Don't worry, Ian. I'm not making the same mistakes again! est 2016.
 
HomeMainframeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 General Movie Discussion

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1 ... 7 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 14 ... 18  Next
AuthorMessage
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 2734
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Sat May 06, 2017 6:14 pm

BarrytheOnyx wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:

Funny how you mention how Universal would try to make a new dinosaur franchise if the lose the rights to Jurassic Park. Other then making unmade dinosaur movies that were planned by Ray Harryhausen or making a movie series out of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic novel, 'The Lost World'. The problem with the second option is that other then the original 1925 movie and the late 1990's TV show, that movie does not have a good track record via Hollywood. And as for putting the unmade Ray Harryhausen movies on the big-screen, they'd have to find somebody really special like Guillermo del Toro or bring back Peter Jackson, I don't see how it would work. And given how Universal treated Dr. Suess like bullcrap via the movies....yeah....I have my doubts.

The unmade Ray Harryhausen movies would probably be taken up as passion projects by uber-Harryhausen fans like Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson. I hardly see an unlucky director-for-hire like Louis Leterrier on the Clash of the Titans remake delivering successfully on that count, since that strategy did not pay out well or Warner Bros at all. Hell, if Creation, the movie that King Kong was originally going to be, got made well then we'd have something since that was based on the Land That Time Forgot book series from Edgar Rice Burroughs. A thousand bonus points if it happened to feature stop-motion dinosaurs!

The Arthur Conan Doyle 'Lost World' is not something I would see as franchise material, so much as a standalone film that was made to properly represent/update the book and 1925 silent film.

Another, more recent possibility is a big budget adaptation of Cadillacs & Dinosaurs, which when you get down to it reads like an ideal franchise for Universal: it has the dinosaurs and the fast cars driven by good-looking meatheads! The post-apocalyptic setting could be seen as another appealing factor, and would allow for an interesting "what-if" setting. But whatever it turns out to be, it would need something that Jurassic Park and King Kong (2005) had: an established and visually distinct director to introduce it to the world, and to ensure that it doesn't become another half-arsed studio executive product.

For some reason, I've always thought that Creation would work well in modern times if it was set up in Alaska where feathered dinosaurs survived the KT wipeout and lived side-by-side with Ice Age mammals. Have the woolly rhino replace the Triceratops and have the mother T. rex kill a full grown bull woolly mammoth. That have the feathered Troodons, Parksosaurus, short faced bears, smilodons, Bigfoot, dire wolves, and giant prehistoric eagles/hawks in place of pterandons and have them be the explanation of Thunderbird sightings. Believe it or not, much, if not most, of Alaska has yet to properly explored/described. I really think that this would work.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Sun May 07, 2017 4:24 pm

http://nerdist.com/edge-of-tomorrow-2-live-die-repeat-tom-cruise-emily-blunt-doug-liman/

When I read the title "Live Die Repeat and Repeat" I thought it was a joke. But apparently it isn't. And I didn't even know the first film  was renamed as that for the bluray. Such a terrible, terrible title. Also it pretty much confirms the same thing happening again.

Anyway, even though that and the possible prequel premise don't exactly hold terribly exciting prospect, it's good Emily at least seems to be confirmed to appear alongside Tom again. Whenever the film comes out that is, could be a while
Back to top Go down
Troyal1
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 978
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 23

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Sun May 07, 2017 8:37 pm

Mistral wrote:
http://nerdist.com/edge-of-tomorrow-2-live-die-repeat-tom-cruise-emily-blunt-doug-liman/

When I read the title "Live Die Repeat and Repeat" I thought it was a joke. But apparently it isn't. And I didn't even know the first film  was renamed as that for the bluray. Such a terrible, terrible title. Also it pretty much confirms the same thing happening again.

Anyway, even though that and the possible prequel premise don't exactly hold terribly exciting prospect, it's good Emily at least seems to be confirmed to appear alongside Tom again. Whenever the film comes out that is, could be a while

The people on reddit seem to have the same opinion. I always thought the name for the first was fine and this is going to confuse people even more.

I would call it "Edge of tomorrow: Angel of Verdun".

I ordered the steelbook because it has the real title on the front. All the blu-rays have the name technically. It's just the tagline is so big it makes live die repeat look like the title.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 2734
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Sun May 07, 2017 8:46 pm

Martin Scorsee says that cinema is gone and younger people don't understand.

Quote wrote:
“It should matter to your life,” he says. “Unfortunately the latest generations don’t know that it mattered so much.”

I see where he's going and I kind of agree with him. You do see more movies pandering to the lowest common demonenator and fewer movie with heart and soul, or at least one of those 2. I can like many mindless fun movies (1970's Godzilla movies, Super Mario Bros, etc.) but at least those movies have many sci-fi elements to them. You rarely see movies that really connect with you anymore.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Troyal1
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 978
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 23

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Sun May 07, 2017 9:33 pm

Rhedosaurus wrote:
Martin Scorsee says that cinema is gone and younger people don't understand.

Quote wrote:
“It should matter to your life,” he says. “Unfortunately the latest generations don’t know that it mattered so much.”

I see where he's going and I kind of agree with him. You do see more movies pandering to the lowest common demonenator and fewer movie with heart and soul, or at least one of those 2. I can like many mindless fun movies (1970's Godzilla movies, Super Mario Bros, etc.) but at least those movies have many sci-fi elements to them. You rarely see movies that really connect with you anymore.

Agree. Even "bad" movies (general audience reaction) seemed to have a lot more soul to them.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 2734
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Sun May 07, 2017 9:52 pm

Troyal1 wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:
Martin Scorsee says that cinema is gone and younger people don't understand.

Quote wrote:
“It should matter to your life,” he says. “Unfortunately the latest generations don’t know that it mattered so much.”

I see where he's going and I kind of agree with him. You do see more movies pandering to the lowest common demonenator and fewer movie with heart and soul, or at least one of those 2. I can like many mindless fun movies (1970's Godzilla movies, Super Mario Bros, etc.) but at least those movies have many sci-fi elements to them. You rarely see movies that really connect with you anymore.

Agree. Even "bad" movies (general audience reaction) seemed to have a lot more soul to them.

Indeed. Thankfully, people are smart enough to know really bad movies when they see it nowadays. Fant4stic, (which backfired since Fox can't be trusted with them anymore), Movie 43, Jem and the Holograms, R.I.P.D., and stuff like that. Although, you get that one bad movie that suckers in enough people that it gets a profit. I.E. The Last Airbender and JP3, which in that case you could argue it was a mediocre movie in an ocean of worse movies since 2001 was a really bad year for movies. Tomb Raider is the only respectable movie from that year that I can think of.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Oshronosaurus
Dilophosaurus
Dilophosaurus
avatar

Posts : 398
Join date : 2016-06-10

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Sun May 07, 2017 10:10 pm

c'mon, Rhedo, don't lump JP/// in with the rest of those. even if one considers it the worst of the JP films, or even the worst thing in the whole franchise, it doesn't compare to the rest of those. the general rating for it is about 50%, the others you mentioned climb no higher than 20%--the latter is a bad movie, the former is just a mixed reception.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Troyal1
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 978
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 23

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Sun May 07, 2017 10:33 pm

Oshronosaurus wrote:
c'mon, Rhedo, don't lump JP/// in with the rest of those. even if one considers it the worst of the JP films, or even the worst thing in the whole franchise, it doesn't compare to the rest of those. the general rating for it is about 50%, the others you mentioned climb no higher than 20%--the latter is a bad movie, the former is just a mixed reception.

Agree, I'm extremely bias because I love JP3. But I feel that even though it was a mindless action movie with basically no plot it still has some of that "special sauce" in it. Whether it be Grant, the animatronics or just certain set pieces of the film.

It takes me back to being 5 everytime I see it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Mon May 08, 2017 2:11 am

Troyal1 wrote:
Mistral wrote:
http://nerdist.com/edge-of-tomorrow-2-live-die-repeat-tom-cruise-emily-blunt-doug-liman/

When I read the title "Live Die Repeat and Repeat" I thought it was a joke. But apparently it isn't. And I didn't even know the first film  was renamed as that for the bluray. Such a terrible, terrible title. Also it pretty much confirms the same thing happening again.

Anyway, even though that and the possible prequel premise don't exactly hold terribly exciting prospect, it's good Emily at least seems to be confirmed to appear alongside Tom again. Whenever the film comes out that is, could be a while

The people on reddit seem to have the same opinion. I always thought the name for the first was fine and this is going to confuse people even more.

I would call it "Edge of tomorrow: Angel of Verdun".

I ordered the steelbook because it has the real title on the front. All the blu-rays have the name technically. It's just the tagline is so big it makes live die repeat look like the title.

It's probably because the first film wasn't as successful at the box office (not initially at least) as the studio had hoped, and maybe Cruise blamed it on the title that wasn't describing enough. But this is just me guessing. It's very weird.

Anyway, it's just a terrible title and doesn't really matter if the film is good. Hopefully there will be original ideas. Groundhog Day premise is a fine tool when adapted for different situations for short periods, and certainly when done quite well like in EoT, but it does lose effect if repeated enough times.

Speaking of Groundhog Day premises , I know there are like billion different episodes on TV where that has happened, many of them are quite good too, but my absolutely favorite is still the classic SG1 episode "Window of Opportunity", where O'Neill and Teal'c are playing golf next to Stargate and practicing some wacky hobbies Laughing

Spoiler:
 

There are some amazing gags in that episode that still make me laugh 15 years later. In terms of comedy episodes on that series, I'd put it third behind "1969" and "200", and probably in overall top 10 of the entire run too.
Back to top Go down
BarrytheOnyx
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 865
Join date : 2016-06-17
Age : 25
Location : Stratford Upon Avon, England

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Mon May 08, 2017 5:01 am

Oshronosaurus wrote:
c'mon, Rhedo, don't lump JP/// in with the rest of those. even if one considers it the worst of the JP films, or even the worst thing in the whole franchise, it doesn't compare to the rest of those. the general rating for it is about 50%, the others you mentioned climb no higher than 20%--the latter is a bad movie, the former is just a mixed reception.

Yeah, as much as I lump on JP3, I would happily take it over the myriad of soulless, personality-free, bad films that come out in this day and age.

But the real issue that Scorsese raises about cinema being dead/dying is something I've picked up on. Yes we've had box office hits but how many originals? Will there be a motion picture event like Lord of the Rings or The Wizard of Oz, Star Wars or indeed Jurassic Park ever again? More so if it isn't connected to something we already know?

The question audiences should be asking, yet seem unable to do so, is "what more is there?"

Because I'm not convinced that's all there is.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Mon May 08, 2017 7:14 pm

Although I'm not really agreeing that this sequel needed to be made, like at all, I think eventually watching it will certainly feel less of a chore than with the new Alien soft reboot for example, or these new Star Wars films... Denis Villeneuve usually has some vision and artistically there are hints of brilliance here again. Also Ford doesn't look bored to death, so he may care what he's doing for a change. However,  as some people said on the comments, there might be some concerns regarding the nature of the film

Spoiler:
 

Back to top Go down
Troyal1
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 978
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 23

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Mon May 08, 2017 8:57 pm

Mistral wrote:
Although I'm not really agreeing that this sequel needed to be made, like at all, I think eventually watching it will certainly feel less of a chore than with the new Alien soft reboot for example, or these new Star Wars films... Denis Villeneuve usually has some vision and artistically there are hints of brilliance here again. Also Ford doesn't look bored to death, so he may care what he's doing for a change. However,  as some people said on the comments, there might be some concerns regarding the nature of the film

Spoiler:
 


I didn't really care for the first movie but I'm very intrigued by this.

Although I have to say the holograms immediately reminded me of that recent Ghost in the Shell movie. Which isn't a bad thing, just kinda thought they looked similar in a way.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Mon May 08, 2017 9:06 pm

There never really seemed to be middle ground in opinions with Blade Runner, you either love it or don't. This one will likely will be less polarizing
Back to top Go down
Troyal1
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 978
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 23

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Mon May 08, 2017 9:37 pm

Hey guys. Sorry we can't give you Hellboy 3, so here's a reboot.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/09/hellboy-to-be-rebooted-with-new-director-actor-according-to-creator-mike-mignola
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 2734
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Mon May 08, 2017 9:39 pm

Troyal1 wrote:
Hey guys. Sorry we can't give you Hellboy 3, so here's a reboot.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/09/hellboy-to-be-rebooted-with-new-director-actor-according-to-creator-mike-mignola

I know a lot of time has passed since the last movie, but even so, I find it odd that they would just reboot it rather then complete a trilogy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Troyal1
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 978
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 23

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Mon May 08, 2017 9:41 pm

Rhedosaurus wrote:
Troyal1 wrote:
Hey guys. Sorry we can't give you Hellboy 3, so here's a reboot.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/09/hellboy-to-be-rebooted-with-new-director-actor-according-to-creator-mike-mignola

I know a lot of time has passed since the last movie, but even so, I find it odd that they would just reboot it rather then complete a trilogy.

I don't have anything against or for it. But I know tons of people are going to be extremely sad for the reason you just stated. 

Although I like the director. Wish he'd go back to work on game of thrones and other stuff I'm interested in lol
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Mon May 08, 2017 9:46 pm

Rhedosaurus wrote:
I find it odd that they would just reboot it rather then complete a trilogy.

But that's how movies are made today. Easy and lazy with just as safe profit margins

Back to top Go down
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 2734
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Mon May 08, 2017 9:57 pm

Mistral wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:
I find it odd that they would just reboot it rather then complete a trilogy.

But that's how movies are made today. Easy and lazy with just as safe profit margins


Not with everything. Just look at how Sony tried, and failed, with their all female Ghostbusters reboot when the fanbase wanted a true 3rd movie that would be a passing of the torch movie.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Mon May 08, 2017 10:03 pm

Rhedosaurus wrote:
Not with everything. Just look at how Sony tried, and failed, with their all female Ghostbusters reboot when the fanbase wanted a true 3rd movie that would be a passing of the torch movie.

But the reason they still did that was because it was lazier, easier and [as they originally thought/miscalculated] safer than the alternative route.
Back to top Go down
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 2734
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Mon May 08, 2017 10:08 pm

Mistral wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:
Not with everything. Just look at how Sony tried, and failed, with their all female Ghostbusters reboot when the fanbase wanted a true 3rd movie that would be a passing of the torch movie.

But the reason they still did that was because it was lazier, easier route and [as they originally thought/miscalculated] safer than the alternative.

Hard to call an all female Ghostbusters reboot "lazier and easier". Maybe if they had compromised and got better casting and wrote the script that it was were they were the daughters of the originals, then you'd be right.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Mon May 08, 2017 10:16 pm

Rhedosaurus wrote:
Mistral wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:
Not with everything. Just look at how Sony tried, and failed, with their all female Ghostbusters reboot when the fanbase wanted a true 3rd movie that would be a passing of the torch movie.

But the reason they still did that was because it was lazier, easier route and [as they originally thought/miscalculated] safer than the alternative.

Hard to call an all female Ghostbusters reboot "lazier and easier". Maybe if they had compromised and got better casting and wrote the script that it was were they were the daughters of the originals, then you'd be right.

Yes it is lazier and easier when you just do the same exact thing as before but with the gimmick of females on roles.

For Ghostbusters 3 they would've tried to actually write actual script or something (even the second film had been rehash of the first one), but with that remake-reboot they could just slap any crap quickly together. They aren't aiming these things for the fans but for the masses while relying on familiar name. "Oh Ghostbusters, I remember that". Also there is always doubt traditional sequel's gonna work so many years later, with old faces. It's safer to reboot/remake, on top of being easier and lazier.

They and their market research + focus groups just miscalculated the effects on that particular franchise. And when everybody started crapping on it was too late already, and they started switching excuse gears towards blaming the audiences for hating women, which obviously was not the real reason everybody despised that garbage of a premise and film
Back to top Go down
Troyal1
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 978
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 23

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Mon May 08, 2017 11:39 pm

Mistral wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:
Mistral wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:
Not with everything. Just look at how Sony tried, and failed, with their all female Ghostbusters reboot when the fanbase wanted a true 3rd movie that would be a passing of the torch movie.

But the reason they still did that was because it was lazier, easier route and [as they originally thought/miscalculated] safer than the alternative.

Hard to call an all female Ghostbusters reboot "lazier and easier". Maybe if they had compromised and got better casting and wrote the script that it was were they were the daughters of the originals, then you'd be right.

Yes it is lazier and easier when you just do the same exact thing as before but with the gimmick of females on roles.

For Ghostbusters 3 they would've tried to actually write actual script or something (even the second film had been rehash of the first one), but with that remake-reboot they could just slap any crap quickly together. They aren't aiming these things for the fans but for the masses while relying on familiar name. "Oh Ghostbusters, I remember that". Also there is always doubt traditional sequel's gonna work so many years later, with old faces. It's safer to reboot/remake, on top of being easier and lazier.

They and their market research + focus groups just miscalculated the effects on that particular franchise. And when everybody started crapping on it was too late already, and they started switching excuse gears towards blaming the audiences for hating women, which obviously was not the real reason everybody despised that garbage of a premise and film
Pretty much this. They thought women and the "everything is all about diversity all the time for the sake of it" crowd would eat this film up. They didn't expect one of the most severe backlashes EVER in film history. 

And then their intended base didn't really even care about the film.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Dead2009
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 1162
Join date : 2016-06-07
Location : Maryland

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Tue May 09, 2017 8:05 am

Rhedosaurus wrote:
Troyal1 wrote:
Hey guys. Sorry we can't give you Hellboy 3, so here's a reboot.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/09/hellboy-to-be-rebooted-with-new-director-actor-according-to-creator-mike-mignola

I know a lot of time has passed since the last movie, but even so, I find it odd that they would just reboot it rather then complete a trilogy.

Del Toro wanted to make it. Guess the story wasnt good enough.

_______________
Last Movie Watched: Alien 3 (1992).
Last TV Show Watched: Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (S2:E46).
Last Video Game Played: Dirt 4 (XBO).
http://bloggerofthedead.blogspot.com/​
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
TheDreamMaster
Administrator
Administrator
avatar

Posts : 736
Join date : 2016-06-07
Age : 28
Location : USA

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Tue May 09, 2017 10:17 am

Are we really still on the Ghostbusters reboot? It was an ok film that was weighed down by way too much controversy because the studio were idiots. That's pretty much where the discussion ends for me at this point lol.

In other news, the Edge of Tomorrow sequel has some news, and a horrible title: Live Die Repeat and Repeat.

_______________
Make the Sayles JP IV script into an animated series! Admit it, you'd watch it.
 
"We'll use the Force."- Finn
 "That's not how the Force works!"- Han Solo
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 2734
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Tue May 09, 2017 3:21 pm

Warner Brothers is making more changes in the executive ranks. One of which was naming Courtenay Valenti, who was involved with the Harry Potter movies and the 2 Lego movies.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 2734
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Wed May 10, 2017 6:51 pm

Critics are destroying Guy Ritchie's King Arthur movie.

How hard can it be to make a King Arthur movie?! scratch scratch
Back to top Go down
View user profile
BarrytheOnyx
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 865
Join date : 2016-06-17
Age : 25
Location : Stratford Upon Avon, England

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Wed May 10, 2017 7:23 pm

Rhedosaurus wrote:
Critics are destroying Guy Ritchie's King Arthur movie.

How hard can it be to make a King Arthur movie?! scratch scratch

At this rate, I'm content to wait until Disney's eventual live action Sword in the Stone, that at least has a book to work with and, I imagine, directors and writers who are respectful to the legacy of what they're working on. While I have not seen the film, this honestly looked like a paycheck job for the cast and crew on this film and nobody cared about what they were working on, and as a fan of the Arthur mythology that was disappointing as hell. In theory, you could work out a trilogy of the most famous Arthur legends from Uther's reign to the Battle of Camlann. But this did not look like the right approach for that; over fifteen years since The Lord of the Rings and almost everyone working on these big budget fantasy films keep learning the wrong lessons.

On the subject of other King Arthur movies (that aren't Monty Python & the Holy Grail), I have a few recommendations. John Boorman's Excalibur is an ambitious and faithful adaptation of Thomas Mallory's Le Morte de Arthur and highly entertaining, provided you can overlook some particularly hammy sequences. The 1998 miniseries Merlin starring Sam Neill is pretty good for a televised adaptation, and King Arthur directed by Antoine Fuqua delivers on impressive battle scenes in a Late Roman British setting.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 2734
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Wed May 10, 2017 7:38 pm

BarrytheOnyx wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:
Critics are destroying Guy Ritchie's King Arthur movie.

How hard can it be to make a King Arthur movie?! scratch scratch

At this rate, I'm content to wait until Disney's eventual live action Sword in the Stone, that at least has a book to work with and, I imagine, directors and writers who are respectful to the legacy of what they're working on. While I have not seen the film, this honestly looked like a paycheck job for the cast and crew on this film and nobody cared about what they were working on, and as a fan of the Arthur mythology that was disappointing as hell. In theory, you could work out a trilogy of the most famous Arthur legends from Uther's reign to the Battle of Camlann. But this did not look like the right approach for that; over fifteen years since The Lord of the Rings and almost everyone working on these big budget fantasy films keep learning the wrong lessons.

On the subject of other King Arthur movies (that aren't Monty Python & the Holy Grail), I have a few recommendations. John Boorman's Excalibur is an ambitious and faithful adaptation of Thomas Mallory's Le Morte de Arthur and highly entertaining, provided you can overlook some particularly hammy sequences. The 1998 miniseries Merlin starring Sam Neill is pretty good for a televised adaptation, and King Arthur directed by Antoine Fuqua delivers on impressive battle scenes in a Late Roman British setting.

I remember watching the Merlin miniseries via a single movie back in 10th grade. I like it even today. I could never get into the 2004 movie since it was 'too real'. Yes, I know that a Roman general has been the source of King Arthur, or at least has a majority part of all the sources, but seeing the trailers for that as a 16 year old who grew up on the old medieval legends...It just left a big sour taste in my mouth.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Wed May 10, 2017 8:37 pm

Rhedosaurus wrote:
I could never get into the 2004 movie since it was 'too real'. Yes, I know that a Roman general has been the source of King Arthur, or at least has a majority part of all the sources, but seeing the trailers for that as a 16 year old who grew up on the old medieval legends...It just left a big sour taste in my mouth.

Too real?



Historically it's just as made-up nonsense as films like Robin Hood 2010 or Troy 2004 or Gladiator 2000, almost completely fabricated with just the thinnest pretense of 'real' time scale that the masses could buy into. And even legends wise it wasn't that accurate. Not that there is really such thing as 'accurate with Arthur when it got modified thousand times over the centuries...
Back to top Go down
Troyal1
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 978
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 23

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Wed May 10, 2017 9:52 pm

Mistral wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:
I could never get into the 2004 movie since it was 'too real'. Yes, I know that a Roman general has been the source of King Arthur, or at least has a majority part of all the sources, but seeing the trailers for that as a 16 year old who grew up on the old medieval legends...It just left a big sour taste in my mouth.

Too real?



Historically it's just as made-up nonsense as films like Robin Hood 2010 or Troy 2004 or Gladiator 2000, almost completely fabricated with just the thinnest pretense of 'real' time scale that the masses could buy into. And even legends wise it wasn't that accurate. Not that there is really such thing as 'accurate with Arthur when it got modified thousand times over the centuries...

What film is that gif from?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Wed May 10, 2017 9:59 pm

Troyal1 wrote:
Mistral wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:
I could never get into the 2004 movie since it was 'too real'. Yes, I know that a Roman general has been the source of King Arthur, or at least has a majority part of all the sources, but seeing the trailers for that as a 16 year old who grew up on the old medieval legends...It just left a big sour taste in my mouth.

Too real?



Historically it's just as made-up nonsense as films like Robin Hood 2010 or Troy 2004 or Gladiator 2000, almost completely fabricated with just the thinnest pretense of 'real' time scale that the masses could buy into. And even legends wise it wasn't that accurate. Not that there is really such thing as 'accurate with Arthur when it got modified thousand times over the centuries...

What film is that gif from?

Heathers! It's so amazing I could cry. 10/10 for sure, in terms of 80's movies only Aliens goes above for me. Really started my Winona fandom back in the day.

The comedy in it is so weird and black hearted

Spoiler:
 
Back to top Go down
Oshronosaurus
Dilophosaurus
Dilophosaurus
avatar

Posts : 398
Join date : 2016-06-10

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Thu May 11, 2017 4:39 am

finally decided to watch Sausage Party on Netflix earlier

yyyeah, it wasn't very good. i don't plan on watching it again. not godawfully terrible, though.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
TheDreamMaster
Administrator
Administrator
avatar

Posts : 736
Join date : 2016-06-07
Age : 28
Location : USA

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Thu May 11, 2017 5:22 pm

Oshronosaurus wrote:
finally decided to watch Sausage Party on Netflix earlier

yyyeah, it wasn't very good. i don't plan on watching it again. not godawfully terrible, though.

I'm not going to get into the commentary on religion because I have my own beliefs and while I'm more open than to let a movie offend me, overall I thought it looked pretty bland. Heard about a few certain scenes which really did nothing to boost my enthusiasm.

_______________
Make the Sayles JP IV script into an animated series! Admit it, you'd watch it.
 
"We'll use the Force."- Finn
 "That's not how the Force works!"- Han Solo
Back to top Go down
View user profile
HennexForest
Embryo
Embryo


Posts : 19
Join date : 2016-11-22
Age : 25
Location : Chico, CA

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Thu May 11, 2017 6:08 pm

Oshronosaurus wrote:
finally decided to watch Sausage Party on Netflix earlier

yyyeah, it wasn't very good. i don't plan on watching it again. not godawfully terrible, though.
I saw that in the theater. It was a mostly boring experience, but a few scenes got me to chuckle at the very least.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Oshronosaurus
Dilophosaurus
Dilophosaurus
avatar

Posts : 398
Join date : 2016-06-10

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Thu May 11, 2017 7:16 pm

pretty much my complaints against it, too, along with the excessive cursing (and this is coming from a guy who curses casually) and the fact that almost every single character is a racist stereotype. one thing they've got going for them, at least as far as the studio itself is concerned, is that the animation is quite good--they've definitely got a future in that part of cinema
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 2734
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Thu May 11, 2017 8:44 pm

This Vanity Fair piece say that the biggest problem that the 5th Pirates of the Caribbean movie faces is Jack Sparrow himself, via his money problems.

Here's a related article from The Hollywood Reporter.

I always thought that this would be final movie of the franchise, but I never thought that it would be like this.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Thu May 11, 2017 10:43 pm

Just watched "Tale of Tales", Euro fantasy film released few years back. When it comes to plain bizarreness, I didn't think anything could match "Being John Malkovich" for quite some time, but this came somewhat close to it, although not quite. It was just so very weird, the structure and little details, despite the obvious intentions and fairy tale connections. There were many shortcomings too... but overall it was pretty alright. The music was probably the best aspect, and the creature design (for the few that there were).

Back to top Go down
BarrytheOnyx
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 865
Join date : 2016-06-17
Age : 25
Location : Stratford Upon Avon, England

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Fri May 12, 2017 5:19 am

Rhedosaurus wrote:
This Vanity Fair piece say that the biggest problem that the 5th Pirates of the Caribbean movie faces is Jack Sparrow himself, via his money problems.

Here's a related article from The Hollywood Reporter.

I always thought that this would be final movie of the franchise, but I never thought that it would be like this.

Very sobering stuff... I think the next Pirates movie will make money, but only on the level of the first movie which may not be all that satisfactory to Disney, since this is their only billion dollar franchise that isn't Marvel, Lucasfilm or Animation. But yeah, compiled onto Depp's severe lifestyle problems and the possibility of this losing money, this really be it Jack Sparrow even if the film does break even or make a decent profit.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Troyal1
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 978
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 23

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Fri May 12, 2017 11:24 am

Rhedosaurus wrote:
This Vanity Fair piece say that the biggest problem that the 5th Pirates of the Caribbean movie faces is Jack Sparrow himself, via his money problems.

Here's a related article from The Hollywood Reporter.

I always thought that this would be final movie of the franchise, but I never thought that it would be like this.

2 million a month life style... wow
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Fri May 12, 2017 11:30 am



Anyway, Depp's name used to be a cash magnet... Now I think only these PotC films are sure bet for the studios, everything else might burn

The only movies of his I like are Ed Wood and Edwards Scissorhands, both ions ago
Back to top Go down
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 2734
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Fri May 12, 2017 11:42 am

If they do make a 6th movie, then I'd like to see them move on without Depp and have it take place 20-30 years after this one, with Gary Oldman as a much older Sparrow. Oldman is more then good enough to make it work.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Fri May 12, 2017 11:48 am

Rhedosaurus wrote:
If they do make a 6th movie, then I'd like to see them move on without Depp and have it take place 20-30 years after this one, with Gary Oldman as a much older Sparrow. Oldman is more then good enough to make it work.

Gary Oldman is five years older than Johnny Depp Laughing Laughing

Not that Connery was much older than Ford in Crusade either, mere 12 years, but still, that was actually believable
Back to top Go down
Rhedosaurus
Veteran
Veteran
avatar

Posts : 2734
Join date : 2016-06-08
Age : 29
Location : Armada, Michigan

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Fri May 12, 2017 11:54 am

Mistral wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:
If they do make a 6th movie, then I'd like to see them move on without Depp and have it take place 20-30 years after this one, with Gary Oldman as a much older Sparrow. Oldman is more then good enough to make it work.

Gary Oldman is five years older than Johnny Depp Laughing Laughing

Not that Connery was much older than Ford in Crusade either, mere 12 years, but still... that was believable

I didn't know Depp was that old...In any case, I still think it can work. Depp has aged better then Oldman and he can get away with playing a much younger pirate. Oldman has played older characters before. (Dracula 1992). So he can play an older Sparrow better then Depp could. And he doesn't have the money problems, either.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Fri May 12, 2017 11:58 am

Rhedosaurus wrote:
Mistral wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:
If they do make a 6th movie, then I'd like to see them move on without Depp and have it take place 20-30 years after this one, with Gary Oldman as a much older Sparrow. Oldman is more then good enough to make it work.

Gary Oldman is five years older than Johnny Depp Laughing Laughing

Not that Connery was much older than Ford in Crusade either, mere 12 years, but still... that was believable

I didn't know Depp was that old...In any case, I still think it can work. Depp has aged better then Oldman and he can get away with playing a much younger pirate. Oldman has played older characters before. (Dracula 1992). So he can play an older Sparrow better then Depp could. And he doesn't have the money problems, either.

Guess they could throw in prosthetic makeup too, but in any case he's not someone people hire in leads in blockbusters anymore, only in supporting roles
Back to top Go down
CT-1138
Dinosaur Fact File Curator
Dinosaur Fact File Curator
avatar

Posts : 603
Join date : 2012-04-06
Age : 24
Location : Chicago

PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   Fri May 12, 2017 3:21 pm

Rhedosaurus wrote:
Critics are destroying Guy Ritchie's King Arthur movie.

How hard can it be to make a King Arthur movie?! scratch scratch
It's what happens when you make a King Arthur movie with none of the original King Arthur mythos. I was actually looking forward to it until I started seeing the previews.
Oshronosaurus wrote:
finally decided to watch Sausage Party on Netflix earlier

yyyeah, it wasn't very good. i don't plan on watching it again. not godawfully terrible, though.
I liked it, but then again I like Seth Rogan stoner comedies, which was what Sausage Fest was.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://abekowalski.deviantart.com/
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: General Movie Discussion   

Back to top Go down
 
General Movie Discussion
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 11 of 18Go to page : Previous  1 ... 7 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 14 ... 18  Next
 Similar topics
-
» General Glee Discussion Thread--Part 6
» General Glee Discussion Thread--Part 4
» SUMMER REWATCH: Syriana discussion
» General Glee Discussion Thread--Part 1
» General Glee Discussion Thread--Part 3

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Jurassic Mainframe Forums :: The Innovation Center :: Off-Topic Discussions-
Jump to: