qwerty Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Zemeckis would have been an interesting choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 12:08 PM) OMG! A science fiction movie stretched the truth about things like time travel and physics! Panic! It was more that the plot didn't exactly make a lot of sense, not that there were unique or interesting time travel/physics/science fiction stuff. Sci-fi and fantasy genres aren't an excuse for suspending logical consistency--if you want to establish new physics/rules/whatever, make them interesting and follow them, don't make them arbitrary-and-chosen-to-be-plot-convenient and inconsistent/nonsense. A couple of my friends are a lot more into Star Trek and thought it was a decent sci-fi action movie but not a good Star Trek movie. I dunno, I'm not a huge fan of Abrams and didn't think the movie was anything special. better than EI-III? Sure, but that's not a high hurdle. Edited January 26, 2013 by StrangeSox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 11:55 AM) Disney and art house don't go together. They're trying to please the mainstream masses. You were never going to get a Nolan or Aronofsky. Batman, X Men and Avengers weren't made for the masses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 03:46 PM) Batman, X Men and Avengers weren't made for the masses? Fair point, but if they pick an unknown or art house director and it blows up in their faces, that is something that could be very hard to recover from. I think JJ Abrams is somewhat safe and at the same time he is a director that has some experience working with a revered property and treating it as such. I also think that everyone except George Lucas himself realizes that Star Wars needs to reinject the mysticism and bring back the gritty elements that made ANH and Empire stand out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 While I can't blame someone for wanting to make more money on Star Wars, it's worth questioning whether the Star Wars concept can succeed today in any form. Liking the original Star Wars is in part allowing it to exist in its original context, where it was revolutionary and far more novel. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 01:46 PM) Batman, X Men and Avengers weren't made for the masses? Of those 3, only Avengers seems like something safe to bring 7 year old kids to see. We're talking Disney and Star Wars here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 05:40 PM) Of those 3, only Avengers seems like something safe to bring 7 year old kids to see. We're talking Disney and Star Wars here. Does Empire seem like a movie safe to bring 7 year olds to see? Battered skywalker getting his hand chopped off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 02:42 PM) Does Empire seem like a movie safe to bring 7 year olds to see? Battered skywalker getting his hand chopped off? I dunno but ewoks and the most recent 3 trend more towards being ok for small ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 04:33 PM) While I can't blame someone for wanting to make more money on Star Wars, it's worth questioning whether the Star Wars concept can succeed today in any form. Liking the original Star Wars is in part allowing it to exist in its original context, where it was revolutionary and far more novel. Just a thought. They will succeed, absolutely. The issue is, will they be met with scorn from critics and fans like 1-3 were. The stories past RotJ are pretty good, and the prequel stories prior to Phantom Menace are also very good. Using those stories and doing your best not to "Jar Jar Binks" it up in order to sell more toys will keep the fanboys coming back to the theater over and over, have no doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 04:43 PM) I dunno but ewoks and the most recent 3 trend more towards being ok for small ones. Episode 3 was not ok for small ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 03:24 PM) Episode 3 was not ok for small ones. It's actually not ok for anyone to watch. It might be the worst movie ever made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 05:31 PM) It's actually not ok for anyone to watch. It might be the worst movie ever made. It was 10x better than Episode 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) It was 10x better than Episode 2. The 3 of them blend into a blob of fecal matter. I can't distinguish any of them apart after all these years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 06:34 PM) The 3 of them blend into a blob of fecal matter. I can't distinguish any of them apart after all these years. The "romantic" blather on naboo in Episode 2 has to be acknowledged as uniquely terrible. Beyond anything else ever done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 04:33 PM) While I can't blame someone for wanting to make more money on Star Wars, it's worth questioning whether the Star Wars concept can succeed today in any form. Liking the original Star Wars is in part allowing it to exist in its original context, where it was revolutionary and far more novel. Just a thought. I don't think the technology carried the first 2 films. It's definitely possible to bring the original mood back from the first 2. Getting away from CGI would be a great start. Abrams is a big fan of the Star Wars universe. That's a good start. I like the selection of Arndt. He knows subtlety. I was just hoping they'd stay away from an established, blockbuster making director. Having Abrams work on Star Trek and Star Wars at the same time is going to be an annoyance for me. We have to listen to the same interview for the next 3, or so, years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 06:51 PM) I don't think the technology carried the first 2 films. It's definitely possible to bring the original mood back from the first 2. Getting away from CGI would be a great start. Abrams is a big fan of the Star Wars universe. That's a good start. I like the selection of Arndt. He knows subtlety. I was just hoping they'd stay away from an established, blockbuster making director. Having Abrams work on Star Trek and Star Wars at the same time is going to be an annoyance for me. We have to listen to the same interview for the next 3, or so, years. Is Abrams actually signed on for any more Star Trek films? Few years ago I could swear I heard that everyone was on a 2 film contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan99 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2013 -> 09:23 PM) Is Abrams actually signed on for any more Star Trek films? Few years ago I could swear I heard that everyone was on a 2 film contract. He isn't going to be directing Star Trek films after the one coming out this year. He is signed on to produce the third installment though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Academy Award winner Halle Berry no longer can cite "Catwoman" as the low point of her career. In "Movie 43," she initiates a game of "Truth or Dare" on a blind date — and that leads to Berry making guacamole by mashing avocados with her bare breasts, and inserting a turkey baster filled with extra-hot sauce into herself. And then things get REALLY ugly. My God, do they get ugly. Apparently Hugh Jackman and Academy Award winner Kate Winslet thought they'd be showing off their carefree, comedic sides by playing a blind date scene in which Jackman's character has a realistic-looking scrotum dangling from his chin — which seems to escape the notice of everyone but Winslet. They were all wrong. Very, very, very wrong. From "National Lampoon's Animal House" to "Stripes" to many of the Judd Apatow R-rated comedies to "Ted," I've long been a fan of rude-crude-lewd films — IF they're also smart and we care about the characters and there's a lit bit of an emotional investment in their fates. But I don't see a redeeming molecule in a movie that has Chloe Grace Moretz getting her first period while teenage boys and grown men react like Neanderthals, or Kristen Bell playing Supergirl, who becomes the butt of jokes about her crotch, not to mention the humiliation endured by Faris, Berry and Watts. The men in this movie are jerks, idiots, dolts and fools. The women have it much worse. Ebert review of Movie 43, suntimes.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Saw Gangster Squad last night. Kinda cartoonish, but not enough to hurt it. I liked it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Finally saw Django. That was great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 27, 2013 -> 06:23 PM) Academy Award winner Halle Berry no longer can cite "Catwoman" as the low point of her career. In "Movie 43," she initiates a game of "Truth or Dare" on a blind date — and that leads to Berry making guacamole by mashing avocados with her bare breasts, and inserting a turkey baster filled with extra-hot sauce into herself. And then things get REALLY ugly. My God, do they get ugly. Apparently Hugh Jackman and Academy Award winner Kate Winslet thought they'd be showing off their carefree, comedic sides by playing a blind date scene in which Jackman's character has a realistic-looking scrotum dangling from his chin — which seems to escape the notice of everyone but Winslet. They were all wrong. Very, very, very wrong. From "National Lampoon's Animal House" to "Stripes" to many of the Judd Apatow R-rated comedies to "Ted," I've long been a fan of rude-crude-lewd films — IF they're also smart and we care about the characters and there's a lit bit of an emotional investment in their fates. But I don't see a redeeming molecule in a movie that has Chloe Grace Moretz getting her first period while teenage boys and grown men react like Neanderthals, or Kristen Bell playing Supergirl, who becomes the butt of jokes about her crotch, not to mention the humiliation endured by Faris, Berry and Watts. The men in this movie are jerks, idiots, dolts and fools. The women have it much worse. Ebert review of Movie 43, suntimes.com This review was written by Richard Roeper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Paul Giammatti in talks to play Rhino in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 28, 2013 -> 05:53 PM) Paul Giammatti in talks to play Rhino in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Is Rhino incredibly whiny in the comics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 http://news.yahoo.com/why-zero-dark-thirty...-210311562.html Why Black Hawk Down is falling away in the Oscar race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 28, 2013 -> 08:18 PM) This review was written by Richard Roeper. Good catch. I just did a search for "Ebert suntimes.com Movie 43" and I read that he had given it was zero stars and it was at the rogerebert.com website, so I assumed it must have been his article and didn't even read the byline. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...973/0/REVIEWS08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.