM's 1939 The Wizard of Oz movie that completely reversed the original story, turning Dorothy into a petulant teen who needs to be taught a lesson, instead of a sweet young girl who teaches those around her.
I don't doubt that the film similarly has major changes to the original. Still, I question your interpretation of the original as well. You say that being a puppet is at the core of Pinocchio -- but in the story, Pinocchio didn't start out as a puppet. He was a talking piece of wood who caused trouble even before he was made into a puppet, and he even fought with angry Geppetto over how he was carved. It's been ages since I've read the story, and I don't think I have a simple summary of the meaning - but I think Geppetto's fits of rage are an important part of it.
Quote from: jhkim on December 29, 2022, 03:46:59 PMPinocchio didn't start out as a puppet. He was a talking piece of wood who caused trouble even before he was made into a puppet, and he even fought with angry Geppetto over how he was carved. It's been ages since I've read the story, and I don't think I have a simple summary of the meaning - but I think Geppetto's fits of rage are an important part of it.
And in the very first version of Collodi's story, as it was serialized in a magazine, Pinocchio was actually hung and executed for his crimes at the end of Chapter 15, which Collodi intended to be the tragic cautionary finale of the tale. It was his editor who encouraged him to find a way to end the story more suitable to the intended audience of children, and by the time it was published in full and completely as a novel the ending where Pinocchio becomes a better person and a real boy was in place. The death-metamorphosis-rebirth progression is fundamental to the story, and has been in practically every version since.
The one major exception to this before del Toro's film (and I find it a telling one) was the 1936 Russian adaptation
The Adventures of Buratino, by Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy; Tolstoy's version celebrated the defiant behaviour of Buratino (the Pinocchio expy) as exactly the kind of refusal to conform to bourgeois morality that Soviet children were supposed to find admirable, and as a result he didn't transform into a human at the end because he wasn't the one that needed to change. The philosophical congruence between that message and del Toro's is, I think, a little too acute to be coincidental.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on December 30, 2022, 12:12:39 AM
Quote from: jhkim on December 29, 2022, 03:46:59 PMPinocchio didn't start out as a puppet. He was a talking piece of wood who caused trouble even before he was made into a puppet, and he even fought with angry Geppetto over how he was carved. It's been ages since I've read the story, and I don't think I have a simple summary of the meaning - but I think Geppetto's fits of rage are an important part of it.
And in the very first version of Collodi's story, as it was serialized in a magazine, Pinocchio was actually hung and executed for his crimes at the end of Chapter 15, which Collodi intended to be the tragic cautionary finale of the tale. It was his editor who encouraged him to find a way to end the story more suitable to the intended audience of children, and by the time it was published in full and completely as a novel the ending where Pinocchio becomes a better person and a real boy was in place. The death-metamorphosis-rebirth progression is fundamental to the story, and has been in practically every version since.
I've only read the original and seen the 1940 Disney cartoon, so I only have two data points here. I'd agree that metamorphosis/rebirth is kept in the Disney cartoon, but it changes some other major fundamentals. Especially:
1) In the story, Pinocchio is alive and speaks even before he is carved - and he is violent and mischievous from the start. In the cartoon, he is given life by a blue fairy as Gepetto's wish, and is an innocent led astray by temptation.
2) In the story, Gepetto is an angry, violent man who originally wants a talking puppet to make money. In the cartoon, he is a kindly old man who wishes for a son.
I think these amount to a fundamental change of the meaning. Yes, Pinocchio transforms - but the cartoon rewrites Gepetto and invents the Blue Fairy as the good establishment who don't change, which Pinocchio needs to conform to. Also, the tone is very different - and events like when Pinocchio kills the talking cricket with a hammer would be shocking to those only familiar with the cartoon.
In general, I understand getting annoyed when a movie fundamentally changes the story of the book. It has sometimes bugged me in other movie adaptations. But it is also hugely common especially in children's movies, and sometimes if I let go of my expectations from the book, there are a lot of good movies that don't adhere to the book they're based on.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on December 30, 2022, 12:12:39 AM
The one major exception to this before del Toro's film (and I find it a telling one) was the 1936 Russian adaptation The Adventures of Buratino, by Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy; Tolstoy's version celebrated the defiant behaviour of Buratino (the Pinocchio expy) as exactly the kind of refusal to conform to bourgeois morality that Soviet children were supposed to find admirable, and as a result he didn't transform into a human at the end because he wasn't the one that needed to change. The philosophical congruence between that message and del Toro's is, I think, a little too acute to be coincidental.
I haven't seen either del Toro's film or Tolstoy's, so I don't have any strong opinion on this. From the sound of it, the common factor is that they are anti-establishment.
By contrast, Disney is pro-establishment. So Disney fundamentally changed the story to where the father-figure is a kindly good man helped by a purely good fairy - and things like going to school and doing what your parents tell you are unquestionably good. A Soviet film from much later decades might also be more pro-establishment like Disney, just changed to favor the communist establishment.
Watching the Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers movie from earlier this year.
Sort of a modern-day version of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, it is cartoons and humans living and working together. Chip and Dale have fallen on hard times after the show ended, trying to rescue Monterey Jack who got in over his head buying cheese from criminals. Dale got CGI upgrade surgery to try and bring his career back.
...it is fucking crazy. Zipper has been pounding Gadget and they have a great many children, with the results one might expect from a fly and a mouse.
Far better than I expected. They know what they're doing and lean into it. Roger Rabbit shows up.
Quote from: Thornhammer on December 31, 2022, 09:53:05 PM
Watching the Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers movie from earlier this year.
Sort of a modern-day version of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, it is cartoons and humans living and working together. Chip and Dale have fallen on hard times after the show ended, trying to rescue Monterey Jack who got in over his head buying cheese from criminals. Dale got CGI upgrade surgery to try and bring his career back.
...it is fucking crazy. Zipper has been pounding Gadget and they have a great many children, with the results one might expect from a fly and a mouse.
You have got to be fucking shitting me.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 31, 2022, 11:52:08 PM
Quote from: Thornhammer on December 31, 2022, 09:53:05 PM
Watching the Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers movie from earlier this year.
Sort of a modern-day version of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, it is cartoons and humans living and working together. Chip and Dale have fallen on hard times after the show ended, trying to rescue Monterey Jack who got in over his head buying cheese from criminals. Dale got CGI upgrade surgery to try and bring his career back.
...it is fucking crazy. Zipper has been pounding Gadget and they have a great many children, with the results one might expect from a fly and a mouse.
You have got to be fucking shitting me.
No. Hes not. It really is that fucking trash.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on December 28, 2022, 04:11:47 AM
Watched Guillermo del Toro's, sorry, that should be Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio on Netflix tonight, and wishing I could go back to the halcyon days of my youth when I could avoid ruining movies by having to think about what they meant.
Visually, musically and emotionally the thing is utterly spectacular. Philosophically and thematically, it's something of a letdown because del Toro makes the mistake a lot of auteurs make when they decide they want to do their own version of a story: in order to harp on their own preferred message, they change the point of the story so drastically that it really feels like it should just have been a different and original story.
Further discussion is going to involve a lot of spoilers, so last warning here for people who still want to see it to drop out.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
Del Toro's favourite story moral, which you can see in several of his most well-known movies (The Shape of Water most blatantly) is, as he admits in the commentary special, "I am always interested in the outsider ... I thought it was really important to show that you shouldn't have to change to be accepted for who you are." Which manifests, in this film, in the most egregious misunderstanding of the "Pinocchio" story I've ever seen: In this film, Pinocchio does not become a real living human boy at the end of the story in return for learning and practicing good behaviour; instead, he is wished back to life, still as a puppet, by Sebastian the cricket (thus completely obviating the warning Death gives Pinocchio earlier in the film about life being precious because of its brevity and inevitable ending). The biggest arc of moral growth in the film, by contrast, belongs to Geppetto: In this version, Geppetto carved Pinocchio not out of altruistic intent to make a toy children will love (and maybe a little wistful longing for a child he never had), but in a drunken stupor of grief and anger as a replacement for a son lost in an accidental wartime bombing. It ultimately transpires that Geppetto's job is not to teach Pinocchio to be brave, honest and true like Carlo was, but to learn not to try to turn Pinocchio into a copy of Carlo, and to love Pinocchio for who he is. And Pleasure Island, the place where Pinocchio learns the moral danger of running wild and acting like a selfish animal concerned only with your own wants and pleasures, is replaced with a fascist youth training camp (this version of the story being set during Mussolini's rule in WW2) where Pinocchio -- drafted as a potentially immortal and therefore invaluable soldier -- learns the moral danger of mindless obedience and conformity to what leader figures tell you is "good" and "right".
In and of itself I have no problem with the message that it's good to learn to love someone for who they are, regardless of what they may happen to be, or with the message that blind obedience to authority isn't always the right thing ... but those messages are not the Pinocchio story. Pinocchio's story has always, from the beginning, been about how becoming a morally better person is a radical transformation; being accepted as who you are is one thing, but the entire point of Pinocchio being a wooden puppet -- a false imitation of a person -- is that it takes immense effort for him to change and learn and grow, and to understand why the difference between truth and lies, between reality and imitation, matters; that to do those things is the essence of being human and real, and that failure will keep him stuck forever as he is, an ersatz imitation of a human being that will forever fall short of real life. (In the denouement, the film even explicitly depicts Pinocchio inevitably losing all his friends and loved ones to death while he, an immortal puppet, goes on, virtually unchanging, and somehow del Toro wants us to forget the warning of his own Death character and somehow think this is a happy ending?) The trope of redemptive transformation is so utterly fundamental to the Pinocchio character and story arc that if it's abandoned, I honestly think there's no point in keeping the outer trappings that del Toro has such fun reimagining.
Now all that said, as noted before, if all you want is a fantastically depicted stop-motion animation tale with a lot of great music, visuals and performances, this film will not disappoint. But while this thing is less Woke than some modern reimaginings of other stories, there is still a fatal Woke philosophy at the heart of it: It's the world's duty to accept you for who you are despite your differences, even to the extent of simply pretending those differences don't exist if necessary; it's not your duty to learn and grow to become a different and better person, because ultimately that's neither possible nor desirable. In the end, seeing that message ruined it for me.
Thanks for the review. That last paragraph of yours is pretty much right on target as far as my own observations of not only wokeness but also Del Toro. Seriously in Shape of Water we're expected to root for the person who has sex with a creature who seems to have the intelligence of a chimpanzee, while the family man is of course evil. If it were a man masturbating in the bathtub at the beginning and later humping the creature from the black lagoon I don't think he would have expected us to react the same way.
Quote from: Thornhammer on December 31, 2022, 09:53:05 PM
Watching the Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers movie from earlier this year.
Sort of a modern-day version of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, it is cartoons and humans living and working together. Chip and Dale have fallen on hard times after the show ended, trying to rescue Monterey Jack who got in over his head buying cheese from criminals. Dale got CGI upgrade surgery to try and bring his career back.
...it is fucking crazy. Zipper has been pounding Gadget and they have a great many children, with the results one might expect from a fly and a mouse.
Far better than I expected. They know what they're doing and lean into it. Roger Rabbit shows up.
This sounds like the sort of thing that'd be hilarious to watch with a few beers.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 01, 2023, 06:16:25 PM
This sounds like the sort of thing that'd be hilarious to watch with a few beers.
"A couple of margaritas in" certainly helped.
Quote from: Thornhammer on January 04, 2023, 02:49:42 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 01, 2023, 06:16:25 PM
This sounds like the sort of thing that'd be hilarious to watch with a few beers.
"A couple of margaritas in" certainly helped.
The reviews I read after hearing about that bit seem to indicate that the whole thing is taking the piss on the TV show, being set "outside" with the characters being animated actors like in Roger Rabbit.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 04, 2023, 11:54:11 PM
Quote from: Thornhammer on January 04, 2023, 02:49:42 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 01, 2023, 06:16:25 PM
This sounds like the sort of thing that'd be hilarious to watch with a few beers.
"A couple of margaritas in" certainly helped.
The reviews I read after hearing about that bit seem to indicate that the whole thing is taking the piss on the TV show, being set "outside" with the characters being animated actors like in Roger Rabbit.
Very. Its yet another in these damn idiot "Set in the real world" mockeries every single one nearly has been for years now. So its Rodger Rabbit but with the RR crew. They are actors. Jesus Christ why? The synopses reads so hateful towards the show. Also like alot of these things have been.
So, back in the distant past of 2019, WWE Entertainment put together a movie called Fighting with my Family about the life of pro wrestler Paige, starring a then-obscure actress named Florence Pugh.
Fast forward to 2023, and I've become a big fan of Florence Pugh after her work at Marvel, particularly her cameo in the Disney+ series Hawkeye.
So I decided to check out Fighting with my Family and see if it was any good.
It was okay. Pugh is good as Paige, AKA Saraya Bevis, AKA Brittany Knight, despite not looking anything like the real wrestler, and the supporting cast are excellent as well. Well written, well acted, and pretty compelling most of the time.
The problem is they couldn't decide whether to go with the "wrestling is fake" or "wrestling is real" approach. Most of the movie is a behind the scenes view of the life of Paige and her family, who are all wrestlers and carny folk. But they wanted the sports movie ending where our heroine overcomes adversity and wins the big fight. This turns the third reel into a real trainwreck, where they have her going out and winning a wrestling match that is now apparently a real fight that she can win. Despite the rest of the movie establishing pretty clearly how wrestling actually works.
They basically lose the thread of their own storyline, which should have shown her finding her voice and stage persona during her training and apprenticeship in WWE's developmental program NXT, as it actually happened in real life.
In the end, it's not a bad way to spend an evening, but that ending is definitely flawed.
Last night: Everything Everywhere All At Once.
It was a long episode of Rick and Morty with a more positive outlook. Good movie, great cast.
Just caught part of a really weird one. Some sort of British drama about Lenin.
With Patric Stewart as Lenin???
Now I know what Mirror Universe Picard must look like!
Quote from: Omega on February 03, 2023, 06:14:47 AM
Just caught part of a really weird one. Some sort of British drama about Lenin.
With Patric Stewart as Lenin???
Now I know what Mirror Universe Picard must look like!
Reminds me, mildly related, that I need to watch The Death of Stalin.
Apparently it was called Fall of Eagles? An episode called Absolute Beginners from the 70s.
Just saw Kate, because our neighbor wanted an action movie to show off his home cinema system. The system was great, shame about the movie. If you've seen a few action movies you can see every plot twist coming a mile away. But to me, the worst problem was the main actress, who has a problem which is pretty common these days ; she's supposed to be a highly trained assassin, but in the beginning looks like a sensitive girl who works behind a computer and watches her weight, and never did a rough job in her life. That is until she's falling apart from cutting, bruising, and poisoning. The best parts of the movie were little jokes about modern Japanese culture here and there. It may be required watching for Japanophiles.
ANDOR really is quite good, thank you to all who recommended it.
If I had any complaint, it would be that the episodes are too short, I've been watching three half hour episodes a night.
I think we're supposed to get another season of this. There is a second season stub up on IMDB. I look forward to that.
I also watched about half of Thor: Love and Thunder, which was absolute dog shit.
Looks like if there are any more Thor movies they will just kill him off or something else stupid like with Captain America as the actor does not want to do any more.
Quote from: Omega on February 10, 2023, 11:47:24 PM
Looks like if there are any more Thor movies they will just kill him off or something else stupid like with Captain America as the actor does not want to do any more.
There ain't nothing wrong with just letting a franchise wrap up and put it away for a while. But they can't resist beating that dead horse for a few more bucks.
Unfortunately it seems Chris H. is enjoying comedic Thor and he was very into making more of it.
Anyone seen Ant-Man 3?
Quote from: Lurkndog on February 22, 2023, 04:27:14 PM
Anyone seen Ant-Man 3?
Its one part fun and one part agenda not fun. Way more enjoyable than the 2nd Dr Strange movie.
I like the guy they got for Kang. Just did not like how they did Kang. But that is like 75% of my outlook on the movies so par for the course.
For anyone who enjoys sci-fi horror with practical effects and gonzo storylines, I highly recommend Psycho Goreman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG:_Psycho_Goreman). It's very entertaining!
Edit: It's a comedy as well.
Quote from: Omega on February 23, 2023, 07:50:33 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on February 22, 2023, 04:27:14 PM
Anyone seen Ant-Man 3?
Its one part fun and one part agenda not fun. Way more enjoyable than the 2nd Dr Strange movie.
I like the guy they got for Kang. Just did not like how they did Kang. But that is like 75% of my outlook on the movies so par for the course.
It wasn't terrible, and on the positive note, it kept up some fun bits throughout most of it. I liked all the core characters, thanks to great acting from most of the actors -- especially Jonathan Majors as Kang as Omega said, who made the most of what he was given. But the plot and story were very dull and flat. It was full of really tired formula, cliches, and CGI.
Of the recent slate, I thought Shang-Chi and Spider-Man: No Way Home were much better. Quantumania was middling for the recent slate only because there were some really bad ones, like Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness - as Omega said.
Shang Chi was the title slapped on... I have no clue what the hell it was.
I'm gonna say my sentiment runs quite opposite. I considered DSiMoM to be most fun from all 4th Phasers despite obvious shortcomings of scenario.
But honestly I can say one scene of Strange harnessing souls of damned was kinda more interesting thematically and visually than all the rest.
No Way Home I especially considered one of most blatant nostalgia/fan baiting movies I ever watched.
But tbh probably worst of P4 was Black Widow - ultimately bland as fuck.
Quote from: Wrath of God on March 03, 2023, 06:35:39 AM
I'm gonna say my sentiment runs quite opposite. I considered DSiMoM to be most fun from all 4th Phasers despite obvious shortcomings of scenario.
But honestly I can say one scene of Strange harnessing souls of damned was kinda more interesting thematically and visually than all the rest.
No Way Home I especially considered one of most blatant nostalgia/fan baiting movies I ever watched.
But tbh probably worst of P4 was Black Widow - ultimately bland as fuck.
I don't know what the problem is, but Scarlett Johannsen simply cannot carry a movie. I'm not going to state it's entirely her fault, but it seems like every project she's been the lead in just tends to trip and fall on its face.
No way home was blatant fan baiting/service. But guess what...in the entertainment business your NUMBER ONE job is to entertain the people paying your bills (fans)...the sooner satan town remembers that the sooner they can move back to doing their real job, entertaining.
Going back to (near) the beginning. Over the past several days, I showed my five-year-old a series of silent comedies, beginning with "Steamboat Bill, Jr." with Buster Keaton, then "The Kid" with Charlie Chaplin, then the climbing scene from "Safety Last" (Harold Lloyd), then "The Cameraman" (Buster Keaton), "One Week" (Keaton, again), "Sherlock Holmes, Jr." (Keaton), and "The General" (Keaton). These are all available free of charge on YouTube.
She was attentive through most of them, but said "One Week" was her favorite.
"Steamboat Bill, Jr." has the scene where a wall falls on Keaton, but he just happens to be standing just where the window was. In order to maintain believability, that wall weighed enough to kill him. It was a stunt he had done earlier in "One Week".
The story is about a big, burly steamboat captain whose son is coming home, and discovers that his son is a short weakling.
"The Kid" is my favorite Chaplain film. It's first-rate melodrama; heavy-handed on the moralizing initially (comparing an unwed mother to Jesus), but then Chaplain gets accidentally stuck with the titular kid, and the story gets going. Chaplain's character is almost completely destitute, but manages to care for the child for several years. At the climax of the film, Chaplain really sells the terror, hopelessness, and despair of a parent whose child is being taken away by child services.
"Safety Last" is the movie that has the famous image of Harold Lloyd hanging off a tower clock (there is a homage to this in "Back to the Future"; one of Doc Brown's clocks in the opening of the movie is a miniature recreation of this scene, and of course *Christopher*'Lloyd winds up hanging off a clock at the end of that movie). Harold Lloyd is, today, the least known of the three top movie comedians of the era (Chaplin and Keaton being the other two), but at the time, he had the biggest draw at the box office. His stories are usually about a plucky young man who gets in over his head, but through perseverance and a little luck, manages to achieve his goals. In "Safety Last", he leaves his home to go to New York to earn his fortune. He gets a job with a department store, and convinces his boss to hire someone to climb the building as a publicity stunt. Hijinx ensue, and Harold winds up having to climb the building himself. Some breathtaking stunt work, even though it was revealed years later that the clock scene was a stage built atop the building. I didn't see it in the available list, but "Never Weaken" is probably Loyd's second best film.
"The Cameraman" has a really good, deadly fight between Chinese gangs. Also, a monkey. The changing scene at the public pool goes on way too long, though.
"Sherlock Holmes, Jr." has a lot of interesting, innovative camera tricks. It's also the movie where you can watch Buster Keaton breaks his neck in real life (but didn't know it until years later, when his doctor was looking at some X-rays). It's the scene where the water spout knocks him off the train.
"One Week" has a newly married Buster and his bride receiving a gift of land and a house from his uncle. The house is actually a kit, which they have to put together. A rival messes up the instructions. Hilarity follows.
"The General" has Buster as "Johnny Gray", a train engineer on a Georgia railroad, when the Civil War starts. Union spies steal his train, and he proceeds to chase them down.
Quote from: Wrath of God on March 03, 2023, 06:35:39 AM
I'm gonna say my sentiment runs quite opposite. I considered DSiMoM to be most fun from all 4th Phasers despite obvious shortcomings of scenario.
But honestly I can say one scene of Strange harnessing souls of damned was kinda more interesting thematically and visually than all the rest.
No Way Home I especially considered one of most blatant nostalgia/fan baiting movies I ever watched.
But tbh probably worst of P4 was Black Widow - ultimately bland as fuck.
To me, Dr. Strange harnessing damned souls felt like an uncreative rehash of Raimi's prior work from Evil Dead and Army of Darkness, without any effort to work it into the previous Dr. Strange themes and visuals. I loved the first Dr. Strange movie as a creative adaptation of the psychedelic visuals of the comics into live-action movie visuals. Whereas the second felt to me like Raimi lazily falling back on his old tropes.
But obviously preferences differ, and that's fine.
QuoteI don't know what the problem is, but Scarlett Johannsen simply cannot carry a movie. I'm not going to state it's entirely her fault, but it seems like every project she's been the lead in just tends to trip and fall on its face.
Yes. But honestly considering how this film is written and filmed - even Meryl Streep would not help.
QuoteNo way home was blatant fan baiting/service. But guess what...in the entertainment business your NUMBER ONE job is to entertain the people paying your bills (fans)...the sooner satan town remembers that the sooner they can move back to doing their real job, entertaining.
I mean maybe. I was not entertained because it added extra layer of turbo-artificialness to generally quite artificial MCU.
And if that's what the people wants, then I can only hope Hollywood will stop giving that to people, so Hollywood shall bankrupt and The people will be forced to watch old movies and small indie horrors for all eterenity :P
QuoteTo me, Dr. Strange harnessing damned souls felt like an uncreative rehash of Raimi's prior work from Evil Dead and Army of Darkness, without any effort to work it into the previous Dr. Strange themes and visuals. I loved the first Dr. Strange movie as a creative adaptation of the psychedelic visuals of the comics into live-action movie visuals. Whereas the second felt to me like Raimi lazily falling back on his old tropes.
But obviously preferences differ, and that's fine
.
I can kinda see it. But nevertheless I liked it for its own sake (and I watched Army of Darkness looong ago, so I didn't even had it's visuals in mind really).
Quote from: cavalier973 on March 04, 2023, 10:40:16 PM
Going back to (near) the beginning. Over the past several days, I showed my five-year-old a series of silent comedies, beginning with "Steamboat Bill, Jr." with Buster Keaton, then "The Kid" with Charlie Chaplin, then the climbing scene from "Safety Last" (Harold Lloyd), then "The Cameraman" (Buster Keaton), "One Week" (Keaton, again), "Sherlock Holmes, Jr." (Keaton), and "The General" (Keaton). These are all available free of charge on YouTube.
Spite Marriage (1929) is also up on YouTube. Buster Keaton plays an ordinary guy infatuated with an actress, who gets the opportunity to marry her, but it's all a sham to make her old flame jealous. There is a big fight scene on a ship at the end that is pretty good.
Quote from: cavalier973 on March 04, 2023, 10:40:16 PM
Spite Marriage (1929) is also up on YouTube. Buster Keaton plays an ordinary guy infatuated with an actress, who gets the opportunity to marry her, but it's all a sham to make her old flame jealous. There is a big fight scene on a ship at the end that is pretty good.
Thanks; I will check it out. I am surprised I haven't heard of it, before.
Another good Keaton movie is "Seven Chances", where he has to get married by the end of the day to inherit his uncle's (or grandfather's or somebody's) fortune.
Finally sat through the odd little movie Arthur and the Minimois which is based on a series from France. It alternates between live action for the real world and CGI for the fae realm. It has a very Diterlizzi sort of breezy look to it and the dialog is really fast. Like one person finishes a sentence and the next character follows right after sometimes.
The setting is like REALLY chaotic and the whole tale is fantastical. In a way it has a sort of Alice in Wonderland sort of nonesense flow.
It is currently free, with ads, on youtube.
Took my family to see Super Mario this morning. Firstly, the movie is very light and family friendly. It won't be spawning any awkward conversations with the kids. The main downside to the movie is that it plays it very safe. There isn't much surprising or outrageous going on, just a romp through the worlds of the various Super Mario games. It feels that they didn't want to push too hard into a Nintendo Cinematic Universe and that is probably a good idea.
I've heard that people didn't like some of the voice work. Chris Pratt was passable as Mario and Seth Rogan's Donkey Kong wasn't bad but it wasn't good. Jack Black was Jack Black.
I'd put the movie as better than Sonic but nowhere near as good as the original Lego Movie. (I understand that this is a huge range).
I caught up with an old Hong Kong b-movie from the 90's that I hadn't seen.
It is called I Love Maria, and if you can put up with cheap practical effects, it's a lot of fun.
In the Hong Kong of the near future, a gang of master criminals called the Hero Gang commits a daring bank robbery using a 12 foot tall robot called Pioneer-1. Looking like a red Zaku from Mobile Suit Gundam, Pioneer-1 tears through the police in a whirlwind of low-budget destruction.
Meanwhile, Curly, a down-on-his-luck inventor working for the police, encounters a drunk named Whiskey in a bar. Whiskey turns out to be a former member of the Hero Gang who has parted ways with them. When Whiskey gets blackout drunk, Curly takes pity on him and lets him crash on the couch at Curly's apartment.
Back at the Hero Gang's hideout, the gang leader introduces his newest creation, Pioneer-2, a robot made to look exactly like his sister Maria. The gang leader proclaims that Maria will now live forever in robot form. The real Maria is not impressed.
The Hero Gang sends Robot Maria out to get Whiskey. After another madcap action scene, Robot Maria is destroyed when she falls several stories into a giant ventilation fan. When the police show up and try to arrest everyone, Whiskey and Curly flee in Curly's specially built supercar, with Robot Maria on board.
Hiding out in the abandoned orphanage that Whiskey grew up in, Curly repairs Robot Maria and programs her to be good. But the Hero Gang has sent Pioneer-1 to finish them all off, and a series of crazy battles ensues.
I Love Maria is a lot of fun, particularly if you like clever practical effects, and gonzo Hong Kong comedy.The effects are low budget, but they are fun, and you get a lot of them. And the movie runs at a frenetic pace, so there is rarely a dull moment.
Here is a YouTube video that covers I Love Maria as an example of the charm of practical effects.
https://youtu.be/BwJUOFItvjc
I bought the Region 1 blu-ray of I Love Maria off of eBay.
Speaking of. Young Detective Dee is up on YouTibe for free view for now. Some pretty good production values. Was not so keen on the supernatural side. But others may like that.
I saw the first TV series which was very well done Magistrate Dee.
Heads WILL roll.
News that Amazon is going to start firing up production on some MGM properties that have laid low for a bit.
Stargate - movie, then a new TV show. I'm happy to hear this.
Robocop(!) - new TV show, then a movie. I can't see this going any way other than very poorly.
Quote from: Thornhammer on April 14, 2023, 10:53:26 AM
News that Amazon is going to start firing up production on some MGM properties that have laid low for a bit.
Stargate - movie, then a new TV show. I'm happy to hear this.
Robocop(!) - new TV show, then a movie. I can't see this going any way other than very poorly.
My immediate thought was a remake of "Gone With the Wind" and the "Andy Hardy" movies.
Looks like there is going to be a new Green Lantern movie with Will Smith as the John Stewart GL. Looks ok so far.
No longer persona non grata, is he? Interesting.
Quote from: Omega on April 24, 2023, 03:51:16 AM
Looks like there is going to be a new Green Lantern movie with Will Smith as the John Stewart GL. Looks ok so far.
I looked this up. It is an HBO Max show, not a movie and the trailer going around is actually a fan-made trailer.
The Covenant: holy smokes, if you want a well-made, well-acted, nail-biter with no wokeness in sight then this is a good choice. Best movie I've seen this year for sure.
Quote from: Omega on April 24, 2023, 03:51:16 AM
Looks like there is going to be a new Green Lantern movie with Will Smith as the John Stewart GL. Looks ok so far.
Wouldn't it be boring with him just making the same giant open-palm hand construct for the whole movie?
Quote from: Omega on April 24, 2023, 03:51:16 AM
Looks like there is going to be a new Green Lantern movie with Will Smith as the John Stewart GL. Looks ok so far.
Does this mean we can get a proper Deadshot now?
Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 28, 2023, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: Omega on April 24, 2023, 03:51:16 AM
Looks like there is going to be a new Green Lantern movie with Will Smith as the John Stewart GL. Looks ok so far.
I looked this up. It is an HBO Max show, not a movie and the trailer going around is actually a fan-made trailer.
Fucks sake. Missed that then. I am getting so sick if these damn things.
Don't be too hard on yourself, Omega. Anyone could have made that mistake.
And, if Smith is doing an HBO Max series, I'd say he's seeing consequences.
Quote from: Lurkndog on May 06, 2023, 09:05:07 AM
Don't be too hard on yourself, Omega. Anyone could have made that mistake.
And, if Smith is doing an HBO Max series, I'd say he's seeing consequences.
It looks like Will Smith is not attached to the series. The series hasn't announced any casting yet. The fan-made trailer was just a "what if" putting him in that role. Here's what I see about the series:
https://collider.com/green-lantern-series-hbo-max-title/
And here's about the fan trailer:
https://screenrant.com/green-lantern-show-trailer-will-smith-dc-universe-fan/
Quote from: Omega on May 06, 2023, 06:15:04 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 28, 2023, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: Omega on April 24, 2023, 03:51:16 AM
Looks like there is going to be a new Green Lantern movie with Will Smith as the John Stewart GL. Looks ok so far.
I looked this up. It is an HBO Max show, not a movie and the trailer going around is actually a fan-made trailer.
Fucks sake. Missed that then. I am getting so sick if these damn things.
I've seen some astonishingly well done fan trailers. With the advent of video editing software and now AI-driven voice altering? I'm starting to think acting may be a doomed profession, save for live theater.
I hear good things about Guardians of the Galaxy 3. I'm hoping to go see it one of these nights.
Quote from: Lurkndog on May 09, 2023, 12:50:56 PM
I hear good things about Guardians of the Galaxy 3. I'm hoping to go see it one of these nights.
It's OK, but I'm not really into that franchise.
But seriously, why not more people are talking about The Covenant is beyond me.
Quote from: Trond on May 09, 2023, 04:24:49 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on May 09, 2023, 12:50:56 PM
I hear good things about Guardians of the Galaxy 3. I'm hoping to go see it one of these nights.
It's OK, but I'm not really into that franchise.
But seriously, why not more people are talking about The Covenant is beyond me.
I'll talk about it after I've seen it. I'm going on your recommendation here, so it better be good!! ;)
Quote from: rytrasmi on May 09, 2023, 05:15:24 PM
Quote from: Trond on May 09, 2023, 04:24:49 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on May 09, 2023, 12:50:56 PM
I hear good things about Guardians of the Galaxy 3. I'm hoping to go see it one of these nights.
It's OK, but I'm not really into that franchise.
But seriously, why not more people are talking about The Covenant is beyond me.
I'll talk about it after I've seen it. I'm going on your recommendation here, so it better be good!! ;)
;D 👍
Meg 2: The Trench, out this August. In 3D!
Daughter is super excited about this one because she loved the first one. "Can we see it, Dad?"
A) Giant shark movie, so hell yes we can see it.
B) Don't need a B, but Jason Statham jumping a jet ski off a giant wave, getting ready to hit a giant shark with his sword.
The first Meg movie was pretty clearly made for the Chinese market. It was a fine giant shark movie, though.
It will be a sad day when Statham ages out of doing action movies.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 was fun. I doesn't require you to be completely up-to-date with the Marvel She-nematic Universe to understand it and, if there was any wokism in the film, it was hidden enough for me to miss it. Some may point out that the male protagonists are clowns and the female ones are competent and focused; but even being clowns the males are useful and respected. So, no girl boss and idiot men trope in the movie. There are a lot worse things to waste two hours than watching this action-comedy.
James Gunn is a strange guy that managed to make three fun Marvel movies without going full woke, unlike Taika Waititi. Odd that he decided to throw away the best asset DC movies had for his reboot universe, that is, firing Henry Cavill.
Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania is out on Disney+ now.
I own both of the previous Ant-Man movies on Blu-Ray, and love them.
This one got me to ragequit inside of 15 minutes. Will not be buying woke bullshit.
Whats so bad about Quantum Mania?
I know they botched Kang. But they have botched so many characters, especially villains, that I stopped caring.
Got my own copy of Golden Voyage of Sinbad, one of the classic Harryhausen series and John Phillop Law made for a great Sinbad, and Tom Baker is so fun playing the evil wizard.
This has to be the origin of the D&D bat-winged Homunculus.
Quote from: Omega on May 24, 2023, 08:43:51 AM
Got my own copy of Golden Voyage of Sinbad, one of the classic Harryhausen series and John Phillop Law made for a great Sinbad, and Tom Baker is so fun playing the evil wizard.
This has to be the origin of the D&D bat-winged Homunculus.
Love that movie.
One of my friends saw Guardians 3 and let slip that they destroy Wungagore/Counter Earth.
So fuck that. Not seeing the movie. My interest in modern Disney movies and especially its Marvel movies is now less than zero.
I think it's relatively normal in MCU for many elements that served in comics for decades to be one film and kill things. Different nature of the medium I'd say - you never gonna put even 1% of comics content into movie series.
Quote from: Omega on May 24, 2023, 08:35:04 AM
Whats so bad about Quantum Mania?
I know they botched Kang. But they have botched so many characters, especially villains, that I stopped caring.
The thing that set me off was Scott's daughter Cassie being recast and turned into an Antifa goon.
Quote from: Omega on May 24, 2023, 08:43:51 AM
Got my own copy of Golden Voyage of Sinbad, one of the classic Harryhausen series and John Phillop Law made for a great Sinbad, and Tom Baker is so fun playing the evil wizard.
This has to be the origin of the D&D bat-winged Homunculus.
Absolutely one of the finest fantasy films ever made. At the tender age of seven, I developed a painful crush on Caroline Munro that still exists to this day.
7th Voyage of Sinbad was not bad either. Remember going to see Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger at the theater.
Law though in Golden Voyage just felt like he really fit the role.
Quote from: Omega on May 26, 2023, 11:37:11 PM
One of my friends saw Guardians 3 and let slip that they destroy Wungagore/Counter Earth.
So fuck that. Not seeing the movie.
I stopped reading comics in the very late 1990s, so Guardians of the Galaxy is a new thing to me. I didn't have any emotional attachment with these characters and stories. To me, it is just some fun space fantasy adventure. But I know the sentiment, the X-Men films did things that I cannot even understand the reason behind them.
I watched "The Artifice Girl" (why not "Artificial" is explained in the movie). Really, really well made.
First time director. He also wrote the movie, acted in it and edited the final version. It is basically a theatrical play, shot in two rooms and with 90 minutes of pure dialogue - and yet I wasn't bored for a single second (only the ending drags a bit).
The topic, of course, is AIs and their evolution. It is extremely timely, as you can see in the movie the logical evolution of ChatGPT and similar programs (there is already a mod for Skyrim which uses an external AI to generate believable dialogue for NPCs). Strong "Black Mirror" vibes here, which is always a good thing.
The young girl who plays the Artifice Girl is astounding, but all the (very small) cast does a really good job, starting with the director.
Best movie of the year so far, at least for me.
I started watching Yellowstone this week, after YouTube showed me a bunch of clips from the show.
I'm not sorry I bought it, but I'm not 100% on board with it either.
It hits a lot of the same notes as Sons of Anarchy, which I enjoyed for a while until I got tired of the murderous nature of it.
Apologies if there was already discussion of this, I know I'm late to the party.
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds is currently up free on YouTube from Paramont+ with no need to buy in.
So been watching it and have to say. So far been liking it. The first episode dragged a little. Then moved along nicely once they were on the Enterprise.
So far liking the characters, especially Pike and Number One. But the interactions between the characters is surprisingly well done. Uhura is a little off model. But I like her new cadet bouncyness.
5 episodes in and while it can be a little preachy at times. Overall it has been enjoyable where Discovery was the diametric opposite of enjoyable.
Ep 1 gets the ball rolling and gathers the crew.
Ep 2 spotlights Uhura as the Wesley of the series apparently.
ep 3 is not as good as it could have been and is a really lame prejudice is bad episode.
Ep 4 is a good episode. But it follows up on a wha? element of the current history much as Discovery was playing fast and loose with.
Ep 5 is just demented.
So yeah. Some bumps, but overall its pretty good.
Also found out that Disney picked up and rebooted/continues The Quest.
The Quest was a sort of D&D Reality TV show about a group of people brought to a fantasy world to compete in various challenges to become the one true hero and defeat an evil force.
The neat trick was that they played it as a LARP and got a castle and everyone of the NPCs in character and costume. There were also alot of practical effects and some not bad monsters when they showed up.
Disney seems to have bought it up and rebooted it with teens this time. But looks like a near one for one reboot or continuation from the original. Might as well be season 2.
Made it through all 10 episodes of ST: Strange New Worlds.
6 is... interesting. Confusing. But interesting.
7 is very well played and I like the guest character.
8 is just complete wack-o. The cast was having way too much fun with that.
9 was the episode I just did not like at all. This was just one WTF!?!?! after another. No no no fucking morons no!
10 was an interesting twist. Though the ending marred it a bit. Really? Starfleet? Really?
So aside from the all around fuck up of ep 9 and the end of 10. Overall I was pleasantly surprised to find myself liking it. Yeah sure theres bumps and stumbles. But overall it was fun.
Pet peeve! DAMN twirly-whirly spinny fucking starships! The Enterprise is shown maneuvering like a fighter jet and just lacks any sense of mass. I had the same problem with some new Yamato series where the battleships were being treated like fighter jets. argh!
I'm into Season 2 of Yellowstone and souring on it rapidly. Won't be picking up Season 3, maybe it will hit Amazon Prime at some point.
The writing is just very arbitrary. Some characters have total plot armor, and they're the ones that lecture others about their choices.
In the end, while they have a good cast, and occasionally create some compelling drama, the whole thing fails to hold together for me. The Duttons are, by and large, the kind of people who fail in real life because everyone around them soon learns they can't be trusted, and the consequences of their actions inevitably catch up with them.
I'm catching up with "Narcos".
The first season is almost perfect. It is not as good as "The Wire", but the exploration of both the lives of the narcos and of the people fighting them makes for an involving experience. You understand why Colombians looked more fondly at Pablo Escobar (the actor is really good BTW) that at the government. You also see how often becoming a criminal in 1980s Colombia was not a choice but a necessity.
It is very funny to see represented things that make you eyes roll - except that they happened for real! (like "The Cathedral"'s part)
I'm halfway the second season, and it is not as good as the first. The problem is that it drags. I suspect that the producers wanted to tell Pablo Escobar's tale in two seasons but Netflix said "We want three" - resulting in a lot of padding.
Anyway, you can see that serious money was invested in this series. The action scenes are up there with the ones you see in big budget movies. The casting is uniformly good, with people appearing for 10 minutes in a single episode who still make an impression. Yet, I binge-watched the first season but I'm trudging through the second one. I hope that the tale will pick up speed again.
Quote from: Reckall on June 09, 2023, 11:02:11 AM
I'm catching up with "Narcos".
The first season is almost perfect. It is not as good as "The Wire", but the exploration of both the lives of the narcos and of the people fighting them makes for an involving experience. You understand why Colombians looked more fondly at Pablo Escobar (the actor is really good BTW) that at the government. You also see how often becoming a criminal in 1980s Colombia was not a choice but a necessity.
It is very funny to see represented things that make you eyes roll - except that they happened for real! (like "The Cathedral"'s part)
I'm halfway the second season, and it is not as good as the first. The problem is that it drags. I suspect that the producers wanted to tell Pablo Escobar's tale in two seasons but Netflix said "We want three" - resulting in a lot of padding.
Anyway, you can see that serious money was invested in this series. The action scenes are up there with the ones you see in big budget movies. The casting is uniformly good, with people appearing for 10 minutes in a single episode who still make an impression. Yet, I binge-watched the first season but I'm trudging through the second one. I hope that the tale will pick up speed again.
I think Colombia could've done without the hippos, though. :)
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 09, 2023, 02:10:59 PM
Quote from: Reckall on June 09, 2023, 11:02:11 AM
I'm catching up with "Narcos".
The first season is almost perfect. It is not as good as "The Wire", but the exploration of both the lives of the narcos and of the people fighting them makes for an involving experience. You understand why Colombians looked more fondly at Pablo Escobar (the actor is really good BTW) that at the government. You also see how often becoming a criminal in 1980s Colombia was not a choice but a necessity.
It is very funny to see represented things that make you eyes roll - except that they happened for real! (like "The Cathedral"'s part)
I'm halfway the second season, and it is not as good as the first. The problem is that it drags. I suspect that the producers wanted to tell Pablo Escobar's tale in two seasons but Netflix said "We want three" - resulting in a lot of padding.
Anyway, you can see that serious money was invested in this series. The action scenes are up there with the ones you see in big budget movies. The casting is uniformly good, with people appearing for 10 minutes in a single episode who still make an impression. Yet, I binge-watched the first season but I'm trudging through the second one. I hope that the tale will pick up speed again.
I think Colombia could've done without the hippos, though. :)
A fun choice was not to age the actors a day even if the story started in the late 1970s and now we are in 1992. I can understand how is is a cinematic way to simplify production (no need for make up or to change actors every X years). However, by now it is ten years that Escobar's kids are 5 and 10 years old ;D
Quote from: Reckall on June 09, 2023, 11:02:11 AM
Pablo Escobar (the actor is really good BTW)
If you liked Wagner Moura, the Brazilian who plays Pablo Escobar, check the movie that made him in Brazil:
Elite Squad. (Warning: it is very violent, but you are watching
Narcos, so I suppose you won't mind.) José Padilha is the director of the movie and one of the producers of
Narcos.
There's some irony around this film: both the director and Moura are, pardon the politics, left-wing; and the movie was made with the intention of denouncing the brutality of the police special forces portrayed in it. But the Brazilian population was so tired of suffering under the violence of criminals that they transformed Nascimento (Moura's character) in a sort of right-wing hero. An extreme version of Dirty Harry.
Despite that, it is a good movie.
Narcos has the same style as
Elite Squad. I am not sure how a foreigner will take it though.
Pinned down a copy of 7th Voyage of Sinbad.
While not as compelling in some ways as Golden Voyage. The story and effects are surprisingly top notch for movie older than Golden Voyage.
The evil sorcerer was interesting as he really played up the sneaky conniving bastard angle start to finish. High charisma villain to keep fast talking everyone left and right.
Next up is Jack the Giant Killer, an even older Harryhausen movie. Also up free on Youtube for now.
Quote from: zer0th on June 11, 2023, 06:23:50 PM
Quote from: Reckall on June 09, 2023, 11:02:11 AM
Pablo Escobar (the actor is really good BTW)
If you liked Wagner Moura, the Brazilian who plays Pablo Escobar, check the movie that made him in Brazil: Elite Squad. (Warning: it is very violent, but you are watching Narcos, so I suppose you won't mind.) José Padilha is the director of the movie and one of the producers of Narcos.
There's some irony around this film: both the director and Moura are, pardon the politics, left-wing; and the movie was made with the intention of denouncing the brutality of the police special forces portrayed in it. But the Brazilian population was so tired of suffering under the violence of criminals that they transformed Nascimento (Moura's character) in a sort of right-wing hero. An extreme version of Dirty Harry.
Despite that, it is a good movie. Narcos has the same style as Elite Squad. I am not sure how a foreigner will take it though.
I watched both the original and the sequel. A very raw account of the realities of crime and law enforcement in Brasil. It is easy to see how it led to Narcos, with the voice over that connects the points and a very similar style (if anything, they show a situation even worse than Narcos).
I liked both. Not on the level of "City of God" but very well done. I had no problems in understanding the storyline even if some things are a bit glossed over for a foreigner.
If you are interested in a good series about crime in Italy look for "Gomorrah", the series. It is based on a book by an Italian journalist who went undercover in the Southern Italian crime scene - and now lives under police protection.
Came across an unusual UK TV series from the early 80s called In the Labyrinth.
About 3 kids who end up in some caverns and free a wizard. From there they help him recover a magic artifact and deal with the machinations of an evil sorceress as they bounce through various historical period recreations within the cave maze. Really unusual take on things and had never heard of it till now.
Quote from: Omega on June 18, 2023, 01:07:34 AM
Came across an unusual UK TV series from the early 80s called In the Labyrinth.
About 3 kids who end up in some caverns and free a wizard. From there they help him recover a magic artifact and deal with the machinations of an evil sorceress as they bounce through various historical period recreations within the cave maze. Really unusual take on things and had never heard of it till now.
I remember that one from when I was around 10 or so. In the US it was part of a Nickelodeon series called The Third Eye. There were 5 different shows under the overall title: Into the Labyrinth, The Haunting of Cassie Palmer, Under the Mountain, Children of the Stones and The Witches and the Grinnygog.
I think The Haunting of Cassie Palmer was the "rare" one to see aired as I recall seeing all the others multiple times back then, but that one only once. I actually own Children of the Stones on DVD. It is creepy as hell and mostly holds up to this day. I haven't seen any of the others since so not sure how well they held up.
Watching Renfield and enjoying it very much.
Gore is absolutely over the top and hilarious.
Starts out with Nic Cage doing Dracula from the old Universal movie. Black and white and everything.
After watching "Willy's Wonderland" I found a deep and full respect for Nick Cage. The guy was saying yes to everything for a good while to get out of dept...but he was still there to do his job to the best of his ability no matter how low budget or whacky the project.
Quote from: oggsmash on June 21, 2023, 05:38:01 AM
After watching "Willy's Wonderland" I found a deep and full respect for Nick Cage. The guy was saying yes to everything for a good while to get out of dept...but he was still there to do his job to the best of his ability no matter how low budget or whacky the project.
He sure as hell puts in the effort. The only other person who could have made Willy's Wonderland work like that would have been Bruce Campbell back in the day.
Black Mirror 6 episodes:
Joan is Awful: entertaining. Annie Murphy's character reminds me of someone I know, in looks and personality. This makes me more positively inclined towards it than I might otherwise be.
Loch Henry: haven't watched yet. "A dive into true crime mania." My wife has true crime mania. I'm tired of true crime mania. I don't give her shit about it, but I'm skipping this one. I can be talked into it if anyone has a good report.
Beyond the Sea: AY YO. I can't see Aaron Paul in anything without thinking Breaking Bad. This one was FUCKING DARK and had tremendously huge plot holes but I liked it. At least this one is about technology, which cannot be said for...
Mazey Day: This one is the book you throw across the room after yelling profanities.
Demon 79: I liked this one. Heavy-handed on The Message, but fun. Anything using the song Rasputin gets a few extra points.
I'm watching "The Days" on Netflix, the Japanese miniseries about the Fukushima crisis. One would think at once of "Chernobyl" but this series is very different - which is a good thing, because the chain of events was different. Chernobyl was about the price of lying. Fukushima is a bit like "Jurassic Park": the illusion of control.
It starts with the earthquake. It causes a scare but the nuclear power plant is anti-seismic. There are procedures to follow and the technicians act very professionally. The government suspends normal activities to monitor the crisis. The power plant is turned down and everything is under control. For most of the first episode almost nothing happens, which is the point. When the tsunami strikes it is a bolt from the blue (the scene is very well done BTW, with "transparent" special effects; I'm pretty sure that we see what the people who were there saw).
The astounding thing is that there was a tsunami warning, as the epicenter of the earthquake was under the sea, but no one connected the situation at Fukushima with the danger of salt water submerging the station - and killing in a single sweep all the backups that were guaranteeing its "stable" condition. To make things worse, the emergency control center is plunged in the dark too - so no one actually can check what is happening. The situation goes from zero to hell in five minutes. What follows are the efforts to avoid a "Japanese Chernobyl", with the people involved finding themselves always a step behind a devolving situation.
It is interesting to compare "Chernobyl"with "The Days". In the former, the Soviets think that they can avoid a nuclear catastrophe through lies and patriotism. The Japanese have protocols for any kind of contingency - except when they don't know that they haven't... Warmly suggested.
Quote from: Reckall on June 28, 2023, 12:39:48 PM
It is interesting to compare "Chernobyl"with "The Days". In the former, the Soviets think that they can avoid a nuclear catastrophe through lies and patriotism. The Japanese have protocols for any kind of contingency - except when they don't know that they haven't... Warmly suggested.
Bleah. The real-life Chernobyl was a horrible tragedy, but the HBO Chernobyl miniseries was full of fiction to dramatize it as much as possible - and every outlandish fiction is about playing up the danger of radiation.
For example, they made a big subplot where Legasov asks for volunteers for a "suicide mission" to go under the plant to turn valves to drain the pools. This becomes a thrilling scene in darkness, and it is implied that they die of radiation poisoning. In real life, the divers were alive decades later, and they weren't volunteers - they were the people who were on-shift at the time and were just following orders. Here's a description from one of the divers:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/tv/real-life-chernobyl-diver-reveals-what-really-happened-we-walked-quicker-had-no-oxygen-tanks/story-XcexueUl379vFv3viCTvEI.html
This sort of fiction is typical for a lot of movies "based on a true story" -- but when dramatizing nuclear accidents, it has a huge political effect of misinforming the public.
Quote from: jhkim on June 28, 2023, 05:10:23 PM
Quote from: Reckall on June 28, 2023, 12:39:48 PM
It is interesting to compare "Chernobyl"with "The Days". In the former, the Soviets think that they can avoid a nuclear catastrophe through lies and patriotism. The Japanese have protocols for any kind of contingency - except when they don't know that they haven't... Warmly suggested.
Bleah. The real-life Chernobyl was a horrible tragedy, but the HBO Chernobyl miniseries was full of fiction to dramatize it as much as possible - and every outlandish fiction is about playing up the danger of radiation.
Agreed. Absolutely NO ONE in Europe was worried when radiations levels spiked from Scandinavia to Italy. People thought that there was a nuclear war going on or such and moved on. Pripyat, today, is a bustling metropolis.
Quote
For example, they made a big subplot where Legasov asks for volunteers for a "suicide mission" to go under the plant to turn valves to drain the pools. This becomes a thrilling scene in darkness, and it is implied that they die of radiation poisoning.
That misssion didn't look like the comic relief part of the miniseries to me. Anyway, they didn't blindly "follow orders": they were promised that, were they to die as a consequence of the mission, the State would have provided for their families. So, "death" was at least considered as a possible outcome.
And they confirmed how they were lucky to find almost at once reference points down there which allowed for them to go in and out fast. This stroke of luck wasn't a given - it was just that, luck.
Lastly, the series doesn't say that they died. Actually, the last time we see them is when they come out exulting, amid the cheers of their friends.
Quote
This sort of fiction is typical for a lot of movies "based on a true story" -- but when dramatizing nuclear accidents, it has a huge political effect of misinforming the public.
Before the war in Ukraine, the Chernobyl area was one of the main touristic attractions in Europe, with millions of visitors every year. You could visit Pripyat and see how people lived there in 1986, and then do a tour of the nuclear station, see the famous "Elephant Foot" from three meters away and even - if you were quick - take a piece of graphite and put it in your pocket as a souvenir. Let's hope that they will reopen the tour soon.
Quote from: Reckall on June 30, 2023, 01:27:19 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 28, 2023, 05:10:23 PM
For example, they made a big subplot where Legasov asks for volunteers for a "suicide mission" to go under the plant to turn valves to drain the pools. This becomes a thrilling scene in darkness, and it is implied that they die of radiation poisoning.
That misssion didn't look like the comic relief part of the miniseries to me. Anyway, they didn't blindly "follow orders": they were promised that, were they to die as a consequence of the mission, the State would have provided for their families. So, "death" was at least considered as a possible outcome.
And they confirmed how they were lucky to find almost at once reference points down there which allowed for them to go in and out fast. This stroke of luck wasn't a given - it was just that, luck.
Lastly, the series doesn't say that they died. Actually, the last time we see them is when they come out exulting, amid the cheers of their friends.
Here's how the series portrayed it - from the script. In a fictitious scene, Legasov asks permission from the leader of the Soviet Union.
QuoteLEGASOV: Of course we'll need your permission.
GORBACHEV: Permission for what?
LEGASOV: The water in these ducts-- the level of radioactive contamination--
KHOMYUK: They'll likely be dead in a week.
LEGASOV: We're asking your permission to kill three men.
GORBACHEV: Comrade Legasov. All victories inevitably come at a cost. Sometimes we count this cost in rubles. Sometimes we count it in lives.
Then in front of a crowd of workers, they ask for volunteers. They're told that it will give them a lethal dose of radiation. Scherbina then gives a rousing speech.
QuoteSHCHERBINA: This is what has always set our people apart. A thousand years of sacrifice in our veins. And every generation must know its own suffering. I spit on the men who did this. And I curse the price I have to pay. But I am making my peace with it. You make yours. And go into the water. Because it must be done.
Three men volunteer. The script describes them after.
QuoteThree men. Ready to die for what must be done.
Everyone looks at them like they're heroes. Because they already are.
The speeches clearly say that they receive a lethal dose of radiation. ("We're asking your permission to kill three men" and "They'll likely be dead in a week"). It does not imply that they survive the week, let alone live long lives.
---
Along similar lines, Aleksandr Yuvchenko is a mechanical engineer who was working that night. In the movie, he is the one who dramatically walks out to where the reactor has exploded and looks up to see the stars overhead. He then walks back and starts spontaneously bleeding through his uniform all over. his body, and when asked if he needs help, he says "It's over." That's the last we see of him in the series, which clearly suggests that he dies.
I just read a 2004 interview with him. He had major health problems and was over a year in recovery, but he survived.
Again, I'm not saying that it wasn't a huge and harmful disaster. But the series has a ton of blatant fictions about what happened - which are all about making it seem even worse than it was.
It was a huge disaster that killed lots of people. But the movie dramatizes always to make everything worse. Why not use the actual facts for this?
Quote from: jhkim on June 30, 2023, 02:33:51 PM
It was a huge disaster that killed lots of people. But the movie dramatizes always to make everything worse. Why not use the actual facts for this?
You may find useful to listen to the official podcast, where they answer to your very question:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLO79iP69FaZPKaMDoSPAtGdoa3wd3lp9n
Anyway, I stopped using the sentence "I read on the internet..." with my friends in 1996, when the novelty wore off. However "'Chernobyl exaggerates the risks of a nuclear power station going BOOM!' is worth a resurgence.
Quote from: jhkim on June 30, 2023, 02:33:51 PM
The speeches clearly say that they receive a lethal dose of radiation. ("We're asking your permission to kill three men" and "They'll likely be dead in a week"). It does not imply that they survive the week, let alone live long lives.
You're right that the series makes a lot of changes--many small, some not--for drama and clarity, but the end of the last episode does address this point, at least. The show mentions that the men were expected to die but survived, and two of them are even still alive today.
Quote from: Brand55 on July 01, 2023, 11:02:52 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 30, 2023, 02:33:51 PM
The speeches clearly say that they receive a lethal dose of radiation. ("We're asking your permission to kill three men" and "They'll likely be dead in a week"). It does not imply that they survive the week, let alone live long lives.
You're right that the series makes a lot of changes--many small, some not--for drama and clarity, but the end of the last episode does address this point, at least. The show mentions that the men were expected to die but survived, and two of them are even still alive today.
When you have to adapt a storyline when a lot of things either go wrong or can go wrong, and you don't want to lose the narrative focus, you choose some events and make them scarier. This for two reasons first, to convey the amount of pressure that the events put on a lot of people at every level; second, to convey the scariness of the situation. "This was almost scary" doesn't cut it when you have a crisis a minute. "Chernobyl" makes these narrative choices to put the viewer in the state of mind of the people on the field back then - not of the people who now have all the answers.
"Thirteen Days" is another example of pimping up some scare instead of rushing around. No mention is made of the Soviet submarine that was this close to fire a nuclear torpedo against the American fleet chasing it near Cuba. So, they show the low-flying recon missions being fired upon - even if they weren't. Once again the point is to show how a single mistake, or misunderstood event, could have had catastrophic results - while preserving at the same time the paranoia inside the White House that the army people were looking for a war.
Anyway, after each episode of Chernobyl you could listen to the very informative podcast where they explained what they had changed, why, and what happened for real. About sone events they had to make a choice, as they are debated even today. As someone who was a kid living in Europe during the accident I can say that the fear, the lies coming out from Soviet Union (only when the radiation level spiked in places like Scandinavia they admitted that they had "some tiny problem" with a nuclear reactor...) and the idea that something was out of control is Soviet Union are spot on.
Regarding the gravity of what happened, when the Russians invaded Ukraine in February, 2022, they traversed with their tracked vehicles the Chernobyl area and even started to dig trenches there. The radiation levels immediately spiked. Interestingly enough, it seems that the Soviet privates were oblivious of the effects of, you know,
throwing dust in the atmosphere near Chernobyl... Maybe they saw the miniseries and thought that they had exaggerated things.
Quote from: Reckall on July 01, 2023, 09:36:32 AM
'Chernobyl exaggerates the risks of a nuclear power station going BOOM!' is worth a resurgence.
Yep. A better sentence is "Communism/socialism greatly increases the risks of a nuclear power station going BOOM!"
Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 03, 2023, 09:24:36 AM
Quote from: Reckall on July 01, 2023, 09:36:32 AM
'Chernobyl exaggerates the risks of a nuclear power station going BOOM!' is worth a resurgence.
Yep. A better sentence is "Communism/socialism greatly increases the risks of a nuclear power station going BOOM!"
Technically we also had Three-mile Island and Fukushima, so that's two to one for Capitalism. Unless we count the K-19 too.
I can talk more about the fictionalizations of the series, but I think a big part of this is about different views of what the reality is.
Quote from: Reckall on July 03, 2023, 09:10:11 AM
As someone who was a kid living in Europe during the accident I can say that the fear, the lies coming out from Soviet Union (only when the radiation level spiked in places like Scandinavia they admitted that they had "some tiny problem" with a nuclear reactor...) and the idea that something was out of control is Soviet Union are spot on.
I believe that as a child, you were very afraid. When I was a kid, I also had a lot of nuclear fears as well. However, I feel that now, nearly 40 years later -- it is important to collect true facts and base our future plans on what
actually happened -- rather than trying to recreate the fears and misunderstandings of the time.
As I grew up, I went from having nuclear fears to eventually getting a PhD in particle physics. I had no fear of what was happening in my lab, because I understood it, but even back then in the mid-1990s, I still thought nuclear power worries were roughly reasonable -- because I assumed that the media reports were a little biased, but they wouldn't blatantly lie.
Later on, particularly after Fukushima, I at first was taken in by the panic. However, then I started reading more critically, and I was stunned at how much blatant misinformation and sensationalizing was happening in the media around nuclear power. A nuclear accident was a goldmine for selling people clickbait stories, and the more I read, the angrier I got. That prompted me to go back and read up more on the rest of nuclear power reporting, and I found that they were also riddled with blatant lies.
For me, the biggest misconceptions that I had were about the levels of radiation being discussed and what the health effects really are. As a physicist, I understood a lot about how radiation worked - but I used to still fall for stories that played up dangers.
Quote from: Reckall on July 03, 2023, 09:10:11 AM
Regarding the gravity of what happened, when the Russians invaded Ukraine in February, 2022, they traversed with their tracked vehicles the Chernobyl area and even started to dig trenches there. The radiation levels immediately spiked. Interestingly enough, it seems that the Soviet privates were oblivious of the effects of, you know, throwing dust in the atmosphere near Chernobyl... Maybe they saw the miniseries and thought that they had exaggerated things.
As with almost any war reporting, I would be very careful in the stories one gets. In this case, the reports of Russian soldiers digging trenches and falling over from radiation sickness are based on
Ukrainian state agency reports. They also reported that the Russian military panicked and almost rioted in an effort to get out of there.
Quote"This morning, the invaders announced their intentions to leave the Chernobyl nuclear power plant to Ukrainian station personnel. It was confirmed that the occupiers, who seized the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and other facilities in the Exclusion Zone, marched in two columns towards the Ukrainian border with the Republic of Belarus."
The company said Russian soldiers built fortifications in the nearby Red Forest, referring to the area as the "most polluted in the entire Exclusion Zone."
"So it is not surprising that the occupiers received significant doses of radiation and panicked at the first sign of illness. And it manifested itself very quickly. As a result, almost a riot broke out among the military, and they began to gather from there," the statement reads.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/03/31/ukraine-russian-soldiers-leaving-chernobyl/1071648751478/
I don't have objective information on what happened here, but I can clearly see that a Ukrainian state agency has reason to portray Russian soldiers as incompetent, getting sick, panicking, and almost rioting. I would consider this result very low reliability for that reason.
---
I feel like the charged politics around Chernobyl cause massive controversy over this, and people often get misconceptions about the Chernobyl exclusion zone. The most obvious source about the effects of living there is the people who have done so.
While the exclusion zone was subject to an evacuation, there were over a thousand residents who moved back to their homes in defiance of the evacuation order - mostly older women. There was a 2015 documentary by Holly Morris called "The Babushkas of Chernobyl" who interviewed these women. Morris suggests that anecdotally, the women who stayed in the exclusion zone have generally outlived their neighbors who stayed away -- not that they haven't suffered any health effects, but it's possible that the health effects of uprooting people from their lives was worse. There aren't enough statistical controls for them to be a good scientific sample, but it's enough to dispel some myths, at least.
Quote from: Reckall on July 03, 2023, 11:38:20 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 03, 2023, 09:24:36 AM
Quote from: Reckall on July 01, 2023, 09:36:32 AM
'Chernobyl exaggerates the risks of a nuclear power station going BOOM!' is worth a resurgence.
Yep. A better sentence is "Communism/socialism greatly increases the risks of a nuclear power station going BOOM!"
Technically we also had Three-mile Island and Fukushima, so that's two to one for Capitalism. Unless we count the K-19 too.
Three Mile Island isn't even in the same ballpark in terms of 'disaster'.
Fukushima is an example of 'when Mother Nature decides to scratch, you better not be in the way of her fingers'.
Chernobyl was the direct result of the Soviet system deliberately suppressing dangerous flaws in the RBMK reactor design.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 03, 2023, 04:32:03 PM
Quote from: Reckall on July 03, 2023, 11:38:20 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 03, 2023, 09:24:36 AM
Quote from: Reckall on July 01, 2023, 09:36:32 AM
'Chernobyl exaggerates the risks of a nuclear power station going BOOM!' is worth a resurgence.
Yep. A better sentence is "Communism/socialism greatly increases the risks of a nuclear power station going BOOM!"
Technically we also had Three-mile Island and Fukushima, so that's two to one for Capitalism. Unless we count the K-19 too.
Three Mile Island isn't even in the same ballpark in terms of 'disaster'.
Fukushima is an example of 'when Mother Nature decides to scratch, you better not be in the way of her fingers'.
Chernobyl was the direct result of the Soviet system deliberately suppressing dangerous flaws in the RBMK reactor design.
Yep. But that won't stop the pearl-clutchers from needing their fainting couch...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 03, 2023, 07:26:10 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 03, 2023, 04:32:03 PM
Quote from: Reckall on July 03, 2023, 11:38:20 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 03, 2023, 09:24:36 AM
Quote from: Reckall on July 01, 2023, 09:36:32 AM
'Chernobyl exaggerates the risks of a nuclear power station going BOOM!' is worth a resurgence.
Yep. A better sentence is "Communism/socialism greatly increases the risks of a nuclear power station going BOOM!"
Technically we also had Three-mile Island and Fukushima, so that's two to one for Capitalism. Unless we count the K-19 too.
Three Mile Island isn't even in the same ballpark in terms of 'disaster'.
Fukushima is an example of 'when Mother Nature decides to scratch, you better not be in the way of her fingers'.
Chernobyl was the direct result of the Soviet system deliberately suppressing dangerous flaws in the RBMK reactor design.
Yep. But that won't stop the pearl-clutchers from needing their fainting couch...
As long as the pearls are made of potassium iodine...
So, I finally got a chance to watch Guardians of the Galaxy 3.
Short review: Good, but not as good as 1 or 2.
This one starts out with Peter wallowing in his unrequited love for Gamora, whose timeline got reset in Avengers: Endgame, and came back in "hate everyone" mode. Then Nowhere is attacked by a returning character from GOTG 2 and we spend most of the movie doing a series of flashbacks to Rocket's origin story, which is unpleasant. Finally everything comes together and the Guardians spend the last reel kicking ass on the High Evolutionary, the big bad and Rocket's creator.
Putting Rocket Raccoon into The Space Island of Doctor Moreau in Space makes the latter better, because Rocket is awesome, but it doesn't make it good.
Paradoxically, focusing the movie on Rocket's back story gives us less Rocket, because he spends most of the movie suffering through his origin.
When the movie is firing on all cylinders it is as good as any of the Guardians movies, but it just isn't firing on all cylinders the whole movie through. Also, there is a ton of creepy nightmare fuel, so maybe don't bring the kids. Seriously, this one probably deserved an R rating.
I'm not sorry I watched it, and I plan to buy the blu-ray, but there were things I could have done without.
Have you guys noticed the recent reactions to Sound of Freedom?
I saw it over the weekend. It's very well made, possibly the most effective movie I've seen covering such a dark topic as child kidnapping and trafficking.
But several media giants (or former giants) such as CNN, the Guardian, and Rolling Stone decide to focus on "links to Qanon", based mostly on the fact that the makers are conservative Christians, the main actor possibly believing a bit in the conspiracy fringe in some ways.
But oh boy, this does not paint the media in a good light, and you have to wonder what made them take this route.
Quote from: Trond on July 11, 2023, 03:13:18 PM
Have you guys noticed the recent reactions to Sound of Freedom?
I saw it over the weekend. It's very well made, possibly the most effective movie I've seen covering such a dark topic as child kidnapping and trafficking.
But several media giants (or former giants) such as CNN, the Guardian, and Rolling Stone decide to focus on "links to Qanon", based mostly on the fact that the makers are conservative Christians, the main actor possibly believing a bit in the conspiracy fringe in some ways.
But oh boy, this does not paint the media in a good light, and you have to wonder what made them take this route.
There's a reason saying "OK, groomer!" gets you an instant ban on most social media. Because they are...
Quote from: Trond on July 11, 2023, 03:13:18 PM
Have you guys noticed the recent reactions to Sound of Freedom?
Sound of Freedom was the #1 movie again yesterday, so the media attacks seems to be having the opposite effect.
BTW Indy 5 dropped to third place. Crazy.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 11, 2023, 05:43:45 PM
Quote from: Trond on July 11, 2023, 03:13:18 PM
Have you guys noticed the recent reactions to Sound of Freedom?
Sound of Freedom was the #1 movie again yesterday, so the media attacks seems to be having the opposite effect.
Good on the media then, they're attacking it for a good cause! ;D
I saw Mission Impossible 7 yesterday. While it is too long and the premises is a bit silly, the action scenes are well done, mostly logical, and they don't look like they filmed the whole thing in front of a green screen. If you like the previous ones, you'll like this one.
I've been on a disaster movie kick on HBO Max (it comes with our internet).
Know1ing was pretty good. Nicholas Cage was Nicholas Cage, so you know what to expect from that part. But the rest of it was a really neat premise with a nice ending.
Moonfall was really good. The family relationships stuff in the first half was kind of rough, but played really well into the second half for character motivation. Second half was way better than the first half. It felt like maybe the writers had the point from where they launched the shuttle and worked backwards from there. Again, really neat premise too.
The Last Days on Mars was not so good. How can you make a movie about
Spoiler
zombies
on Mars and make it boring? Way to much strobe-light and unfocused action. Some really good scenes snuck in here and there. Nothing really bad, it just didn't hold my interest.
The Sound of Freedom is really good - and the media reactions are truly baffling, to the point that they condemn the movie for things that are not even in it.
Remember: these are the same outlets who defended "Cuties", a film that I watched and made me to shower because I felt dirty (not to mention that it was a bad movie in the first place).
Quote from: Tod13 on July 13, 2023, 01:09:13 PM
Moonfall was really good. The family relationships stuff in the first half was kind of rough, but played really well into the second half for character motivation. Second half was way better than the first half. It felt like maybe the writers had the point from where they launched the shuttle and worked backwards from there. Again, really neat premise too.
The idea behind "Moonfall" was truly awesome. The problem I had is that we are told about it in a summary made by a NPC. The movie should have been about the characters... dunno, going back in time and discovering the truth bit by bit. The idea was straight out from the Golden Age of Science Fiction: made me live through it instead of getting a ten minutes summary of the plot.
Quote from: Reckall on July 14, 2023, 06:24:34 AM
Quote from: Tod13 on July 13, 2023, 01:09:13 PM
Moonfall was really good. The family relationships stuff in the first half was kind of rough, but played really well into the second half for character motivation. Second half was way better than the first half. It felt like maybe the writers had the point from where they launched the shuttle and worked backwards from there. Again, really neat premise too.
The idea behind "Moonfall" was truly awesome. The problem I had is that we are told about it in a summary made by a NPC. The movie should have been about the characters... dunno, going back in time and discovering the truth bit by bit. The idea was straight out from the Golden Age of Science Fiction: made me live through it instead of getting a ten minutes summary of the plot.
That would have been a different movie about different events. And way longer. It would be a good sequel or mini series though. I'd definitely watch it if they made it.
But the summary method doesn't bother me if done well, and I thought this one was done well. YMMV. (And looks like it does. LOL)
Just finished Greenland - comet destroys the Earth disaster.
I wonder about the stability of Greenland during an asteroid strike. The dino-killer strike activated a lot of volcanic activity, and Greenland is already pretty active because of plate tectonics. But good movie. There were good people, bad people, and just plain people in it.
Disney's cast of "dwarves" for Snow White movie.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F0_7Vw9X0AM3B6f?format=jpg&name=medium)
Quote from: DocJones on July 14, 2023, 02:21:50 PM
Disney's cast of "dwarves" for Snow White movie.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F0_7Vw9X0AM3B6f?format=jpg&name=medium)
It looks like an extremely low budget comedy flick from the 1970s
Cant be any weirder than casting the Beetles as hobbits for the unfilmed live action Lord of the Rings movie.
Quote from: Omega on July 15, 2023, 05:31:00 AM
Cant be any weirder than casting the Beetles as hobbits for the unfilmed live action Lord of the Rings movie.
Yes that would have been odd, but it totally can be weirder.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs now have a Snow White who isn't white and dwarfs who aren't dwarfs (with one small exception 😄)
So the title should have been something like Senorita and the Seven Weirdos
Quote from: Trond on July 16, 2023, 02:20:11 PM
Quote from: Omega on July 15, 2023, 05:31:00 AM
Cant be any weirder than casting the Beetles as hobbits for the unfilmed live action Lord of the Rings movie.
Yes that would have been odd, but it totally can be weirder.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs now have a Snow White who isn't white and dwarfs who aren't dwarfs (with one small exception 😄)
So the title should have been something like Senorita and the Seven Weirdos
https://nypost.com/2023/07/15/disneys-live-action-snow-white-under-fire-for-replacing-seven-dwarfs/
QuoteIt's not the only modernization that the film has made, as it was announced earlier that there will be no Prince Charming coming to save a lost Snow White, but instead focus more on the main character following her leadership dreams.
"It's an 85-year-old cartoon, and our version is a refreshing story about a young woman who has a function beyond 'Someday My Prince Will Come.'"
There isn't a rolleyes big enough for this garbage.
#1. The fairy tale existed before Disney adapted it, so it's more than 85 years old.
#2. This isnt' "refreshing", it's the new, old, tired "woke" tropes that have tried to replace good storytelling with terrible storytelling and "diversity" signalling.
#3. Fairy tale dwarfs are not human beings with dwarfism.
#4. I only care because the only entertainment value in these pieces of film-crap is in mocking them.
Quote from: Trond on July 16, 2023, 02:20:11 PM
Quote from: Omega on July 15, 2023, 05:31:00 AM
Cant be any weirder than casting the Beetles as hobbits for the unfilmed live action Lord of the Rings movie.
Yes that would have been odd, but it totally can be weirder.
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs now have a Snow White who isn't white and dwarfs who aren't dwarfs (with one small exception 😄)
So the title should have been something like Senorita and the Seven Weirdos
So...odd thing there her name is literally snow white because of her very fair skin right? I get that people want "representation" but why the fork remake classic tales with clearly defined characters into something else....just WRITE YOUR OWN STORY WITH THE NEW DIVERSE PERSON and be done with it.
Quote from: oggsmash on July 16, 2023, 06:29:24 PM
So...odd thing there her name is literally snow white because of her very fair skin right? I get that people want "representation" but why the fork remake classic tales with clearly defined characters into something else....just WRITE YOUR OWN STORY WITH THE NEW DIVERSE PERSON and be done with it.
Outrage marketing. The equivalent of clickbait.
They know people will complain and that will drive up attendance. Free advertising.
Quote from: Omega on July 17, 2023, 05:38:57 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on July 16, 2023, 06:29:24 PM
So...odd thing there her name is literally snow white because of her very fair skin right? I get that people want "representation" but why the fork remake classic tales with clearly defined characters into something else....just WRITE YOUR OWN STORY WITH THE NEW DIVERSE PERSON and be done with it.
Outrage marketing. The equivalent of clickbait.
They know people will complain and that will drive up attendance. Free advertising.
It seems to have stopped working. About time really.
Quote from: oggsmash on July 16, 2023, 06:29:24 PM
So...odd thing there her name is literally snow white because of her very fair skin right? I get that people want "representation" but why the fork remake classic tales with clearly defined characters into something else....just WRITE YOUR OWN STORY WITH THE NEW DIVERSE PERSON and be done with it.
I agree. I'm not a Disney fan, but I've seen some - and I thought original works like Moana and Coco was far better than their rehashed live-action remakes.
---
That said, I think the originality angle is weird for fairy tales -- because the whole point of fairy tales is adapting them to the different times and places. The Brothers Grimm version of the story in 1812 used the title of "Snow White", but they were giving their own twist on versions of a folk tale that had been around for centuries, and was constantly retold with different names and other elements. Her snow white skin is not a constant. Here are some variations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Slave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrsina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nourie_Hadig
I think there's some argument for keeping to the source material for original works like Pinnochio (written by Carlo Collodi in 1881) or Mary Poppins (written by P. L. Travers in 1934). But fairy tales are by their nature constantly rewritten in different forms. Disney's versions of fairy tales has generally mangled them far from their version by the Brothers Grimm -- The Little Mermaid is quite different -- but the Brothers Grimm were just retelling stories that were constantly twisted on their own.
Quote from: jhkim on July 17, 2023, 06:47:55 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on July 16, 2023, 06:29:24 PM
So...odd thing there her name is literally snow white because of her very fair skin right? I get that people want "representation" but why the fork remake classic tales with clearly defined characters into something else....just WRITE YOUR OWN STORY WITH THE NEW DIVERSE PERSON and be done with it.
I agree. I'm not a Disney fan, but I've seen some - and I thought original works like Moana and Coco was far better than their rehashed live-action remakes.
---
That said, I think the originality angle is weird for fairy tales -- because the whole point of fairy tales is adapting them to the different times and places. The Brothers Grimm version of the story in 1812 used the title of "Snow White", but they were giving their own twist on versions of a folk tale that had been around for centuries, and was constantly retold with different names and other elements. Her snow white skin is not a constant. Here are some variations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Slave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrsina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nourie_Hadig
I think there's some argument for keeping to the source material for original works like Pinnochio (written by Carlo Collodi in 1881) or Mary Poppins (written by P. L. Travers in 1934). But fairy tales are by their nature constantly rewritten in different forms. Disney's versions of fairy tales has generally mangled them far from their version by the Brothers Grimm -- The Little Mermaid is quite different -- but the Brothers Grimm were just retelling stories that were constantly twisted on their own.
Except, you disingenuous twat, Disney isn't changing the story to be creative or to be "original." They are changing them to incorporate the criticism of woke ideologues (not shared by their audience) in an attempt to push their twisted neo-Marxist-derived critical-theory-based culture. No one objects to the dwarves (an actual mythological entity) except the woke, and Disney is changing the story for them. It is a purely political change.
I'M GLAD THEY CHANGED THE TITLE OF THE FILM TO RELFECT THE CASTING. (https://media.tenor.com/5qNvubNAc28AAAAC/sarcasm-sarcasm-sign.gif)
I think that many people misunderstood this movie. The actress who plays "Snow White" is of Colombian origins. This is Disney's version of "Narcos".
Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 17, 2023, 07:40:57 PM
Quote from: jhkim on July 17, 2023, 06:47:55 PM
I think there's some argument for keeping to the source material for original works like Pinnochio (written by Carlo Collodi in 1881) or Mary Poppins (written by P. L. Travers in 1934). But fairy tales are by their nature constantly rewritten in different forms. Disney's versions of fairy tales has generally mangled them far from their version by the Brothers Grimm -- The Little Mermaid is quite different -- but the Brothers Grimm were just retelling stories that were constantly twisted on their own.
Except, you disingenuous twat, Disney isn't changing the story to be creative or to be "original." They are changing them to incorporate the criticism of woke ideologues (not shared by their audience) in an attempt to push their twisted neo-Marxist-derived critical-theory-based culture. No one objects to the dwarves (an actual mythological entity) except the woke, and Disney is changing the story for them. It is a purely political change.
I agree. It's a purely political move. I didn't intend to imply otherwise.
Disney has always been about twisting to try to profit from current politics - like releasing "Song of the South" in 1949 and then pulling it so that no one could see it a few decades later. And editing _Fantasia_ to bowdlerize it, which is even more annoying.
What bugs me about their live-action remakes is that they are clearly low-creativity rehashes, with little creative vision, because they're purely trying to sell to parents who liked the original cartoon taking their kids who won't watch lo-fi cartoons. I find them completely pointless exercises in moneymaking that just make the original worse.
But I don't think they should do it with less changes. I'd prefer they simply not do remakes at all, or if they must, they should have
more changes and re-interpret the fairy tale in a new way - just like fairy tales have done for centuries.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 17, 2023, 07:40:57 PM
Except, you disingenuous twat, Disney isn't changing the story to be creative or to be "original." They are changing them to incorporate the criticism of woke ideologues (not shared by their audience) in an attempt to push their twisted neo-Marxist-derived critical-theory-based culture. No one objects to the dwarves (an actual mythological entity) except the woke, and Disney is changing the story for them. It is a purely political change.
The 2012 movie, 'Snow White and the Huntsman', is already a live action movie and far more creative twists than any of Disney's remakes.
They didn't include LGBTQ2S+ or BIPOC. They did make Snow White into a bit of a girl boss though.
Quote from: jhkim on July 18, 2023, 06:21:58 PM
What bugs me about their live-action remakes is that they are clearly low-creativity rehashes, with little creative vision, because they're purely trying to sell to parents who liked the original cartoon taking their kids who won't watch lo-fi cartoons. I find them completely pointless exercises in moneymaking that just make the original worse.
But I don't think they should do it with less changes. I'd prefer they simply not do remakes at all, or if they must, they should have more changes and re-interpret the fairy tale in a new way - just like fairy tales have done for centuries.
The live action Aladdin had the interesting idea that the Genie became mortal, and was telling the tale to his family I think? I thought that was a really neat idea, and made me wish they'd gone even further.
Yes, the live actions could have been a chance to tell the stories in new ways, with new details, but instead they're regurgitated cut and pastes of the cartoon versions, now with more Woke garbage nonsense for clickbait value.
Eh.
Are the Disney live action remakes informed at all by the Broadway musical versions of the stories?
There is a new Justified series on TV: Justified: City Primeval. The first two episodes aired last night on F/X, but they will probably repeat them during the week.
It's somehow 15 years since the end of the previous series, and Raylan Givens now has a 15 year old daughter, played by his real daughter Vivian Olyphant. He winds up in Detroit, assisting a police investigation into threats against a corrupt judge.
I've only watched the first episode. So far it is not as immediately great as Justified, but it is certainly watchable. It is good enough that I'll give it a chance to improve.
One change in this one is that in corrupt Detroit, Raylan is suddenly the honest one. We'll see how well that works, in the original he was the problem child of the US marshalls' office.
Unfortunately, it seems that none of the supporting cast from the previous series came back for this one. This hurts the show somewhat, as Raylan doesn't have normal straight-arrow types to play off of. There is a new flashy bad guy, but so far he's no Boyd Crowder.
Anyway, I say check it out and see what you think.
I forgot about the new Justified series, thanks for the reminder.
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 19, 2023, 08:23:18 AM
Are the Disney live action remakes informed at all by the Broadway musical versions of the stories?
As far as I can recall, the Beauty and the Beast live-action movie took nothing from the Broadway musical. I haven't seen the others and don't see any summary of that from brief search.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 19, 2023, 01:28:31 AM
Quote from: jhkim on July 18, 2023, 06:21:58 PM
What bugs me about their live-action remakes is that they are clearly low-creativity rehashes, with little creative vision, because they're purely trying to sell to parents who liked the original cartoon taking their kids who won't watch lo-fi cartoons. I find them completely pointless exercises in moneymaking that just make the original worse.
But I don't think they should do it with less changes. I'd prefer they simply not do remakes at all, or if they must, they should have more changes and re-interpret the fairy tale in a new way - just like fairy tales have done for centuries.
The live action Aladdin had the interesting idea that the Genie became mortal, and was telling the tale to his family I think? I thought that was a really neat idea, and made me wish they'd gone even further.
Yes, the live actions could have been a chance to tell the stories in new ways, with new details, but instead they're regurgitated cut and pastes of the cartoon versions, now with more Woke garbage nonsense for clickbait value.
I agree it was a neat idea -- but it didn't have any impact on the movie since the movie was set on hitting the same beats as the original - so that was a impactless side plot. Likewise, the live action made Jasmine more concerned about ruling her father's kingdom, but that also didn't go anywhere.
It seems to me that the live-action adaptations are set on sticking closely to the beats of the original cartoon, to go for the safe bet of drawing in parents who loved the original cartoon, dragging along their kids who would mostly prefer to be playing their video games or similar.
Quote from: Lurkndog on July 19, 2023, 09:05:01 AM
There is a new flashy bad guy, but so far he's no Boyd Crowder.
Watched the first episode. Walton Goggins brings joy to everything he's in, and this suffers distinctly from a lack of Baby Billy Freeman.
Not bad, though. Olyphant is great as always.
Still pissed off about Santa Clarita Diet getting cancelled.
Weird one just came across.
Invisible Avenger from 1958.
Arguably one of the most off the wall The Shadow adaptions ever. Looks to be updated to the 50s of New Orleans and in this Lamont Cranston never dons a costume. Instead he can turn invisible and a sort of shadow.
Also while looking up that one came across Tōmei Ningen Arawaru: The Invisible Man Appears from 1949. A Japanese take on the Invisible Man by HG Wells. Feels more like an adaption of the Claud Rains movie though.
Then from that found Tōmei Ningen: Invisible Man from 1954 which is about not one but two invisible men in Japan.
Quote from: Omega on July 20, 2023, 04:55:17 AMArguably one of the most off the wall The Shadow adaptions ever. Looks to be updated to the 50s of New Orleans and in this Lamont Cranston never dons a costume. Instead he can turn invisible and a sort of shadow.
Interesting that this film was made long after The Shadow had dropped out of pulps and after the radio drama was cancelled. Of course, today we are used to properties from 20 or 30 years ago constantly getting revived.
I watched the second episode of Justified: City Primeval last night.
I was genuinely afraid for Willa at the end of the episode. I wasn't sure if the showrunners were going to try and shock the audience.
I'm not liking Raylan hitting on Corrupt Attorney. He doesn't have great judgement when it comes to women, but she is clearly dirty. It is unlikely that he's trying to pull a Captain Kirk and charm her into switching sides. I think it is just what it appears to be.
Clement Mansell is turning out to be an interesting bad guy.
Just FYI, this is apparently loosely based on an Elmore Leonard book called City Primeval: High Noon in Detroit. The book is not a Raylan story. It apparently featured a homicide detective named Raymond Cruz, who gets namedropped in Episode 2 of the show.
Edit: It does not appear to be based on the book Raylan Goes To Detroit, written by Elmore Leonard's son Peter Leonard.
I've only watched the first episode so far; I'm hoping to get to the second tonight. So far I'm liking it but the cast outside of Raylan is a huge downgrade from the original series. His daughter needs some sense knocked into her after that courtroom scene, and I was annoyed by a lot of the side characters, especially the judge and defense attorney. The thought of them trying to force a romance between Raylan and the female attorney kinda sucks, IMO. The villain may be no Boyd Crowder but I think his character could be really interesting by the end of the miniseries, so I'm holding out hope for him to impress me. Acting overall is really good so far, which I expected.
Other than that, I don't really have any expectations as I'm not familiar with the book that this miniseries is based on.
Came across a series of movies from Japan in the 1930s into the 50s starring the actress Takako Irie in a series of movies usually titled Ghost Cat. In each she plays a woman who one way or another either draws the ire of spirits or uses them for revenge or other purposes.
The first came across was Kaibyō nazo no shamisen, AKA: The Ghost Cat and the Mysterious Shamisen from 1938. About an actress who's obsession with a Shamisen player leads to murder and the formation of a spirit monster. Another was Kaibyo oumagatsuji Ghost Cat of Ouma Crossing from 1954 about a murdered woman's spirit possessing a cat and exacting revenge.
Great sources for adventures in D&D's Kara-Tur and Call of Cthulhu's Japan.
Apparently these movies go back to the silent era of Japanese film.
LOL
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1rMu4vXoAMVQbH?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Quote from: DocJones on July 23, 2023, 03:47:38 PM
LOL
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1rMu4vXoAMVQbH?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Snow White looks like she works at Taco Bell.
Quote from: Omega on July 22, 2023, 05:54:32 AM
Came across a series of movies from Japan in the 1930s into the 50s starring the actress Takako Irie in a series of movies usually titled Ghost Cat. In each she plays a woman who one way or another either draws the ire of spirits or uses them for revenge or other purposes.
The first came across was Kaibyō nazo no shamisen, AKA: The Ghost Cat and the Mysterious Shamisen from 1938. About an actress who's obsession with a Shamisen player leads to murder and the formation of a spirit monster. Another was Kaibyo oumagatsuji Ghost Cat of Ouma Crossing from 1954 about a murdered woman's spirit possessing a cat and exacting revenge.
Great sources for adventures in D&D's Kara-Tur and Call of Cthulhu's Japan.
Apparently these movies go back to the silent era of Japanese film.
Old movies are often extremely informative for creating pulp-era settings. One example I found recently is the Chinese movie Street Angels from 1937. I was a bit surprised that it contains a reference to the Three Stooges. There's also a bouncing ball above the lyrics of the female lead's first song. Was the audience expected to sing along?
Quote from: Rhymer88 on July 24, 2023, 07:48:25 AM
Quote from: DocJones on July 23, 2023, 03:47:38 PM
LOL
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1rMu4vXoAMVQbH?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Snow White looks like she works at Taco Bell.
I told it from the beginning. It is all a big misunderstanding. "Snow White" is Disney's verion of Narcos. "Sicario" by Denis Villeneuve only with a female baddie. "Snow White" is actually a DEA agent undercover, of course. The very best of them all. She literally infiltrated the top - something which miffes "The Evil Queen" cartel. The result is a war between drug dealers (part of "Snow White" plan, of course: having the drug lords - er, ladies - to fight between themselves).
I thinkl that we will be in for a pleasant surprise. I can't wait for the legendary "How dare you come into this castle and bark at me like some little junkyard dog? I am PRINCE CHARMING!" "How do YOU dare, Sir!" scene!
Another odd BBC series from the mid 70s called The Changes. This one has a pretty weird premise that out of the blue large swaths of the population spontaneously cannot stand the presence of technology and are compelled to destroy it. The series follows a girl who travels the weird new society that develops where anyone suspected of using or harboring tech is deemed a witch or demon and hunted and killed. Rather unexpected ending after 10 episodes.
Quote from: Omega on July 26, 2023, 06:19:40 PM
Another odd BBC series from the mid 70s called The Changes. This one has a pretty weird premise that out of the blue large swaths of the population spontaneously cannot stand the presence of technology and are compelled to destroy it. The series follows a girl who travels the weird new society that develops where anyone suspected of using or harboring tech is deemed a witch or demon and hunted and killed. Rather unexpected ending after 10 episodes.
Interesting. I immediately thought of the food riots (which weren't about food, but boredom, ennui, etc) in An Enemy of the State by F Paul Wilson. I could see the constant pressures of available to work all the time, never-off, always-on causing people to turn on technology in general. It beats learning self control I guess. LOL ;D
Third episode of Justified: City Primeval is kind of a letdown.
The storyline between Raylan and his daughter just dropped dead. He doesn't seem willing to punish his daughter when she's openly disobeying him, and being a menace to herself. And they make like it's his fault. At least he's doing the right thing and getting her to safety, assuming she doesn't ditch her mom and get on a bus back to Detroit. I want Raylan to say something like "I can't keep you safe when you disobey me, and you make stupid decisions that put you in danger." It is possible that Raylan just doesn't want to turn into his own father, unfortunately he doesn't have a supporting cast that he can talk to about his personal life.
As for Mansell, his scenes with the Albanian come across like the True Crime version of Dumb and Dumber.
I can only hope that things get back on track at some point and the show redeems itself.
The whole thing with Willa just feels entirely unnecessary. I can't help but feel like the series would have been much better off if she'd just been left out or had a brief cameo in the first (or last) episode so we could get a glimpse of Raylan's private life. There's gotta be some way Willa comes back into the story, but for the life of me I have no idea how to work that in and have it feel natural and sensible.
I think the highlights of episode 3 for me were the interactions Raylan had with Maureen. Raylan has always struggled mightily with balancing a private life and work, so it was interesting to see her perspective. I still miss Tim and Rachel, but Maureen and Wendell are good replacements. Sadly, Norbert is a one-dimensional buffoon, but I guess you can't win 'em all.
Quote from: Tod13 on July 26, 2023, 07:21:48 PM
Quote from: Omega on July 26, 2023, 06:19:40 PM
Another odd BBC series from the mid 70s called The Changes. This one has a pretty weird premise that out of the blue large swaths of the population spontaneously cannot stand the presence of technology and are compelled to destroy it. The series follows a girl who travels the weird new society that develops where anyone suspected of using or harboring tech is deemed a witch or demon and hunted and killed. Rather unexpected ending after 10 episodes.
Interesting. I immediately thought of the food riots (which weren't about food, but boredom, ennui, etc) in An Enemy of the State by F Paul Wilson. I could see the constant pressures of available to work all the time, never-off, always-on causing people to turn on technology in general. It beats learning self control I guess. LOL ;D
There are a few of these YA shows from the BBC that touch on similar themes of societal collapse. One I recall from way back but can not remember the name, was about something causing every adult on Earth to just vanish one day and the kids coping with this disaster afterwards. Think it has been adapted at least twice.
And one about a space station that exiles some kids to a post apoc earth. Think thats been done at least twice too.
Then of course there is The Tripods. Which was rather nicely done.
Well... Hollywood lives down to my expectations yet again and ruins a glimmer of hope.
Saw season 2 of ST: Strange new Worlds and its just progressively unwatchable. For me the final breaking point was the crossover with Lower Decks which proves just how much contempt they have for the franchise.
Quote from: Omega on July 27, 2023, 12:42:31 PM
Well... Hollywood lives down to my expectations yet again and ruins a glimmer of hope.
Saw season 2 of ST: Strange new Worlds and its just progressively unwatchable. For me the final breaking point was the crossover with Lower Decks which proves just how much contempt they have for the franchise.
After 14 years of terrible Trek, anyone still watching has no one to blame but themselves.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 27, 2023, 04:13:07 PM
Quote from: Omega on July 27, 2023, 12:42:31 PM
Well... Hollywood lives down to my expectations yet again and ruins a glimmer of hope.
Saw season 2 of ST: Strange new Worlds and its just progressively unwatchable. For me the final breaking point was the crossover with Lower Decks which proves just how much contempt they have for the franchise.
After 14 years of terrible Trek, anyone still watching has no one to blame but themselves.
Eh. The first season of Strange New Worlds was overall pretty good. Some low points like all the Gorn nonesense. But otherwise pretty watchable. Season 2. No.
I watched on Netflix "Mr. Car and Knights Templar". It is adaptation of one the adventure books about Polish "Indiana Jones" and I watched it because I am Pole and read the books as a kid. So... totally not recommend. For not-Polish viewers fact that it is next "in name only" pseudoadaption is probably not important - but it is just very weak movie in itself.
eh. It happens all to often. Sometimes all an "adaption" retains is the title and maybe a few place names or character names.
Quote from: Omega on July 28, 2023, 02:20:55 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 27, 2023, 04:13:07 PM
Quote from: Omega on July 27, 2023, 12:42:31 PM
Well... Hollywood lives down to my expectations yet again and ruins a glimmer of hope.
Saw season 2 of ST: Strange new Worlds and its just progressively unwatchable. For me the final breaking point was the crossover with Lower Decks which proves just how much contempt they have for the franchise.
After 14 years of terrible Trek, anyone still watching has no one to blame but themselves.
Eh. The first season of Strange New Worlds was overall pretty good. Some low points like all the Gorn nonesense. But otherwise pretty watchable. Season 2. No.
I've heard Season 3 of Picard was fairly good too. But I'm at the point where I don't want to wade though a bunch of garbage for a few passable episodes. I haven't watched any Trek since the 09 film, except out of the corner of my eye when my brother watches something. He seems to enjoy this season of SNW so that tells you something about his taste in entertainment. :P
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 29, 2023, 02:07:31 AM
I've heard Season 3 of Picard was fairly good too. But I'm at the point where I don't want to wade though a bunch of garbage for a few passable episodes. I haven't watched any Trek since the 09 film, except out of the corner of my eye when my brother watches something. He seems to enjoy this season of SNW so that tells you something about his taste in entertainment. :P
Season 3 is certainly better than Season 1 (I didn't even bother to watch Season 2). It's not spectacular, but I generally found it in keeping with TNG, although I must admit that I'm by no means an expert on that series.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 29, 2023, 02:07:31 AMI've heard Season 3 of Picard was fairly good too. But I'm at the point where I don't want to wade though a bunch of garbage for a few passable episodes.
That is a good attitude. Picard wasn't just bad. It was a concerted insult. Is season 3 the most spectacular apology in fiction? Is it so good it makes seasons 1-2 vital because they are a requirement to now apreciate an even better show?
If not, it's returning to the restaurant that spits in your food in front of you as long as the refrain from doing it every once in a while.
Media fans are addicts.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 29, 2023, 02:07:31 AM
I've heard Season 3 of Picard was fairly good too. But I'm at the point where I don't want to wade though a bunch of garbage for a few passable episodes.
Its pretty good in the same way Jaws 3D is pretty good compared to Jaws 2.
Quote from: Rhymer88 on July 24, 2023, 09:13:27 AM
Old movies are often extremely informative for creating pulp-era settings. One example I found recently is the Chinese movie Street Angels from 1937. I was a bit surprised that it contains a reference to the Three Stooges. There's also a bouncing ball above the lyrics of the female lead's first song. Was the audience expected to sing along?
Humphrey Bogart made a movie called
Tokyo Joe in 1949 that is in most ways a Casablanca knockoff: worldly American winds up in exotic postwar Tokyo to pick up the pieces of his prewar life, encounters old friends and enemies, etc. But the location footage they shot of Tokyo in 1949 is fascinating. Tokyo is still rebuilding from being firebombed and knocked flat, but here and there you can see bits of modern Tokyo emerging from the ruins. Like there is a brief shot of the grassy field by the side of a canal that every anime character goes to after school.
Great reference for a 1950s game.
Justified: City Primeval isn't getting better. It has moved to Tuesday nights now. It's an eight episode season, so only four more to go. I might as well keep watching, but I can already see the future plot twists coming (act surprised when Raylan's daughter returns).
Maybe she brings some acting ability back with her.
The Righteous Gemstones season finale was damn near perfect.
Baby Billy's Bible Bonkers was everything I hoped it could be.
Quote from: Thornhammer on August 02, 2023, 09:41:24 PM
Maybe she brings some acting ability back with her.
This is her first real acting job, she's been OK. I do wish she could have kept her accent from wandering.
I'm rewatching The Big Bang Theory. I know that many despise the series (which is normal when something is succesful) but to me every episode is like hanging out with a group of friends.
Also, I disagree with those who think that the series derides man-childs who still play D&D and debate about Wonder Woman vs. Spock. First, every time the characters do something "nerdy" I immediately want to do the same thing. Second, you can see TBBT as a series that either offends nobody or that offends everybody - Penny and the rest of the girls included - thus showing how, actually, it is important for each one of us to be different is his own way.
I didnt like it because I just did not find it funny. I didnt like Seinfeld either. I really do not like Lower Decks or Vox Machina.
I liked BBT. Like all shows, after a while, the schtick gets old, and the writers run out of good ideas and so I kinda just drifted away. But it was fun while it lasted.
Show wasn't perfect, some of the "jokes" were just "Aren't nerds silly?" but some were great and I enjoyed it just fine.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on August 03, 2023, 05:01:18 PM
I liked BBT. Like all shows, after a while, the schtick gets old, and the writers run out of good ideas and so I kinda just drifted away. But it was fun while it lasted.
Show wasn't perfect, some of the "jokes" were just "Aren't nerds silly?" but some were great and I enjoyed it just fine.
I think that the stories went South in the final seasons but I still liked some of the writing and the performance of all the actors - including guest stars.
The "Sheldon and Amy get married" storyline, for example, dragged and dragged - but the episode of the actual marriage was a display of fireworks. Kathy Bates, Teller, Mark Hamill out of the blue... and no one was there to simply collect a paycheck (it was Hamill's idea to show that he is clueless about Star Wars, because this is true IRL).
Recurring characters like the head of Caltech were always sparkling ("I can't wait to know nothing about this" - a line that has become part of my vocabulary ;D )
And, looking at the dialogue structure with my screenwriting eye I can only admire how they made stale gags fresh again because most of the humor was based on the unexpected. An example I think I'll use in my next seminary is this one between Amy and Sheldon:
AMY: I can't believe how Theoretical Physicists of their intelligence can behave like children.
SHELDON: Come on! It happens everywhere, even between you Neurobiologists!
AMY: Why... you know the name of some Neurobiologist?
SHELDON: Er... No...
AMY (furious):NOT EVEN MINE?!
...Which is an arrow which strikes from an unexpected direction - and yet it arrives after a logical build up. Everything is interlocked, sometimes across a whole episode.
And the actors did their best until the end. As I said, it was like hanging out with a group of friends, even if not every evening was perfect.
Anyway, while rewatching it I started to think how it was one of the last shafts of light before wokeness hit. As I said, you can see TBBT as a show that offends everybody. Today it would have no hope.
Quote from: Reckall on August 03, 2023, 01:33:09 PM
I'm rewatching The Big Bang Theory. I know that many despise the series (which is normal when something is succesful) but to me every episode is like hanging out with a group of friends.
Also, I disagree with those who think that the series derides man-childs who still play D&D and debate about Wonder Woman vs. Spock. First, every time the characters do something "nerdy" I immediately want to do the same thing. Second, you can see TBBT as a series that either offends nobody or that offends everybody - Penny and the rest of the girls included - thus showing how, actually, it is important for each one of us to be different is his own way.
BBT is one of the few sitcoms I can stand.
Most sitcoms straight-up trigger me when I see the plot points about to arrive, and I always see them before they occur. It's not so much intelligence on my part, as simple pattern recognition.
BBT hits differently enough that I don't get triggered. I also like that most of the characters are fallible, but still likeable.
I do wish they had worked in some more of the geek social fallacies, like wanting to live like a college student forever. In particular, I think if Howard had shifted more towards focusing on his kid instead of his own interests, and grown into the role of a dad, it would have given him a better story arc. (It's possible they did some of that, I only watched a sprinkling of the last couple of seasons.)
Quote from: Reckall on August 03, 2023, 01:33:09 PM
I'm rewatching The Big Bang Theory. I know that many despise the series (which is normal when something is succesful) but to me every episode is like hanging out with a group of friends.
Also, I disagree with those who think that the series derides man-childs who still play D&D and debate about Wonder Woman vs. Spock. First, every time the characters do something "nerdy" I immediately want to do the same thing. Second, you can see TBBT as a series that either offends nobody or that offends everybody - Penny and the rest of the girls included - thus showing how, actually, it is important for each one of us to be different is his own way.
I loved the first season but lost interest fairly quickly after. My wife watched all the seasons even though she hated that Sheldon-girlfriend woman.
Anyway, I think the nerd humor is good fun. Never understood people who got offended (and I think they came in two varieties; people who felt like it made too much fun of geeks, and people who felt that the characters were -ists and -phobes)
Anybody else watching Twisted Metal? I'm 1.5 episodes in, and I like it enough that I'll keep going tomorrow.
I'm finally getting around to watching Stranger Things Season 4. They've still got it.
The trailers coming out for Ahsoka have definitely grabbed my attention. Live action Star Wars Rebels seems like might be even better than it was in animation. Rebels had budget limitations that at times held them back, particularly in areas like music and sound engineering.
RIP Johnny Hardwick, King of the Hill's Dale Gribble.
This one hit a hell of a lot harder than I expected.
Quote from: Lurkndog on August 12, 2023, 09:39:15 AM
I'm finally getting around to watching Stranger Things Season 4. They've still got it.
The trailers coming out for Ahsoka have definitely grabbed my attention. Live action Star Wars Rebels seems like might be even better than it was in animation. Rebels had budget limitations that at times held them back, particularly in areas like music and sound engineering.
I thought season 4 was sort of trash. I enjoyed Eddie, but the idea of the alternate dimension being created by another version of 11 sort of fell into a very tired, very old very dumb trope of having the super hero face a version of themselves with same powers but opposed world view. Damn near EVERY super hero origin movie/comic has this as a trope and I thought it was pretty bad turn of story. Now having someone like that allied with whatever runs the dark dimension I think would be a much better story. The other trope...hero loses powers must regain them...is also a tired, old and stupid arc. 11's arc is learning to be around people and control her powers to not mash anyone who annoys her, not to lose and regain them in some weird attempt at a classic hero arc (her arc is already done on that end with her time spent in the institution).
I feel like season 4 was a bit of retcon and smelled a whole lot like a path someone like JJ Abrams would take instead of using the creativity the show started with and running with it (a true alternate dimension where real evil exists and attempts to penetrate our world). I will watch season 5 because I have seen all the other seasons...but I can not help but feel the writers and creators turned a good deal of their story choices strongly towards decisions by committee (we have to have a mixed race relationship, we need a lesbian, we will shoehorn a character into being a closeted gay boy in love with his childhood friend, etc) that is ruled by Rules of Current Year instead of just creative energy.
I also guess coming out on top over the Russian Terminator must have been worth 1000000 xp for Hopper, because he leveled up like a big boss being able to now kill a monster that battle rifle armed squads of men couldnt deal with in melee combat.
Took kids to see The Meg 2.
It is about two hours long. Multiple megalodons, a kraken, and some other lizard dinosaur thing.
Underwater power exoskeletons, but they don't see a lot of fighting action.
A good deal of silliness - you're going to have to handwave concerns about descent time, ascension time, decompression. But this is a movie about zillion year old giant sharks, if you go in expecting hard science you're going in with the wrong attitude.
Starts out fun, gets dull, then improves. When you hear Wu Jing mention the words "roughly translates to Fun Island" it kicks up into high gear for the rest of the movie.
Critics are savaging it. I'm not going to claim it is a masterpiece. But my kids had a blast, and I thought it was fun. Lot of people get et by sharks, or a giant squid, or small dinosaurs, or having a suit breached at a depth of Holy Shit That's Deep. The plot is fairly predictable. Wu Jing isn't bad (and his filmography sounds like something I need to check out), Page Kennedy is pretty good, Sergio Peris-Mencheta is entertaining, and Jason Statham is always fun.
If you like giant shark movies, this one is fun.
That's pretty much how the first Meg was, and I enjoyed it.
It was nice seeing Masi Oka getting some work, he was also in Bullet Train recently, which is similar entertaining nonsense.
Watching Day Shift on Netflix.
Jaime Foxx is a part time pool cleaner, part time vampire hunter. With Snoop Dogg.
Do you like John Wick? Because this isn't "kinda like" John Wick, this is John Wick plus vampires (even has Peter Stormare) and minus a little taking itself seriously.
It works. It works well. It does not fuck around before getting to a good vampire fight.
Book related this time:
Cleaning out storage and came across not one, but two collections of Lord Dunsany stories. One being a collection of 50 short stories and the other being at least 20 more with illustrations by Sime. Published in the early 70s.
Quite an interesting collection and I see now why people compare his and Lovecraft's writing. They both have a very evocative way with prose. Difference being Dunsany seems to favor fantasy settings in the ones I am reading so far. Some are hyper-short covering only a page or two. Others are far longer.
And one of the stories is "How Nuth would have practiced his art upon the Gnoles"
I remember a collection of various weird short stories, one of which was "The Hoard of the Gibbelins." That has stuck with me for decades.
Lord Dunsany does not fuck around.
On another topic: Knock at the Cabin. Didn't go quite as I had thought. Red herrings abound. Still worth a watch!
Quote from: Thornhammer on August 21, 2023, 11:46:49 PM
I remember a collection of various weird short stories, one of which was "The Hoard of the Gibbelins." That has stuck with me for decades.
Lord Dunsany does not fuck around.
That is in the collection as well. Just finished reading it.
Dunsany sounds pretty great. Any suggestions for a good edition? Are the Penguin Classics editions from before they started doing woke edits to the texts of books?
Quote from: Lurkndog on August 22, 2023, 02:18:21 PM
Dunsany sounds pretty great. Any suggestions for a good edition? Are the Penguin Classics editions from before they started doing woke edits to the texts of books?
The two I have are "Gods, Men and Ghosts. This one is 34 of his longer pieces including The Hoard of the Gibblins and How Nuth Would have Practiced his Art upon the Gnoles. And "The Distressing Tale of Thongobrind the Jeweler and the Doom that Befell him" This one I liked alot as it feels like a high level Thief in action.
The other is The Food of Death, which is 51 very short stories. Many about a page long.
Of the two I'd say go for Gods, Men and Ghosts as it has the more meaty reads, I have only glanced through Food of Death so far. Kat had "The Mist" bookmarked in Food of Death.
THE MIST
The mist said unto the mist: "Let us go up into the Downs." and the mist came up weeping.
And the mist went into the high places and the hollows.
And clumps of trees in the distance stood ghostly in the haze.
But I went to a prophet, one who loved the Downs, and said to him: "Why does the mist come up weeping into the Downs when it goes into the high places and the hollows?"
And he said "The mist is the company of a multitude of souls who never saw the Downs, and now are dead. Therefore they come up weeping into the Downs, who are dead and never saw them.
Quote from: Lurkndog on August 02, 2023, 08:39:01 PM
Justified: City Primeval isn't getting better. It has moved to Tuesday nights now. It's an eight episode season, so only four more to go. I might as well keep watching, but I can already see the future plot twists coming (act surprised when Raylan's daughter returns).
I didn't think it wrapped up too badly.
The last ten minutes or so of the final episode brought immense joy.
Came across an old anime rendition of Wizard of Oz.
Looks good and seems to swing between wanting to follow the movie, and wanting to follow the books.
Quote from: Omega on September 01, 2023, 02:26:45 PM
Came across an old anime rendition of Wizard of Oz.
Looks good and seems to swing between wanting to follow the movie, and wanting to follow the books.
Sounds interesting. Got a link?
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 02, 2023, 01:20:44 AM
Quote from: Omega on September 01, 2023, 02:26:45 PM
Came across an old anime rendition of Wizard of Oz.
Looks good and seems to swing between wanting to follow the movie, and wanting to follow the books.
Sounds interesting. Got a link?
Here is a link to the first episode. Its a bit slow to get to Oz. But gives a idea of the style and tone.
While finding that one came across another from a few years prior in 82 as a movie. Not so keen on the dub so did not poke too far through it.
Quote from: Omega on September 02, 2023, 05:26:30 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 02, 2023, 01:20:44 AM
Quote from: Omega on September 01, 2023, 02:26:45 PM
Came across an old anime rendition of Wizard of Oz.
Looks good and seems to swing between wanting to follow the movie, and wanting to follow the books.
Sounds interesting. Got a link?
Here is a link to the first episode. Its a bit slow to get to Oz. But gives a idea of the style and tone.
While finding that one came across another from a few years prior in 82 as a movie. Not so keen on the dub so did not poke too far through it.
Ah. TY!
The greatest Dungeons and Dragons movie of all time. Of course I'm talking about The Hobbit, by Rankin Bass.
Kevin Sorbo's Mythica movies were pretty good. They *felt* like D&D sessions, in a good way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythica_(film_series) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythica_(film_series))
Quote from: Omega on September 02, 2023, 05:26:30 PM
Here is a link to the first episode. Its a bit slow to get to Oz. But gives a idea of the style and tone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbm3yuOhBm4
While finding that one came across another from a few years prior in 82 as a movie. Not so keen on the dub so did not poke too far through it.
I suspect they don't have rights to the movie, so they don't take anything too distinctive from it, but they do borrow themes like Dorothy being a wistful daydreamer. To me, it feels like the worst of both worlds.
The 1939 movie went completely contrary to the book in making Dorothy into a petulant young teenager and all her adventures just a dream -- but at least it was consistent in its vision.
Yes. I mentioned it swings between.
Still hunting for a copy of Journey Back to Oz from Filmation. Pretty unusual sort of sequel. Liza Minelli did pretty good as Dorothy if recall right. Been a few decades.
Just saw the Last Voyage of the Demeter. This one didn't work for me (nor my wife). It was actually quite predictable, perhaps except for one death. Without revealing too much, Dracula himself is remarkably bland. A more minor thing is that the voyage is set in 1897, but everything seems older. Sure, I guess the ship is old, but the guns too? The hero was a black man, so of course we got some lessons in racism. The woman on the ship is also the most willing to take action and use the guns to any effect. Yay Hollywood, never seen that before. ::)
Junior wanted to watch Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem.
I enjoyed the hell out of it, despite early misgivings. Nobody phoned it in, the animation didn't get on my nerves, and not once in ever have I been saddened to have Giancarlo Esposito in anything.
Lot of fun. Diverts the origin story away from the Marvel Universe, but it all still works.
Quote from: Thornhammer on September 22, 2023, 11:47:53 PM
Junior wanted to watch Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem.
Lot of fun. Diverts the origin story away from the Marvel Universe, but it all still works.
TMNT is a Mirage product, or least was once. Marvel did some sideline comics once though. Think Image or IDW has it now?
A Haunting In Venice:
I actually enjoyed this one, definitely better than Death on The Nile. It has a spooky mood, some intricately interlinked murders, and less annoying CGI than the other recent Poirot movies. The acting was a bit variable (some good, some so-so) but I generally liked it! Bonus: the "murder weapon" of the first death (as it is revealed in the end) is something I have tested myself..... (insert ghost sounds here)
The Creator
This one was a mixed bag; very nice cinematography and special effects among things I liked. Many scenes were well done in mood and music and so on.
But oh boy is it predictable. One of the most predictable movies I've seen. Also, it feels manipulative: the people who support the robots are also the ones that are more spiritual (many robots are wearing Buddhist garb) willing to live in harmony, and in touch with nature (somehow). In contrast USA (which still exists) is shown as stern,militaristic, and cruel. I'll let you guess who the bad guys are, because who wants to spoil that impenetrable mystery? 😄
Been poking at some old Russian movies as I have the original Solaris movie on VHS and was looking for a replacement.
One came across is "Per Aspera Ad Astra, AKA: Через тернии к звёздам, AKA: Through the Thorns to the Stars from 1981 Soviet from a story by Kir Bulychov.
Its a rather oddball sci-fi movie about an alien woman found on a derelict space craft and brought back to Earth. There is a rather neat sequence where they are exploring the zero-G interior and to simulate this they must have filmed it under water. The first part of the movie deals with the alien girl, who has a rather interesting appearance, and her many unusual powers. After that the story takes to space and another world in trouble and apparently the girl's homeworld. It feels very Young Adult Fiction in tone. Lots of interesting camera tricks used in it.
Quote from: Trond on October 01, 2023, 09:59:44 AM
The Creator
This one was a mixed bag; very nice cinematography and special effects among things I liked. Many scenes were well done in mood and music and so on.
But oh boy is it predictable. One of the most predictable movies I've seen. Also, it feels manipulative: the people who support the robots are also the ones that are more spiritual (many robots are wearing Buddhist garb) willing to live in harmony, and in touch with nature (somehow). In contrast USA (which still exists) is shown as stern,militaristic, and cruel. I'll let you guess who the bad guys are, because who wants to spoil that impenetrable mystery? 😄
Shocking that hollywood would make an Anti American movie.... I have noticed they have a pretty disturbing trend to be anti human and anti American at every turn they can manage it. I wonder where that strange sentiment originates? Intellectual hubris? I guess they see themselves as so far above average people (and Average people are the Humans=Americans at large= inferior brutish beings) they just have outright contempt at this point for people. Maybe they always did, it just seems to be very naked these days.
Quote from: oggsmash on October 03, 2023, 10:13:15 AM
Quote from: Trond on October 01, 2023, 09:59:44 AM
The Creator
This one was a mixed bag; very nice cinematography and special effects among things I liked. Many scenes were well done in mood and music and so on.
But oh boy is it predictable. One of the most predictable movies I've seen. Also, it feels manipulative: the people who support the robots are also the ones that are more spiritual (many robots are wearing Buddhist garb) willing to live in harmony, and in touch with nature (somehow). In contrast USA (which still exists) is shown as stern,militaristic, and cruel. I'll let you guess who the bad guys are, because who wants to spoil that impenetrable mystery? 😄
Shocking that hollywood would make an Anti American movie.... I have noticed they have a pretty disturbing trend to be anti human and anti American at every turn they can manage it. I wonder where that strange sentiment originates? Intellectual hubris? I guess they see themselves as so far above average people (and Average people are the Humans=Americans at large= inferior brutish beings) they just have outright contempt at this point for people. Maybe they always did, it just seems to be very naked these days.
My "favorite" is one many people didn't notice: The Shape of Water.
We're supposed to sympathize with a horny woman who has sex with a monster that has an intelligence apparently comparable to a chimpanzee*, and the evil guy is of course a normal family father.
*I somehow doubt that the audience would follow along if it were a horny man who is first seen masturbating in the bathtub and then humping a monster.
New Takeshi's Castle on Amazon.
THE NOSTALGIA. Fun.
Quote from: Trond on October 04, 2023, 06:57:40 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on October 03, 2023, 10:13:15 AM
Quote from: Trond on October 01, 2023, 09:59:44 AM
The Creator
This one was a mixed bag; very nice cinematography and special effects among things I liked. Many scenes were well done in mood and music and so on.
But oh boy is it predictable. One of the most predictable movies I've seen. Also, it feels manipulative: the people who support the robots are also the ones that are more spiritual (many robots are wearing Buddhist garb) willing to live in harmony, and in touch with nature (somehow). In contrast USA (which still exists) is shown as stern,militaristic, and cruel. I'll let you guess who the bad guys are, because who wants to spoil that impenetrable mystery? 😄
Shocking that hollywood would make an Anti American movie.... I have noticed they have a pretty disturbing trend to be anti human and anti American at every turn they can manage it. I wonder where that strange sentiment originates? Intellectual hubris? I guess they see themselves as so far above average people (and Average people are the Humans=Americans at large= inferior brutish beings) they just have outright contempt at this point for people. Maybe they always did, it just seems to be very naked these days.
My "favorite" is one many people didn't notice: The Shape of Water.
We're supposed to sympathize with a horny woman who has sex with a monster that has an intelligence apparently comparable to a chimpanzee*, and the evil guy is of course a normal family father.
*I somehow doubt that the audience would follow along if it were a horny man who is first seen masturbating in the bathtub and then humping a monster.
I did not watch that movie (trailer told me exactly what you summarized there) but I think you certainly hit the nail on the head with a movie that encapsulates that line of thinking in Hollywood. I think its just full of damaged people who produce things that are heading towards un relatable for non damaged people. I guess the sorts of things one has to do to become a producer of material (writer/director/starring actor/etc) there leave you damaged. I wont be sad when that insane asylum is no longer the big influence on American Culture.
Quote from: Trond on October 04, 2023, 06:57:40 PM
My "favorite" is one many people didn't notice: The Shape of Water.
We're supposed to sympathize with a horny woman who has sex with a monster that has an intelligence apparently comparable to a chimpanzee*, and the evil guy is of course a normal family father.
*I somehow doubt that the audience would follow along if it were a horny man who is first seen masturbating in the bathtub and then humping a monster.
That was that odd lighthouse movie and some people complained about they guy getting into a relationship with the fishgirl despite the fact he as not the one keeping her hostage.
Found out there was a remake of the movie Time After Time as some sort of TV series.
Had a glance at it and initially it looked interesting. But it devolved pretty quick and looks like it was cancelled.
Saw the latest Exorcist movie. Good character development at the start, and then it goes downhill from there, with lots of little obvious references to the classic film but little to make it memorable. As a bonus you get, surprise surprise, a little lesson about racism in America. Thankfully only a minor one this time, but Hollywood seems to be unable to put black characters on the screen without telling us "oh and racism is bad!".
YouTube has Megamind and Rango up for free currently so had a look at both.
Megamind was interesting. Goofy, but interesting. About a supervillain who kills off his rival and the aftermath.
Rango was just plain weird. Very styalized and surreal. Someone dropped alot on the CGI for this. About a chameleon who gets lost in the desert and ends up in a water starved western themed town populated by animals. Feels like a Gamma World session.
Took daughter to see Five Nights at Freddy's. She wore a red sweater and an eyepatch and took her Foxy plush.
The movie was enjoyable. No real gore, but plenty of people get killed. The animatronics are large, weighty, and menacing. It wasn't perfect but it was fun enough and I enjoyed watching the kiddo get confused by the big reveal at the end and then figure it out. She loved it and got compliments about her outfit and her plush toy, so I consider it time and money well spent.
Quote from: Omega on October 10, 2023, 09:18:57 PM
YouTube has Megamind and Rango up for free currently so had a look at both.
Megamind was interesting. Goofy, but interesting. About a supervillain who kills off his rival and the aftermath.
Rango was just plain weird. Very styalized and surreal. Someone dropped alot on the CGI for this. About a chameleon who gets lost in the desert and ends up in a water starved western themed town populated by animals. Feels like a Gamma World session.
Megamind to me is one of those severely underrated movies. It's not Spartacus or Ben Hur good, but not everything should be. It is incredibly entertaining. And it has a different, while not being political, take on what it means to be a superhero. Or supervillian.
My wife doesn't care for it. While I think it was one of the better movies that year.
Quote from: Thornhammer on October 26, 2023, 10:25:39 PM
Took daughter to see Five Nights at Freddy's. She wore a red sweater and an eyepatch and took her Foxy plush.
The movie was enjoyable. No real gore, but plenty of people get killed. The animatronics are large, weighty, and menacing. It wasn't perfect but it was fun enough and I enjoyed watching the kiddo get confused by the big reveal at the end and then figure it out. She loved it and got compliments about her outfit and her plush toy, so I consider it time and money well spent.
In the spirit of this movie being mentioned Willy's Wonderland was something I watched one evening with time to kill that really surprised me as to how it entertained me. Nick Cage seems to really try no matter what movie he is in, and this movie entertained me a whole lot more than I expected. I do not know that it is kid friendly though. I think the lack of explanation about Cage's character in the movie made for an interesting intellectual exercise in me cooking up a backstory for him and why he ended up there.
Cage has had his reputation ruined by the internet. He is a surprisingly solid actor and it shows as he just gives it his best with every movie no matter how weird.
For those who have not been impacted yet.
Youtube has finally gotten around to blocking adblockers. And if you do not disable them then they will block you from viewing anything.
Considering the content or length of some of the adds. This will get very interesting I bet as people fight it tooth and nail.
I watched Small Soldiers (1998). It was pretty entertaining. Basically story is: through a short-cut in manufacturing, toys come alive to wage war. There's more to the story. Entertaining, and I think better than its reviews suggest.
Quote from: oggsmash on October 27, 2023, 10:35:20 AM
In the spirit of this movie being mentioned Willy's Wonderland was something I watched one evening with time to kill that really surprised me as to how it entertained me. Nick Cage seems to really try no matter what movie he is in, and this movie entertained me a whole lot more than I expected. I do not know that it is kid friendly though. I think the lack of explanation about Cage's character in the movie made for an interesting intellectual exercise in me cooking up a backstory for him and why he ended up there.
I enjoyed the hell out of Willy's Wonderland. Cage does not utter one fucking word during the entirety of the movie. Not one.
But it works. And this one will be fun to watch again with some booze.
Quote from: Tod13 on October 28, 2023, 09:55:51 AM
I watched Small Soldiers (1998). It was pretty entertaining. Basically story is: through a short-cut in manufacturing, toys come alive to wage war. There's more to the story. Entertaining, and I think better than its reviews suggest.
A couple months ago they released a Small Soldiers 5-minute short as a tech demo for Unreal Engine 5. Not much happens but it does look pretty real.
Quote from: Thornhammer on October 26, 2023, 10:25:39 PM
Took daughter to see Five Nights at Freddy's. She wore a red sweater and an eyepatch and took her Foxy plush.
Saw it with my own daughter. Despite knowing almost nothing about FNAF, I followed along well enough. My only real confusion was why there were 5 kids but only 4 robots.
But it did have one line of dialog that seemed like it came straight from an RPG session:
BIG BROTHER: So the kids are ghosts?
LITTLE SISTER: Of course. How else could they move the robots?
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 30, 2023, 12:16:34 PM
Saw it with my own daughter. Despite knowing almost nothing about FNAF, I followed along well enough. My only real confusion was why there were 5 kids but only 4 robots.
The 5th robot was Golden Freddy, the one that left the pizza restaurant and ganked the aunt.
That isn't unreasonable confusion - they didn't explain Golden Freddy, and there was really no reason given to think it was a separate robot.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 30, 2023, 12:13:33 PM
Quote from: Tod13 on October 28, 2023, 09:55:51 AM
I watched Small Soldiers (1998). It was pretty entertaining. Basically story is: through a short-cut in manufacturing, toys come alive to wage war. There's more to the story. Entertaining, and I think better than its reviews suggest.
A couple months ago they released a Small Soldiers 5-minute short as a tech demo for Unreal Engine 5. Not much happens but it does look pretty real.
That's so cool! Thanks for posting. I like the wordless storytelling.
Quote from: Tod13 on October 28, 2023, 09:55:51 AM
I watched Small Soldiers (1998). It was pretty entertaining. Basically story is: through a short-cut in manufacturing, toys come alive to wage war. There's more to the story. Entertaining, and I think better than its reviews suggest.
Saw it when it came out. Was interesting if a little disjointed. But at least it was done with mostly practical effects.
Came across another odd one while trying to find an old supernatural soap opera.
What came across instead was a Canadian supernatural soap opera called Strange Paradise from 1970. Apparently ran nearly 200 episodes.
About a man on a tropical island who's wife had just passed away. He though is hellbent on bringing her back. The first episode had the character contacted by the cursed ghost of his infamous ancestor from the 1700s. The ghost has a really interesting voice that made me think of Sutekh from Doctor Who.
The spectre tempts the hero with supernatural aid to bring back his wife. For a price.
Not bad production for a soap and it seems to hie off in a different direction than that of say Dark Shadows which came out a few years prior. The first two episodes I had a look at keep switching to some sort of business and the ups and downs of running it. Curious how those might converge.
Apparently around episode 60 the show was retooled, recast, and the setting moved to some manor in the US.
My wife just started watching Fall of the House of Usher miniseries. First few minutes seemed fine, and then holy crap they hit you hard with the pandering. Every crook is a rich evil white guy, the good guy is black and gay. Oh, by the way, nearly everyone is gay apparently.
It does wield a rather outsized Diversity Stick, doesn't it?
The Usher kids are all just fucking awful people, though, and they do get what is coming to them.
Watched Bullet Train the other day.
Absolutely ridiculous, but extremely violent and builds up to a titanic destruction of the train. I had a lot of fun watching it and Junior also had a good time.
It's John Wick but much more light-hearted.
Yeah, I enjoyed Bullet Train.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson is great in it.
I wouldn't compare it to John Wick, though. It's much more Tarantino-esque. It's like Smokin' Aces on a train, only it's better than Smokin' Aces.
Quote from: Thornhammer on December 13, 2023, 09:26:25 PM
Watched Bullet Train the other day.
Absolutely ridiculous, but extremely violent and builds up to a titanic destruction of the train. I had a lot of fun watching it and Junior also had a good time.
It was frustrating to watch because the train would randomly switch from being crowded to empty, sometimes within the same scene.
Anybody seen Rebel Moon?
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 19, 2023, 03:27:12 AM
Anybody seen Rebel Moon?
Not yet. But the basic premise reads a little like Battle Beyond the Stars, except with a girl as the one to go out and get help. I doubt they will all have cool starships though. 8)
Sat through an old Japanese metal hero series called Guyferd finally after many many a year trying to find a copy.
Fairly standard plot of a person getting turned into a super-being. In this case a bio-mechanical one. Nice suit design.
Takes some interesting divergences from the standard pattern too. The heroes family actually get in and fight the villains minions quite a bit. The hero has no vehicle or giant robot. And the main villain is defeated less than half way through and the real mastermind then kicks in. Also the hero gets only a slight power upgrade late in rather than the usual mid-series overhauls some of the henshin heroes undergo.
I came across a horror movie called The Pyramid while looking for something to watch on Amazon Prime. I knew I had seen if before but I couldn't really remember a thing about what happened in it. I watch it again. Now I remember why I didn't remember anything about it. Most of the movie is characters that I didn't care about being chased through tunnels by cgi monsters and dying. The specifics are already disappearing from my brain.
The one with the goofy looking Anubis thing?
Quote from: Omega on December 20, 2023, 12:30:26 PM
The one with the goofy looking Anubis thing?
That's the one.
There is a documentary film called Blacks and UFOs. Here this is the poster. This is a real movie.
(https://i.imgur.com/BDnR0eo.jpg)
I am watching it now.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 19, 2023, 03:27:12 AM
Anybody seen Rebel Moon?
I heard that this movie was getting a theatrical release but it seems to only have been in one theater in LA. Probably just so they could be up for Oscars.
I subscribe to several Snyderverse YouTubers and they are convinced that if Rebel Moon does well, that DC will realize they made a mistake with James Gunn and immediately rehire Zack Snyder to continue the Snyderverse. They are shilling hard for Rebel Moon.
Quote from: yosemitemike on December 22, 2023, 01:36:00 AM
There is a documentary film called Blacks and UFOs. Here this is the poster. This is a real movie.
(https://i.imgur.com/BDnR0eo.jpg)
I am watching it now.
Well obviously little green men are POC.
Oh yeah, sorry. Little green women. Because of course.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 19, 2023, 03:27:12 AM
Anybody seen Rebel Moon?
I tried to watch it but it was frustrating because it has the same problems that so much modern science fiction has where the author has no concept of scale. We are supposed to believe that a small village of about 40 people, who are using Iron Age technology, can produce enough food to feed a huge star destroyer full of troops. And that this tiny village is so important that an Admiral of a Galactic Navy needs to visit them in person.
If they had started off with just a local beaurocrat demanding the food, then they'd have more room to expand the story from a local threat to a galactic one. But, instead, they instantly jump to the world-ending threat. Just like almost every superhero movie does now.
So they totally ripped off Battle Beyond the Stars.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 24, 2023, 02:13:24 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 19, 2023, 03:27:12 AM
Anybody seen Rebel Moon?
I tried to watch it but it was frustrating because it has the same problems that so much modern science fiction has where the author has no concept of scale. We are supposed to believe that a small village of about 40 people, who are using Iron Age technology, can produce enough food to feed a huge star destroyer full of troops. And that this tiny village is so important that an Admiral of a Galactic Navy needs to visit them in person.
If they had started off with just a local beaurocrat demanding the food, then they'd have more room to expand the story from a local threat to a galactic one. But, instead, they instantly jump to the world-ending threat. Just like almost every superhero movie does now.
Yeah. I heard (read) that.
Quote from: Omega on December 24, 2023, 03:04:07 PM
So they totally ripped off Battle Beyond the Stars.
:D It's not a terrible idea. Just the implementation is tricky taking Seven Samurai/Magnificent Seven into a sci fi setting.
I think both films flub it * due to the impact of Star Wars and wanting to mix a galactic scale threat into the story, while still retaining the idea of a bunch of simple farmers getting shaken down for their crops.
*Still haven't seen Rebel Moon. Going off of reviews.
Personally Battle Beyond the Stars works as its so small scale. One carrier type battleship vs a bunch of lighter agile vessels, some nearly fighter class. Theres no vast space war going on. Just some little planet being raided/conscripted by a warlord.
Quote from: Omega on December 25, 2023, 09:53:54 PM
Personally Battle Beyond the Stars works as its so small scale. One carrier type battleship vs a bunch of lighter agile vessels, some nearly fighter class. Theres no vast space war going on. Just some little planet being raided/conscripted by a warlord.
It's a Seven Samurai knockoff, the little planet replaces the humble farming village in the original story.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 24, 2023, 02:13:24 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 19, 2023, 03:27:12 AM
Anybody seen Rebel Moon?
I tried to watch it but it was frustrating because it has the same problems that so much modern science fiction has where the author has no concept of scale. We are supposed to believe that a small village of about 40 people, who are using Iron Age technology, can produce enough food to feed a huge star destroyer full of troops. And that this tiny village is so important that an Admiral of a Galactic Navy needs to visit them in person.
If they had started off with just a local beaurocrat demanding the food, then they'd have more room to expand the story from a local threat to a galactic one. But, instead, they instantly jump to the world-ending threat. Just like almost every superhero movie does now.
I thought the movie Dredd was a FANTASTIC example of taking a big hero character and showing them function in a small scale/day in the life scenario rather than some massive threat that will destroy Mega city in a day if not stopped. I agree with you the scale of Rebel moon is whacky and I think they really try to do way too much in a movie. If it were a series all the traveling makes sense and over time the scale of the problem could grow. I did find it entertaining though, but mainly because I just imagined all the action scenes as WH40k fights all the way down to power swords that get way more dangerous when energized.
Quote from: oggsmash on December 26, 2023, 05:08:45 PMI thought the movie Dredd was a FANTASTIC example of taking a big hero character and showing them function in a small scale/day in the life scenario rather than some massive threat that will destroy Mega city in a day if not stopped. I agree with you the scale of Rebel moon is whacky and I think they really try to do way too much in a movie. If it were a series all the traveling makes sense and over time the scale of the problem could grow. I did find it entertaining though, but mainly because I just imagined all the action scenes as WH40k fights all the way down to power swords that get way more dangerous when energized.
Sadly Dredd was a financial failure despite doing everything right. Maybe brainless spectacle is what the audience actually wants.
I do hope that Henry Cavil's 40k series is both good and successful. That might be too much to ask from in the 2020s.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 26, 2023, 06:56:44 PM
Sadly Dredd was a financial failure despite doing everything right. Maybe brainless spectacle is what the audience actually wants.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9r6g2Y1D3aA/V7H0Fso4f0I/AAAAAAAAZJI/3o0L7Ppm5S8ksS-Zqlsg8rIvI-7rKZmHQCLcB/s1600/f83.jpg)
Goofy satire of action films is a big part of Dredd, and it was lacking in the Urban film.
I really think the stink left on the name Dredd from Stallone was the problem with the newer movie.
I watched Rebel Moon. It's astounding how stupid all of this is. This might be one of the very stupidest of all of the advanced sci-fi civilizations that are too stupid to really exist. A civilization with spaceships and advanced robots sends a dreadnought out to shake down some Medieval farmers for 10 bushels of grain. Someone wrote that. Multiple someones approved that. That made it into the actual movie. I'm not doing a bit. That actually happens and it's just the start of the stupid shit.
Quote from: yosemitemike on December 28, 2023, 07:14:23 AM
A civilization with spaceships and advanced robots sends a dreadnought out to shake down some Medieval farmers for 10 bushels of grain. Someone wrote that. Multiple someones approved that. That made it into the actual movie. I'm not doing a bit. That actually happens and it's just the start of the stupid shit.
It wasn't 10 buchels, it was 10,000 out of the 12,000 they grew. To put that in perspective, twelve thousand bushels of grain is enough to fill five full semi-trailer loads and, with modern farming techniques, would take over 250 acres to grow. It is also enough grain to feed 1,000 people for a year so the 2,000 bushels that the bad guy left them would be more than enough to feed their small village especially if they have animals they can hunt.
And, yes, people approved this. But I don't think it was out of stupidity (maybe a bit of laziness though). This just follows Hollywood's weird obsession with fetishising subsistence living, even down to the villagers in this movie purposefully not using machines to plant their crops because they want to "get close to nature" or some crap. Zack Snyder's wife (who wrote this script) worships farmers but doesn't even know the first thing about farming.
For example, in the very first shot, the girlboss's plow hits a rock. So he digs it up and plops it down five feet away right in the area of the field that she will soon need to plow. Anyone who's even played a farming video game for more than 10 minutes knows that you take the rocks completely out of the field for this exact reason.
Quote from: yosemitemike on December 28, 2023, 07:14:23 AM
I watched Rebel Moon. It's astounding how stupid all of this is. This might be one of the very stupidest of all of the advanced sci-fi civilizations that are too stupid to really exist. A civilization with spaceships and advanced robots sends a dreadnought out to shake down some Medieval farmers for 10 bushels of grain. Someone wrote that. Multiple someones approved that. That made it into the actual movie. I'm not doing a bit. That actually happens and it's just the start of the stupid shit.
I went into watching it with the conscious decision I was watching a WH40k story and took disbelief and completely suspended it. The Trailer showed a small woman man handling men...which is completely stupid as well...so I was already on the "its all magic" bus to watch this nutty disaster. I find it entertained me...but not in the way my big space operas should. The good guys and the bad guys are in a competition for dumbest MF'ers the entire movie. If a warship can be brought down by a angry dude with a makeshift spear...your high tech death machines may be sorely lacking.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on December 28, 2023, 10:47:07 AM
It wasn't 10 buchels, it was 10,000 out of the 12,000 they grew. To put that in perspective, twelve thousand bushels of grain is enough to fill five full semi-trailer loads and, with modern farming techniques, would take over 250 acres to grow. It is also enough grain to feed 1,000 people for a year so the 2,000 bushels that the bad guy left them would be more than enough to feed their small village especially if they have animals they can hunt.
And, yes, people approved this. But I don't think it was out of stupidity (maybe a bit of laziness though). This just follows Hollywood's weird obsession with fetishising subsistence living, even down to the villagers in this movie purposefully not using machines to plant their crops because they want to "get close to nature" or some crap. Zack Snyder's wife (who wrote this script) worships farmers but doesn't even know the first thing about farming.
10,000 bushels is still a piddly amount for an advanced civilization like that. The US alone produces something like 2,000,000,000 bushels a year. It's not as silly as I remembered but it's still silly. Also, that village produces 12,000 bushels a year? What? How? Why? None of this makes any sense and it's all stupid. I can tell it's stupid just on the face of it and I don't know jack shit about farming. Everything is stupid and nothing makes sense.
Quote from: oggsmash on December 29, 2023, 11:24:14 AM
The good guys and the bad guys are in a competition for dumbest MF'ers the entire movie.
I spent the entire movie wondering what the hell is wrong with these people and why they the hell are all morons. Everything is stupid. Everyone is stupid.
I enjoyed the first season of Reacher on Amazon Prime, and the second season is even better so far.
This time around, Reacher is working with the members of his old Army unit after two of them turn up dead. This is a really good character dynamic, as they already know and respect Reacher, but are more than willing to question his life choices.
You do not mess with the Special Investigation Unit.
Three episodes dropped in the middle of December, and they are releasing a new one every Friday, so five are out, and three are yet to be released.
Quote from: Lurkndog on December 30, 2023, 10:27:24 AM
I enjoyed the first season of Reacher on Amazon Prime, and the second season is even better so far.
Wife and I were laughing our asses off at the reveal immediately following the "Sarah Connor" bit.
A lot of indie sci-fi movies start out promising but just fall apart at the end. It's like they have an interesting premise but have no idea how to end the story so they just throw some vague shit at you and then the movie stops.
Quote from: Lurkndog on December 25, 2023, 11:16:16 PM
Quote from: Omega on December 25, 2023, 09:53:54 PM
Personally Battle Beyond the Stars works as its so small scale. One carrier type battleship vs a bunch of lighter agile vessels, some nearly fighter class. Theres no vast space war going on. Just some little planet being raided/conscripted by a warlord.
It's a Seven Samurai knockoff, the little planet replaces the humble farming village in the original story.
And Magnificent Seven (original)
And A Bugs Life
and probably many more using Seven Samurai or Magnificent Seven as the template.
The Magnificent Sevenm was based on Seven Samurai which came out years earlier.
Quote from: Lurkndog on December 30, 2023, 10:27:24 AM
I enjoyed the first season of Reacher on Amazon Prime, and the second season is even better so far.
This time around, Reacher is working with the members of his old Army unit after two of them turn up dead. This is a really good character dynamic, as they already know and respect Reacher, but are more than willing to question his life choices.
You do not mess with the Special Investigation Unit.
Three episodes dropped in the middle of December, and they are releasing a new one every Friday, so five are out, and three are yet to be released.
You would think that given the massive eyeball appeal Reacher has had the folks in entertainment would get the hint. I suppose its up to the few who can figure out people just want to be entertained and heroic bad asses are entertaining.
Quote from: oggsmash on December 31, 2023, 08:36:51 AMYou would think that given the massive eyeball appeal Reacher has had the folks in entertainment would get the hint. I suppose its up to the few who can figure out people just want to be entertained and heroic bad asses are entertaining.
The actor who plays Reacher would make a perfect Batman.
Quote from: Lurkndog on December 30, 2023, 10:27:24 AM
Three episodes dropped in the middle of December, and they are releasing a new one every Friday, so five are out, and three are yet to be released.
I remember "seasons" used to be 22 to 25 episodes a year. I feel ripped off.
Quote from: DocJones on December 31, 2023, 08:28:50 PMI remember "seasons" used to be 22 to 25 episodes a year. I feel ripped off.
Movies are getting longer and TV shows are getting shorter. Pretty soon they'll meet.
And it makes sense, movies are around 2 hours because that's the most people want to sit in a room at a time. And TV shows were needed to fill half a year of weekly content. But with streaming, neither of those apply.
We're already there. Rebel Moon is a mini-series edited into two long movies. Picard season 1 is a long movie cut into multiple streaming episodes.
Quote from: yosemitemike on December 31, 2023, 04:35:15 AM
The Magnificent Sevenm was based on Seven Samurai which came out years earlier.
Except that some of these movies are using Magnifcent 7 as the basis instead. And now we have Rebel moon basing off Battle beyond the Stars that was basing off Magnificent 7. God only knows how far the chain will go in some distant era.
I watched the 2020 adaptation of Carmilla. Well, I watched a movie called Carmilla anyway. It was sort of like the original novella if you threw out about half of it. I am now watching something called Are We Not Cats because what the fuck even is this? I will probably regret this decision.
Quote from: yosemitemike on January 05, 2024, 03:43:14 AM
I watched the 2020 adaptation of Carmilla. Well, I watched a movie called Carmilla anyway. It was sort of like the original novella if you threw out about half of it. I am now watching something called Are We Not Cats because what the fuck even is this? I will probably regret this decision.
Thats how it is sometimes with movies old and new. The Thing uses only a handful of story beats from the book. I Robot uses nothing from the book. Sure they have some place names. But thats practically it.
Yesterday Netflix got rid of Scott Stuber, the head of Netflix original movies. He was the guy that greenlit Rebel Moon and later allowed Zack Snyder to stretch his story into two movies. Seems that Netflix is moving away from their "A new movie every week" plan from just a few years ago because today they announced a $5 Billion, 10-year deal with the WWE.
I'm not sure if this is good or bad for movies in general but it is funny that Zack Snyder has destroyed two different movie studios so far.
My recommendation of the week:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Poster_of_the_move_Slave_Girls_from_Beyond_Infinity.jpg)
The second season of Reacher wrapped up last week. I liked it even more than the first season. In particular, the supporting cast was way stronger in the second season. They all knew Reacher, so the show didn't waste a lot of time establishing that Reacher was trustworthy. You do not mess with the Special Investigation Unit!
And despite the fact that the last episode was clearly set up as The Big Fight, they held back some surprises and kept the tension up. It was a satisfying conclusion for our heroic murderhobo.
I'll be looking forward to a third season of Reacher, assuming they can get Alan Ritchson back. His star is definitely on the rise, and he has like six movies lined up.
The third season has already been greenlit, and Ritchson has talked a little bit about it in interviews. Plus he loves playing Reacher, so I doubt they'll have trouble from him for season 3. The real question is how long they can go and if we'll ultimately getting a satisfactory end to the story. There are so many books that we'll never see half of them adapted, so I hope the showrunners have some sort of road map worked out.
Quote from: DocJones on January 24, 2024, 10:07:38 PM
My recommendation of the week:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Poster_of_the_move_Slave_Girls_from_Beyond_Infinity.jpg)
That used to show often on HBO.
Beauty and the Beast... in space... as a softporn...
Dug out my old copy of "The Wicker Man" (there was no remake!!!) and sat through it.
Mine is a rare find on VHS. The unedited version. So it has all the songs and some other clipped segments.
It is surprisingly well put together and has the feel of Call of Cthulhu investigation as things slowly get weirder and weirder.
Also sat through my unedited DVD of the original Dunwitch Horror movie with Dean Stockwell in it. The movie takes several liberties with the book. But it gets the mood and overall plot across.
Quote from: Omega on January 30, 2024, 12:39:11 AM
Dug out my old copy of "The Wicker Man" (there was no remake!!!) and sat through it.
Mine is a rare find on VHS. The unedited version. So it has all the songs and some other clipped segments.
It is surprisingly well put together and has the feel of Call of Cthulhu investigation as things slowly get weirder and weirder.
The old Grenadier Models adventure for CoC, "The Horrible Secret of Monhegan Island," is basically "The Wicker Man" with Deep Ones.
Watched True Detective Season 1 with the missus. As a Delta Green fan - nectar, sweeeeet nectar.
Watched True Detective Season 3 with the missus. Also very good, and subtle references to Season 1 indicate it was covered up.
Watched 30 Coins, Season 1. Entirely in Spanish with subtitles (it has "English subtitle description" but don't do that, it is incredibly distracting). Worth the effort, though - a badass Spanish priest and a couple of other folks trying to prevent the capture of the thirty pieces of silver Judas was paid to betray Jesus. Episode 4 had a great "wait, was that..." moment, and episodes 5 and 6 had some other outstanding assets. Looking forward to getting stuck into Season 2.
I've been on an old movie kick recently, so I would recommend "Quest for Fire"
Warning: There is language in it, but nothing anybody would understand, and AFAIK, there is no subtitle track.
On the plus size you get to see a very young Ron Pearlman (in his first role I believe) and a very young Rae Dawn Chong (ditto, plus she runs around half naked for the better part of the film).
It's a good watch.
Quest for Fire was certainly an odd one.
It is, isn't it.
I saw it in a theatre when it first came out. My uncle (who took me to see it) caught unholy hell from my stepmother.
It struck a chord with me. Both the story and the acting.
Anyone heard of this new D&D Stage play? A theater group apparently licensed D&D to use in their presentations title? So someone outside wotc taking initiative.
Does not sound like a play? More like interactive theater. Seems to be using a voting app much like some experimental interactive movies tried years ago.
Saw Raining in the Mountain recently by King Hu. Less focused on martial arts and more focused on a cast of scoundrels. I quite liked it. The basic plot is respected patrons of a Buddhist monastery are invited by the abbot to help him select his replacement, but most are using the opportunity to steal an ancient sutra (and each person wants to steal it for different reasons: monetary value, historical and aesthetic significance, spiritual value, etc). Because it occurs in a monastery, the conceit is they can't have direct conflict with one another on those grounds so stealth, intrigue, and chicanery are mostly how they achieve their goals. But it ends with a solid amount of chasing and fighting.
Came across From Beijing With Love, a completely bonkers spy movie from the same guy as did Kung Fu Hustle, which I still have on VHS from way back.
Quote from: Omega on February 20, 2024, 01:19:12 AM
Came across From Beijing With Love, a completely bonkers spy movie from the same guy as did Kung Fu Hustle, which I still have on VHS from way back.
I like that one. King of Comedy was pretty good too
I finally watched The Flash on Amazon. It wasn't nearly as bad as I expected. Sure, the CGI was awful throughout, the tone shifted randomly from serious to wacky comedy, and the whole idea of "inevitable intersections" is stupid. But it is watchable. Ezra Miller could have been a real star if he wasn't a complete nut job.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on February 20, 2024, 11:13:49 AM
I finally watched The Flash on Amazon. It wasn't nearly as bad as I expected. Sure, the CGI was awful throughout, the tone shifted randomly from serious to wacky comedy, and the whole idea of "inevitable intersections" is stupid. But it is watchable. Ezra Miller could have been a real star if he wasn't a complete nut job.
I first saw Ezra Miller playing a recurring guest role on the TV show Royal Pains back in 2009. He was 17 at the time, and did a good job playing a troubled teenager. It seems he may have ben playing himself to some extent.
House of Ninjas (Netflix) - anybody watched yet?
Live-action, family of retired ninjas (modern era) gets called back into action to save Japan from bad guys. Reminiscent of The Incredibles, except badass ninjas instead of superheroes.
It's next on my list after I finish the last episode of Night Country. I can feel my inner 80s kid jumping up and down screaming "NINJAS!!!" so I'm looking forward to this one.
Watched Kung Fu Wonderchild with Yukari Oshima the other night. It is very strange indeed, but has some gameable content. The action scenes were pretty impeccable. Lots of potty humor. Wrote up a review of it here: https://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2024/02/wuxia-inspiration-kung-fu-wonderchild.html
Also watched Iron Angels which was pretty good. Also had Yukari Oshima in it as a pretty viscous villain, and starred Moon Lee. David Chiang has a kind of Charlie role from Charlie's angels. Though it should be said this is a mixed sex team. There are just two women on it. What really makes the movie interesting though is the sadism and cruelty of the Yukari Oshima character IMO. Just a nice over-the-top hong kong action movie villain.
I am watching a movie called Deep Evil. It has Lorenzo Lamas in it.
"After an incident occurs at a top-secret bio-research lab in remote Alaska, a team of skilled military operatives are sent to investigate whether this was an accident, an act of terror or something else."
I have never seen this movie but it also feels like I have seen this movie at least half a dozen times. Contact has been lost with the secret underground lab. What has happened? Unspecific operators are sent to investigate along with obligatory hot chick scientist. How many of these things are there? They must be really cheap to make.
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on February 27, 2024, 03:24:32 PM
Watched Kung Fu Wonderchild with Yukari Oshima the other night. It is very strange indeed, but has some gameable content. The action scenes were pretty impeccable. Lots of potty humor. Wrote up a review of it here: https://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2024/02/wuxia-inspiration-kung-fu-wonderchild.html
Also watched Iron Angels which was pretty good. Also had Yukari Oshima in it as a pretty viscous villain, and starred Moon Lee. David Chiang has a kind of Charlie role from Charlie's angels. Though it should be said this is a mixed sex team. There are just two women on it. What really makes the movie interesting though is the sadism and cruelty of the Yukari Oshima character IMO. Just a nice over-the-top hong kong action movie villain.
That sounds like fun. I liked Iron Angels, and Yukari Oshima rocks. I'll have to check it out. Thanks!
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 01, 2024, 01:40:37 AM
I have never seen this movie but it also feels like I have seen this movie at least half a dozen times. Contact has been lost with the secret underground lab. What has happened? Unspecific operators are sent to investigate along with obligatory hot chick scientist. How many of these things are there? They must be really cheap to make.
Alien's and The Thing inspired movies. THERE ARE LOTS!!!!
They even pop up in TV episodes. X-Files did at least one where an Alaskan or far north base was having trouble.
Quote from: Omega on March 03, 2024, 12:40:35 AM
Alien's and The Thing inspired movies. THERE ARE LOTS!!!!
They even pop up in TV episodes. X-Files did at least one where an Alaskan or far north base was having trouble.
That was Ice. Firewalker and Darkness Falls were pretty much that only at a volcano and in the forest respectively.
YouTube has Star Trek Beyond free at the moment and so bit the bullet to have a peek at it.
And was pleasantly surprised. Yes its still junk. But I feel like oddly the good out-weighed or at least equaled the bad.
The plot is nonsense and parts just make no sense at all or are not explained. Other plot points are so contrived that you cant even suspend disbelief.
But against all odds I overall liked it. Was it a Star Trek movie? Fuck no! But it had it's moments. Unlike Into Darkness which I just hated nearly start to finish.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 03, 2024, 12:46:40 AM
Quote from: Omega on March 03, 2024, 12:40:35 AM
Alien's and The Thing inspired movies. THERE ARE LOTS!!!!
They even pop up in TV episodes. X-Files did at least one where an Alaskan or far north base was having trouble.
That was Ice. Firewalker and Darkness Falls were pretty much that only at a volcano and in the forest respectively.
There was even a version with dinosaurs on a ship. Same plot. Different monsters. Think that was Carnosaur 3? Also Virus is another take on it, except with scavengers on a derilect ship. And forget the mane but there was one with a mutating shark on a ship and so on. Theres gotta be at least a hundred of these by now.
Watched the first episode of Shogun.
Damned fine, that was.
Quote from: Thornhammer on March 03, 2024, 08:54:50 PM
Watched the first episode of Shogun.
Damned fine, that was.
I have been dreading it. (As much as one can dread a television remake) I have fond memories of the original TV miniseries.
Any further commentary?
Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 04, 2024, 01:14:47 PM
I have been dreading it. (As much as one can dread a television remake) I have fond memories of the original TV miniseries.
Any further commentary?
The casting is good, the acting is good, the outfits are good. First episode has brief nudity but nothing over the top, some gore but again nothing over the top. That one poor bastard, though. Damn.
The language thing was interesting. The Japanese actors speak Japanese and it is subtitled. They sort of handwave the rest - you're supposed to infer that Portugese is being spoken instead of English under some circumstances, but I think it works for ease-of-consumption purposes.
It has a different focus than the 80s version, but I haven't seen anything so far that trips the eyeroll-o-meter.
Quote from: Thornhammer on March 04, 2024, 03:24:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 04, 2024, 01:14:47 PM
I have been dreading it. (As much as one can dread a television remake) I have fond memories of the original TV miniseries.
Any further commentary?
The casting is good, the acting is good, the outfits are good. First episode has brief nudity but nothing over the top, some gore but again nothing over the top. That one poor bastard, though. Damn.
The language thing was interesting. The Japanese actors speak Japanese and it is subtitled. They sort of handwave the rest - you're supposed to infer that Portugese is being spoken instead of English under some circumstances, but I think it works for ease-of-consumption purposes.
It has a different focus than the 80s version, but I haven't seen anything so far that trips the eyeroll-o-meter.
Cool. I'll have to check it out. TY.
Quote from: Omega on March 03, 2024, 12:40:35 AM
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 01, 2024, 01:40:37 AM
I have never seen this movie but it also feels like I have seen this movie at least half a dozen times. Contact has been lost with the secret underground lab. What has happened? Unspecific operators are sent to investigate along with obligatory hot chick scientist. How many of these things are there? They must be really cheap to make.
Alien's and The Thing inspired movies. THERE ARE LOTS!!!!
They even pop up in TV episodes. X-Files did at least one where an Alaskan or far north base was having trouble.
To say nothing of the classic Dr. Who serial The Seeds of Death.
I would wager that the Die Hard clones outnumber even the Thing-alikes. The Die Hard formula really lends itself to low budget movies, since there's only the one location, and unlike the Thing, you don't even need an expensive monster.
At one point Kevin Smith was even going to do a
Mallrats sequel called
Die Hard in a Mall.
Quote from: Lurkndog on March 05, 2024, 12:18:44 AM
To say nothing of the classic Dr. Who serial The Seeds of Death.
I would wager that the Die Hard clones outnumber even the Thing-alikes. The Die Hard formula really lends itself to low budget movies, since there's only the one location, and unlike the Thing, you don't even need an expensive monster.
At one point Kevin Smith was even going to do a Mallrats sequel called Die Hard in a Mall.
Oddly not as many Die Hard-like movies as one would expect. Under Siege though was joked as "Die Hard on a ship!", Air Force one as "Doe Hard with the Presedent!", Passenger as "Die Hard on a plane!", Cliffhanger as "Diehard on a Mountain!" and "The Taking of Beverly Hills" as "Die Hard in Hollywood", Home Alone as "Die Hard with a Kid!" and so on in some comedy skit way back.
Theres also Space Mutiny as "Die Hard in Space!" but it came out in the same year as Die Hard.
Final trailer for the Fallout series is available.
Cautious optimism.
Quote from: Omega on March 05, 2024, 07:41:04 PM
Quote from: Lurkndog on March 05, 2024, 12:18:44 AM
To say nothing of the classic Dr. Who serial The Seeds of Death.
I would wager that the Die Hard clones outnumber even the Thing-alikes. The Die Hard formula really lends itself to low budget movies, since there's only the one location, and unlike the Thing, you don't even need an expensive monster.
At one point Kevin Smith was even going to do a Mallrats sequel called Die Hard in a Mall.
Oddly not as many Die Hard-like movies as one would expect. Under Siege though was joked as "Die Hard on a ship!", Air Force one as "Doe Hard with the Presedent!", Passenger as "Die Hard on a plane!", Cliffhanger as "Diehard on a Mountain!" and "The Taking of Beverly Hills" as "Die Hard in Hollywood", Home Alone as "Die Hard with a Kid!" and so on in some comedy skit way back.
Theres also Space Mutiny as "Die Hard in Space!" but it came out in the same year as Die Hard.
You're restricting yourself to A-List movies. There were a LOT of Cinemax-grade Die Hard knockoffs produced for the straight-to-video market in the 1990s. As an example, I give you
No Contest (1995):
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110675/?ref_=nm_knf_t_4
Terminator = Die Hard with a robot!
Quote from: Thornhammer on March 07, 2024, 04:00:02 PM
Final trailer for the Fallout series is available.
Cautious optimism.
Cautious Pessimism as theres been a few warning signs already from the creators. We'll see if they hose it or not. I am setting my bar rather low as we alreasy have out the vault our "Strong female protagonist #1billion"
Die-hard ripoffs you say? I have just the video(s)
There are a lot of these things.
Quote from: Omega on March 09, 2024, 04:24:07 PM
Terminator = Die Hard with a robot!
Do we want to define what a Die Hard clone is?
1) Came out after Die Hard (1988).
2) Takes place in a single confined location that is taken over by the bad guys.
3) Our hero is there by accident, and is mostly unprepared for the situation, and the bad guys are unprepared for him/her.
4) The police/authorities aren't going to be much help. Their real job in the movie is to make the bad guys look good.
5) Hero has someone to talk to on the radio, to exchange crucial exposition and humanize the hero. (I just realized, Die Hard was made before cell phones.)
6) In addition to taking out the minor bad guys, our hero has to figure out what the mastermind of the operation is really after, because
7) There is a big swerve where the criminal mastermind's true plan is revealed.
Movies that aren't Die Hard clones:
The Terminator is not Die Hard With A Robot. Hero doesn't have evil minions to take out. Does not take place in a single building. Came out in 1984.
Rambo II is not Die Hard in Vietnam.
Game of Death is not Die Hard in a Pagoda.
The Raid isn't Die Hard in Indonesia. Our hero isn't alone, and gets into the conflict on purpose. The police are invading a fortress, not liberating a building held hostage, and I don't remember there being a Die Hard style plot twist.
Quote from: Thornhammer on March 04, 2024, 03:24:44 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 04, 2024, 01:14:47 PM
I have been dreading it. (As much as one can dread a television remake) I have fond memories of the original TV miniseries.
Any further commentary?
The casting is good, the acting is good, the outfits are good. First episode has brief nudity but nothing over the top, some gore but again nothing over the top. That one poor bastard, though. Damn.
The language thing was interesting. The Japanese actors speak Japanese and it is subtitled. They sort of handwave the rest - you're supposed to infer that Portugese is being spoken instead of English under some circumstances, but I think it works for ease-of-consumption purposes.
It has a different focus than the 80s version, but I haven't seen anything so far that trips the eyeroll-o-meter.
Ok, got around to the free trial (with ads, :P) for HULU and checked out the first two episodes. It is really good. I'm an old fart and prefer the original TV miniseries, but this hasn't done anything cringey so far. In some ways, the story is cleaner and more understandable in the politics aspect. Definitley worth a watch.
Quote from: Lurkndog on March 10, 2024, 09:01:57 AM
Quote from: Omega on March 09, 2024, 04:24:07 PM
Terminator = Die Hard with a robot!
Do we want to define what a Die Hard clone is?
1) Came out after Die Hard (1988).
2) Takes place in a single confined location that is taken over by the bad guys.
3) Our hero is there by accident, and is mostly unprepared for the situation, and the bad guys are unprepared for him/her.
4) The police/authorities aren't going to be much help. Their real job in the movie is to make the bad guys look good.
5) Hero has someone to talk to on the radio, to exchange crucial exposition and humanize the hero. (I just realized, Die Hard was made before cell phones.)
6) In addition to taking out the minor bad guys, our hero has to figure out what the mastermind of the operation is really after, because
7) There is a big swerve where the criminal mastermind's true plan is revealed.
I was joking because sure enough someone WILL redefine it as "Everything on Earth"
Sleeping Beauty = Die Hard with a Faerie Godmother!
Quote from: Lurkndog on March 10, 2024, 09:33:54 AM
Movies that aren't Die Hard clones:
The Terminator is not Die Hard With A Robot. Hero doesn't have evil minions to take out. Does not take place in a single building. Came out in 1984.
Rambo II is not Die Hard in Vietnam.
Game of Death is not Die Hard in a Pagoda.
The Raid isn't Die Hard in Indonesia. Our hero isn't alone, and gets into the conflict on purpose. The police are invading a fortress, not liberating a building held hostage, and I don't remember there being a Die Hard style plot twist.
Bambi = Die Hard without a mom!
heh-heh.
Quote from: Omega on March 14, 2024, 10:09:10 PM
I was joking because sure enough someone WILL redefine it as "Everything on Earth"
Sleeping Beauty = Die Hard with a Faerie Godmother!
Sorry if I overreacted.
It's worth noting that most of the Die Hard sequels fail my litmus test.
Also some merely see the Die Hard theme as "lone guy vs bunch of bad guys" which covers a fairly large swath of action hero movies.
Quote from: Thornhammer on March 07, 2024, 04:00:02 PM
Final trailer for the Fallout series is available.
Cautious optimism.
From an interview on T3.com:
Speaking at a press event with T3 in attendance, the director and driving force behind the Fallout TV series, Jonathan Nolan, explained that setting out to simply appease the fans of the games would've been "a fool's errand".
"I don't think you really can set out to please the fans of anything," he said. "Or please anyone other than yourself.
"I think you have to come into this trying to make the show that you want to make and trusting that, as fans of the game [ourselves], we would find the pieces that were essential to us... and try to do the best version."
"It's kind of a fool's errand to try to figure out how to make [other] people happy... You've got to make yourself happy. And I've made myself very happy with the show."The typical "I made it for myself" line that all of entertainment seems to think is their only job.
"My happiness is your misery."
Teaser for Alien: Romulus.
The CGI facehuggers seem a little off for some reason I can't quite put my finger on, but I dig the rest.
Quote from: Thornhammer on March 20, 2024, 03:41:53 PM
The CGI facehuggers seem a little off for some reason I can't quite put my finger on, but I dig the rest.
Their motion appears to defy physics.
It's like a video game.
Meh. More regurgitated Alien leftovers. At least Prometheus tried something different.
Skip.
I'll watch it when it streaming like I did the last one.
One problem with this movie is that it creates more complications for the second one. That is, between the first two movies presumably nothing is known about the aliens, which is why no one believed Ripley. And yet this movie plus the game _Isolation_ show that many company and government personnel encountered the creatures.
Quote from: Thornhammer on March 20, 2024, 03:41:53 PM
Teaser for Alien: Romulus.
The CGI facehuggers seem a little off for some reason I can't quite put my finger on, but I dig the rest.
The CGI in general looks off. I thought it was a video game commercial.
Quote from: ralfy on March 25, 2024, 11:29:15 PM
One problem with this movie is that it creates more complications for the second one. That is, between the first two movies presumably nothing is known about the aliens, which is why no one believed Ripley. And yet this movie plus the game _Isolation_ show that many company and government personnel encountered the creatures.
That suggests no one in the movie actually survives long enough. Or are silenced if they do. The Aliens setting is made if stupid
Quote from: Omega on March 26, 2024, 12:42:46 AM
Quote from: ralfy on March 25, 2024, 11:29:15 PM
One problem with this movie is that it creates more complications for the second one. That is, between the first two movies presumably nothing is known about the aliens, which is why no one believed Ripley. And yet this movie plus the game _Isolation_ show that many company and government personnel encountered the creatures.
That suggests no one in the movie actually survives long enough. Or are silenced if they do. The Aliens setting is made if stupid
I was thinking the same thing, but it sounds too crazy.
In the first movie, Dallas tells Ripley that the company replaced their science officer with Ash before they left. After that, Mother diverts the Nostromo to LV-426 without permission from Dallas, which can only mean that it was ordered by the ship owners to do so. Later, Ripley discovers that Ash is following transmission from Mother, and from the company, to get the alien at all costs, even if it means sacrificing the crew. Ripley reports this to the others, stating that the company probably wants to use the alien for its bio-weapons division.
After that, nothing happens for almost 60 years until they find Ripley in the second, and they tell her that they've not encountered any aliens or things that she reported. Even though the company may have known the location of the derelict craft (which is why they replaced the science officer with Ash, knowing that the Nostromo would be flying closest to LV-426), for some reason they don't bother sending more ships to investigate it, or even a crew on the ground when they built a colony on the same rock.
When the prequels were made, many personnel were found to have known about the creatures, and some argue that the reason why they had a special order and a bio-weapons division is because of that. Later, the
Isolation game was made, and it reveals that even more people knew more about the derelict ship, the aliens, or both. And then came licensed media like the company report and Colonial Marines manual which details several ships visiting the derelict craft, Burke meeting with other company officials, the colonists reporting their finds to the company before they're overwhelmed, and so on.
These mean that the company and more knew about the creatures for several decades. It gets worse when you tie that up with the AvP franchise.
YouTube has Runaway up for free.
1984 neo-Cyberpunk movie that predicts the rise of robotics intruding into everything. Tom Sellek gives a good performance as a cop on the robotics division who deals with haywire robots and robotics assisted crimes and crime fighting. Gene Simmons, Yes THAT Gene Simmons plays a ruthless criminal who specializes in crimes with robotics and a prototype gyrojet gun with guided bullets.
Fun movie with all practical effects and FX and the road chase is actually pretty good with how these little robotic road torpedoes handle and weave through traffic.
Quote from: Omega on March 27, 2024, 03:49:42 AM
YouTube has Runaway up for free.
1984 neo-Cyberpunk movie that predicts the rise of robotics intruding into everything. Tom Sellek gives a good performance as a cop on the robotics division who deals with haywire robots and robotics assisted crimes and crime fighting. Gene Simmons, Yes THAT Gene Simmons plays a ruthless criminal who specializes in crimes with robotics and a prototype gyrojet gun with guided bullets.
Fun movie with all practical effects and FX and the road chase is actually pretty good with how these little robotic road torpedoes handle and weave through traffic.
15 year old me appreciated seeing a young Kirstie Alley strip down to her bra. Man she was a hottie.
Anywho. Great movie. Probably deserves to be in the How to GM Cyberpunk thread.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 27, 2024, 03:26:52 PM
Quote from: Omega on March 27, 2024, 03:49:42 AM
YouTube has Runaway up for free.
1984 neo-Cyberpunk movie that predicts the rise of robotics intruding into everything. Tom Sellek gives a good performance as a cop on the robotics division who deals with haywire robots and robotics assisted crimes and crime fighting. Gene Simmons, Yes THAT Gene Simmons plays a ruthless criminal who specializes in crimes with robotics and a prototype gyrojet gun with guided bullets.
Fun movie with all practical effects and FX and the road chase is actually pretty good with how these little robotic road torpedoes handle and weave through traffic.
15 year old me appreciated seeing a young Kirstie Alley strip down to her bra. Man she was a hottie.
Anywho. Great movie. Probably deserves to be in the How to GM Cyberpunk thread.
I totally agree! I had a major crush on her since STII:TWoK.
Speaking of Gene Simmons, I thought he made a great bad guy in "Wanted: Dead or Alive" (1987).
The crossdressing psycho that Gene Simmons played in Never Too Young to Die was entertainingly bizarre.
Was rewatching my old copy of Legend and recently saw a video on the differences between the US and European versions and what struck me is that what I saw in theaters was not the US version. Weird.
Its a great D&D style movie though. A ranger an elf and some gnomes battling goblins and the forces of darkness. And it is beautifully done with all practical effects and FX. Hard to believe the swamp hag is played by Robert Picardo who would later be the Doctor on Voyager. And Tim Curry as the Darkness.
Watching The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires again. Fun blend of Shaw Brothers and Hammer Films style. Plus you get to see Peter Cushing and David Chiang share scenes together. Great fodder for the game table
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on March 29, 2024, 08:39:37 PM
Watching The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires again. Fun blend of Shaw Brothers and Hammer Films style. Plus you get to see Peter Cushing and David Chiang share scenes together. Great fodder for the game table
I saw that in the theatre when I was a kid. Caught it on you tube a few years ago and the the nostalgia surged through me.
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on March 29, 2024, 08:39:37 PM
Watching The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires again. Fun blend of Shaw Brothers and Hammer Films style. Plus you get to see Peter Cushing and David Chiang share scenes together. Great fodder for the game table
Saw that in a theater. Was really unusual. Felt like it did not quite ply up the east meets west aspect. But overall was not bad really.
Speaking of Cushing, He is alot of fun along with David MacClure in At the Earths Core.
Quote from: Omega on March 30, 2024, 07:53:36 AM
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on March 29, 2024, 08:39:37 PM
Watching The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires again. Fun blend of Shaw Brothers and Hammer Films style. Plus you get to see Peter Cushing and David Chiang share scenes together. Great fodder for the game table
Saw that in a theater. Was really unusual. Felt like it did not quite ply up the east meets west aspect. But overall was not bad really.
Speaking of Cushing, He is alot of fun along with David MacClure in At the Earths Core.
It may possibly have been the 75 minute cut, which was the American version. I haven't seen that cut so I am not sure if it is very different (I have it as a bonus on one of my DVDs somewhere so maybe I will check it out). The 95 minute version had a good amount of east meets west in it (things like the issue of face were brought up, differences in lore, Van Helping's cold reception to his ideas at the Chinese University, etc).
Quote from: oggsmash on March 30, 2024, 07:46:25 AM
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on March 29, 2024, 08:39:37 PM
Watching The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires again. Fun blend of Shaw Brothers and Hammer Films style. Plus you get to see Peter Cushing and David Chiang share scenes together. Great fodder for the game table
I saw that in the theatre when I was a kid. Caught it on you tube a few years ago and the the nostalgia surged through me.
Wish I had a chance to see this one in the theater. The bluray is pretty nicely restored though
Had a glance at the Ark "anime" and whoooooeee is that thing woke to hell.
And its not an anime.
*cue some knuckle dragger who is neither Japanese nor in Japan citing the usage of anime by Japanese people in Japan to justify why (fill in American animated thing here) is totally anime*
Fallout is pretty good so far. I'm about two and a half episodes in.
They hit the right tone, I think, walking the line between dark humor and farce.
Seems that way so far from some clips seen. I like that the power armor is a real suit instead of more damn CGI. And what CGI they are using is not bad really.
Someone should compile a list of all of the movies with Amityville in the title and then review and rank all of them. Not me though. There are a lot of them and the great majority are complete shit. So far, Amityville Hex is the worst one I have seen but there are many, many more of them. I don't think I want to find one worse than that though.
I watched the Mortal Engines movie yesterday and I'd make for a perfect ttrpg setting. The idea of mobile cities alone is enough.
There are several of those YA series that would make for a better rpg setting than they did for a movie. Maze Runner would probably make a better rpg setting that it did a movie series.
I'm 5 episodes in on Fallout. I like it, my son likes it, and my wife (who has no experience with Fallout) is also enjoying it.
Feel is right, the music is definitely right, tone is right. Walton Goggins delivers as expected. Even has Matt Berry. Kick ass.
Lot of swearing, and holy shit did they take Bloody Mess.
Goggins is also very good at using his V.A.T.S.
Problems with the Fallout TV show:
They crammed too much material, leading to underdeveloped characters. They should have focused on only one, like Lucy, and then brought in the others as Lucy explores her surroundings.
The characters aren't interesting, unlike in shows like Mandalorian.
The story coasts along, from one event to another, like Halo. There's not much by way of buildup, which is one reason why the characters aren't interesting.
Side note: the characters look funny, from the recruits in the base to the council members to Lucy's brother and cousin. It's as if as Sims game had come to life, and that the writers are Fallout gamers who imagine themselves as characters in the story that they're developing.
Given that, I think the 6-7 out of 10 score given in places like Metacritic looks right; it's similar to what I gave to Halo.
I also saw the first Dune movie. The problem's obviously the material: it's probably meant to be shown in mini-series form, although they already did that and that was OK. But this one, like it, also looks ordinary (I avoid looking at vfx because it's mostly computer-generated, anyway). The only way one could probably spice it up is to make it weird, like what they did in the 1980s movie, or what Jodorowsky imagined. The problem's weirdness has unintended consequences.
Maybe they'll do better with the second part.
Quote from: ralfy on April 15, 2024, 11:18:45 PMI also saw the first Dune movie. The problem's obviously the material: it's probably meant to be shown in mini-series form, although they already did that and that was OK. But this one, like it, also looks ordinary (I avoid looking at vfx because it's mostly computer-generated, anyway). The only way one could probably spice it up is to make it weird, like what they did in the 1980s movie, or what Jodorowsky imagined. The problem's weirdness has unintended consequences.
Maybe they'll do better with the second part.
I thought the 2021 Dune was vastly overrated. The VFX were spectacular, but all the characters were dull as dishwater. I didn't buy any of them except maaaaaybe Stilgar. But we got far too little of him to tell for sure.
I've skipped part 2 because part 1 was so boring.
I really liked Arrival, but I think Villenue's dry style (the joke never gets old) didn't help an already complex story like Dune.
From Sci-Fi Villeneuve movies - the most interesting visually was Blade Runner because at least he had to mix his own dry style (still visible in Jared Leto sandstone brutalist HQ, or in Las Vegas, or even little bit in wet way in final fight) with preestabilished lore. So generally movie is quite diverse visually.
But Dune... nah.
Only moment he attempt to go weird are Harkonnens, and while it's cool from worldbuilding perspective is just as dumb as Lynch who tried to show Harkonnens and their servants look like deranged clones - but of course it's not true - Landsraad nobility is nation on their own, and they should not look like plebs from their planets. Harkonnens, Atrides, Corrinos should look more simmilar to each other than to non-nobles with Baron being maybe more eccentric.
Quote from: yosemitemike on April 15, 2024, 08:32:16 AMSomeone should compile a list of all of the movies with Amityville in the title and then review and rank all of them. Not me though. There are a lot of them and the great majority are complete shit. So far, Amityville Hex is the worst one I have seen but there are many, many more of them. I don't think I want to find one worse than that though.
I have actually never seen most of the Amityville movies other than one made for TV Amityville: The Evil Escapes that was completely stupid. Also missed the TV series and all the remake attempts.
So if you have not watched Evil Escapes, do your brain cells a favor and never watch it.
Quote from: yosemitemike on April 15, 2024, 09:08:44 AMThere are several of those YA series that would make for a better rpg setting than they did for a movie. Maze Runner would probably make a better rpg setting that it did a movie series.
They used to make them into cartoons instead. I miss those old Saturday Morning adaptions. Bunnicula, Mouse on the Motorcycle, Dragons Blood, and many more.
Quote from: ralfy on April 15, 2024, 11:18:45 PMSide note: the characters look funny, from the recruits in the base to the council members to Lucy's brother and cousin. It's as if as Sims game had come to life, and that the writers are Fallout gamers who imagine themselves as characters in the story that they're developing.
I think the problem is that they are either using some manner of CGI background, or there is some manner of filtering going on. I know in HD it looks REALLY off to me. I got that same effect watching the live action Aladdin movie in HD during my hospital stay.
Quote from: Omega on April 16, 2024, 05:37:31 AMQuote from: ralfy on April 15, 2024, 11:18:45 PMSide note: the characters look funny, from the recruits in the base to the council members to Lucy's brother and cousin. It's as if as Sims game had come to life, and that the writers are Fallout gamers who imagine themselves as characters in the story that they're developing.
I think the problem is that they are either using some manner of CGI background, or there is some manner of filtering going on. I know in HD it looks REALLY off to me. I got that same effect watching the live action Aladdin movie in HD during my hospital stay.
IMO HD in general looks way "cleaner" than movies (and TV shows) made previously. Maybe it's a generational thing, where if you were used to non-HD, you really notice HD clarity, and not in a good way.
Watched all of Fallout and liked it.
Liked all the Dunes too.
Weird how Paul Atrides is Lucy's father in Fallout. ;-)
I managed to finish the second part of Dune, and something like half of the content's banal, although I don't blame the cast and crew as it probably has to do with the material, which I think can only be delivered effectively piecemeal (like in a mini-series, which was done in the past), and to develop characters properly.
Also, it looks like the character of Paul has to be played both as a young man and as someone with more seriousness later, which means the actor in this case is too young. The actors in the 1980s movie and in the mini-series look like better matches.
The dialogue was also ordinary, but sounded more sophisticated with the Fremen and the older leader of the houses. Some scenes were also strangely delivered, like one where Paul talks to his mother softly, and then suddenly shouts, and then speaks softly once more. I don't know if it's meant to show that he has some sort of volatile personality, but it doesn't show.
Beyond the banality, I think the best scenes involved the early depiction of the ways of the Fremen, and probably Paul's speech. It's just that the first is distracting due to contradictions in their way of life (as if they live in a pre-industrial society but have access to advanced tech) and second peters out because the speech sounds ordinary contentwise.
Quote from: DocJones on April 16, 2024, 03:17:32 PMWatched all of Fallout and liked it.
Liked all the Dunes too.
Weird how Paul Atrides is Lucy's father in Fallout. ;-)
I had a more recent crossover when I visualized Wonka riding atop giant gummi-worms with his bands of oompa-fremen jihadis.
QuoteAlso, it looks like the character of Paul has to be played both as a young man and as someone with more seriousness later, which means the actor in this case is too young. The actors in the 1980s movie and in the mini-series look like better matches.
Dunno about Miniseries, but Kyle looked way way way too old. Paul starts his story as 15 y.o. And twinkish one, not some HS jock. Kyle was 25 and looked at least 30, nothing as it should.
Quote from: Wrath of God on April 17, 2024, 07:04:02 PMQuoteAlso, it looks like the character of Paul has to be played both as a young man and as someone with more seriousness later, which means the actor in this case is too young. The actors in the 1980s movie and in the mini-series look like better matches.
Dunno about Miniseries, but Kyle looked way way way too old. Paul starts his story as 15 y.o. And twinkish one, not some HS jock. Kyle was 25 and looked at least 30, nothing as it should.
They should probably stick to the written work, where the reader can imagine how a twinkish individual can become some sort of messianic leader among people whose way of life appear to resist that and even anything that behaves like some HS jock.
Or maybe the writer was basing the character on the actual past, with some kings and warlords in their teens and commanding large armies.
Question is of course is to off to us because Chalamet did bad work, or because it's just to uncanny for our modern sensibilities.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 16, 2024, 02:36:50 PMIMO HD in general looks way "cleaner" than movies (and TV shows) made previously. Maybe it's a generational thing, where if you were used to non-HD, you really notice HD clarity, and not in a good way.
As noted with the live action Aladdin, for me the problem was watching it felt like I was looking at a movie set for some reason. Its not that it looks cleaner. It looks, like some old 90s movies where it feels like you are looking at a set with actors rather than a movie.
Quote from: Omega on April 18, 2024, 12:57:58 PMQuote from: Ratman_tf on April 16, 2024, 02:36:50 PMIMO HD in general looks way "cleaner" than movies (and TV shows) made previously. Maybe it's a generational thing, where if you were used to non-HD, you really notice HD clarity, and not in a good way.
As noted with the live action Aladdin, for me the problem was watching it felt like I was looking at a movie set for some reason. Its not that it looks cleaner. It looks, like some old 90s movies where it feels like you are looking at a set with actors rather than a movie.
But is that because the sets/costumes./etc are bad, or that you can see them more clearly and see that they're "real" things?
I'm struggling to put it into words. I think HD shows things so clearly that you have little space to suspend your disbelief. Even if a prop or costume is authentic and flawless, it's still more "real" now.
I think the low def TV and film allowed us to more easily believe that the things were were looking at weren't props.
I think Chalamet is OK, and he certainly has the looks of a Paul. It's just that I don't think the way the dialogue is written does the character he's potraying justice. I get this feeling that Paul is like Joan of Arc when he's younger, and Lawrence of Arabia as he becomes part of the Fremen.
Usually, when something like this goes wrong, I assume that the problem lies with the writing, and if not that direction.
Quote from: Wrath of God on April 17, 2024, 07:04:02 PMQuoteAlso, it looks like the character of Paul has to be played both as a young man and as someone with more seriousness later, which means the actor in this case is too young. The actors in the 1980s movie and in the mini-series look like better matches.
Dunno about Miniseries, but Kyle looked way way way too old. Paul starts his story as 15 y.o. And twinkish one, not some HS jock. Kyle was 25 and looked at least 30, nothing as it should.
Weird since they have de-aging technology to make him look younger.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 18, 2024, 07:06:47 PMBut is that because the sets/costumes./etc are bad, or that you can see them more clearly and see that they're "real" things?
I'm struggling to put it into words. I think HD shows things so clearly that you have little space to suspend your disbelief. Even if a prop or costume is authentic and flawless, it's still more "real" now.
I think the low def TV and film allowed us to more easily believe that the things were were looking at weren't props.
1: The sets and costumes arent the problem. Though it can and does make CGI feel more fake than it already was. I dont know. Theres something just OFF with HD.
2: Not more real in a way. More like too real. Almost artificially real. This would be great for VR or 3d viewing maybe. But as is it keeps popping me out of the movie.
3: I do not think its that. I get the same feel of too-realness from some old VHS movies. And even some cam movies. Ive even got that feeling from some really old BW silent movies.
Some older content, especially TV show, look jankier in HD because HD lets you see things that you couldn't see in SD and aren't supposed to see. Flaws in sets that were hidden in SD are suddenly visible in 1080p. That floor outlet where the sci-fi panel plugs in was hidden in shadow in SD but now you can see it. Some things were clearly never meant to be seen in 1080p.
QuoteWeird since they have de-aging technology to make him look younger.
In Lynch's "Dune" time?
Quote from: Wrath of God on April 23, 2024, 07:51:03 AMQuoteWeird since they have de-aging technology to make him look younger.
In Lynch's "Dune" time?
In Hollyweird, are you smoking something?
Rebel Moon Part 2 was laughably bad. I guess they were trying to go for something not-quite-steampunk with the coal powered spaceships and hand-cranked weapon turrets, but it seemed really dumb. Even worse was that everyone with a gun seemed to want to get close enough to hit people with the body of the gun rather than just shooting them. Still, I did laugh (at it), so not a total loss of time.
Quote from: yosemitemike on April 20, 2024, 06:11:34 PMFlaws in sets that were hidden in SD are suddenly visible in 1080p. That floor outlet where the sci-fi panel plugs in was hidden in shadow in SD but now you can see it. Some things were clearly never meant to be seen in 1080p.
No, it is not that at all. You could see that stuff without HD.
Quote from: Omega on April 25, 2024, 11:31:54 PMQuote from: yosemitemike on April 20, 2024, 06:11:34 PMFlaws in sets that were hidden in SD are suddenly visible in 1080p. That floor outlet where the sci-fi panel plugs in was hidden in shadow in SD but now you can see it. Some things were clearly never meant to be seen in 1080p.
No, it is not that at all. You could see that stuff without HD.
Not always. There are cases where shows were shot on 35 mm film at a 3:2 aspect ratio, and then cropped on both sides to 4:3 for broadcast. Sometimes when those shows are processed for HD, they take the original film negatives and crop them top and bottom to make a widescreen version of the show. This can lead to things that were originally intended to be cropped out appearing on screen.
There are also cases where the HD stream of a show is missing scenes, either by mistake or deliberate omission.
Quote from: Omega on April 25, 2024, 11:31:54 PMNo, it is not that at all. You could see that stuff without HD.
Aside from the cropping issue that has already been explained, a lot of older media was clearly never meant to be seen at 1080p. Stuff that was visible if you were really looking closely is now plainly visible once something is upscaled. It was common to tape pieces of black paper to the panels to block reflections in TNG. It's not that noticeable in SD. It's plainly visible in HD. That wire attached to a prop that you couldn't really see on a VHS copy of a low budget movie shot on video is now plain as day when it's upscaled to HD. You are seeing things that you were not meant to see.
The removal of motion blur by interpolation also causes issues. A lot of older media was shot at 24 fps and was intended to be seen at 24 fps. First, the images are spread out to up the frame rate to 30 fps. Then those images are interlaced to get it to 60 fps to match the 60hz TVs common at the time. Then you play it on your new 120hz or 240hz TV and the TV creates inbetween frames to increase the frame rate to match your TV. So for a 120 hz TV, you now have a frame rate that is 5x what the movie was intended to be seen at with more fake frames than real ones. It's good for some thing like live sports but it makes movie not look like movies any more.
I have not seen the TNG thing yet.
I think what I am trying to mean here is that some HD stuff looks almost too real. Again it is akin to how some movies shot on VHS can feel, or even some really old movies. Just moreso with HD.
For me at least it has nothing to do with the sets themselves.
A part of me keeps wanting to say it has something to do with the lighting. But its more than that.
Quote from: Omega on April 29, 2024, 12:55:02 AMI have not seen the TNG thing yet.
I think what I am trying to mean here is that some HD stuff looks almost too real. Again it is akin to how some movies shot on VHS can feel, or even some really old movies. Just moreso with HD.
For me at least it has nothing to do with the sets themselves.
A part of me keeps wanting to say it has something to do with the lighting. But its more than that.
That's probably what is called the Soap Opera effect. The removal of motion blur from movies shot in 24 fps makes things look too smooth
https://www.displayninja.com/what-is-the-soap-opera-effect/
Quote from: yosemitemike on April 28, 2024, 08:48:04 AMAside from the cropping issue that has already been explained, a lot of older media was clearly never meant to be seen at 1080p.
There was a scene in the old Land of the Lost from the 70s where Marshal (IIRC) falls through a portal. Watching it now, it is obvious that they just filmed an old 12" GIjOE action figure dressed in a brown shirt.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 29, 2024, 10:42:38 AMQuote from: yosemitemike on April 28, 2024, 08:48:04 AMAside from the cropping issue that has already been explained, a lot of older media was clearly never meant to be seen at 1080p.
There was a scene in the old Land of the Lost from the 70s where Marshal (IIRC) falls through a portal. Watching it now, it is obvious that they just filmed an old 12" GIjOE action figure dressed in a brown shirt.
Nah...
That's just how pepole looked in the 70s.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 29, 2024, 10:42:38 AMThere was a scene in the old Land of the Lost from the 70s where Marshal (IIRC) falls through a portal. Watching it now, it is obvious that they just filmed an old 12" GIjOE action figure dressed in a brown shirt.
If its the scene Im thinking of then no. Thats just the actors image being rotated against chromakey.
They did though use some minis for like the raft over the falls.
I found a movie that I am pretty sure is someone's vampire LARP that they filmed.
Finally pinned down a copy of Warlords of Atlantis, one of four movies directed by Kevin Connor and starring Doug McClure. This one though is not based on a Edgar Rice Burroughs book.
Bit more meandering. But some nicely done practical effects and editing tricks employed. The giant octopus was impressive.
Of these four I liked At the Earth's Core the most.
Quote from: yosemitemike on May 01, 2024, 04:24:30 PMI found a movie that I am pretty sure is someone's vampire LARP that they filmed.
You mean other than the Vampire the Masquerade TV series Kindred? (Though it was surprisingly well done for a 90s TV series.)
Quote from: Omega on May 01, 2024, 04:30:15 PMYou mean other than the Vampire the Masquerade TV series Kindred? (Though it was surprisingly well done for a 90s TV series.)
It's an indie movie called Old Blood.
Watched the Jerry Seinfeld movie "Unfrosted" about the origin of pop tarts.
I went in with low expectations, but absolutely loved it. It's ridiculous and the cast is phenomenal.
It is also fairly family-friendly. No nudity at all, not even anything close. Very little swearing. The sex jokes are innuendo, apart from Univac II mentioning that Jack LaLanne is freeballing.
A few of Seinfeld's line deliveries fall flat, but overall good stuff.
I saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2024, 03:06:41 AMI saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.
Another movie remake of an old TV show? Why? Hollywood truly is bankrupt of new ideas.
Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 07:36:00 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2024, 03:06:41 AMI saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.
Another movie remake of an old TV show? Why? Hollywood truly is bankrupt of new ideas.
Why? Because it was entertaining. Sometimes entertainment only needs to entertain. Besides that, apart from character names and the premise that the lead character is a stuntman, it doesn't share much in common with stories told in the old series (at least as I remember them).
Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 07:36:00 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2024, 03:06:41 AMI saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.
Another movie remake of an old TV show? Why? Hollywood truly is bankrupt of new ideas.
I think they were bankrupt a long time ago we are just getting old enough to see the rehash/recycle.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 05, 2024, 08:37:32 AMQuote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 07:36:00 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2024, 03:06:41 AMI saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.
Another movie remake of an old TV show? Why? Hollywood truly is bankrupt of new ideas.
I think they were bankrupt a long time ago we are just getting old enough to see the rehash/recycle.
You've almost gotten to the realization that the problem might not be entirely with them, but also with you.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 05, 2024, 08:30:29 AMQuote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 07:36:00 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2024, 03:06:41 AMI saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.
Another movie remake of an old TV show? Why? Hollywood truly is bankrupt of new ideas.
Why? Because it was entertaining. Sometimes entertainment only needs to entertain. Besides that, apart from character names and the premise that the lead character is a stuntman, it doesn't share much in common with stories told in the old series (at least as I remember them).
Then what the hell is the point of even calling it Fall Guy and using the names from the series?
Quote from: oggsmash on May 05, 2024, 08:37:32 AMQuote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 07:36:00 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2024, 03:06:41 AMI saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.
Another movie remake of an old TV show? Why? Hollywood truly is bankrupt of new ideas.
I think they were bankrupt a long time ago we are just getting old enough to see the rehash/recycle.
The 90s all over again.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 05, 2024, 10:49:55 AMQuote from: oggsmash on May 05, 2024, 08:37:32 AMQuote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 07:36:00 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2024, 03:06:41 AMI saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.
Another movie remake of an old TV show? Why? Hollywood truly is bankrupt of new ideas.
I think they were bankrupt a long time ago we are just getting old enough to see the rehash/recycle.
You've almost gotten to the realization that the problem might not be entirely with them, but also with you.
Nice try at being a corporate shill. But you fail miserably.
Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 11:44:56 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 05, 2024, 10:49:55 AMQuote from: oggsmash on May 05, 2024, 08:37:32 AMQuote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 07:36:00 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2024, 03:06:41 AMI saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.
Another movie remake of an old TV show? Why? Hollywood truly is bankrupt of new ideas.
I think they were bankrupt a long time ago we are just getting old enough to see the rehash/recycle.
You've almost gotten to the realization that the problem might not be entirely with them, but also with you.
Nice try at being a corporate shill. But you fail miserably.
If you've become so jaded (or, as you put it, "old enough to see") that everything looks like crap to you, then some of the problem is that you will never be satisfied with anything aimed at newer audiences.
Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 11:43:28 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 05, 2024, 08:30:29 AMQuote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 07:36:00 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2024, 03:06:41 AMI saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.
Another movie remake of an old TV show? Why? Hollywood truly is bankrupt of new ideas.
Why? Because it was entertaining. Sometimes entertainment only needs to entertain. Besides that, apart from character names and the premise that the lead character is a stuntman, it doesn't share much in common with stories told in the old series (at least as I remember them).
Then what the hell is the point of even calling it Fall Guy and using the names from the series?
It was inspired by the TV series of the same name. It doesn't copy it, so it's not truly a remake/reboot/re-whatever. Lee Majors has a brief appearance, but he's not playing any version of Colt Severs at all so his appearance is not trying to tie the story back to the TV series, it's just a tip of the hat to the actor.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 05, 2024, 10:49:55 AMQuote from: oggsmash on May 05, 2024, 08:37:32 AMQuote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 07:36:00 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2024, 03:06:41 AMI saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.
Another movie remake of an old TV show? Why? Hollywood truly is bankrupt of new ideas.
I think they were bankrupt a long time ago we are just getting old enough to see the rehash/recycle.
You've almost gotten to the realization that the problem might not be entirely with them, but also with you.
Oh certainly getting old enough to have frame of reference for history in one's own lifetime is certainly a bit of a problem. Patterns form.
Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 07:36:00 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2024, 03:06:41 AMI saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.
Another movie remake of an old TV show? Why? Hollywood truly is bankrupt of new ideas.
I haven't seen 2024 The Fall Guy movie and have no opinions on it, but "The Fall Guy" was slang for both a patsy (i.e. someone to take the fall for a crime) and a stuntman long before the 1981 TV series. There have been half a dozen movies of that title, like this one:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/TheFallGuyLobbyPoster.1930.jpg)
In general, I think originality is overrated and execution underrated. In classic Hollywood, there were 44 Charlie Chan movies and 36 Abbot & Costello movies. Roy Rogers starred in over a hundred singing cowboy movies. Going back further, Shakespeare was far from original - most of his works were remakes of prior plots.
Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 03:34:07 PMGoing back further, Shakespeare was far from original - most of his works were remakes of prior plots.
Tell me you know nothing about Shakespeare and his literary impact without telling me you no
nothing about Shakespeare and his literary impact...
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 06, 2024, 06:23:07 AMIf you've become so jaded (or, as you put it, "old enough to see") that everything looks like crap to you, then some of the problem is that you will never be satisfied with anything aimed at newer audiences.
I don't think a romantic comedy starring two people in their 40s based on a TV show from the early 80s is really meant for a "newer audience". Unless by "newer" you mean "over 50".
Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 03:34:07 PMIn general, I think originality is overrated and execution underrated. In classic Hollywood, there were 44 Charlie Chan movies and 36 Abbot & Costello movies. Roy Rogers starred in over a hundred singing cowboy movies. Going back further, Shakespeare was far from original - most of his works were remakes of prior plots.
These were the days before television and DVDs so movie series took that role. However, even those extreme examples prove a point. Charlie Chan was in 44 movies during a period of 20 years (1929-1949). Abbott & Costello were in movies for 16 years (1940-1956). But today we have franchises making new content that are 40 or 50 years old, or even longer with Star Trek being 58.
So even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 06, 2024, 08:41:16 PMSo even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.
I don't think "exploiting" is necessarily the right term.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 06, 2024, 08:41:16 PMQuote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 03:34:07 PMIn general, I think originality is overrated and execution underrated. In classic Hollywood, there were 44 Charlie Chan movies and 36 Abbot & Costello movies. Roy Rogers starred in over a hundred singing cowboy movies. Going back further, Shakespeare was far from original - most of his works were remakes of prior plots.
These were the days before television and DVDs so movie series took that roll. However, even those extreme examples prove a point. Charlie Chan was in 44 movies during a period of 20 years (1929-1949). Abbott & Costello were in movies for 16 years (1940-1956). But today we have franchises making new content that are 40 or 50 years old, or even longer with Star Trek being 58.
So even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.
I agree that they are milking IP for more decades now, but that's not a measure of originality of the studios. Obviously in the 1940s, feature film franchises couldn't have been going for 40 or 50 years, because feature films hadn't been around for that long. Also, the length of copyright has been extended, which has enabled keeping IP for longer.
In the classic era, there were still 40+ year franchises, they just weren't purely in film by necessity. The Wizard of Oz was published in 1900 - and had over a dozen stage and film adaptations before the 1939 MGM musical film. Similarly, Peter Pan was published in 1904 and again frequented stage and radio long before the 1953 Disney animated film. Fu Manchu was published first in 1913 with popular adapations in the 1930s through 1960s. Sherlock Holmes started in 1887 and has had hundreds of adaptations continuously into the 21st century.
Movie studios have had their ups and downs and different phases, but there's always been tons of exploitation and formulaic productions. Even in films that weren't technically a series could be highly formulaic. I love Fred Astaire musicals and Errol Flynn swashbuckling, say, but most of them don't get any points for originality. The current spate of superhero movies since 2008 is annoying, but it's quite parallel to the dominance of westerns for many decades. Looking back, people tend to only watch the most lauded films of each era - but every decade also had lots of forgettable and formulaic drek.
Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 09:38:44 PMThe current spate of superhero movies since 2008 is annoying, but it's quite parallel to the dominance of westerns for many decades.
One very notable difference is that the vast majority of current Superhero movies come from one studio and one IP. Marvel/Disney. With DC/Warner Bros being a very distant second.
There was at least a little more breadth in the genere of westerns made in the 50's.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 07, 2024, 09:26:18 AMQuote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 09:38:44 PMThe current spate of superhero movies since 2008 is annoying, but it's quite parallel to the dominance of westerns for many decades.
One very notable difference is that the vast majority of current Superhero movies come from one studio and one IP. Marvel/Disney. With DC/Warner Bros being a very distant second.
There was at least a little more breadth in the genere of westerns made in the 50's.
Don't forget that a genre being popular is one thing, and the complaint was that they're producing almost nothing but reboots, sequels, prequels, re-imaginings of older IP.
Following the market has always happened, but at least we got different Private Eyes, procedural police stories, etc.
Procedurals: NCIS, CSI, Dr House, Dexter
Sci-Fi: Star Trek, Galactica, Stargate, Star Wars
Sure, we did get some near copies but those were usually from smaller studios, Turkey, etc.
Thinking about it, the reason I've disconnected from most of the mainstream American entertainment industry is less about originality, and more about aesthetics.
I'll agree with JHKim that execution can, and often does, trump originality. But more importantly, the fact that something is using an existing IP doesn't mean it's entirely unoriginal. The 1999 The Mummy, which happens to be being rereleased to theaters this year, is one of my favorite films. Technically, it's a remake of the 1932 film, which I also really like, but the two are almost not similar at all.
My bigger problem with the recent products of both Hollywood and AAA videogaming is that everything is just so flat and ugly now. I'm not sure whether the culprit is the drive towards photorealism or the woke tendency to hate the concept of aesthetics, but (with a very few exceptions) nothing has any kind of style or glamour to it anymore. The Marvel films are probably the obvious example, as they just get uglier and uglier over time, but you could also look at the insane aesthetic downgrade between Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films from 20 years ago and the Amazon show last year, despite the advancements in technology and comparable budget. The James Bond films were the standard-bearer for Hollywood style and glamour for decades, and then they let their aesthetics decay to the point where the Kingsman movies were able to come along and snatch their crown, and The list goes on and on.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 06, 2024, 09:08:10 PMQuote from: hedgehobbit on May 06, 2024, 08:41:16 PMSo even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.
I don't think "exploiting" is necessarily the right term.
Maybe I should use the term that Bob Iger used in his recent earning call and talk about "an entirely new era of
mining IP"
I do find it odd that the people who defend these mega corporations care more about the IP being mined for content than the people actually running the corporations. My motto has recently become "If they don't care about it, I don't care about it."
https://nypost.com/2024/05/07/entertainment/bob-iger-mining-comment-reveals-all-you-need-to-know-about-sorry-state-of-disney/
Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 10, 2024, 10:32:55 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on May 06, 2024, 09:08:10 PMQuote from: hedgehobbit on May 06, 2024, 08:41:16 PMSo even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.
I don't think "exploiting" is necessarily the right term.
Maybe I should use the term that Bob Iger used in his recent earning call and talk about "an entirely new era of mining IP"
I do find it odd that the people who defend these mega corporations care more about the IP being mined for content than the people actually running the corporations. My motto has recently become "If they don't care about it, I don't care about it."
https://nypost.com/2024/05/07/entertainment/bob-iger-mining-comment-reveals-all-you-need-to-know-about-sorry-state-of-disney/
Mining is certainly a better term, as one definition of it reads, "delve into (an abundant source) to extract something of value, especially information or skill." With both Marvel and Star Wars, there are abundant sources to dig through, even though I can't necessarily say that I've favored all the bits they've chosen to extract and put on screen (big and small).
However, mining would imply that the source is limited, and that what is built upon the extracted material is not itself added back into the source (which is very much how I persoanlly like to view SW 7-9...), so perhaps it's not the best term either.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 07, 2024, 09:26:18 AMQuote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 09:38:44 PMThe current spate of superhero movies since 2008 is annoying, but it's quite parallel to the dominance of westerns for many decades.
One very notable difference is that the vast majority of current Superhero movies come from one studio and one IP. Marvel/Disney. With DC/Warner Bros being a very distant second.
There was at least a little more breadth in the genere of westerns made in the 50's.
Theres alot of superhero stuff thats not from Disney. It just tends to get lost in the shuffle. The Boys, which I detest, Invincible which is barely mediocre, bunches of foreign ones out there.
Kinds of similar to the spate in the 90s. There were loads of superhero TV shows.Couple of non DC or Marvel movies. Meteor Man, Darkman, Dollman, shows like Nightman and Mantis, More of you looked overseas.
Pinned down a copy of Pinocchio in Outer Space after 50 odd years.
Always thought it was a Japanese animation. But its a US+Belgian production.
Its as trippy as I remembered it. Probably would make a good Spelljammer adventure. Rampaging space whale, mysterious martian experiments, giant monsters and ancient ruins.
Quote from: Omega on May 11, 2024, 01:04:39 AMTheres alot of superhero stuff thats not from Disney. It just tends to get lost in the shuffle. The Boys, which I detest, Invincible which is barely mediocre, bunches of foreign ones out there.
Kinds of similar to the spate in the 90s. There were loads of superhero TV shows.Couple of non DC or Marvel movies. Meteor Man, Darkman, Dollman, shows like Nightman and Mantis, More of you looked overseas.
There's also all of the DC TV series which are mostly complete rubbish. I have been afraid to watch Stargirl since I actually like that character.
Quote from: Omega on May 11, 2024, 01:04:39 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on May 07, 2024, 09:26:18 AMQuote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 09:38:44 PMThe current spate of superhero movies since 2008 is annoying, but it's quite parallel to the dominance of westerns for many decades.
One very notable difference is that the vast majority of current Superhero movies come from one studio and one IP. Marvel/Disney. With DC/Warner Bros being a very distant second.
There was at least a little more breadth in the genere of westerns made in the 50's.
Theres alot of superhero stuff thats not from Disney. It just tends to get lost in the shuffle. The Boys, which I detest, Invincible which is barely mediocre, bunches of foreign ones out there.
Kinds of similar to the spate in the 90s. There were loads of superhero TV shows.Couple of non DC or Marvel movies. Meteor Man, Darkman, Dollman, shows like Nightman and Mantis, More of you looked overseas.
I never understood classifying Darkman as a superhero movie. It's like saying Evil Dead 2 is a superhero movie. Kinda, sorta, maybe if you squint and broaden the definitions to their maximum.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/13/steven-spielberg-george-lucas-film-industry
The implication is that studios are focusing on superhero movies and similar (e.g., fantasy or sci-fi, whether action, adventure, horror, comedy, or even romance; examples include Barbie and the latest Mario Bros. movie because large amounts of money are at stake and they are focusing on international audiences, including those who speak other languages or have varied cultures. That means the ff.
Focus on fantasy or sci-fi, with lots of CGI and special effects, and at least two hours long, in order to make the movie look expensive and thus worth watching in the theater, including even on IMAX or similar. Given high ticket prices plus parking, lunch or dinner out, and snacks, the trip better be worthwhile.
Use formulae that worked in the past. That way, the chances of making mistakes may decrease. Examples including another chase scene and Bartertown, as seen in Fury Road, another visit to a rock and protagonists who look like Ripley and have names like "Tennessee" (alluding to "Dallas"), as seen in the Alien prequels, another orphan on a desert planet vs. another Death Star, as seen in the Star Wars sequels, and so on.
This also helps in increasing production time. Given the amounts of money to be invested or paid for in terms of licensing, etc., one has to milk the franchise for all its got. It's like going for one season to another in TV shows until they either end in a great way or are run to the ground. That means making as many movies as possible.
If possible, go for the PG sweet spot. Many of those expected to watch the movies are relatively young, so by focusing on that rating, the younger ones can tag along and the older ones won't think that they're watching a show for kids.
Make sure that the story can be understood by people of different language backgrounds and cultures. At least half of the audience will come from outside English-speaking countries, so make sure that they're targeted. It also helps when co-producers include foreign companies.
What about cheaper-looking movies? They can be shown during the dump months, but keep in mind they can also be very lucrative. For example, check out the Paranormal franchise. In any case, whatever art films one envisions might be funded through profits from the tent-pole flicks.
Keep in mind merchandising, spin-offs, etc., but don't use additional revenues from those to compensate for box office receipts (which are likely halved as theater owners, distributors, etc., want their cuts); investors want their returns ASAP, and will likely greenlight sequels, prequels, reboots, rehashes, reimaginations, etc., based one success in theaters.
Finally, note streaming, where several of these conditions may change.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 11, 2024, 07:59:40 AMI never understood classifying Darkman as a superhero movie. It's like saying Evil Dead 2 is a superhero movie. Kinda, sorta, maybe if you squint and broaden the definitions to their maximum.
I'd call it straight-up pulp, like The Shadow or The Spider.
Superheroes sprang up out of the pulps, but soon became their own distinct genre.
The pulps were the incubators for a lot of 20th century genres: superheroes, sci fi, horror, fantasy, men's adventure, and so on.
Reminds me of the Star Wars franchise, which borrowed from Flash Gordon and various sci-fi and even western serials, plus swashbuckler flicks, war movies, and various foreign films that Lucas watched at film school.
Quote from: yosemitemike on May 11, 2024, 01:44:35 AMQuote from: Omega on May 11, 2024, 01:04:39 AMTheres alot of superhero stuff thats not from Disney. It just tends to get lost in the shuffle. The Boys, which I detest, Invincible which is barely mediocre, bunches of foreign ones out there.
Kinds of similar to the spate in the 90s. There were loads of superhero TV shows.Couple of non DC or Marvel movies. Meteor Man, Darkman, Dollman, shows like Nightman and Mantis, More of you looked overseas.
There's also all of the DC TV series which are mostly complete rubbish. I have been afraid to watch Stargirl since I actually like that character.
I liked the original Flash live action series despite it diverging heavily from the comics. Ship did a excellent Barry Allen. The new Flash series is just... stupid on stupid sometimes. Its like the writers forget the character has, you know, super speed way too often.
The Superboy TV series from the 90s was not bad either.
QuoteI never understood classifying Darkman as a superhero movie. It's like saying Evil Dead 2 is a superhero movie. Kinda, sorta, maybe if you squint and broaden the definitions to their maximum.
er. The Darkman movie about the scientist who is disfigured and fights crime using synthetic skin to disguise himself as different people?
Thats like claiming Batman isnt a superhero because he has no superpowers?
Quote from: Omega on May 13, 2024, 01:35:07 AMQuoteI never understood classifying Darkman as a superhero movie. It's like saying Evil Dead 2 is a superhero movie. Kinda, sorta, maybe if you squint and broaden the definitions to their maximum.
er. The Darkman movie about the scientist who is disfigured and fights crime using synthetic skin to disguise himself as different people?
Thats like claiming Batman isnt a superhero because he has no superpowers?
Darkman is a deranged psychopath. He doesn't fight crime. He wants cruel and bloody revenge on the specific criminals who caused his situation. Even at their worst, "dark and gritty" superheroes like Batman or Punisher still have some kind of code of morals and a goal to help people. Darkman is just some poor guy's ID run rampant. If anything, he has a lot more in common with supervillians.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 13, 2024, 01:07:42 PMQuote from: Omega on May 13, 2024, 01:35:07 AMQuoteI never understood classifying Darkman as a superhero movie. It's like saying Evil Dead 2 is a superhero movie. Kinda, sorta, maybe if you squint and broaden the definitions to their maximum.
er. The Darkman movie about the scientist who is disfigured and fights crime using synthetic skin to disguise himself as different people?
Thats like claiming Batman isnt a superhero because he has no superpowers?
Darkman is a deranged psychopath. He doesn't fight crime. He wants cruel and bloody revenge on the specific criminals who caused his situation. Even at their worst, "dark and gritty" superheroes like Batman or Punisher still have some kind of code of morals and a goal to help people. Darkman is just some poor guy's ID run rampant. If anything, he has a lot more in common with supervillians.
Agreed but then... Isn't The Crow the same? He's NOT fighting criminals, hes getting cruel and bloody revenge on those who killed him and his fiance.
And I looooove them both.
Furthermore, isn't Batman, Punisher, The Executioner (especially those who do kill) just extending his revenge to ALL criminals? Just playing devils advocate here but you could make THAT argument and not be 100% wrong.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 14, 2024, 02:35:51 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on May 13, 2024, 01:07:42 PMQuote from: Omega on May 13, 2024, 01:35:07 AMQuoteI never understood classifying Darkman as a superhero movie. It's like saying Evil Dead 2 is a superhero movie. Kinda, sorta, maybe if you squint and broaden the definitions to their maximum.
er. The Darkman movie about the scientist who is disfigured and fights crime using synthetic skin to disguise himself as different people?
Thats like claiming Batman isnt a superhero because he has no superpowers?
Darkman is a deranged psychopath. He doesn't fight crime. He wants cruel and bloody revenge on the specific criminals who caused his situation. Even at their worst, "dark and gritty" superheroes like Batman or Punisher still have some kind of code of morals and a goal to help people. Darkman is just some poor guy's ID run rampant. If anything, he has a lot more in common with supervillians.
Agreed but then... Isn't The Crow the same? He's NOT fighting criminals, hes getting cruel and bloody revenge on those who killed him and his fiance.
And I looooove them both.
I love Darkman. (Haven't seen The Crow. ) I just don't put it in the same category as "Superhero".
QuoteFurthermore, isn't Batman, Punisher, The Executioner (especially those who do kill) just extending his revenge to ALL criminals? Just playing devils advocate here but you could make THAT argument and not be 100% wrong.
Yes. That's why I said *If you squint really hard*. Mostly because superheroes as a genre can include other stuff. Marvel in the 80's ripped of The Terminator (Cable) and Alien (The Brood) So you could argue that X-Men is a Sci Fi and/or Horror comic. But I think at that point the genre categories are pretty much useless.
I could argue if Punisher is a superhero, why not John Rambo? They're both pretty similar characters. Military veterans who had a traumatic experience and went rogue.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 14, 2024, 04:05:12 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on May 14, 2024, 02:35:51 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on May 13, 2024, 01:07:42 PMQuote from: Omega on May 13, 2024, 01:35:07 AMQuoteI never understood classifying Darkman as a superhero movie. It's like saying Evil Dead 2 is a superhero movie. Kinda, sorta, maybe if you squint and broaden the definitions to their maximum.
er. The Darkman movie about the scientist who is disfigured and fights crime using synthetic skin to disguise himself as different people?
Thats like claiming Batman isnt a superhero because he has no superpowers?
Darkman is a deranged psychopath. He doesn't fight crime. He wants cruel and bloody revenge on the specific criminals who caused his situation. Even at their worst, "dark and gritty" superheroes like Batman or Punisher still have some kind of code of morals and a goal to help people. Darkman is just some poor guy's ID run rampant. If anything, he has a lot more in common with supervillians.
Agreed but then... Isn't The Crow the same? He's NOT fighting criminals, hes getting cruel and bloody revenge on those who killed him and his fiance.
And I looooove them both.
I love Darkman. (Haven't seen The Crow. ) I just don't put it in the same category as "Superhero".
QuoteFurthermore, isn't Batman, Punisher, The Executioner (especially those who do kill) just extending his revenge to ALL criminals? Just playing devils advocate here but you could make THAT argument and not be 100% wrong.
Yes. That's why I said *If you squint really hard*. Mostly because superheroes as a genre can include other stuff. Marvel in the 80's ripped of The Terminator (Cable) and Alien (The Brood) So you could argue that X-Men is a Sci Fi and/or Horror comic. But I think at that point the genre categories are pretty much useless.
I could argue if Punisher is a superhero, why not John Rambo? They're both pretty similar characters. Military veterans who had a traumatic experience and went rogue.
You totally need to see the Crow, the original one with Brandon Lee (RIP). Totally worth it and holds up really well.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 14, 2024, 07:08:36 PMYou totally need to see the Crow, the original one with Brandon Lee (RIP). Totally worth it and holds up really well.
The original is going to be back in theaters later this month (May 29th and 30th), so you may be able to see it on the big screen (!).
https://www.cinemark.com/movies/the-crow-30th-anniversary
Quote from: jhkim on May 15, 2024, 07:02:43 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on May 14, 2024, 07:08:36 PMYou totally need to see the Crow, the original one with Brandon Lee (RIP). Totally worth it and holds up really well.
The original is going to be back in theaters later this month (May 29th and 30th), so you may be able to see it on the big screen (!).
https://www.cinemark.com/movies/the-crow-30th-anniversary
unedited? without content warnings "for the modern audience"?
If so then I might scrounge the money to go see it.
Another oddball superhero movie came across. Dark Avenger from 1990.
A judge is maimed and becomes a crime fighter using stealth and gadgets like a prosthetic arm.
Similar premise to the Dark Justice TV series, just with disfigurement and tech.
Finally got to see "When the Wind Blows" A UK animation about a couple who are caught up in a Sovier nuclear strike on the UK and their attempts to maintain some semblance of normalcy in the aftermath.
I'd heard of this movie for years, especially on our old Gamma World e-group way back and knew it was pretty harsh. But good lord it pulls no punches! This one should be required viewing before playing The Morrow Project or Gamma World.
The Bloggs are this simple middle-aged couple with no great knowledge of just how bad things are and bumble about to the grim finale. I even recognize some of the precautions Jim takes from the nuclear survival booklet as they are similar to the ones we were given in school back in the 70s. Just not nearly as informative apparently? Might even still have mine.
Not sure if anyone has mentioned it but Upgrade is a really good movie masquerading as a dumb action flick, watch it till the end and thank me latter.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 31, 2024, 01:03:19 AMNot sure if anyone has mentioned it but Upgrade is a really good movie masquerading as a dumb action flick, watch it till the end and thank me latter.
Well, it seems we
can agree on something.
Quote from: HappyDaze on June 01, 2024, 10:12:02 AMQuote from: GeekyBugle on May 31, 2024, 01:03:19 AMNot sure if anyone has mentioned it but Upgrade is a really good movie masquerading as a dumb action flick, watch it till the end and thank me latter.
Well, it seems we can agree on something.
We have agreed on multiple somethings.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 01, 2024, 12:35:28 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on June 01, 2024, 10:12:02 AMQuote from: GeekyBugle on May 31, 2024, 01:03:19 AMNot sure if anyone has mentioned it but Upgrade is a really good movie masquerading as a dumb action flick, watch it till the end and thank me latter.
Well, it seems we can agree on something.
We have agreed on multiple somethings.
Well, now I have to disagree. ;)
Willie's Wonderland was up for viewing and so had a look at it and was pleasantly surprised at how hood it was.
A guy is tasked with cleaning up an old abandomed amusement building in the Chuck-e-Cheese style. Except the animatronics are haunted and out for blood. Problem. The man with no name may be more dangerous than the monsters.
Nick Cage gives a weirdly subdued yet energetic performance as the utterly laid back drifter who is hell bent on doing his job. The gang of kids though suffer from Agents of SHIELD inability to react syndrom but are otherwise not bad. The rampant animatronics are interesting and a nice little divergence from the usual backstories for these things.
Quote from: Omega on June 12, 2024, 05:48:25 PMWillie's Wonderland was up for viewing and so had a look at it and was pleasantly surprised at how hood it was.
A guy is tasked with cleaning up an old abandomed amusement building in the Chuck-e-Cheese style. Except the animatronics are haunted and out for blood. Problem. The man with no name may be more dangerous than the monsters.
Nick Cage gives a weirdly subdued yet energetic performance as the utterly laid back drifter who is hell bent on doing his job. The gang of kids though suffer from Agents of SHIELD inability to react syndrom but are otherwise not bad. The rampant animatronics are interesting and a nice little divergence from the usual backstories for these things.
Isn't that almost FNaF?
Haunted animatronics in a run down eatery.
But past that they diverge massively. It has hints of Childs Play and Nightmare on Elm Street.
I went in expecting it to be yet another FNAF wanna-be. But it quickly hies off into the unexpected.
I found an interesting movie on Amazon Prime called Moon Garden. It's billed as a horror movie and it does have horror elements but it's more of a dark fairy tale. The girl who plays the main character is very good for such a young actor. The rest of the cast is quite good too The visuals are interesting and evocative. The sets and costumes are very well done for a low budget movie. This is the kind of thing I hunt through the no budget indie horror movies to find.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 12, 2024, 08:59:03 PMIsn't that almost FNaF?
They are, at most, only vaguely similar.
Same locale and killer animatronics. But how they play out are near diametrically opposite.
"He's not locked in here with them! THEY ARE LOCKED IN HERE WITH HIM!"
So the anime series The New Gate finally hit the small screen. I followed the original web novel series translations for quite a long time.
Its an interesting twist on the usual isekai theme. In this case starting at the end of instead a "Trapped in VR Deathgame" plot. Then the hero is mysteriously transported into the game world made real. But hundreds of years in the future where the vanishing of the players is a legend now.
Production on the anime is a little cheap and the editing is all over the place sometimes. Feels like a crew new to producing a series.
But one notable interesting element is that the demons in the book and anime use the randomization tables from the back of the AD&D DMG. I have seen this in a rare few other anime too. But its notable here.
So far the anime is ok. Not great, not bad.
Quote from: Omega on June 12, 2024, 05:48:25 PMWillie's Wonderland was up for viewing and so had a look at it and was pleasantly surprised at how hood it was.
A guy is tasked with cleaning up an old abandomed amusement building in the Chuck-e-Cheese style. Except the animatronics are haunted and out for blood. Problem. The man with no name may be more dangerous than the monsters.
Nick Cage gives a weirdly subdued yet energetic performance as the utterly laid back drifter who is hell bent on doing his job. The gang of kids though suffer from Agents of SHIELD inability to react syndrom but are otherwise not bad. The rampant animatronics are interesting and a nice little divergence from the usual backstories for these things.
I watched that a few years ago to kill some time and help Nick Cage get some views as I was shocked he was in it (not that shocked he was on his grind where the did not use or understand the word "no"). I developed a whole side theory as to how he was a super soldier roaming the country and getting "recharges" from that insane energy drink he quaffed down relentlessly. When his watch went off facing that monster to take a break and he handed his knife to the girl I was laughing hard.
The movie telling me NOTHING about Cage's character, yet Cage telling me EVERYTHING about his character without speaking a word was pretty awesome.
Cage got into some tax trouble so he had to take any role that was offered to him. That's why he is in so many disparate movies. He really couldn't afford to say no to a paycheck.
I know and it seems some interesting movies were left in the wake of that. In Willie's Wonderland he never speaks once, but he elevates the movie a great deal and in every low budget movie I have seen him in, I never see him dial it in. He always seems to be putting an honest effort in.
The internet ruined Cages rep with memes and his career has never really recovered. That and a few bad movies in the early 00s didnt help.
But you watch him act and he usually puts his all into a role. And apparently he hits his marks and relatively easy to work with.
I think it helps that Cage started his career doing indie movies, and he appreciates them for what they are.
Having massive debt is also a motivator, though it's been a long time since his 2009 financial crash, and it is possible he's back above water. Still, he's not getting any younger, and he probably wants to work as hard as he can, for as long as he can, so he can live the good life in retirement.
In an interview with Patrick Stewart he comments that the only reason he accepted the role of Picard was because he wanted to add an extension on his house. He figured the show would last a season at best. And we know how that went.
I finally finished watching Panzer World Galient after like 20 years.
An anime series that drops mecha into a alien medieval setting. From the same person as did Armored Troopers Votoms. I had the series to episode 10 or 12. But no longer have a VHS and so all my old tapes from the 90s are inaccessible.
The series takes some weird swerves as turns out the main villain, is not what he seems and by the end of the series its escalated to galactic war. Then it ends abruptly.
Some rather nice mecha designs and points to whomever animated all the centaur mechs.
I feel like Aura Battler Dunbine has a more compelling plot in a similar "Mechs in fantasy world" setting. But Galient has the tighter plot. Dunbine meanders a bit.
Also finished watching Blue Submarine no.6. Post apoc setting where a mad scientist has flooded the world and is finishing off the survivors with an army of bio-engineered fish people. Starts off ok. But by the end you realize its a rather stupid cycle of hate and the villain holds a shotgun to the head of mankind to force peace. It too ends a bit abruptly.
Amazon Prime has produced a new Batman animated series called BATMAN: CAPED CRUSADER, which Bruce Timm is working on, and is clearly modeled on the 1990s Batman: The Animated Series.
Short take: Not as good as BTAS. Many of the sins of modernity are present, including gratuitous race and gender swapping, girl bosses, and injection of modern mores into a historical setting.
The animation is also worse than BTAS, particularly when they try to mesh CGI cars with drawn animation. The two don't mesh, and the animation on the CGI elements is really awkward. It reminds me of the really cheap animation that the BBC uses to try and complete classic Doctor Who episodes when the live action footage has been lost. This stuff was done much better even back in the 90s.
That said, it is still watchable, though I tend to leave it on in the background and do other stuff.
They're shooting for it to be Batman: Year One the series, set in an ahistorical pseudo-1950s.
The design work is mixed, they are deliberately going for a 1940s style to Batman and Catwoman. I don't like their Harley Quinn design at all. But they did an alt-Clayface that was fairly effective.
Oh, and there's a slimy tabloid photographer named Eel O'Brian, which is the real name of Plastic Man. (He's not listed in the IMDB page)
Just saw Streets of Fire. Holy smokes this film gave me whiplash between the good and bad parts. The best parts are likely to make you all warm and fuzzy if you have any nostalgia for the 80s at all. It's full of power ballads and such (being a kind of musical, but the songs are well incorporated in the plot). Great cinematography as well (a bit like Blade Runner). But the acting is really campy (more than your average 80s movie) and sometimes turns into pure cringe. Willem Dafoe is a good villain here (dressed up like 1980s Queensryche) but there's a lack of chemistry between the other actors. So yeah, a bit of a mess but some truly great moments.
Streets of Fire is flawed all right, and it bombed in theaters. But it became a cult classic on cable and home video.
It had a big influence on the classic anime Bubblegum Crisis, particularly on the soundtrack. The theme song Konya wa Hurricane would fit pretty well on Ellen Aim's set list.
Quote from: Lurkndog on August 07, 2024, 09:29:43 AMStreets of Fire is flawed all right, and it bombed in theaters. But it became a cult classic on cable and home video.
It had a big influence on the classic anime Bubblegum Crisis, particularly on the soundtrack. The theme song Konya wa Hurricane would fit pretty well on Ellen Aim's set list.
I wonder if it also influenced Dark City (with Jennifer Connelly as the "songstress").
Hard to say, it's been a long time since I watched my copy of Dark City.
Well took a glance at Batman: Caped Crusader... and wish I had not.
Woke woke and more woke.
Race swap Commsiioner Gordon and Barbra? Check.
Gender swap Penguin? Check.
Lesbians who look like guys? Check.
In apparently the 1950s? Check.
And on and on. Bruce Timm botched this one on all levels.
Quote from: Omega on August 15, 2024, 11:29:18 AMWell took a glance at Batman: Caped Crusader... and wish I had not.
Woke woke and more woke.
Race swap Commsiioner Gordon and Barbra? Check.
Gender swap Penguin? Check.
Lesbians who look like guys? Check.
In apparently the 1950s? Check.
And on and on. Bruce Timm botched this one on all levels.
Jar Jar Abrahams was involved, what did you expect?
Also, IIRC Bruce Timm has a case of TDS.
Alien Romulus... le-sigh...
Starts off ok. But then in maybe the second half of the movie it just gets stupider and stupider.
So apparently now the aliens are quick grow and go to adults practically instantly. W-T-F? Yeah they grew to adult ridiculously fast in the original. Like what? Adult in 24 hours? Now its super fast, And that is just one thing. Scott seems to have this obsession with making the characters as stupid as possible as otherwise the plot can not work or something.
Not sure if this show is Prometheus level stupid, but fuck sake.
Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F was a pretty good movie.
Quote from: Omega on August 18, 2024, 10:48:06 AMAlien Romulus... le-sigh...
Starts off ok. But then in maybe the second half of the movie it just gets stupider and stupider.
So apparently now the aliens are quick grow and go to adults practically instantly. W-T-F? Yeah they grew to adult ridiculously fast in the original. Like what? Adult in 24 hours? Now its super fast, And that is just one thing. Scott seems to have this obsession with making the characters as stupid as possible as otherwise the plot can not work or something.
Not sure if this show is Prometheus level stupid, but fuck sake.
I laughed so hard it hurt. The alien coccoon that looked like a dripping space vagina and the "acid jizz tunnel" scene were hilarious. I also enjoyed that, when you turn the gravity generator
off, it has to periodically send out a "gravity purge" and spontaneously reactivate. There's also the autopilot that just turns itself on and off whenever dramatically convenient.
In space, no one can hear you sigh...
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 20, 2024, 05:39:53 PMQuote from: Omega on August 18, 2024, 10:48:06 AMAlien Romulus... le-sigh...
Starts off ok. But then in maybe the second half of the movie it just gets stupider and stupider.
So apparently now the aliens are quick grow and go to adults practically instantly. W-T-F? Yeah they grew to adult ridiculously fast in the original. Like what? Adult in 24 hours? Now its super fast, And that is just one thing. Scott seems to have this obsession with making the characters as stupid as possible as otherwise the plot can not work or something.
Not sure if this show is Prometheus level stupid, but fuck sake.
I laughed so hard it hurt. The alien coccoon that looked like a dripping space vagina and the "acid jizz tunnel" scene were hilarious. I also enjoyed that, when you turn the gravity generator off, it has to periodically send out a "gravity purge" and spontaneously reactivate. There's also the autopilot that just turns itself on and off whenever dramatically convenient.
In space, no one can hear you sigh...
It really did look like they wanted you to see a dripping vagina didn't it?
And the rapid growth was truly bizarre.
Spoiler
They imitated one of the worst parts of a previous alien movie with that human alien mix (the pregnant lady did it to herself, which made zero sense). And the thing grew from a baby to larger than human in minutes.
What did it eat? Mineral ore?
Quote from: Lurkndog on August 07, 2024, 09:29:43 AMStreets of Fire is flawed all right, and it bombed in theaters. But it became a cult classic on cable and home video.
It had a big influence on the classic anime Bubblegum Crisis, particularly on the soundtrack. The theme song Konya wa Hurricane would fit pretty well on Ellen Aim's set list.
OK, there's some black magic going on with Streets of Fire. Notice I wasn't all that convinced about it as a whole, but I still bought it on Blu-ray a couple of days later :P I guess it got under my skin somehow.
I rewatched "Adventures in Babysitting" 35 years since my family rented it on VHS. I was skeptical, since this was one of those that I thought might not hold up now that I'm a grownup. But I actually chuckled through almost the whole thing. Pretty entertaining to be honest.
PS don't watch this one on Disney+, they have censored and changed things according to movie buffs.
Quote from: Trond on August 24, 2024, 09:24:27 PMPS don't watch this one on Disney+, they have censored and changed things according to movie buffs.
I suspect we will be seeing more and more of that in the coming years.
Also I suspect we will see more old movies defiled with CGI "fixes". BBC seems to be pushing this lately.
Saw The Union with Mark Wahlberg, my ex waifu Halle Berry (I'm a married potato now, sorry babe) and J.K. Simmons... A fun mix of action/spy/buddy cop/comedy and a Must Watch. I give it 8/10 sidekicks.
Zero wokeness to be seen.
Quote from: Trond on August 22, 2024, 08:10:28 PMOK, there's some black magic going on with Streets of Fire. Notice I wasn't all that convinced about it as a whole, but I still bought it on Blu-ray a couple of days later :P I guess it got under my skin somehow.
They do a really nice job of capturing an alt-Americana vibe. Tom Cody is part cowboy, and part rebel without a cause, and maybe part Elvis as well. He's a hero, a fool and a legendary outlaw.
Michael Pare had just come off of
Eddie and the Cruisers (1983), where he played a rock star whose disappearance turns him into a legend, and that movie was a cult hit as well, so he was carrying some of that vibe into this movie.
Willem Dafoe as bad guy Raven is also pretty iconic, giving off Marlon Brando vibes and just being a scary mofo for Cody to play off of.
Unfortunately, it's less than the sum of its parts, and a lot of the air goes out of the room when Cody hits Ellen Aim, but still, it has a lot of memorable moments.
Binge-watched
KAOS on the weekend with my wife. Woke AF in exactly the ways that, in hindsight, one should expect of series creator and writer Charlie Covell (who also did the series
The End of the F***ing World), but, to be as brutally fair as possible, reasonably entertaining for those who aren't as prickly about religion-bashing in their stories as I am. If you enjoy watching Jeff Goldblum do his usual fumfering while actually presenting a reasonably scary take on Zeus, King of the Gods, you'll enjoy this at least somewhat.
Basic situation: It's an alternate modern day world where the Greek Gods are real and known to be real, and worshipped everywhere -- there are some nice little touches of worldbuilding based on this, like Mount Olympus looking like an uber-mansion from
Lifestyles of The Rich and Shameless, Dionysus being a rave-club party boy, an order of tongueless priestesses called the
Tacitae who hear confessions (which unfortunately go straight to Hera's ears, which she does not treat as sacred), and the conquered Trojans living as a ghettoized minority in Krete (with a circle of terroristic rebels constantly committing anti-Olympian vandalism). Zeus has recently started getting more and more paranoid about no longer being loved or worshipped properly, and about a prophecy foretelling the fall of the Divine Family and the return of Kaos. Three mortals may likewise be involved in this coming fall: Eurydice, the unhappily-domestic wife of the rock star Orpheus; Caeneus, an ex-Amazon who had to leave her people upon coming out as a trans man (which unlike the myth is done in the Present-Day-Seattle definition of the term, rather than the original tale of Caenis the Amazon being magically transformed by Poseidon at her request into Caeneus the Warrior so she'd never be raped again); and Ariadne, daughter of President Minos of Krete, who is a critical part of her own father's prophesied fate and of the future of Olympian worship. And behind the scenes, Prometheus the imprisoned Titan (played by Stephen Dillane, in an entertaining change-up from his role as Stannis Baratheon) is conspiring with the Fates to help upset the order of the universe in a bid to regain his own freedom....
Criticisms in the spoiler block so those who think they might still enjoy it can do so.
Spoiler
- First problem: The basic world is extremely implausible to anybody who knows anything about the history of scientific thought and technological development, because those things grew ineluctably out of the Judeo-Christian worldview that the universe was rational, consistent and ordered, a worldview that nothing in Greek mythology suggests to be the case.
- Second problem: The entire story, as noted above, is an extremely heavy-handed bash at the ideas of religion and religious thought, epitomized by the great and horrible secret of the gods: the afterlife of Renewal, which mortal souls are promised in Hades as a reincarnation to a better next life -- it's this passage through a doorway called the Frame which the funeral coin is used to pay for, rather than crossing the Styx -- is a lie; going through the Frame only puts souls into a void called the Nothing where they serve as unconscious fuel for the gods' immortality and power, conveyed through the medium of the waters from a divine fountain on Olympus called the Meander. Anyone who sincerely reveres the gods and tries to do their will is presented as a dupe at best and a monster at worst.
- Third problem: As the story of Caeneus might have hinted above, the series goes above and beyond the kind of LGBT representation that even the original myths could have entertainingly facilitated; not only are such characters introduced in places and in ways even the myths didn't go (Prometheus and Charon were lovers in this story, as were Theseus and Astyanax the lost prince of Troy, and the three Fates are all portrayed by trans or "non-binary" actors like Eddie Izzard), but the vast majority of heterosexual couples are deliberately subverted to destroy them as counterpoints -- Eurydice ("Riddy") is shown as miserable in her marriage to Orpheus and planning to leave him anyway (and for no good reason except feeling stifled and bored), while Orpheus's love for and adoration of his wife, a love for which he went to Hell itself, is ultimately portrayed as somehow a bad thing; Hera is cheating on Zeus with Poseidon; Minos and Pasiphae, Ariadne's parents, are political performers with no love lost between them; and the nameless mortal couple who want to get their deceased son back from the underworld, unintentionally jeopardizing Orpheus's efforts to rescue Eurydice, are stuck in grief and misery that is never annealed. Only Hades and Persephone have anything like a happy marriage, and if they are not as needlessly cruel as the other gods, they are still willing participants in the theft of mortal souls for their own benefit.
It's well acted, cleverly written and quite funny in a few parts, but on the whole, anybody who takes their religion at all seriously and doesn't feel like seeing it bashed for eight straight hours would be better advised to watch something else.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on September 03, 2024, 01:01:46 PMBinge-watched KAOS on the weekend with my wife. Woke AF in exactly the ways that, in hindsight, one should expect of series creator and writer Charlie Covell (who also did the series The End of the F***ing World), but, to be as brutally fair as possible, reasonably entertaining for those who aren't as prickly about religion-bashing in their stories as I am. If you enjoy watching Jeff Goldblum do his usual fumfering while actually presenting a reasonably scary take on Zeus, King of the Gods, you'll enjoy this at least somewhat.
Basic situation: It's an alternate modern day world where the Greek Gods are real and known to be real, and worshipped everywhere -- there are some nice little touches of worldbuilding based on this, like Mount Olympus looking like an uber-mansion from Lifestyles of The Rich and Shameless, Dionysus being a rave-club party boy, an order of tongueless priestesses called the Tacitae who hear confessions (which unfortunately go straight to Hera's ears, which she does not treat as sacred), and the conquered Trojans living as a ghettoized minority in Krete (with a circle of terroristic rebels constantly committing anti-Olympian vandalism). Zeus has recently started getting more and more paranoid about no longer being loved or worshipped properly, and about a prophecy foretelling the fall of the Divine Family and the return of Kaos. Three mortals may likewise be involved in this coming fall: Eurydice, the unhappily-domestic wife of the rock star Orpheus; Caeneus, an ex-Amazon who had to leave her people upon coming out as a trans man (which unlike the myth is done in the Present-Day-Seattle definition of the term, rather than the original tale of Caenis the Amazon being magically transformed by Poseidon at her request into Caeneus the Warrior so she'd never be raped again); and Ariadne, daughter of President Minos of Krete, who is a critical part of her own father's prophesied fate and of the future of Olympian worship. And behind the scenes, Prometheus the imprisoned Titan (played by Stephen Dillane, in an entertaining change-up from his role as Stannis Baratheon) is conspiring with the Fates to help upset the order of the universe in a bid to regain his own freedom....
Criticisms in the spoiler block so those who think they might still enjoy it can do so.
Spoiler
- First problem: The basic world is extremely implausible to anybody who knows anything about the history of scientific thought and technological development, because those things grew ineluctably out of the Judeo-Christian worldview that the universe was rational, consistent and ordered, a worldview that nothing in Greek mythology suggests to be the case.
- Second problem: The entire story, as noted above, is an extremely heavy-handed bash at the ideas of religion and religious thought, epitomized by the great and horrible secret of the gods: the afterlife of Renewal, which mortal souls are promised in Hades as a reincarnation to a better next life -- it's this passage through a doorway called the Frame which the funeral coin is used to pay for, rather than crossing the Styx -- is a lie; going through the Frame only puts souls into a void called the Nothing where they serve as unconscious fuel for the gods' immortality and power, conveyed through the medium of the waters from a divine fountain on Olympus called the Meander. Anyone who sincerely reveres the gods and tries to do their will is presented as a dupe at best and a monster at worst.
- Third problem: As the story of Caeneus might have hinted above, the series goes above and beyond the kind of LGBT representation that even the original myths could have entertainingly facilitated; not only are such characters introduced in places and in ways even the myths didn't go (Prometheus and Charon were lovers in this story, as were Theseus and Astyanax the lost prince of Troy, and the three Fates are all portrayed by trans or "non-binary" actors like Eddie Izzard), but the vast majority of heterosexual couples are deliberately subverted to destroy them as counterpoints -- Eurydice ("Riddy") is shown as miserable in her marriage to Orpheus and planning to leave him anyway (and for no good reason except feeling stifled and bored), while Orpheus's love for and adoration of his wife, a love for which he went to Hell itself, is ultimately portrayed as somehow a bad thing; Hera is cheating on Zeus with Poseidon; Minos and Pasiphae, Ariadne's parents, are political performers with no love lost between them; and the nameless mortal couple who want to get their deceased son back from the underworld, unintentionally jeopardizing Orpheus's efforts to rescue Eurydice, are stuck in grief and misery that is never annealed. Only Hades and Persephone have anything like a happy marriage, and if they are not as needlessly cruel as the other gods, they are still willing participants in the theft of mortal souls for their own benefit.
It's well acted, cleverly written and quite funny in a few parts, but on the whole, anybody who takes their religion at all seriously and doesn't feel like seeing it bashed for eight straight hours would be better advised to watch something else.
Thanks for biting that bullet, saved me some precious time.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on September 03, 2024, 01:01:46 PMIt's well acted, cleverly written and quite funny in a few parts, but on the whole, anybody who takes their religion at all seriously and doesn't feel like seeing it bashed for eight straight hours would be better advised to watch something else.
Unh. I'm down for poking at any belief system, but as a recovered materialist atheist, I'd really like to see the deconstruction of religion move past the level of Youtube Edgelord.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 03, 2024, 08:43:07 PMUnh. I'm down for poking at any belief system, but as a recovered materialist atheist, I'd really like to see the deconstruction of religion move past the level of Youtube Edgelord.
I think part of the difficulty is that most people who write anti-religion satires are primarily motivated by personal grudges against the target, which means the advocacy has a tendency to get in the way of the art. (Ironically, the same problem bedevils, no pun intended, many "faith-based" works in the opposite direction.)
Pulled out my old copy of King Kong Escapes and noticed something had not before. It is collaboration with none other than Rankin/Bass. Apparently it ties into their King Kong cartoon which I'd never heard of.
Its a fun giant monster movie and whomever they have in the suits sure could move fluidly when running. Does not look like the Japanese version ever got a subtitled release. But the english version is not bad really.
This and that odd one with the fish men were two of the more obscure Toho movies that stuck with me.
Didn't see it around 10 years ago when it came out, but I saw "the man from UNCLE" for the first time, the 2014? movie. It was a pretty solid movie, entertaining, not annoying, etc.
The Man from UNCLE remake was surprisingly not bad for these things.
Quote from: Omega on September 06, 2024, 06:01:20 PMThe Man from UNCLE remake was surprisingly not bad for these things.
That's because it was released in 2015.
While it had been trending down, Hollywood still gave a damn about wrapping their message in a reasonable story to slowly nudge the public leftward right up until November 6, 2016. Anything not finished with production by that date became message-first with good storytelling optional as the "inevitable arc of history" was broken and TDS overcame Hollywood like it was the latest STD.
The nudging was over and Hollyweird went Full Retard trying to shove the message down everyone's throats... burning down property after property in a fit of pique.
Went back and watched Wolf (1994). I remembered hating it when it came out, because it didn't feel like a real werewolf movie. But this time around I enjoyed it a lot more. I always liked the soundtrack to it, but the movie itself felt too light as werewolf movies go when I saw it in theaters. And I felt like we got robbed of a good Jack Nicholson werewolf film (which at the time just seemed like a perfect fit for him). But I found myself a lot less hostile to the premise and didn't mind the subtle transition into a werewolf over the course of the film.
I finally sat down and watched Deathstalker II, and it was....fucking amazing. Probably the funniest piece of B movie schlock I've seen since Humanoids From the Deep.
Quote from: ForgottenF on September 17, 2024, 08:04:24 PMI finally sat down and watched Deathstalker II, and it was....fucking amazing. Probably the funniest piece of B movie schlock I've seen since Humanoids From the Deep.
I remember doing a marathon of those movies on VHS in high school. I believe at a certain point they start re-using footage from previous movies to pad out the scenes
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on September 17, 2024, 10:26:43 PMI remember doing a marathon of those movies on VHS in high school. I believe at a certain point they start re-using footage from previous movies to pad out the scenes
They started with the second one.
Spoiler for KAOS
-
QuoteFirst problem: The basic world is extremely implausible to anybody who knows anything about the history of scientific thought and technological development, because those things grew ineluctably out of the Judeo-Christian worldview that the universe was rational, consistent and ordered, a worldview that nothing in Greek mythology suggests to be the case.
I'd defintiely disagree with it. Sure medieval Christianity very much embraced such perspective, but it did not came from Israel or early Christianity. It came very much from Greeks and Greek philosophy. Rationalism and empiricism came both from Greek, and attempts to rationally explain own religion came to Jews via Hellenism. OF course this rational drive of Greek philosophy stood in jarring contrast to wild shenanigans of their mythology which is maybe they were so fast to embrace Christianity, gnosticism or even various magical traditions that offered more consistent cosmology.
So if you take Greek myths vs Greek philosophical ideas, you can kinda imagine putting them in conflict as very opposed things. After all Socrates was executed among other things for atheism (not denying The God, but denying Greek religion).
Quote- Second problem: The entire story, as noted above, is an extremely heavy-handed bash at the ideas of religion and religious thought, epitomized by the great and horrible secret of the gods: the afterlife of Renewal, which mortal souls are promised in Hades as a reincarnation to a better next life -- it's this passage through a doorway called the Frame which the funeral coin is used to pay for, rather than crossing the Styx -- is a lie; going through the Frame only puts souls into a void called the Nothing where they serve as unconscious fuel for the gods' immortality and power, conveyed through the medium of the waters from a divine fountain on Olympus called the Meander. Anyone who sincerely reveres the gods and tries to do their will is presented as a dupe at best and a monster at worst.
I mean idea for fantasy that gods parasites on human faith and so on is nothing new in fantasy TBH.
I mean look at Forgotten Realms - neither deity there is actually the God, they are merely quarreling spirits, and yet they will put you into Wall if you lack patron.
But honestly with your description I wonder different thing about it.
Have you thought the satire here is less pointed into Church but more into modern billionaires and their sometimes cult following. Something about it sounds more like gods are those filthy rich people, who exploit working massess of world for own gain, while common men are lied they can rich Elysian state...?
QuoteThe Man from UNCLE remake was surprisingly not bad for these things.
I mean it's Guy Ritchie. He may do better and worse things but generally he seems to doing first and foremost own film. Sure that may mean Chinese kung-fu Arthurian knights, but I doubt it was for wokeness sake.
Well the Minecraft movie teaser's been out a but and people are still flipping out over it.
Personally I am surprised anyone is surprised it was not a live action movie.
What did surprise me was several of the design choices.
For a teaser this may go down in history as the most disastrous one since Sonic.
Well a new trailer for the Minecraft movie and as predicted, some are less irate after seeing a little more.
I am not sure why anyone is up in arms over Jack Black playing Steve. Did they not catch on that this is Steve after many years in the Minecraft world?
Still, the plot feels a bit to Jumanji-esque. But at least it isnt another damn "characters come to earth" rehash plot.
I suspect the movie will do ok-ish of no one does anything to really alienate the fans after the cooldown. But this is holywood we are talking about so I expect someone to self sabotage the movie.
Quote from: Omega on September 23, 2024, 04:33:20 AMWell the Minecraft movie teaser's been out a but and people are still flipping out over it.
Is anyone expecting anything from a Minecraft movie? Is Pong next? I look forward to Tic Tac Toe Rises.
Quote from: yosemitemike on September 18, 2024, 02:56:55 AMQuote from: Bedrockbrendan on September 17, 2024, 10:26:43 PMI remember doing a marathon of those movies on VHS in high school. I believe at a certain point they start re-using footage from previous movies to pad out the scenes
They started with the second one.
That sounds about right lol. I don't remember them that well, but recall the second one being entertaining but a lot times for unintended reasons
Quote from: Wrath of God on September 19, 2024, 04:07:08 AM(Rationalism and empiricism) came very much from Greeks and Greek philosophy. ...OF course ... if you take Greek myths vs Greek philosophical ideas, you can kinda imagine putting them in conflict as very opposed things.
Sure, but in this universe the logical conclusion would be that the mythology would clearly have won out in that struggle, by virtue of the gods being actually real.
And even Greek rationalism and empiricism never presumed to do more than answer temporary local questions, and was only practiced by individual thinkers; Ancient Greece may have sowed the seeds of science, but to come to full flower, the philosophy of science as we know it today required culture-wide assumptions about the laws of nature as eternal and universal, the phenomena of independent secondary causation, and the value of collective research and knowledge-sharing that no other culture but the Christian West possessed. (See this article from SF writer Michael Flynn (https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/11/summa-origines-scientiarum-articulus-2.html) for more.)
Of course, one can always answer it by saying that perhaps some of the gods (Apollo, Prometheus or Hephaestus) gave the Greeks this knowledge directly, and they used it to rule the rest of the world ... but then one has to admit the gods have actually done a whole host of amazing things for humanity, which this writer clearly doesn't want to say.
QuoteHave you thought the satire here is less pointed into Church but more into modern billionaires and their sometimes cult following. Something about it sounds more like gods are those filthy rich people, who exploit working masses of world for (their) own gain, while common men are lied (to that) they can (gain a) rich Elysian state...?
That's another way to read it, sure; satires can be aimed at multiple targets at once. But whether the creator's using an exaggerated caricature of religion as a way to ridicule billionaires, or billionaire celebrities as a way to ridicule religion, either way, she's treating something crucial to the lives of billions of people as a joke not worth respecting, and something humans are better off without. (From episode 7, Caeneus to Eurydice: "Tell (people) to live! Tell them to really live, for once! Not for the gods, for themselves! We have one life. You have to tell them to make it count. ...Just ... tell them that all the best things are human." I don't really see another way to read that.)
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 04, 2024, 10:02:17 PMQuote from: Omega on September 23, 2024, 04:33:20 AMWell the Minecraft movie teaser's been out a but and people are still flipping out over it.
Is anyone expecting anything from a Minecraft movie? Is Pong next? I look forward to Tic Tac Toe Rises.
I figured they would go the "people visit the Minecraaft world and stuff happens" route.
I did not expect them to just copy elements from Jumanji. The big one being Steve has been there a long time.
As for what was expected. Honestly just a "explore the weirdness of the world and survive." sort of plot which is pretty much the start of any minecraft play.
But for some reason they instead adopted the plot from the Minecraft tactics game that doesnt even exist anymore. Fending off piglins who do not like people building stuff or somesuch.
Did they really need conflict that badly and could not just work with the existing threats of zombies, skeletons and so on?
Since I am not super attached to MC. Aside from the questionable plot choices. It looks about as expected. A little more and a little less blockier.
Quote from: Omega on October 06, 2024, 06:23:53 AMI did not expect them to just copy elements from Jumanji. The big one being Steve has been there a long time.
And the fact that Jack Black was in the Jumanji movie as well. He's really been in way to much stuff lately, such as ruining Claptrap in the Borderlands movie.
My kids have no interest in the movie and said they would have preferred if they had just made the entire movie in CGI instead of trying to make is live action.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 06, 2024, 12:02:01 PMMy kids have no interest in the movie and said they would have preferred if they had just made the entire movie in CGI instead of trying to make is live action.
It would have been amusing as hell (and probably more entertaining) for the film to just be a big budget version of watching a player play the game.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 06, 2024, 03:13:40 PMIt would have been amusing as hell (and probably more entertaining) for the film to just be a big budget version of watching a player play the game.
Over the years, I've seen hundreds (it feels like) of "Minecraft Lore" videos, like why do the players look different from the villagers, why do the zombies look like the players, where do the evil villagers come from, etc, etc, etc.
I think they could have made a more true-to-lore Minecraft movie similar to how they did with Five Nights at Freddys.
On the anime front, there is a Terminator anime on Netflix called Terminator Zero. Despite being animated by Production I.G., it's pretty mid. The story is basically a side story telling a parallel version of the first movie. In 1997 Tokyo, a Miles Dyson analog, Malcolm Lee, is frenetically trying to complete his AI named Kokoro, in the hours before Judgement Day happens. Meanwhile, his annoying kids run away from home and stumble across some kind of literal robot carnival lying dormant deep underground. And of course, there is a terminator sent to kill Malcolm, and a freedom fighter from the dark future sent to stop it.
The first problem is that this is basically the first movie, but watered down with unnecessary subplots.
The second problem is that there is basically only one Terminator story I really want to see at this point: the one where John Connor finally takes the fight to Skynet and does all the brilliant Napoleonic leader stuff we were promised. This is not that story.
There is also a curious remake of Ranma 1/2, which is almost identical to the original, except that the nudity is somewhat more censored. I'm not sure I see the point. Maybe they will actually write an ending for this one?
Quote from: Lurkndog on October 06, 2024, 08:32:18 PMThere is also a curious remake of Ranma 1/2, which is almost identical to the original, except that the nudity is somewhat more censored. I'm not sure I see the point. Maybe they will actually write an ending for this one?
Ok, I had not heard of that. Ranma is one of those things I thought for sure would get memory-holed. It's pure 90s sex-comedy and the premise is essentially impossible to wokify. On the basis of some quick googling, it looks like the remake is still a Japanese production, so maybe it's less in the "woke remake" category and more of a pure nostalgia cash-grab. Still, if you cut out the pervy stuff you're going to lose like half the jokes.
QuoteSure, but in this universe the logical conclusion would be that the mythology would clearly have won out in that struggle, by virtue of the gods being actually real.
Yeah well if gods are actually real, then evidence for this will push Greek philosophers to include them in their philosophical models. Plenty models assumed some gods so I don't think it would be much fuzz.
QuoteAnd even Greek rationalism and empiricism never presumed to do more than answer temporary local questions, and was only practiced by individual thinkers; Ancient Greece may have sowed the seeds of science, but to come to full flower, the philosophy of science as we know it today required culture-wide assumptions about the laws of nature as eternal and universal, the phenomena of independent secondary causation, and the value of collective research and knowledge-sharing that no other culture but the Christian West possessed. (See this article from SF writer Michael Flynn for more.)
Belief in eternal and universal laws of nature is quite common (and if anything Christianity was not believing it - as you have different pre-Fall laws, and ante-Fall, and different world post second-coming, so in Christian worldview current state of Universe is much more temporarily nuissance than for Greeks or Hindu many of which believed in infinite cyclical timeloops.
But you mentioned actual think that gived Christian culture edge, it was not believe in laws of universe, or rationalism or empiricism - all that ideas were practiced elswhere as well, and till very modern times everywhere by small elites.
Organised academia systems that arose from theology and law schools and expanded, with relative freedom of work granted by guild organisation - that was gamechanger. Thanks to strict religious underpinning all universities followed simmilar system, exchanged teachers between them in unprecedented manner.
Also they were not just bound to religious or philosophical circle, but was producing specialists state needed - lawyers, theologicans, physicians... and so it went from it to stars.
QuoteOf course, one can always answer it by saying that perhaps some of the gods (Apollo, Prometheus or Hephaestus) gave the Greeks this knowledge directly, and they used it to rule the rest of the world ... but then one has to admit the gods have actually done a whole host of amazing things for humanity, which this writer clearly doesn't want to say.
Greeks discovered them on their own, gods just exploited them later ;)
Quote(From episode 7, Caeneus to Eurydice: "Tell (people) to live! Tell them to really live, for once! Not for the gods, for themselves! We have one life. You have to tell them to make it count. ...Just ... tell them that all the best things are human." I don't really see another way to read that.)
On hand that sucks, on the other I have weird feeling REH would support it.
Quote from: Lurkndog on October 06, 2024, 08:32:18 PMOn the anime front, there is a Terminator anime on Netflix called Terminator Zero. Despite being animated by Production I.G., it's pretty mid. The story is basically a side story telling a parallel version of the first movie. In 1997 Tokyo, a Miles Dyson analog, Malcolm Lee, is frenetically trying to complete his AI named Kokoro, in the hours before Judgement Day happens. Meanwhile, his annoying kids run away from home and stumble across some kind of literal robot carnival lying dormant deep underground. And of course, there is a terminator sent to kill Malcolm, and a freedom fighter from the dark future sent to stop it.
Mid is being polite.
I say too much fucking jibber-jabber for a Terminator show. Did not enjoy the philosophy debate.
Quote from: Lurkndog on October 06, 2024, 08:32:18 PMThere is also a curious remake of Ranma 1/2, which is almost identical to the original, except that the nudity is somewhat more censored. I'm not sure I see the point. Maybe they will actually write an ending for this one?
I have only watched one episode buy they mainly seem to be updating the art and animation. The art and animation in the original are pretty crude and dated looking now.
Came across an odd one have apparently missed as it never aired that I am aware of locally when was a kid.
The Vampire's Ghost from 1945 With John Abbot as a rather non-standard vampire. More unusual is that it is set in Africa. This vampire can survive sunlight at least briefly and has a potent hypnotic power. Also the conditions for his destruction and revival are a bit different.
Really slow paced. But an interesting divergence from the norm for a vampire movie.
Quote from: ForgottenF on October 07, 2024, 09:29:20 AMQuote from: Lurkndog on October 06, 2024, 08:32:18 PMThere is also a curious remake of Ranma 1/2, which is almost identical to the original, except that the nudity is somewhat more censored. I'm not sure I see the point. Maybe they will actually write an ending for this one?
Ok, I had not heard of that. Ranma is one of those things I thought for sure would get memory-holed. It's pure 90s sex-comedy and the premise is essentially impossible to wokify. On the basis of some quick googling, it looks like the remake is still a Japanese production, so maybe it's less in the "woke remake" category and more of a pure nostalgia cash-grab. Still, if you cut out the pervy stuff you're going to lose like half the jokes.
It's for the transes!
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 09, 2024, 01:13:23 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on October 07, 2024, 09:29:20 AMQuote from: Lurkndog on October 06, 2024, 08:32:18 PMThere is also a curious remake of Ranma 1/2, which is almost identical to the original, except that the nudity is somewhat more censored. I'm not sure I see the point. Maybe they will actually write an ending for this one?
Ok, I had not heard of that. Ranma is one of those things I thought for sure would get memory-holed. It's pure 90s sex-comedy and the premise is essentially impossible to wokify. On the basis of some quick googling, it looks like the remake is still a Japanese production, so maybe it's less in the "woke remake" category and more of a pure nostalgia cash-grab. Still, if you cut out the pervy stuff you're going to lose like half the jokes.
It's for the transes!
The thing about that is that all the gender-bending humor in Ranma is fundamentally bio-essentialist. The main character getting forcibly turned into a girl every time he gets cold water splashed on him isn't a hilarious mishap if you think gender is a social construct, and all the supporting cast are doing hate-crimes by only being in love with the male or female version of the character. The contemporary trans movement would fucking HATE Ranma 1/2 if they watched it and paid any attention at all.
Quote from: ForgottenF on October 10, 2024, 12:22:38 AMcontemporary trans movement would fucking HATE Ranma 1/2 if they watched it and paid any attention at all.
The older trans community loved the show.
The new one reviles Ranma 1/2. Because of course.
Bumped into an episode of a short lived Japanese period piece called Demon Hunter Misturugi.
Set in feudal Japan with some peculiar anomalies. Why are the 3 heroes wearing motorcycle helmets???
Past that its notable for using stop motion and some puppeteering instead of suit acting for the giant monster showdowns. Its a bit crude, but I respect anyone trying to do stop motion battles every episode. Sadly the requirements eventually got the show cancelled after only 12 episodes.
Quote from: yosemitemike on October 09, 2024, 12:25:49 AMQuote from: Lurkndog on October 06, 2024, 08:32:18 PMThere is also a curious remake of Ranma 1/2, which is almost identical to the original, except that the nudity is somewhat more censored. I'm not sure I see the point. Maybe they will actually write an ending for this one?
I have only watched one episode buy they mainly seem to be updating the art and animation. The art and animation in the original are pretty crude and dated looking now.
The original animation was pretty decent for TV animation at the time. It's from the era where everything was hand-drawn and hand-painted, which tends to result in a certain loss of clarity, color quality and frame count compared to modern animation done on computers.
Older animation also tends to be hampered by poorer quality source materials. If it's coming off of videotape, some degradation is inevitable.
One thing they may do in the new show is eliminate problematic characters like Happosai, the perverted martial arts master.
Junior has discovered Top Gear (and The Grand Tour) and I'm very pleased that he also finds them to be hilarious.
I was talking about the new Ranma with my brother, and he mentioned that the original had stretches of filler episodes, which I kind of remember too (the original show was 30 years ago). The kind of thing where they have a tournament arc for a dozen episodes while they wait for new manga stories to arrive.
They may be able to eliminate a lot of that this time around, and just go off the original manga.
The original had around 150 episodes and no ending, maybe for this version they'll do like three seasons of 20 episodes and an ending?
With modern technology, they can also censor the nudity in the streaming version of the show, and then add the shmeebs back in for the Blu-Ray.
Quote from: Lurkndog on October 13, 2024, 06:42:38 PMThe original had around 150 episodes and no ending, maybe for this version they'll do like three seasons of 20 episodes and an ending?
What soap opera has ever had a proper ending? The things are meant to run forever or until they're cancelled.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 13, 2024, 06:48:46 PMWhat soap opera has ever had a proper ending? The things are meant to run forever or until they're cancelled.
I've seen Maison Ikkoku, Takahashi is fully capable of writing a satisfying ending. And I'm a lot more likely to want to rewatch the show if I know that it has a good ending.
Though, I'm not sure if Rumiko Takahashi is actually involved with the new Ranma in any way. She hasn't done any publicity for it that I know of.
I've tried to watch some of Ranma 1/2 and invariably get repulsed by the Happosai character. I sat trough one of the movies with some friends who wanted to watch it, and just found it boring.
Well, if you don't like Happosai, avoid the City Hunter franchise at all costs.
Except for maybe the Jackie Chan City Hunter movie, which is more of a Jackie Chan movie than a City Hunter movie.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 13, 2024, 06:48:46 PMQuote from: Lurkndog on October 13, 2024, 06:42:38 PMThe original had around 150 episodes and no ending, maybe for this version they'll do like three seasons of 20 episodes and an ending?
What soap opera has ever had a proper ending? The things are meant to run forever or until they're cancelled.
Soap Operas and shonen fightin' manga are different things. Still, you have a point. Most of Takahashi's work is purely episodic, and she just churns them out until the original premise is completely exhausted, and probably until the tankoban sales go into the basement.
The exceptions are her side projects, like Mermaid Forest, which tend to be beautiful tragic short stories.
The thing is, though, the sheer volume and length of the long running series becomes exhausting for the viewer. I only ever watched about half of the original Ranma 1/2, and even now the thought of watching more makes my eyes glaze over.
It's like that time I went to an all-you-can-eat sushi buffet. Ugh.
And, Netflix series do NOT run on forever. The best case scenario is to get maybe five seasons, but probably more like three. And in that case, having an ending is way better than not having an ending. It leaves the viewer satisfied, and they are more likely to watch the whole thing again.
That's my theory, at least.
Quote from: Lurkndog on October 14, 2024, 09:36:47 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on October 13, 2024, 06:48:46 PMQuote from: Lurkndog on October 13, 2024, 06:42:38 PMThe original had around 150 episodes and no ending, maybe for this version they'll do like three seasons of 20 episodes and an ending?
What soap opera has ever had a proper ending? The things are meant to run forever or until they're cancelled.
Soap Operas and shonen fightin' manga are different things. Still, you have a point. Most of Takahashi's work is purely episodic, and she just churns them out until the original premise is completely exhausted, and probably until the tankoban sales go into the basement.
The exceptions are her side projects, like Mermaid Forest, which tend to be beautiful tragic short stories.
The thing is, though, the sheer volume and length of the long running series becomes exhausting for the viewer. I only ever watched about half of the original Ranma 1/2, and even now the thought of watching more makes my eyes glaze over.
It's like that time I went to an all-you-can-eat sushi buffet. Ugh.
And, Netflix series do NOT run on forever. The best case scenario is to get maybe five seasons, but probably more like three. And in that case, having an ending is way better than not having an ending. It leaves the viewer satisfied, and they are more likely to watch the whole thing again.
That's my theory, at least.
Ever since Andromeda, my rule of thumb is 2 1/2 seasons for a show to exhaust their premise, and then it goes off the rails trying to come up with new content. How long it takes and how severe depends on the show.
I put this intetionally into practice with The Good Doctor. The show became a comfort to me as I was binge watching it after my mother died, and I needed some entertainment I could get lost in. But after Sean and Leah got married, I saw story lines start to repeat like in House MD, and I stopped watching the show. Seemed a good point and I wanted to avoid that slow decline into nonsense.
I like the original Ranma 1/2. It was fun and nutty. But after about a season or two and the movies, I had enough and moved on. Better to leave a show on a good note than to drag it out if I suspect they're going in circles.
Quote from: Lurkndog on October 14, 2024, 09:01:46 AMWell, if you don't like Happosai, avoid the City Hunter franchise at all costs.
Except for maybe the Jackie Chan City Hunter movie, which is more of a Jackie Chan movie than a City Hunter movie.
And Wicked City.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 14, 2024, 07:24:39 PMI like the original Ranma 1/2. It was fun and nutty. But after about a season or two and the movies, I had enough and moved on. Better to leave a show on a good note than to drag it out if I suspect they're going in circles.
Tenchi Muyu suffers that as well. I liked the original series, but was just unimpressed with the TV series. War on Gemnar was fun though. But its barely a Tenchi show, and just did not like at all the GXP show for some reason.
Oh, speaking of anime, I am enjoying DanDaDan, which is playing on Netflix and possibly other services.
Episode 3 comes out today, but there is quite a bit of the manga out, and the manga art is pretty great.
Synopsis: A UFO nerd is being picked on at school when a cute outcast girl takes pity and sticks up for him. He believes in UFOs but not ghosts. She believes in ghosts, but not UFOs. THEY FIGHT MONSTERS.
Gundam.
I picked up some episodes translated to english on VHS of the original series and just found it sub par compared to other mecha and anime shows. Definitely not what was expecting.
Gundam Wing even moreso.
But before that had the OVA 3 parter War in the Pocket which is pretty good, and says alot about how war is very not fun... while making it look great.
Other than that I have seen nothing of the series.
Curious about Zeta as had the novels way back.
Quote from: Omega on October 19, 2024, 07:45:12 PMGundam.
I picked up some episodes translated to english on VHS of the original series and just found it sub par compared to other mecha and anime shows. Definitely not what was expecting.
One of the problems with coming to OG Gundam in 2024 is that OG Gundam was so successful that most of the innovations it brought to the table have been imitated so widely that they are now the expected defaults for anime of that genre.
You're not seeing it as the reaction to 1970s Super Robots that it is. In its day it was shocking and revolutionary.
But viewed through the lens of nearly every show that followed it, it is simply what you'd expect.
The original 1930s Frankenstein movie has similar problems, where you see the iconic visual of Frankenstein's castle perched on a stormy crag, and if you're my age, you first saw that image in Bugs Bunny and Flintstones cartoons, and it has no impact for you.
I think the same thing happened when I tried to show my nephew Star Wars for the first time. For him it was just another sci fi movie.
Quote from: Lurkndog on October 23, 2024, 04:50:30 PMI think the same thing happened when I tried to show my nephew Star Wars for the first time. For him it was just another sci fi movie.
Makes me sad. I think a lot of modern (scifi) movies lack a certain amount of storytelling skill.
For example.
I'll take the WOK battles any day over the CGI nightmare of nuTrek. But it's a lot of mindless action, and that appeals to kids and the majority of moviegoers I guess.
Apply that sentiment to a lot (not all) of modern movies versus the "old" stuff. I guess I'm, a crotchey old grognard now.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 23, 2024, 09:55:49 PMI'll take the WOK battles any day over the CGI nightmare of nuTrek. But it's a lot of mindless action, and that appeals to kids and the majority of moviegoers I guess.
I'm not sure that it does. The reboot trek movies made between $340-470 million each at the box office. Respectable numbers, but not smash hits when they reportedly had close to $200 million budgets. Applying the fairly standard math of doubling the reported budget to account for marketing and distribution, they just about broke even. They don't release numbers for the streaming shows, so it's hard to say how successful they are. From around the internet, the impression I get is that the old trek fans tend to hate them, and there's no sign of a big bump of new trek fans coming in.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 23, 2024, 09:55:49 PMQuote from: Lurkndog on October 23, 2024, 04:50:30 PMI think the same thing happened when I tried to show my nephew Star Wars for the first time. For him it was just another sci fi movie.
I'll take the WOK battles any day over the CGI nightmare of nuTrek. But it's a lot of mindless action, and that appeals to kids and the majority of moviegoers I guess.
Apply that sentiment to a lot (not all) of modern movies versus the "old" stuff. I guess I'm, a crotchey old grognard now.
Star Trek Beyond isn't the first movie to fall apart in the third reel and turn into a CGI garbage fight, but it's a good example of that. Pity, there were some good character moments in the earlier parts of the movie.
Quote from: ForgottenF on October 24, 2024, 08:11:34 AMI'll take the WOK battles any day over the CGI nightmare of nuTrek. But it's a lot of mindless action, and that appeals to kids and the majority of moviegoers I guess.
Does it? Star Trek Beyond lost around $50 million.
Quote from: yosemitemike on October 24, 2024, 08:08:45 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on October 24, 2024, 08:11:34 AMI'll take the WOK battles any day over the CGI nightmare of nuTrek. But it's a lot of mindless action, and that appeals to kids and the majority of moviegoers I guess.
Does it? Star Trek Beyond lost around $50 million.
Like I said, I'm guessing. They keep making these schlock fests.
Quote from: Lurkndog on October 23, 2024, 04:50:30 PMOne of the problems with coming to OG Gundam in 2024 is that OG Gundam was so successful that most of the innovations it brought to the table have been imitated so widely that they are now the expected defaults for anime of that genre.
Nah. This was back in the 90s. It was the story and action that just did not grab me.
Much same with Votoms for example.
Wheras Dougram, while a bit plodding, had a more interesting plotline.
Never did get to finish collecting all the episodes of Orgus. Started off a bit slow and meanders. But looked like was going to pick up.
Dancouga was the first series ever actually completed collecting. Its ok. Meanders a bit in the middle. But at least got from point A to point B.
Dunbine I just have not ever made it past the first few episodes. Starts off shakey but everyone says it kicks into gear after a few episodes.
And as noted a few months ago. Made it through Galient. That on had so much weirdness it held interest despite plodding a little. Really interesting setting and the story takes so many weird turns. It ends though really abruptly.
All of those are on the older side.
Escaflowne was a more new-er series at the time and another one actually completed collecting all the episodes as they were released in the US. Like Galient and Dunbine it is another mix of fantasy and tech. But leans more into the fantasy. It was interesting. Felt like it lost its way near the end. But at least wrapped things up by the end.
Quote from: ForgottenF on October 24, 2024, 08:11:34 AMI get is that the old trek fans tend to hate them, and there's no sign of a big bump of new trek fans coming in.
The dislike comes from the treatment of the characters and the complete screwover of the timeline and the characters. The second movie was even worse.
Quote from: Lurkndog on October 24, 2024, 11:08:43 AMQuote from: Ratman_tf on October 23, 2024, 09:55:49 PMQuote from: Lurkndog on October 23, 2024, 04:50:30 PMI think the same thing happened when I tried to show my nephew Star Wars for the first time. For him it was just another sci fi movie.
I'll take the WOK battles any day over the CGI nightmare of nuTrek. But it's a lot of mindless action, and that appeals to kids and the majority of moviegoers I guess.
Apply that sentiment to a lot (not all) of modern movies versus the "old" stuff. I guess I'm, a crotchey old grognard now.
Star Trek Beyond isn't the first movie to fall apart in the third reel and turn into a CGI garbage fight, but it's a good example of that. Pity, there were some good character moments in the earlier parts of the movie.
For me part of the problem is the incoherent plot. The other problem is they destroy the enterprise... AGAIN!
These are two things in the ST movies that I m sick to death of. Time Travel plots and Destroying the Enterprise.
Voyage Home, Generations, First Contact, NuTrek, Time travel in each set.
Search for Spock, Generations, Beyond, Enterprise destroyed each set.
Time travel is the kudzu of sci fi. It's usually not the original point of the show/movie, but it gets brought in for a one-time storyline, and then afterwards you can't get rid of it and it keeps coming back unwanted.
In the original series they did it twice accidentally and once for research.
In TNG I dont think they did it much at all till Time's Arrow. Cant remember any others aside from the final episode. Not counting the odd memory flip one.
Deep Space 9 used it now and then but do not think they used it alot. Not counting the time elementals. I recall Quark going back in time, and an episode I missed where they go back to the TOS era, and one of the annual "torture Obrien" episodes where he ping ponged in time, and one where Sisko is stuck in a time trap.
Voyager I lost track of all the time travel episodes.
Have not seen much of Enterprise past the first 3 or so episodes. But seems theres at least one where they go back in time. Not counting the odd one where they go back in time into the Mirror Universe.
Speaking of, thats another ST gimmik thats been over used. Though dont think it was ever used in TNG or Voyager.
Quote from: Omega on October 25, 2024, 06:07:06 PMIn the original series they did it twice accidentally and once for research.
In TNG I dont think they did it much at all till Time's Arrow. Cant remember any others aside from the final episode. Not counting the odd memory flip one.
Deep Space 9 used it now and then but do not think they used it alot. Not counting the time elementals. I recall Quark going back in time, and an episode I missed where they go back to the TOS era, and one of the annual "torture Obrien" episodes where he ping ponged in time, and one where Sisko is stuck in a time trap.
Voyager I lost track of all the time travel episodes.
Have not seen much of Enterprise past the first 3 or so episodes. But seems theres at least one where they go back in time. Not counting the odd one where they go back in time into the Mirror Universe.
Speaking of, thats another ST gimmik thats been over used. Though dont think it was ever used in TNG or Voyager.
Enterprise starts with the Temporal Cold War, arguably making the whole series a time travel story. I'm so glad they wrapped that up because it was half assed and not going anywhere interesting.
The funny thing about the DS9 Mirror Universe episodes is that DS9 was already a "darker" Trek, so I felt including the Mirror Universe was kinda redundant. The campy evil of the mirror Terran Empire just didn't fit DS9's tone either.
I used to hate the "Year of Hell" two parter for Voyager, because it was the epitome of "Reset Button", but on re-watch, the bit that redeems it, IMO, is that the antagonist, Annorax, was trying to restore the timeline, but his presence as the thing changing history was the thing preventing him from restoring the timeline. Nice twist at the end, that.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 25, 2024, 07:03:15 PMEnterprise starts with the Temporal Cold War, arguably making the whole series a time travel story. I'm so glad they wrapped that up because it was half assed and not going anywhere interesting.
Yes. But they dont actually time travel all that much. I recall Archer getting yanked into the future like twice, but that was brief. But I missed alot of Enterprise so probably missed any escalation of that.
I liked old Trek and the movies, thought TNG was meh and everything after was an abomination. In fact, I recently bought the 4K director's cut version of ST:TMP (V-Ger movie). It really upsets me they didn't just bring the original cast back for another 3-5 year run instead of just getting movies.
On another note, I'm a fan of Grandizer, anyone know anything about the new U?
Theres apparently a bunch of those in the works.
I saw one for Voltes V and initially looked interesting. But the actors look bored and it just did not feel right. I know someone was working a few years ago on a live action Grendeizer but never saw any followups.
Quote from: consolcwby on November 07, 2024, 08:39:00 PMI liked old Trek and the movies, thought TNG was meh and everything after was an abomination. In fact, I recently bought the 4K director's cut version of ST:TMP (V-Ger movie). It really upsets me they didn't just bring the original cast back for another 3-5 year run instead of just getting movies.
The movies were far more prestigious than another TV series would have been, especially with every movie studio in Hollywood wanting to dip into that Star Wars gravy train.
The concept of a prestige format syndicated TV show didn't exist yet, apart from the occasional high dollar miniseries. Star Trek The Next Generation wouldn't arrive until a decade later.