Re: Official Movie Thread

by **Theicecreaman** Sun May 13, 2012 11:34 am

There's no point in watching a movie expecting anything. Just sit back, relax, and watch. If you like it, you like it. If you don't, you don't. It's really not even a big deal, I mean, it isn't as if you're completing some sort of business transaction or something in watching a movie. I mean, when you go to the theater, you are paying a shitload, so in that case, you'd want to make sure the flick you're paying for is actually good. But if you're just watching from Netflix or some rented movie, there's no point in complaining 'bout every minor, trivial thing.

by **blivvy** Sun May 13, 2012 11:51 am

I've liked most films I watched but Inception was not one of them lol. I just don't get why people like it so much. For me it's like they just got carried away and tried to do too much. I mean dreaming while in a dream... what kind of bs is that? xD

I've watched a few films wonky mentioned. Ghost Protocol, Cowboys & Aliens and Limitless were all great movies imo.

Oh also I forgot to mention before, The Grey was an awesome film. But anything with Liam Neeson in it usually is. And American Reunion was fairly funny but not as much as the first 2.

Mel Gibson's new one looks decent too. Might go watch that next.

by **Wonko the Sane** Sun May 13, 2012 8:15 pm

Speaking of Liam Neeson, why is he in that new Battleship movie?! Does anyone think that one will actually be worth seeing? I mean... I'm pretty lenient when it comes to movies but even I have to wonder about that one. What's next?

Official Movie Thread - Page 9 Hungry-Hungry-Hippos-Movie-Poster-1335368553

Official Movie Thread - Page 9 Hungry-Hungry-Hippos-Movie-Poster-1335368553

Also, anyone know why they're re-doing the first Spiderman?

by Acrobat Sun May 13, 2012 9:08 pm

Inception was cool because of the weird plot and vagueness of it all. I liked how they were focused on the subconscious that was inaccessible to the conscious mind. They kept using the metaphor of a locked room or box that contained a combination of desires and very simplistic thoughts. I've never seen a sci-fi about that type of thing. Christopher Nolan made it and it sure beat his batman movies!

It reminded me of a really good documentary I like called a Century of Self.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq5Fi1vQ68Q

by **blivvy** Mon May 14, 2012 4:36 am

Wonko the Sane wrote:Speaking of Liam Neeson, why is he in that new Battleship movie?! Does anyone think that one will actually be worth seeing? I mean... I'm pretty lenient when it comes to movies but even I have to wonder about that one. What's next?

Also, anyone know why they're re-doing the first Spiderman?

Battleship was really good. Before I watched I was thinking it just looks like another Transformers film. But no, it was much better. And Liam Neeson actually isn't in that many scenes but his character is a hard ass lol.

I have no idea why they are remaking Spiderman either. From the trailer it looks like they are trying to copy what Christopher Nolan done with the new Batman films, you know make it more believable.

by Acrobat Mon May 14, 2012 5:03 am

Well Avengers is making a TON of money right now which is just solidifying the comic book genre into guaranteed mega money makers so they are just going to keep making them. Avengers isn't even one of the more main stream comic book characters and it is scoring huge bank.

Basically every five years they finish and start over the the Superman, Batman and Spiderman movies. They've remade them a million times already, and they are going to just keep doing it. I'm sure their target audience is like 10-18 or so. By the time they get around to the remake, the new generation gets its first exposure to the same thing again.

by **Wonko the Sane** Mon May 14, 2012 9:21 am

We already covered this in one of the other threads. Avengers is doing so well because Joss Whedon was directly involved in it. Having Joss Whedon write the story, or the screenplay, or sit in a chair in the studio while you film, or even just spit on the script is like having Liam Neeson act in your movie. It's automatically orders of magnitude better than it would have been otherwise, pretty much a guaranteed success. And if it's not an immediate success, it will gain a cult following and spawn at least a sequel movie. That's just how he rolls.

Personally, I don't mind movies based on comic books or superheros or any of that, especially if it's less mainstream than batman and spiderman. It kind of does get old when they start milking it for all it's worth though. I mean, there's really no need to re-make Spiderman. You can't even compare it to the batman movies because Spiderman's origin was already covered in the first movie they did. Batman's origin was never completely covered in the original Tim Burton films, so that's different. The new Superman movies aren't remakes either, they're sequels so again, different. But with Spiderman it's almost as if they've run out of material for doing sequels and there's nothing for a prequel so now they're just resorting to flat out re-making it. It's kind of insulting our intelligence. Just let it end and pick another comic book, there's plenty more superheros out there to make movies from.

That said, I'll probably see it anyway and I'll probably enjoy it anyway, so who am I to judge.

by **blivvy** Mon May 14, 2012 2:29 pm

Well at least they are finally putting the lizard in a Spiderman movie. I was sure he was gonna be in the 3rd one Shrug

by **Theicecreaman** Mon May 14, 2012 8:13 pm

hahahaahhahahahahaha that is the greatest

And yeah, why the f$%& are they remaking Spiderman lol. The first one was great--very well made. The 90's Batman movies never did really expound upon Batman's origins, and some (like the one with the Governator playing Mr. Freeze) were just flat-out ridiculous.

I also liked that Tobey McGuire guy (however you spell his name) as Spiderman. He seemed to fit my mental picture of what Spidey looks like, and I really enjoyed that movie when it came out in theaters (I was young at the time; I think it was around '01 or something, right?). I honestly think they should have just continued from the original cast members/set. But it's Spider-Man so how could it be bad, honestly.

by **Wonko the Sane** Mon May 14, 2012 11:21 pm

I know a lot of people thought he was kind of whiney in the sequels, but I didn't mind so much 'cause he's supposed to be a whiney geek kid and all. And he wasn't whiney in the first one anyway, so...

by **KaiStagon** Fri May 18, 2012 3:36 pm

Wonko the Sane wrote:You can't even compare it to the batman movies because Spiderman's origin was already covered in the first movie they did. Batman's origin was never completely covered in the original Tim Burton films, so that's different.

This is why i sort of excuse the batman movies from the 90s for their suckiness. For as much as they sucked, at least they didn't just retell the year one story. There's a lot of rumors about what's going to follow the nolan trilogy, and a lot of rumors that they're going to reinvent the wheel and do another origin film. This pisses me off a bit because there are SO MANY good batman stories that need telling. Serious recommendation: watch the animated movies "Under the Hood" and "Year One." Under the Hood might be my favorite batman film because of how unashamed it is to jump into the batman mythos and show that robin stories can be fantastic stories (it also doesn't hurt that bender the robot plays the joker and gives mark hamill a run for his money).

I don't get to see many movies, but I went out to see 'Cabin in the Woods' the day before I left school. Couldn't recommend it more (but I think it's out of theaters everywhere now and we have to wait for the video release).

by **Wonko the Sane** Sat May 19, 2012 6:20 am

Batman Returns was '92. Don't go sweeping that one under the rug!

I agree all the ones that Tim Burton didn't do were... ehem.. well, we don't have to talk about them.

by **Theicecreaman** Sun May 20, 2012 10:20 am

Oh my gosh...that movie had the most ridiculous ending Razz

by Trey Mon May 21, 2012 5:07 am

Just watched Snatch. I mostly enjoyed it, but I didn't like how Mickey was almost a superhero.

by **Theicecreaman** Sun Jun 10, 2012 7:41 pm

Saw Avengers in 3D. 'Twas great Smile

I don't normally watch 3D movies, but it was the only showtime good for me. Highly recommend it Thumbs Up

The dialogue was also great. I agree that the guy who wrote the screenplay did a very good job of it; every second was interesting and all the little kids at the movie theater were laughing their asses off at some of the jokes and scenes.

The people I was with said that it was much better than any of the other comic book-based films they made recently (I didn't watch all of them, just a few) and that it was better than Men In Black 3 (anyone seen it, by any chance?).

There's definitely going to be a sequel. In the end, Samuel Jackson was all, "They'll come to us when the time comes."

by **Wonko the Sane** Sun Jun 10, 2012 7:47 pm

Joss Whedon is a genius. Like I said. Wink

I haven't had a chance to see it yet though.

by **blivvy** Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:39 am

Yea I seen MIB 3 and it wasn't as good as I was expecting. There wasn't enough aliens running about and it wasn't as funny as the 1st MIB movie. When J went back to the 60's it got kinda boring tbh.

by **Theicecreaman** Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:07 am

Yeah, I hear it was better than the second one but worse than the first. I might see it on DVD instead. I really wanted another MIB movie, but I wanted it to be funny and kickass like the first one. Oh, well. Can't say unless I see it.

by **blivvy** Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:56 pm

Oh god I srsly only watched about 10 mins of the 2nd one and couldn't bear another second of it.

by **blivvy** Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:15 pm

New Spider-Man movie is better than the other ones imho.

by **Theicecreaman** Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:54 pm

That's what I hear...

by time Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:29 pm

I really liked the first 2... I don't know if I'm interested in this one. Definitely not interested in it enough to pay the ticket prices. Maybe I'll rent it.

by **Wonko the Sane** Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:37 pm

I'm not planning on seeing it in the theater. I don't care if it's better than the first one, it's way too soon to straight up remake a movie that's already been done. How many times can you tell the same story of Spiderman's beginnings before it starts to become overly obvious that they're just milking the cash cow?

The sad part is all the sheeple are falling for it and going on their merry way to the corporate movie industry slaughterhouse.

by time Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:43 pm

Some people are arguing that the 8 years for the Batman reboot and the 5 years for the Spiderman reboot are not very different, but the old Batman series had been going on for so long and had gotten so terrible that Nolan's reboot was like a breath of fresh air.

The cast of the current series is still young and relevant, and there was so much left in the Spiderman mythos for them to do. They could have re-cast and continued off the continuity. A reboot was so unnecessary.

by **Wonko the Sane** Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:05 am

I've heard the Batman argument before and it makes no sense to me either. The new Spiderman movie is not a sequel or a prequel as the Batman reboot was, it's a straight up remake of a movie that's already been done. That's the part that irks me most I think.

Think back to the original Tim Burton Batman movies, which I consider the best of the bunch to be honest. There was very little about the origins of Batman, so the new Batman prequels aren't stepping on any toes there.

I would have rather they did a sequel with new actors if they felt the old ones needed replacing, but why re-tell the story? Makes no sense.

by Sponsored content