imfdb.org

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)

Excalibur 05-24-2016 09:41 PM

I've always thought the video game was the 3rd movie

funkychinaman 05-24-2016 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 42613)
I've always thought the video game was the 3rd movie

I thought so too. Aykroyd should've just left it at that.

StanTheMan 05-25-2016 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 42613)
I've always thought the video game was the 3rd movie

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 42615)
I thought so too. Aykroyd should've just left it at that.

Same here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 42610)
"The premise is absurd?" It's a comedy about hunting ghosts with portable nuclear reactors, what's the expectation here?

I'm just not willing to dismiss it based on one trailer (I haven't seen the second one.) I like the writer/director, and I like most of the cast (not a huge fan of Leslie Jones.) I'm just going to keep an open mind.

I believe he was talking about specific aspects to the premise for this one. That said, the thing isn't that it's absurd but that they made it work in the original. Not so sure here, though.

Don't get me wrong, I don't look for any movie to suck, but I also can only go by what I see. And what I see, simply put, doesn't look all that good. Feig indeed isn't some chump which is why I have any hope myself.

I do think Akyroyd does have a hard time letting go - But it can't all rest on him; somebody still had to say 'yes'. In any event I wouldn't have minded something new for GB, despite my default disdain for reboots but again, I'm not not overly optimistic on this. If nothing else then because of the argument that if it's good, it'll be all about the women, while if it's bad, it's because nobody accepted the women. That will loom regardless.

Bah. I'm no huge GB fan so I don't have much a dog in this fight. Again, just calling the shit like I see it. If nothing else though there will be other things that will arise for the franchise, which is good.

StanTheMan 05-25-2016 07:31 PM

On the other hand, the Independence Day sequel looks even better with this latest extended clip. Still think something seems a bit off.. can't put my finger on it. But again, looks like it'll be pretty good.

And on games, I'm not seeing what the big deal is with Overwatch.

Excalibur 05-25-2016 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanTheMan (Post 42618)
Still think something seems a bit off.. can't put my finger on it..

Yeah, Will Smith is not in the movie

Evil Tim 05-26-2016 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanTheMan (Post 42618)
On the other hand, the Independence Day sequel looks even better with this latest extended clip.

MAGAZI...oh sorry, reflex action. :D

funkychinaman 05-29-2016 04:10 PM

I finally got around to watching Spectre, and I liked it, but Bond shooting down a helicopter from a speedboat with his PPK might be the most unbelievable scene in the history of the franchise.

StanTheMan 05-30-2016 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 42620)
Yeah, Will Smith is not in the movie

Lol, that's not really it. Though Smith not coming back when practically everybody else is does suck though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Tim (Post 42623)
MAGAZI...oh sorry, reflex action. :D

Hey, I'm that way too man, but I used the proper term here. Promise!

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 42634)
I finally got around to watching Spectre, and I liked it, but Bond shooting down a helicopter from a speedboat with his PPK might be the most unbelievable scene in the history of the franchise.

I agree but that said that sounds like more reason for me to get around to watching it..

Still wonder who the next will be. I heard Gillian Anderson make a blurb the other day about wanting to go for it as the first female Bond. I'm hardly some PC type but honestly that's hardly the worst suggestion I've heard, she might be quite good - if they go that way about it, that is.

Finally, on the game tip, still don't see the big deal with Overwatch, and No Man's Sky has been delayed, which kinda sucks. Civ VI coming out looks good, at least as far as Civ games go anyway.

S&Wshooter 05-31-2016 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanTheMan (Post 42636)

Still wonder who the next will be. I heard Gillian Anderson make a blurb the other day about wanting to go for it as the first female Bond. I'm hardly some PC type but honestly that's hardly the worst suggestion I've heard, she might be quite good - if they go that way about it, that is.

Or, you know, they could make a new franchise rather than changing a fundamental part of a character (Bond is outright stated to have been meant to be a white, womanizing, borderline alcoholic) just so that they can make a low-effort movie no one can criticize without people ripping them a new asshole over "misogyny" (hey, just like the new Ghostbusters!)

Excalibur 05-31-2016 07:17 PM

Well yeah, Ian Fleming has reportedly said Sir Christopher Lee's career during WWII was a direct inspiration for James Bond.

I hate how they think if they reverse gender iconic character for the sake of being PC, that it makes a good character. As a parody, sure. Even as something serious...maybe.

But really? Does everyone want a female James Bond to be pretty much Black Widow? She's pretty much a badass assassin spy type who has no personal love interest and most likely have slept around.

Evil Tim 06-05-2016 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S&Wshooter (Post 42637)
Or, you know, they could make a new franchise rather than changing a fundamental part of a character (Bond is outright stated to have been meant to be a white, womanizing, borderline alcoholic) just so that they can make a low-effort movie no one can criticize without people ripping them a new asshole over "misogyny" (hey, just like the new Ghostbusters!)

I dunno, a womanising female James Bond would have a certain appeal :D

StanTheMan 06-06-2016 01:33 AM

^ This fellow gets it. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by S&Wshooter (Post 42637)
Or, you know, they could make a new franchise rather than changing a fundamental part of a character (Bond is outright stated to have been meant to be a white, womanizing, borderline alcoholic) just so that they can make a low-effort movie no one can criticize without people ripping them a new asshole over "misogyny" (hey, just like the new Ghostbusters!)

Trust me that came to mind.. Difference is I think a woman (especially one like Gilly) could make a decent go at replicating Bond in some respects, while I don't think anybody - female or otherwise - could begin to in any way replicate what Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudson had. Fair point about starting something new, though - Why does it so often have to be within some existing framework or basis? Bah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 42640)
I hate how they think if they reverse gender iconic character for the sake of being PC, that it makes a good character. As a parody, sure. Even as something serious...maybe.

Again, I'm with ya. I don't care for gender to be used as a gimmick as stated earlier. That said I don't see it so much to be the case with Bond, and even so still feel it would work out better, or at least has a better chance, anyway.

In other news, I've heard the new TMNT has been a big improvement, while Fallout 4 seems to now be declining into near sucks shit level. Again, just what I've been hearing.

commando552 06-06-2016 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanTheMan (Post 42650)
Trust me that came to mind.. Difference is I think a woman (especially one like Gilly) could make a decent go at replicating Bond in some respects, while I don't think anybody - female or otherwise - could begin to in any way replicate what Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudson had. Fair point about starting something new, though - Why does it so often have to be within some existing framework or basis? Bah..

I see it as being totally the other way around. Changing the gender of Bond would be a fundamental change, as so much of his character and previous story lines is tied into him being a man. On the other hand, the gender of the Ghostbusters is largely irrelevant to the story for the most part. Put it this way, if you replace the Ghostbusters in the original film with women, you really don't have to do much rewriting. If you do the same with pretty much and Bond film, it falls apart.

Another point, Bond has to be able to physically fight Bond henchmen. I have no idea why people think a 5' 2" tall 50 year old women who in no way is regarded for their physicality is a good fit for an MI6 field agent who can beat pretty much any opponent in a fight.

I personally think that the way to go if they want a female version of bond would be to have her be in the next film as a fellow agent and then if well received spin her off into her own film. As for casting they would definitely go younger than Gillian Anderson, someone more like Emily Blunt would be more realistic. Or they could go even younger to invest more in a series and cast somebody like Alicia Vikander or Daisy Ridley. I would buy both of these actresses as being physically up to the job, as they will both be in shape from Tomb Raider and Star Wars respectively.

Excalibur 06-06-2016 04:12 PM

Emily Blunt is a good actress...but they really need to coach her through fight scenes and get her to look tough like back in Edge of Tomorrow. When I saw her in Sicario...I did not believe for a second that she was this FBI "doorbuster" bad ass.

I think they should keep James Bond as James Bond for the future and if they want a female James Bond then just be original with the name and not let the legacy of the character drive a following for the new movie. Because that's why I see with the new Ghostbusters. They did a half ass casting and most likely a half ass story banking on the nostalgia and legacy of the previous Ghostbuster movies to gain an audience. If they had change the setting, name of the movie and banked on a new idea of Ghostbusters without calling it Ghostbusters, then it's asking too much of lazy writers who wanted to do the whole gender reversal because it's "hip" these days.

funkychinaman 06-06-2016 06:18 PM

Let's keep in mind that the legacy of Ghostbusters is one good movie, one bad movie, a cartoon that didn't have image rights of the original actors, a video game, and of course, one of the greatest soft drinks of all time. That's not much to go on.

Excalibur 06-06-2016 06:34 PM

But at no point did the franchise said "Let's make a reboot with the entire case having complete gender reversal, regardless if there are actually 4 good female actresses that can pull it of and waste Chris Hemsworth in the cast. Make no reference to the original and work the movie like it's a new idea, but not". The makers of this movie did this solely to appease the new generation of feminism, thinking this will get them to buy tickets and missing the point entirely.

The first cartoon, looking back, wasn't actually bad despite that they couldn't use the images of the actors with a sorta "new age" sequel series that kinda worked out. If anything, this movie shoulda been based on that, young kids taking up the mantle and adding their new generation into the mix.

Evil Tim 06-06-2016 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando552 (Post 42651)
I personally think that the way to go if they want a female version of bond would be to have her be in the next film as a fellow agent and then if well received spin her off into her own film.

As I recall, wasn't that the idea with Jinx in Die Another Day?

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 42654)
Let's keep in mind that the legacy of Ghostbusters is one good movie, one bad movie, a cartoon that didn't have image rights of the original actors, a video game, and of course, one of the greatest soft drinks of all time. That's not much to go on.

And another cartoon series where one of the guys was in a wheelchair because being inclusive means lying to children that disabilities don't, you know, make you unable to do some stuff. It was called Extreme Ghostbusters and all I remember is that in one episode, of all the damn things in the world, they had bad guys who were knockoffs of the Cenobites from Hellraiser. You know, for kids.

S&Wshooter 06-07-2016 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 42652)
When I saw her in Sicario...I did not believe for a second that she was this FBI "doorbuster" bad ass.

That was the whole point, I think; she was supposed to be badass but was pretty useless, and the CIA guys knew it but rolled with it because they had to, and initially made it seem like she mattered to play towards that badass self image she had so she'd go along with stuff easier

funkychinaman 06-07-2016 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 42655)
But at no point did the franchise said "Let's make a reboot with the entire case having complete gender reversal, regardless if there are actually 4 good female actresses that can pull it of and waste Chris Hemsworth in the cast. Make no reference to the original and work the movie like it's a new idea, but not". The makers of this movie did this solely to appease the new generation of feminism, thinking this will get them to buy tickets and missing the point entirely.

The first cartoon, looking back, wasn't actually bad despite that they couldn't use the images of the actors with a sorta "new age" sequel series that kinda worked out. If anything, this movie shoulda been based on that, young kids taking up the mantle and adding their new generation into the mix.

Yes, it's a reboot, like BSG and Star Trek before it. People are reacting like they're rebooting the Gospel and replacing Jesus with a woman. Frankly, I don't think Hollywood gives a crap about being PC, they'll try anything if it makes money. Look at how they're treating Red China with kid gloves in order to milk that market. Trying to market a film to women, half of the population, makes sense.

funkychinaman 06-07-2016 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Tim (Post 42656)



And another cartoon series where one of the guys was in a wheelchair because being inclusive means lying to children that disabilities don't, you know, make you unable to do some stuff. It was called Extreme Ghostbusters and all I remember is that in one episode, of all the damn things in the world, they had bad guys who were knockoffs of the Cenobites from Hellraiser. You know, for kids.

I remember they did a HP Lovecraft tribute in the original series as well.

Excalibur 06-07-2016 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 42660)
Yes, it's a reboot, like BSG and Star Trek before it. People are reacting like they're rebooting the Gospel and replacing Jesus with a woman. Frankly, I don't think Hollywood gives a crap about being PC, they'll try anything if it makes money. Look at how they're treating Red China with kid gloves in order to milk that market. Trying to market a film to women, half of the population, makes sense.

I think the difference between this and the BSG reboot where they made Starbuck and Boomer a woman is...Grace Park and Katee Sackhoff are pretty ok actresses. They own their roles instead of carbon copy the originals they are replacing. This reboot Ghostbuster, you can clearly see who is a girl-character of whom or obviously who Chris Hemsworth is doing. From what we've seen of the 2 trailers...I am not that impress with their acting or how they portray their characters. It is also obvious they wanted not good looking women on purpose. Yes, it would be the same if they were hot chicks, except we'd get something out of it. Here we have not good looking woman so we can bank our attention to their acting...which from what we've seen...is not good. The black woman is not only cliche black but just horrible, border-lining racist in how the movie wants her to portray her character, a fat ugly loud Cadillac loving black woman with that terribly cliche fear of god moment when she slapped the other chick in the face after she got possessed.

There's also no legacy with BSG compared to how far reaching into popular culture Ghostbusters have become. A reboot was inevitable, but...this just looks like shit. The only sorta nice thing that I liked about it is the remake of the theme song.

With Star Trek...they didn't gender reverse any of the characters. The initial reboot movie wasn't that good on a story reason, not acting. The acting was pretty good, though it wasn't until Into Darkness when the actors actually are doing their own take on the establish canon and becoming their own characters. The first movie was basically all the characters trying too hard to be the original cast.

funkychinaman 06-07-2016 05:01 PM

BSG eventually worked out, but no one had any idea who Katee Sackhoff or Grace Park when the show started. Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy have proven to be bankable actresses. Again, this goes back to studios wanting to make money.

If you want to rail about a remake wasting the talents of Chris Hemsworth, remember, he was in the Red Dawn remake.

Excalibur 06-07-2016 06:42 PM

Red Dawn remake alone is just stupid. No balls. Also made no sense. Would have made more sense and less stupid to just a full blown remake and set it in the 80s.

Shit, Chris Hemsworth was the best part of the movie, that and its portrayal of Marines at the end


Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 42665)
BSG eventually worked out, but no one had any idea who Katee Sackhoff or Grace Park when the show started. Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy have proven to be bankable actresses. Again, this goes back to studios wanting to make money.


In the case of BSG, it's all about first impressions. The miniseries, which I thought was a sort of a one shot thing gave us a good glimpse of both of these characters. They actually made us forget they are girls versions of previous characters.

Melissa McCarthy was only funny that one time...after The Heat, I really think her appeal is really gone.

funkychinaman 06-08-2016 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 42666)

Melissa McCarthy was only funny that one time...after The Heat, I really think her appeal is really gone.

Spy was pretty good, and that was also Melissa McCarthy and Paul Feig. I'm a bit surprised no one has tried a page on it. I have the Blu-Ray of it, I just don't have the time.

Excalibur 06-08-2016 03:55 PM

I just think her gimmick is I'm a fat white chick and I'm funny because I don't blend into other actors. She's like the female Chris Farley

StanTheMan 06-09-2016 09:07 PM

Gotta say I'm with Excalibur all the way on this. Again, I do give Feig some good credit, it's why I haven't trashed the film totally. Yes, it's all about money, all movies are ultimately about making money. But there are times the pandering is painfully obvious. This is one of those times, and it just doesn't help matters.

All-told, we'll see what's up when it hits, and if it's really good, I'll eat my words coated with bird shit.

Anyway.. Seems Suicide Squad will be PG-13. Again, pandering a good bit more obvious there. Granted I didn't hope for it to be R-rated or anything, but it would have been nice. Still looks ok though.

Excalibur 06-09-2016 09:24 PM

With all the themes in the Suicide movie, I was expecting a hard R

StanTheMan 06-09-2016 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 42687)
With all the themes in the Suicide movie, I was expecting a hard R

Again, would have been nice but I didn't really expect it - Can't capitalize on the teen footprint with an R rating. :rolleyes:

Excalibur 06-09-2016 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanTheMan (Post 42688)
Again, would have been nice but I didn't really expect it - Can't capitalize on the teen footprint with an R rating. :rolleyes:

An R rated comic book movie that makes LOTS of money....did someone say Deadpool?

commando552 06-09-2016 09:35 PM

There was always zero chance they Suicide Squad was going to get an R rating. WB has way too much riding on this film to held launch the DCEU for them to potentially prejudice the earnings by giving it an R rating. Regardless, it really doesn't need to have an R rating. Disregarding nudity or excessive swearing, you can get away with a lot in a PG-13 in terms of violence and general "darkness". The theatrical cut of BVS was still only a PG-13, and that had a hell of a lot of death and destruction in it.

commando552 06-09-2016 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 42690)
An R rated comic book movie that makes LOTS of money....did someone say Deadpool?

Deadpool is totally the exception though. Having to beat a world record to be economically viable is not exactly what WB will be hoping for in their current financial situation. Besides, the absolute last thing we need is studios assuming that the R rating is what made Deadpool great and start churning out a bunch of crap with nudity and swearing slapped on.

It kind of makes sense with Wolverine 3 as that is about a guy essentially tearing people apart with his hands and at this point they have sort of earned it. It also makes sense that The Killing Joke is R rated, but they didn't aim for that, they just made it as they intended at accepted whatever rating it got.

Excalibur 06-09-2016 09:56 PM

Personally and I'm sure a lot agree with the fact that the rating system is bullshit and serves to limit what a movie can and cannot have. Like blood. If a movie has a lot of violence but little or no graphic display of blood, it's PG-13, but if there is gore, than it's R. Same with sexual content. If it's literal half ass, barely showing much and covered sex, it's PG13, but when full on nude with tits, it's R.

Same with swearing. A PG13 movie can say Fuck just once but dropping bombs and all the other words, R...

StanTheMan 06-09-2016 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 42695)
Personally and I'm sure a lot agree with the fact that the rating system is bullshit and serves to limit what a movie can and cannot have. Like blood. If a movie has a lot of violence but little or no graphic display of blood, it's PG-13, but if there is gore, than it's R. Same with sexual content. If it's literal half ass, barely showing much and covered sex, it's PG13, but when full on nude with tits, it's R.

Same with swearing. A PG13 movie can say Fuck just once but dropping bombs and all the other words, R...

I agree with totally on this. That aside, c552 still said it. Especially about Deadpool. It was meant and expected to be an R film and could not be anyway else and work. A film should be graphic because that's a part of it or what it's about, it can't be there for the sake of it. Rating isn't everything. I say this as a diehard RoboCop fan who loathed the remake getting a PG-13 rating.. Ironically Robo wanted a PG-13 to hedge their bets on teen attendance when that was the wrong approach, whereas it's totally expected in this case. The alternative in Suicide Squad's case is going R and having a similar situation where they potentially shoot themselves in the foot, not something they need given how much they do have riding on this.

Sure, I admit I would have liked to see a more explicit R-style Harley (:D) but otherwise the film doesn't have anything to really necessitate an R-rating and will probably manage fine without it.

commando552 06-09-2016 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 42695)
Personally and I'm sure a lot agree with the fact that the rating system is bullshit and serves to limit what a movie can and cannot have. Like blood. If a movie has a lot of violence but little or no graphic display of blood, it's PG-13, but if there is gore, than it's R. Same with sexual content. If it's literal half ass, barely showing much and covered sex, it's PG13, but when full on nude with tits, it's R.

Same with swearing. A PG13 movie can say Fuck just once but dropping bombs and all the other words, R...

Its kind of weird as well how it has shifted over time, with more violence being allowed in PG-13 nowadays, but conversely you can show less nudity. I never understood the single "fuck" thing, if you say it, you say it, how many times seems irrelevant to me. They do occasionally give a PG-13 to films with more than one Fuck though, a recent example is "The Martian".

I'm assuming that with Suicide Squad there will be a ton of violence but very little blood, as they appear to be fighting supernatural non-bleeding creatures of some sort. My guess is that there will be one big cop-out with the rating, in that I bet that when the inevitably blow Slipknot's head off of his shoulders they will cut away and not actually show it.

Excalibur 06-09-2016 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando552 (Post 42698)
My guess is that there will be one big cop-out with the rating, in that I bet that when the inevitably blow Slipknot's head off of his shoulders they will cut away and not actually show it.

Or as I like to call him "Mr only here to be killed as an example"...because I saw that already in the Suicide Squad movie Assault on Arkham

commando552 06-09-2016 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanTheMan (Post 42697)
I agree with totally on this. That aside, c552 still said it. Especially about Deadpool. It was meant and expected to be an R film and could not be anyway else and work. A film should be graphic because that's a part of it or what it's about, it can't be there for the sake of it. Rating isn't everything. I say this as a diehard RoboCop fan who loathed the remake getting a PG-13 rating.. Ironically Robo wanted a PG-13 to hedge their bets on teen attendance when that was the wrong approach, whereas it's totally expected in this case. The alternative in Suicide Squad's case is going R and having a similar situation where they potentially shoot themselves in the foot, not something they need given how much they do have riding on this.

Sure, I admit I would have liked to see a more explicit R-style Harley (:D) but otherwise the film doesn't have anything to really necessitate an R-rating and will probably manage fine without it.

If they do the standalone Harley movie they are talking about I could potentially see that being R rated, as it would fit with the current comics.

Mentioning Robocop reminded me of another reason that they were not going to make an R rated Suicide squad: "Merchandising, merchandising, where the real money from the movie is made." WB want to be able to sell the shit out of the toys and merch from this film, and that market will be much bigger if they let kids see it.

commando552 06-09-2016 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 42699)
Or as I like to call him "Mr only here to be killed as an example"...because I saw that already in the Suicide Squad movie Assault on Arkham

They even pretty much say it in one of the trailers or spots, with Rick Flagg saying something like "If you try to run, you die", then immediately cut to a shot of Slipknot trying to grappling hook away.

StanTheMan 06-09-2016 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando552 (Post 42700)
If they do the standalone Harley movie they are talking about I could potentially see that being R rated, as it would fit with the current comics.

Mentioning Robocop reminded me of another reason that they were not going to make an R rated Suicide squad: "Merchandising, merchandising, where the real money from the movie is made." WB want to be able to sell the shit out of the toys and merch from this film, and that market will be much bigger if they let kids see it.

Well there is certainly that too. "The kids love this one!"

Excalibur 06-10-2016 02:51 PM

Harley is not really much of a stand alone character. I remembered in the cartoon, they added her with 2 other female villains, Poison Ivy and Live Wire and that was a fun episode

funkychinaman 06-10-2016 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 42705)
Harley is not really much of a stand alone character. I remembered in the cartoon, they added her with 2 other female villains, Poison Ivy and Live Wire and that was a fun episode

I don't think she even had her own book until this year.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.