General Movie Discussion

Troyal1 wrote:

Dead2009 wrote:

Oshronosaurus wrote:

Flatliners was a remake?

it looked bad in any case. doesn't help that practically every ad i was getting on YouTube was a trailer for it.

No, it's classed as a sequel because Kiefer Sutherland's character in the original is in this one as well.

Jackie Chan Confirms Rush Hour 4 is Happening
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/893601-jackie-chan-confirms-rush-hour-4-is-happening

He plays a different character in this one. 99% sure it was a remake after all.

"Back in 2016, in an interview with Metro, actor Kiefer Sutherland said something that promptly made the rounds in the usual film-news outlets: he claimed Niels Arden Oplev’s 2017 Flatliners remake is actually a sequel to the original 1990 film. “I play a professor at the medical university,” he told writer Ann Lee. “It is never stated but it will probably be very clearly understood that I’m the same character I was in the original Flatliners but that I have changed my name and I’ve done some things to move on from the experiments that we were doing in the original film.”

https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/30/16390530/flatliners-review-2017-remake-sequel-kiefer-sutherland-ellen-page-diego-luna-niels-arden-oplev

Dead2009 wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Dead2009 wrote:

Oshronosaurus wrote:

Flatliners was a remake?

it looked bad in any case. doesn't help that practically every ad i was getting on YouTube was a trailer for it.

No, it's classed as a sequel because Kiefer Sutherland's character in the original is in this one as well.

Jackie Chan Confirms Rush Hour 4 is Happening
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/893601-jackie-chan-confirms-rush-hour-4-is-happening

He plays a different character in this one. 99% sure it was a remake after all.

"Back in 2016, in an interview with Metro, actor Kiefer Sutherland said something that promptly made the rounds in the usual film-news outlets: he claimed Niels Arden Oplev’s 2017 Flatliners remake is actually a sequel to the original 1990 film. “I play a professor at the medical university,” he told writer Ann Lee. “It is never stated but it will probably be very clearly understood that I’m the same character I was in the original Flatliners but that I have changed my name and I’ve done some things to move on from the experiments that we were doing in the original film.”

https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/30/16390530/flatliners-review-2017-remake-sequel-kiefer-sutherland-ellen-page-diego-luna-niels-arden-oplev

I wonder if something changed then? I saw that article when it was posted but from everyone I’ve heard from they all claim there is no clear connection at all and that he’s just randomly in there(like Ghostbusters). Literally everything I can see lists it as a remake.

What a mess. Sounds almost like they didn’t know what it was.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

It looks like the Blade Runner sequel is going to bomb/flop.

I know this might have been so obvious to some since the original Blade Runner was a flop on release, but I honestly believed that the film had gained in cinematic and generational prominence to at least garner some interest from a wide enough audience, just as the studios thought.

A shame that people aren't going to see Blade Runner 2049...I wonder if the nearly 3 hour run time contributed to that...anyway. Yeah. I heard it was supposed to be really good though.

Dead2009 wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Dead2009 wrote:

Oshronosaurus wrote:

Flatliners was a remake?

it looked bad in any case. doesn't help that practically every ad i was getting on YouTube was a trailer for it.

No, it's classed as a sequel because Kiefer Sutherland's character in the original is in this one as well.

Jackie Chan Confirms Rush Hour 4 is Happening
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/893601-jackie-chan-confirms-rush-hour-4-is-happening

He plays a different character in this one. 99% sure it was a remake after all.

"Back in 2016, in an interview with Metro, actor Kiefer Sutherland said something that promptly made the rounds in the usual film-news outlets: he claimed Niels Arden Oplev’s 2017 Flatliners remake is actually a sequel to the original 1990 film. “I play a professor at the medical university,” he told writer Ann Lee. “It is never stated but it will probably be very clearly understood that I’m the same character I was in the original Flatliners but that I have changed my name and I’ve done some things to move on from the experiments that we were doing in the original film.”

https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/30/16390530/flatliners-review-2017-remake-sequel-kiefer-sutherland-ellen-page-diego-luna-niels-arden-oplev

I found the answer. Apparently the scene that explains he’s the same man was deleted. Beyond stupid

Sickle_Claw wrote:

A shame that people aren't going to see Blade Runner 2049...I wonder if the nearly 3 hour run time contributed to that...anyway. Yeah. I heard it was supposed to be really good though.

I would put it besides T2, Dark Knight, Aliens etc.

I’m sorry if I’m overhyping anyone here but I genuinely just loved it. I was not bored for one second. I was disappointed when it ended it was so good. I was never bored once or thought “man I wish we could get past this part”.

It also immensely helped that I went in entirely spoiler free. There is so much the trailer kept secret it’s insane.

Also incredible shame that it isn’t doing well... but at the same time I wonder if the studio really even expected it to? I feel like they made this as a passion project for the fans. I really don’t think this is a movie that is trying to set up a franchise or breath new life into Blade Runner so they can churn it out like Star Wars. Yes there can be more in this world that would be awesome. So many side stories I’m sure. But if they left it I’d be okay...it ended great.

Obviously I know they want to make money though lol.

Troyal1 wrote:

Sickle_Claw wrote:

A shame that people aren't going to see Blade Runner 2049...I wonder if the nearly 3 hour run time contributed to that...anyway. Yeah. I heard it was supposed to be really good though.

Also incredible shame that it isn’t doing well... but at the same time I wonder if the studio really even expected it to? I feel like they made this as a passion project for the fans. But if they left it I’d be okay...it ended great.

Few movies can get away with a 3 hour running time, let alone a running time of over 2.5 hours. That and given how you described it as a passion project for the fans, as well as the fact that the original movie bombed when it came out, then I can't help but wonder if this was made to be a cult movie like the first one turned out to be.

It's why I've said from the beginning that movies that need to be long are perfect for a 2 hour run time, or a little bit more. Anything more is overkill.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Sickle_Claw wrote:

A shame that people aren't going to see Blade Runner 2049...I wonder if the nearly 3 hour run time contributed to that...anyway. Yeah. I heard it was supposed to be really good though.

Also incredible shame that it isn’t doing well... but at the same time I wonder if the studio really even expected it to? I feel like they made this as a passion project for the fans.  But if they left it I’d be okay...it ended great.

Few movies can get away with a 3 hour running time, let alone a running time of over 2.5 hours. That and given how you described it as a passion project for the fans, as well as the fact that the original movie bombed when it came out, then I can't help but wonder if this was made to be a cult movie like the first one turned out to be.

That’s exactly what I think. This movie couldn’t have had the impact it did at 2 hours in my opinion. It would have been a disservice.

I really wish audiences could get on board with longer films. I don’t want 3 hour films for the sake but if it serves a purpose then... I mean I appreciate it lol.

although the movie is actually not really 3 hours btw. Without credits I believe it’s 2 hours and 32 min. Long credits.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the run time. Guess the length of two of the three highest grossing films of all-time. Titanic: 3 hours 14 minutes, 2nd all-time. Avatar: 2 hours 42 minutes, 1st all-time.

And I'll throw in another one for good measure: Avengers: 2 hours 23 minutes, 5th all-time.

And then there are movies like Gone With the Wind, either of the first two Godfathers, the Dark Knight sequels, Hobbit trilogy, LOTR, recent Bond films, etc.

Those all exploded on the box office and they are of varying quality, popularity and extreme length. There was another contributing factor for Blade Runner or more. A few things are against right off the bat, most importantly it is rated R. That rating limits its gross potential and the pool of audience  it can draw from. Rated R movies struggle to breakthrough, especially a film that doesn't bring something truly unique to the table, if this were the 70s though, it could succeed ala Godfather. Another is the first was a cult classic and regarded as the BEST sci-fi film ever made by many and thus not needing a sequel. It is a sequel to an old cult classic that is not pervasive in pop culture. Blade Runner is no Star Wars or even Jurassic Park.(This is also why Avatar will gross crazy amounts despite their excessive length) And lastly it has Ryan Gosling....okay that is a factor for me.  But the others are pretty key.

Scott B wrote:

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the run time. Guess the length of two of the three highest grossing films of all-time. Titanic: 3 hours 14 minutes, 2nd all-time. Avatar: 2 hours 42 minutes, 1st all-time.

And I'll throw in another one for good measure: Avengers: 2 hours 23 minutes, 5th all-time.

And then there are movies like Gone With the Wind, either of the first two Godfathers, the Dark Knight sequels, Hobbit trilogy, LOTR, recent Bond films, etc.

Those all exploded on the box office and they are of varying quality, popularity and extreme length. There was another contributing factor for Blade Runner or more. A few things are against right off the bat, most importantly it is rated R. That rating limits its gross potential and the pool of audience  it can draw from. Rated R movies struggle to breakthrough, especially a film that doesn't bring something truly unique to the table, if this were the 70s though, it could succeed ala Godfather. Another is the first was a cult classic and regarded as the BEST sci-fi film ever made by many and thus not needing a sequel. It is a sequel to an old cult classic that is not pervasive in pop culture. Blade Runner is no Star Wars or even Jurassic Park.(This is also why Avatar will gross crazy amounts despite their excessive length) And lastly it has Ryan Gosling....okay that is a factor for me.  But the others are pretty key.

Just to add to that it’s been 35 years. That definitely hurts in the conversation even more with the general audience.

Harvey Weinstein fired by his own brother due to sexual assault allegations.

Good riddance. I never thought this would happen, let alone happen so fast, but I'm happy that he's gone. His pandering to Hollywood's liberal mindset wasn't enough to save him like it did with many others in the past.

Sha na na na Sha na na na Hey Hey Hey Goodbye!

I never expected one of the founders of his own prestige film studio, oh how the mighty have fallen. And good riddance to that dirtbag!

It looks like Harvey Weinstein's former company is considering a total name change.

Considering how his brother is still in the company, not to mention all the recent news, it's going to be hard to see how this works.

Meanwhile, Russell Crowe and Matt Damon helped kill an earlier 2004 article that would have exposed Weinstein's misconduct much sooner.

It makes you wonder how much they knew/if they knew anything or if they were pawns.

Janice Min, partial owner of The Hollywood Reporter, showed this on her Twitter profile/feed. Harvey Weinstein's desperate bid to stay in power.

Hasbro is making a movie studio named Allspark pictures.

Can anybody say 'Transformers reboot'?


Meanwhile, at the Harvey Weinstein rabbit hole...

A Manhattan DA swept hard evidence of Weinstein's sexual assault under the rug.

We even have audio that proves his guilt.



I'm really interested to see how much people get caught up besides him.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Hasbro is making a movie studio named Allspark pictures.

Can anybody say 'Transformers reboot'?

I'd say it's already been made. The Allspark Pictures logo was before the MLP movie wjen it saw it on Thursday.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Hasbro is making a movie studio named Allspark pictures.

Can anybody say 'Transformers reboot'?


Meanwhile, at the Harvey Weinstein rabbit hole...

A Manhattan DA swept hard evidence of Weinstein's sexual assault under the rug.

We even have audio that proves his guilt.



I'm really interested to see how much people get caught up besides him.

The scariest thing about this guy is we may never know the extent of his crimes... and that of course leaves out tons more people in Hollywood who knew about this for years. There’s no doubt in my mind that this goes on a lot in Hollywood.

Terry Crews came forward and is claiming he was sexually assaulted even.

Quote :

to detail a shocking incident of sexual assault that allegedly took place at the hands of a “high level Hollywood executive” at an event last year.

The former football star-turned-actor claims he was standing with his wife when the unnamed man reached out and grabbed his genitals. When confronted, Crews says “He just grinned like a jerk.”

https://cassiuslife.com/28971/terry-crews-sexual-assault/#.Wd02OilKY5Y.twitter

Keanu Reeves reveals Bill & Ted 3 title!
http://moviehole.net/2017124483keanu-reeves-reveals-bill-ted-3-title

The FBI is investigating Harvey Weinstien is is worried he might move out of the country via Roman Polanski.

Meanwhile, as his rabbit hole goes down further...

Ben Affleck is in trouble for grabbing a woman's butt in 2014.

Disney might want to consider holding onto both of their separate animation studios:
Fox Announces First Film From New British CGI Animation Studio: Ron's Gone Wrong

Peculiar title aside, this is at least a clear indication that 20th Century Fox actually considers animation a valuable profit venue. Their contract with DreamWorks Animation is ending, and while Blue Sky is still profitable its not always the most reliable for quality (coughIce Agesequels cough). The former is also going to Universal, where it will struggle to have any kind of identity next to it's braindead sibling animation house Illumination.

You'll also notice they're all CGI centric animation studios, but I do wonder how long that will last. Not because they're all bad necessarily, but because all these markets are trying to compete to be the next DreamWorks or Pixar. Ironically, the MLP movie at least brought a new form of 2D animation to the big screen, but there is too much stigma against the franchise itself to overcome and thus under-performed. And half the negative reviews I read barely analyzed the film in question, just bitched about having to go see it or the irrelevant studio politics.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Disney might want to consider holding onto both of their separate animation studios:
Fox Announces First Film From New British CGI Animation Studio: Ron's Gone Wrong

Peculiar title aside, this is at least a clear indication that 20th Century Fox actually considers animation a valuable profit venue. Their contract with DreamWorks Animation is ending, and while Blue Sky is still profitable its not always the most reliable for quality (coughIce Agesequels cough). The former is also going to Universal, where it will struggle to have any kind of identity next to it's braindead sibling animation house Illumination.

Fox, for all of it's flaws, has always been a profitable studio, even under the Rothman era. They must be making more money then we thought in order to make an animation studio. Not only that, but, as I said in the Dark Universe thread and well as this one, with Universal going to be in trouble down the road, Sony being a burning trainwreck, and Paramount probably not lasting very much longer, the only competition it has are Disney and, to a much lesser degree, Warner Bros.

The more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to think that Disney, Fox, and WB will be the only major movie studios standing in the next 5 years.

I think Universal will still be here in at least five years time; remember we still need them to finance and distribute the final Spielberg Jurassic film, and hopefully let the production team actually work on the film. Until the Fast & Furious and Minions franchises start losing money (as much as I despise both of them), then we can talk. And they managed to get themselves a banner year of success in 2015, so nobody is looking at them as a studio in trouble like Sony and Paramount.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

I think Universal will still be here in at least five years time; remember we still need them to finance and distribute the final Spielberg Jurassic film, and hopefully let the production team actually work on the film. Until the Fast & Furious and Minions franchises start losing money (as much as I despise both of them), then we can talk. And they managed to get themselves a banner year of success in 2015, so nobody is looking at them as a studio in trouble like Sony and Paramount.

I don't think they'll go south soon. It's after JP6/JW3 is when I think things will really get bad and that what happened with the Dark Universe was a sign of things to come.

Just want to point out that WB is as big as Disney STILL. Well...except this year right now.

Also Paramount isn't that likely to fold soon because the huge Viacom Inc. owns it and they just started up a new channel called Paramount Channel, set to start Jan next year. They aren't in financial straits IOW. Yeah, the channel shocked me too.

Sony is really the only Major at risk to fold and Lionsgate will probably step into the vacuum to become the 6th Major.

Scott B wrote:

Just want to point out that WB is as big as Disney STILL. Well...except this year right now.

Also Paramount isn't that likely to fold soon because the huge Viacom Inc. owns it and they just started up a new channel called Paramount Channel, set to start Jan next year. They aren't in financial straits IOW. Yeah, the channel shocked me too.

Sony is really the only Major at risk to fold and Lionsgate will probably step into the vacuum to become the 6th Major.

The $12 billion dollar debt it has makes me question that. You can only pump in good money after bad for so long until you decide to quit.

‘Beetlejuice’ Sequel Still in Development at Warner Bros.

Dead2009 wrote:

‘Beetlejuice’ Sequel Still in Development at Warner Bros.

I don't get what's all the hold up was. At this point, they might as well reboot/remake the the whole thing.

I still don't think it will get off the ground, they've been trying to make it happen since the mid 90s when Kevin Smith was being toured around Warner Bros and landed his short-lived Superman directing gig. It'll probably languish in development a bit longer, end up permanently shelved or flat out remade and forgotten about quickly.

Blade Runner 2 is bombing like Batman vs. Superman did. Only BvS actually made a profit. This movie might not.

The Weinstein Company is for sale. And Jay-Z is looking to buy at least part of it.