Movies that you're not really looking forward to very much, basically.
- Akira (Sometime in 2011, apparently) (A live-action version of the anime movie. And guess what! The producer is Leonardo DiCaprio, who, as it turns out, is a huge anime fan.)
- Antichrist (October 23, 2009) (The latest disaster by (in)famous Danish director Lars von Trier.)
- Halloween 2 (August 28, 2009) (No explanation necessary.)
- The Kung Fu Kid (Jude 11, 2010) (Obvious Karate Kid ripoff.)
- A Nightmare on Elm Street (April 2010) (Another in a series of remakes of horror "classics".)
- Pirates of the Caribbean 4 (May 2012) (Just what we need, another sequel.)
- Rambo V (2011) (Why does this series even exist, anyway?)
- Toy Story 3 (2010) (Wasn't two enough, Pixar?)
Quote from: Whocares on August 20, 2009, 09:10:01 AM
- Toy Story 3 (2010) (Wasn't two enough, Pixar?)
Have you forgotten that this is
Pixar you're talking about?
Considering that Cars is also getting a sequel, it seems they're becoming more and more like Disney, which is sad.
Methinks you're extrapolating with too few points, my friend. Especially given their proven track record.
Still, I don't trust sequels. To me they've always been big corporate rip-offs of the originals in order to make big bucks. Don't get me wrong, there are great sequels out there, and some are even better than the original (Bride of Frankenstein), but it's getting incredibly difficult to find a sequel worth watching.
A lot of sequels I've seen have been good. Like return of the king for and two towers just too name 2 off the back. oo also the star wars movies had a lot of great movies to it :) So you just never truly know when it comes down to sequels...
those are clearly series.
there is a difference. imo anyway.
Yeah, they already planned on making sequels in the first place, so they're kinda just one big movie. I dislike both series, anyway.
Oh and yeah, don't even get me started on Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Sqeakquel. ::)
Quote from: Pyrgusfinn on August 20, 2009, 10:05:07 AM
those are clearly series.
there is a difference. imo anyway.
Not really. To have a series, you need sequels to the first work released.
Quote from: Whocares on August 20, 2009, 09:58:22 AM
Still, I don't trust sequels. To me they've always been big corporate rip-offs of the originals in order to make big bucks. Don't get me wrong, there are great sequels out there, and some are even better than the original (Bride of Frankenstein), but it's getting incredibly difficult to find a sequel worth watching.
Are you talking about movie sequels? Because I can name a few book series that just grow better with each sequel. *coughharrypottercough*
Quote from: Whocares on August 20, 2009, 09:50:13 AM
Considering that Cars is also getting a sequel, it seems they're becoming more and more like Disney, which is sad.
Every Pixar movie I can think of have also been a Disney movie. Are there any Pixar movies I don't know about?
Still, I trust Disney/Pixar a lot more than I trust plain ol' Disney.
I meant movie sequels.
And I meant that it seems Pixar, which is usually openly against several of Disney's standards, have now started to lean slightly towards moneymaking, it seems. Let's hope this is a trend that doesn't last, and that they keep being creative.
Let's see, when was the last Toy Story released again? 10 years ago?
Alas, poor slinky-dog, I knew you well...
Quote from: Whocares on August 20, 2009, 09:10:01 AM
- Antichrist (October 23, 2009) (The latest disaster by (in)famous Danish director Lars von Trier.)
I know this film is meant to be utterly awful but even though everything I have read and heard about it depicts it as a gruesome piece of self indulgent rubbish there is a small morbid part of me that wants to see it just because of how enraged a lot of people are about it (Some people did appreciate it though). I know I'd hate it, and I know I wont bother to go and see it but part of me is still curious even though I know what happens.
Wow, someone else has heard of that movie. (And of Lars von Trier, for that matter) Well, you're from England, so you're more likely to hear about it than "Why-should-I-watch-a-movie-in-another-language?" Americans.
Yeah, I first heard about it after reading an article in the paper, from a guy who absolutely hated it. And I subscribe to a weekly film podcast (Mark Kermode is the best film reviewer in the World <3) and on that they reviewed it and had an interview with the leading man. I hadn't heard of Lars von Trier till this film though, sounds like a pretty awful man though, especially in the way he acts towards his lead actresses.
If you've heard somene talking about it, it's a pretty hard movie to forget!
He's directed Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark (both in English, for some reason), which opened to large acclaim from critics. And I prefer Jonathan Rosenbaum.
Quote from: Pwned! on August 20, 2009, 10:04:08 AM
A lot of sequels I've seen have been good. Like return of the king for and two towers just too name 2 off the back.
Well, technically,
The Return of the King and
The Two Towers are two parts of the same novel, not sequels. That also brings up the fact that it's incorrect to call
The Lord of the Rings a trilogy...
Quote from: Hi no Seijin on August 20, 2009, 10:13:40 AM
Every Pixar movie I can think of have also been a Disney movie. Are there any Pixar movies I don't know about?
Still, I trust Disney/Pixar a lot more than I trust plain ol' Disney.
If I recall correctly, one of the conditions of Pixar's partnership with Disney is that the former need not be forced to make sequels by the latter. That is what would separate the two companies, in my opinion.
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on August 20, 2009, 10:32:16 AM
Alas, poor slinky-dog, I knew you well...
*moment of silence*
Nightmare on Elm Street.... I'm not sure if I'm looking forward to it or not. It's bound to be good when it comes to special effects, but on the other hand you know they're going to ruin the storyline.
not really looking for the new brad pitt movie, after his last one, which was incredible, this one looks like complete crap and will not pay 6 to 20 dollars to watch makes throw up face*
You mean Inglorious Basterds (not a misspell) by Quentin Taratino?
Yes thats the one, it looks like Epic Fail to me... But you never know with Brad Pitt, his movies are so iffy lol
You mean like most movie stars? ;) Well, I'm not really a Taratino fan, especially compared to a lot of other people, so I can't say I'll line up to see it. He always comes across to me as a French New Wave wannabe. Considering he's the director, though, even a big-name star like Pitt probably doesn't have much say in this. I am looking forward to Pitt's next movie, though, The Tree of Life, though it's more because the director is Terrence Malick.
Quote from: Legion on August 21, 2009, 01:45:32 PM
Yes thats the one, it looks like Epic Fail to me... But you never know with Brad Pitt, his movies are so iffy lol
*facepalm*
Have you never heard of Quentin Tarantino? Pulp Fiction? Kill Bill? Reservoir Dogs?
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on August 21, 2009, 01:53:41 PM
Quote from: Legion on August 21, 2009, 01:45:32 PM
Yes thats the one, it looks like Epic Fail to me... But you never know with Brad Pitt, his movies are so iffy lol
*facepalm*
Have you never heard of Quentin Tarantino? Pulp Fiction? Kill Bill? Reservoir Dogs?
Don't forget about Jackie Brown. But wow, it does seem like you've never heard of him. And he might be the most famous living director to the American public (besides Spielberg and Lucas).
Didn't Tarantino direct the CSI episodes Grave Danger Part 1 and 2?
I think the creator of the movie Shorts should be burned in hot oil...
Care to say why, JDog?
Quote from: Whocares on August 22, 2009, 12:10:37 PM
Care to say why, JDog?
because i saw an illegal cam of it, and let me tell u, worst movie ever! He should be burned in hot oil and then burned in 300 Degree whether... His movies have always been really crappy... lol
It sounds like you don't even know who they are, given that you haven't named the director or named one of their movies. Sure, Spy Kids sucks, but other Robert Rodriguez movies like Plsnet Terror and Sin City generated acclaim.
Quote from: Whocares on August 22, 2009, 05:50:26 PM
It sounds like you don't even know who they are, given that you haven't named the director or named one of their movies. Sure, Spy Kids sucks, but other Robert Rodriguez movies like Plsnet Terror and Sin City generated acclaim.
I didnt like Sin City either.. I thought that one was poop... I cant stand his movies, the ones ive watched i cant stand anyway they're all poo
Quote from: Legion on August 22, 2009, 05:52:33 PM
Quote from: Whocares on August 22, 2009, 05:50:26 PM
It sounds like you don't even know who they are, given that you haven't named the director or named one of their movies. Sure, Spy Kids sucks, but other Robert Rodriguez movies like Plsnet Terror and Sin City generated acclaim.
I didnt like Sin City either.. I thought that one was poop... I cant stand his movies, the ones ive watched i cant stand anyway they're all poo
Oh, go back to watching the Barney Dinosaur movie already, since you clearly can't comprehend anything above that quality.
We're crossing that line again...
Keep it civil please.
Yes, but he keeps insulting quality movies... He deserves to be burned.
We've been here before. If it ends up anything like the others, it won't be pretty.
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on August 22, 2009, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: Legion on August 22, 2009, 05:52:33 PM
Quote from: Whocares on August 22, 2009, 05:50:26 PM
It sounds like you don't even know who they are, given that you haven't named the director or named one of their movies. Sure, Spy Kids sucks, but other Robert Rodriguez movies like Plsnet Terror and Sin City generated acclaim.
I didnt like Sin City either.. I thought that one was poop... I cant stand his movies, the ones ive watched i cant stand anyway they're all poo
hey, i am entitled to my opinion and if i think a movie is crap then its crap to me... People have different tastes in movies, and if i dont like a certain movie, i dont have to like it, its as simple as that, there is no need to insult anyone. We're entitled to our opinions here so if i wanna say what i think i will.
Oh, go back to watching the Barney Dinosaur movie already, since you clearly can't comprehend anything above that quality.
Dude, if you're gonna say something, don't mess up the quote :P
Also, I'd prefer if you gave more critical reasons for disliking a movie other than saying 'this movie is crap'.
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on August 22, 2009, 07:00:58 PM
Dude, if you're gonna say something, don't mess up the quote :P
Also, I'd prefer if you gave more critical reasons for disliking a movie other than saying 'this movie is crap'.
because i mainly like fantasy movies and comedy movies, im not a fan of movies such as Sin City, I cant help if i never got into it...I even watched it twice and tried to like it, but i just cant like it lol
Okay, ever seen The Godfather? Goodfellas? Scarface?
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on August 22, 2009, 06:28:10 PM
Yes, but he keeps insulting quality movies... He deserves to be burned.
Beauty
is in the eye of the beholder, my friend.
Exactly. Personally, I liked Star Wars Episodes II and III, however I can accept the fact that a good number of members here did not, and would clearly argue. Just like Final Fantasy VII, which I can openly admit is inferior to the more note-worthy Final Fantasy VI. But that's just me.
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on August 22, 2009, 07:40:14 PM
Okay, ever seen The Godfather? Goodfellas? Scarface?
Sadly, no. However, Scarface looks pretty good.
So, has anyone seen Inglorious Basterds yet? Was it any good?
I thought it was pretty good. The only thing I didn't like about it was about half of it was in French or German, so it seemed like I constantly had to have my eyes on the bottom of the screen, and that was kind of annoying. Then there was some stuff I had trouble reading because the subtitles blended into the background.
Quote from: Darth Wyndisis on August 27, 2009, 07:08:53 PM
I thought it was pretty good. The only thing I didn't like about it was about half of it was in French or German, so it seemed like I constantly had to have my eyes on the bottom of the screen, and that was kind of annoying. Then there was some stuff I had trouble reading because the subtitles blended into the background.
I watch movies in other languages all the time, so I don't mind, and I ALWAYS have the subtitles on when I watch a DVD, so I'm used to it. (No particular reason, though.)
Quote from: Whocares on August 22, 2009, 05:50:26 PM
It sounds like you don't even know who they are, given that you haven't named the director or named one of their movies. Sure, Spy Kids sucks, but other Robert Rodriguez movies like Plsnet Terror and Sin City generated acclaim.
....lol planet terror
I guess it's just a "me" thing but I didn't enjoy Planet Terror that much. Some parts were really great, but other parts were just stupid.
That being said, I
do want to see Inglorious Basterds, but it's not showing in any of the nearby theatres. I'm probably gonna have to wait 'til it comes out on DVD.
Eh, I've seen a lot of war movies, but this one looks the most pointless. At least to me.
...
I still have yet to finish Defiance. That's a powerful movie.
Is it just me, or does the plot of "I Know What You Did Last Summer" sound a lot like "The House on Sorority Row"?
I have found a whole new series of movies that I won't be looking forward to, but you never know.
First, ones involving Steven Spielberg:
- The Adventures of Tintin series
- Lincoln
- Old boy
- Ghost in the Shell
- Chocky
- A Martin Luther king biopic
- A remake of James Stewart classic Harvey
- Transformers 3
Ones not involving Steven Spielberg:
- 2012
- New Moon
- Hoodwinked 2
- Friday the 13th Part 2
- Tales from Earthsea (even if it IS from Studio Ghibli)
OK, now you're just trolling. I understand the ones not involving steven spielberg, but a lot of his work can be great. Please watch Ghost in the Shell anime movie before dissing it already. Otherwise you still don't know what you're talking about and just assessing internet rumor.
The reason I'm supporting Spielberg towards this project is because Ghost in the Shell is in need of publicity. Even if the live action movie sucks, it'll still bring a lot of publicity to the series as a whole.
JQ, I believe it's a very well stablished fact that the US tends to ruin everything that is originally made outside it's borders (well, pizza is good), I'm confident that Spielberg will ruin GitS.
Well, at least it's not Dicaprio. And Spielberg has gone with some of the themes played through in Ghost in the Shell (like with Minority Report). Saying that every future movie from Spielberg will suck though? That's taking it a bit far.
Keep in mind, this project has been around for a LOOONG time, like 5-6 years. They've been trying to find someone to do a Live action ghost in the shell for quite a long time. While I'm ambiguous on this concept, at least it won't be by the Wachowski Brothers. There are plenty of worse picks than Spielberg that could've been made, like Michael Bay (LOL). Some directors may have had some interest though, like on the lower tier. But think of it along the marketing point of view.
Look at the bright side, at least Tom Cruise won't be in it.
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on November 06, 2009, 04:05:18 PM
Well, at least it's not Dicaprio. And Spielberg has gone with some of the themes played through in Ghost in the Shell (like with Minority Report). Saying that every future movie from Spielberg will suck though? That's taking it a bit far.
Keep in mind, this project has been around for a LOOONG time, like 5-6 years. They've been trying to find someone to do a Live action ghost in the shell for quite a long time. While I'm ambiguous on this concept, at least it won't be by the Wachowski Brothers. There are plenty of worse picks than Spielberg that could've been made, like Michael Bay (LOL). Some directors may have had some interest though, like on the lower tier. But think of it along the marketing point of view.
Look at the bright side, at least Tom Cruise won't be in it.
But the thing is, there are far greater directors in the world than Spielberg to handle Ghost in the Shell. (Wong Kar-Wai is a great director, and David Cronenberg could do a good job of it.) So what if the source material is serious and intelligent? So were Empire of the Sun and The War of the Worlds, but Spielberg
ruined them by turning the books into movies, and The Color Purple and Schindler's List also had some very questionable liberties taken with the books. Plus, I bet that half the people who go to watch it won't even know that it's based off a manga.
And just so you know, I thought Cruise was good in Minority Report.
Cruise was terrible with War of the Worlds though, which is why that particular adaptation was such a critical failure.
Take a look between Dark City and The Matrix and think about how that fits into this continuum for a minute.
We get it, you hate spielberg, but that's still no reason to flatly decry all future projects by him as 'crap'. We don't really know any extensive details about this particular adaptation, this is why I'm staying largely neutral until the movie comes out. It could work, given the proper direction.
It's mainly a thing about picking actors that don't have egos.
Wonder how it'd work if JJ Abrams worked on it?
Well, I thought War of the Worlds was bad because Spielberg completely abandoned all of the satire of Western society that Wells had created, and replaced it with very unbelievable "reflections" on how people act in times of war. Cruise wasn't great, for sure, but he was far from terrible, though. I think most of the reason we think he is terrible because of the media frenzy surrounding him just before it came out.
When did I say they would be crap? I only said I'm not looking forward to them. Even if I don't really like Spielberg, he does have talent when it comes to technical aspects of moviemaking. (He's also good at audience manipulation, more often than not a bad thing.) Still, he isn't capable of moral complexities on his own, so that will probably show up. Sure, The Color Purple, Schindler's List, and A.I. Artificial Intelligence have their deep moments, especially A.I., but this is due a lot more to the source materials for each of them. Everything else he's done doesn't delve too deeper than the skin. (Keep in mind I still haven't seen Munich, though.)
Plus, if Spielberg is making it, than it is likely that he would turn to big-name stars, ones that probably have egos. He's done that a lot, lately. Still, look on the bright side, Tom Hanks isn't involved. Now, THAT would be crap.
Think of it here: The lead is a female, Motoko Kusanagi. And then we have Tagusa, Batou, and Aramaki, along with the side support that are less known. Who would he pick for Motoko? Or the Puppet-master?
Have you even read the manga?
Sometimes it has to be done in part from a marketing perspective. This is not a perfect world and I wouldn't go with this route. But I guess they consider Spielberg a 'safe' bet when it comes to drawing an audience, though I can only hope that they don't take it to the vast extremes.
Quote from: Whocares on November 06, 2009, 01:20:23 PM
I think it might make for a good action movie, but I have no doubt that all the idiots in the world will think it's a real warning for an event that most likely isn't going to come to pass. This just might be an instance where breaking the suspension of disbelief would be a good thing.
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on November 06, 2009, 06:10:56 PM
Think of it here: The lead is a female, Motoko Kusanagi. And then we have Tagusa, Batou, and Aramaki, along with the side support that are less known. Who would he pick for Motoko? Or the Puppet-master?
Have you even read the manga?
Sometimes it has to be done in part from a marketing perspective. This is not a perfect world and I wouldn't go with this route. But I guess they consider Spielberg a 'safe' bet when it comes to drawing an audience, though I can only hope that they don't take it to the vast extremes.
JQ, I really can't help but feel that the movie, even if it is good, won't help with the reception of the manga at all. Do you realize how many people don't even know that Schindler's List is from a book? Or that Amadeus is from a play? Or that The Departed is from an Asian movie? Very few people do, actually. The movie won't make people care about the manga or bring in a significant new fanbase, all it would do is bring in more money for both the studios and Spielberg. In short, it's more like they're raping the series; using it for what they want, and then throwing it away like trash.
I do believe they're doing it with the original Japanese' blessing. It's been 14 years since the original anime movie. You're only assuming given prior experience. Assumptions sometimes go too far and it is a bit of a problem to make a point that all things will be crap.
You want Rape? Look at Uwe Bowl and Michael Bay. I wouldn't say it's fair to cast doubt on it this early in phase, considering its not even going to be released for another 2 years at least. Granted, there are various ways in which this can be mucked up, but there are also various ways that could work in great things. You just can't let biases get in the way before the detail is even laid out.
Spielberg has been working in the movie business for decades, and I've seen the majority of his work. I'd say I have reasons to make assumptions.
On closer inspection of the Spielberg list I see... Transformers 3? Wait what? Does that mean Michael Bay is off for that one?
Keep in mind too, that Spielberg has also served as Executive Producer on a lot of projects, and I'm guessing you also count those among his filmography. However the term 'executive producer' is extremely broad. It can either mean a lot of involvement, or very little involvement, attached only for the sake of name recognition.
Quote from: Winry Rockbell on November 06, 2009, 09:00:02 PM
This just might be an instance where breaking the suspension of disbelief would be a good thing.
That kind of situation's more common than you might think; for example, people may consider it Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleofCool) and just simply not care
because the willing suspension of disbelief is broken in that way.
Quote from: JQ Pickwick on November 07, 2009, 01:36:00 PM
On closer inspection of the Spielberg list I see... Transformers 3? Wait what? Does that mean Michael Bay is off for that one?
Keep in mind too, that Spielberg has also served as Executive Producer on a lot of projects, and I'm guessing you also count those among his filmography. However the term 'executive producer' is extremely broad. It can either mean a lot of involvement, or very little involvement, attached only for the sake of name recognition.
The list only said that they would involve him, and, being executive producer, he is involved.
JQ, based off of your previous comments, it seems that you're not aware of the auteur theory. According to the auteur theory, a movie is merely the form of expression of the director (referred to as the auteur, French for author), and that directors will consistently contain the same expressions through their career, only they will learn to tell it differently. Ever since it was developed in the 50's by critic/director Francois Truffaut, the auteur theory practically revolutionized the film world. While screenwriters are sometimes also considered auteurs, the term traditionally is used to refer to directors, especially directors who have a large amount of creative control. Spielberg does have significant creative control of his movies, and based off of previous efforts of his, I can't help but feel that this is a movie people, especially Ghost in the Shell fans, should be wary of.
(this is a calm post)
Consistency in quality is to be expected in any genre of media. Some people make films that were great in the earlier years, but then their creative and dramatic ability to devolved. On the other hand, there are some who have had curves and spikes to their careers. And of course, there are some who've always produced crap.
But of course, the Spielberg decision was not my own, so understand that I'm not approaching this with outright enthusiasm or complete belief that it will be crap. I am approaching it cautiously. As a dedicated fan of Ghost in the Shell, I care a great deal about the series. I don't think you're much of a fan though, barely giving it a chance, and one point even deriding it as completely boring (LOL Naruto, bleach, one-piece phase).
Since you've not seen very much of it, I don't think you know much of how the themes go about developing. You have seen much of Spielberg, but very little of Ghost in the Shell. Do I believe that it will be a great film? Well, of course not. It can't really top the original. I have dedicated a long time to collecting the entire series, about 3-4 years. I collected every single dvd of the anime and all 3 movies.
There are themes of revolution and society. If spielberg approaches this project carefully and with appreciation to the source (insert rebuttal where you go "NOOOOO! He'll ruin it!), I believe that it can be a good film. It has a strong potential. It is quite unlike a lot of the source material of many other adaptations.
Besides, didn't they also fear that Watchmen would be crap? Or V for Vendetta?
This is what I was talking about... You let assumptions get ahead of you, you assumed bambi would be this high thing, and then you saw it and thought it was crap. If you keep going with expectations and rumor, you leave apart a very important key to being a good critic. A good critic must not let his biases get ahead of him, but must focus on letting the movie speak for itself. Instead, you let rumor and speculation speak for the movie before you've even seen it.
What makes you think that all directors lose their power over time? Some directors got even better in the last era of their careers. (Orson Welles and Stanley Kubrick, for example)
Also, I'm going to tell you again, I don't think that Spielberg's version will be crap (the only two movies of his I'd call crap are Jurassic Park 2 and Saving Private Ryan), I'm just being very cautious of it. He's done some good adaptations of great novels (The Color Purple, Schindler's List) but also bad adaptations of great novels (Empire of the Sun, War of the Worlds) and isn't a good director of emotional complexities.
It is true, I've only seen a few episodes of Ghost in the Shell (a few a long time ago, and I told you about the one I saw recently because it was a homage to Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless) but I'm not as negative about it as I first was. While I don't think of it as the greatest artistic masterpiece of all time, my choice being Shakespeare's Hamlet, I've lightened up to it somewhat, and I would see the animated movie if Netflix had copies of it. (And just so you know, I've gone past my manga/anime phase.)
(Also, Watchmen recieved overall only slightly positive reception.) (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/)
So basically, I'm pretty mixed about Nine up to this point. Sure, it is based off Federico Fellini's 8 1/2, but it's directed by Rob Marshall, the guy who directed *shutter* Chicago. I guess I'll just have to wait and see what others think...