imfdb.org - New Video Games/ Movies

imfdb.org (http://forum.imfdb.org/index.php)

- Off Topic (http://forum.imfdb.org/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - New Video Games/ Movies (http://forum.imfdb.org/showthread.php?t=1091)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 38696)

I think if you change a couple things, this could be a "better movie". Like the long ass intro about how North Korea is a threat in the beginning of the movie. Make North Korea invading be as vague as possible. Let it be in the perspective of the civilians. Let them be confused and try to find out information on their own.

They really needed to emphasis how "Thor" is a Marine more often in the movie than just mention it once and not even have the guy mention it to his fellow Marines.

The Asian Marine is obviously supposed to be a Korean. Why didn't they have obvious tension between the guy and other characters or his opinions about the racial backlash against Korean Americans?

Have Jed die in the remake similar to the way he died in the original and with a stand off with the Korean Captain and have him stand down because he has some semblance of humanity instead of being classic "bad guy". The man needs some depth.

That would have definitely made it better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 38697)

The movie languished in the can for two years before it got released, and it died a quick death at the box office. I don't think we have to worry about a sequel.

We'll have to see how it does in DVD sales. These numbers have often been the deciding factor in if a movie gets a sequel. The Planet of the Apes re-imagining by Tim Burton garnered enough DVD sales to warrant a sequel, but they decided to reboot the whole franchise instead.

I'm sorry, but maybe it's my deep red state upbrining, or my favorable recollections of the original, but I really enjoyed the new Red Dawn.

In my humble opinion, only thing that could have made it better was a panty shot of blonde girl.

I sorta like how Hemsworth underplayed the fact that he was a Marine, especially around the guys with SGM Tanner.

That echoes of stuff I've seen in various bars and VFW halls.

As older veterans age, some of them get more bombastic. Us newer guys, not so much, especially around older guys.

That doesn't make any sense that Hemsworth didn't identify to his fellow Marines that...he's an active duty Marine.

You haven't been around the Marines I know. Some of them are really hardcore about being in the corp. I watched the new Red Dawn with one of them and he was cheering when the Marines showed up and kept wondering why didn't Hemsworth step up and give name and rank to Tanner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 38706)

I haven't seen the movie, but a good explanation would be a bad time in the service. Not all Marines are all "OO-RAH MARINE CORPS FOR LIFE ONCE YOU'RE IN YOU'RE NEVER OUT". If he had a bad experience in the Middle East, it may have soured his perception on the military and his part in it and led to him trying to downplay his role.

Sure, I'd believe that...if the movie TOLD us about it. When people thought he was Air Force and he quickly corrected he was Marine, it means he wasn't ashamed of it. There were no indications that he was dishonorable discharged or anything. In fact, the movie just forgot he was a Marine after a point. I don't think a real Marine would downplay that he's a Marine. The writer just forgot.

I sorta got the vibe, mainly from the scene where he rolls his eyes as the Alpha Company guys go all moto, that while he was proud of his service, he wasn't all "Semper Fi. Do or Die. Oorah." about it.

A common enough thing, especially if we suppose the guys with Tanner were retreads whose combat service as PFCs and LCpls was in Gul War I and then by the time of Gulf War II they were SNCOs, it is entirely possible they never had to fight insurgents at the street level like Matt did. Thus, giving them an entirely different view of war and thier Marine service.

http://kotaku.com/is-the-decision-to...a-mo-472813326

Interesting argument.

I've always found the idea of developers paying gun companies for the right to promote their products to the 18-35 demographic FOR THEM a bit stupid. Logically, it should be the other way around. For publishers who are looking to squeeze every nickel of profit out of a game, cutting this expense, and potentially making money off of it, is the way to go.

So more AR-33s and KF7s again?

I think it is intellectually dishonest on behalf of both the NRA, and gamers, to state that one or the other is the cause for mass shootings and should be banned.

An assault on one is the same as the assualt on the other, Constitutionally speaking.

On the other hand, though, people want to use cool guns with the right names (or at least what they think are the right names), which means the manufacturers have something the game designers want. Since a lot of the weapons aren't anything you'd market to civilians (especially if you're HK and too busy hating them), the money arrow ends up going in the other direction.

Edit: also he's confusing detail with realism. Game depictions of firearms are usually not realistic, just detailled. Educating yourself to operate a firearm in CoD is fine and good until you go out with an empty magazine and the safety on.

You know, I always sorta agreed with you Evil Tim, until talking to a buddy of mine who works at a gun store and how he said he couldn't keep SCAR-Hs on the shelves.

I guess there is a segment of the Modern Warfare 2 crowd that is highly devoted, well financed, and now well armed. :D