The Movie Thread: New, Rented, Whatever....I don't care

[unofan]

Re: The Movie Thread: New, Rented, Whatever....I don't care

I thought his take on Star Trek was outstanding and hope these Star Wars films are as enjoyable.

They certainly can't be worse than the prequels.


Regarding Serkis... Jar Jar strikes more terror in me than Ewoks ever could although both are HORRIBLE.

The first Star Trek reboot = good.
The second one = crap.

JJ Abrams is hit or miss, with more misses than hits. I think he's good at certain things, but has no farking clue what to do once the inherent hooks to capture the audience are used up (such as reintroducing us to characters, establishing the new world, etc.) and he needs to actually use dramatic elements to create new ones.

In other words, I may have some hope for Episode VII, but if he remains on board for the sequels, they'll probably be steaming piles of crap.

[Handyman]

The first Star Trek reboot = good.
The second one = crap.

JJ Abrams is hit or miss, with more misses than hits. I think he's good at certain things, but has no farking clue what to do once the inherent hooks to capture the audience are used up (such as reintroducing us to characters, establishing the new world, etc.) and he needs to actually use dramatic elements to create new ones.

In other words, I may have some hope for Episode VII, but if he remains on board for the sequels, they'll probably be steaming piles of crap.

I thought the first Star Trek was Star Trek in name only. The action was cool but in reality the movie was lame and nothing like what Star Trek was ever previously. It was like he made Star Wars with Star Trek characters.

I dont trust Abrams at all and I feel the movie will be all action and no substance which we get enough of already. The fans will get cool explosions and overdone lightsaber battles (instead of the very quick and dirty ones from the original trilogy) and of course get to see the original cast!!1!!!1

I honestly think it is going to be Hobbit level "meh".

[Gurtholfin]

Re: The Movie Thread: New, Rented, Whatever....I don't care

I disagree with the take that the new Star Treks are all action and no substance - I won't dispute the notion that these are not "Star Trek" movies as I've never been a Trekkie and wouldn't know. I have enough knowledge to get many of the references and winks that are happening, but not enough to be constrained by canon or feel.

To me, in an era of special effects laden blockbusters with no heart and no character development, it's hard for me to like any of these type of movies. What's always key to me is whether I connect with the characters.

I LOVED these two Star Trek movies because of the chemistry that you could feel amongst the characters. It really had little to do with the Star Trek story. Could have put theses actors in a different Sci-fi universe and it still would/could have been a heck of a lot of fun.

It comes down to whether I was entertained and with these movies, I was thoroughly entertained. I laughed (a lot), I enjoyed the heart that was developed amongst the characters and there was plenty of eye-candy in terms of effects. They were perfect summer popcorn flicks and the fact that they were in a universe that is part of American pop culture was a bonus - Trekkies excluded.


The other side of the coin (imo) is Pacific Rim. Could have been a cool movie but sorely lacked in character development although Del Toro's action movies tend to be like that... almost good. The Hellboy movies come to mind. Good-ish movies, but almost really good movies.

Of course the second Hobbit movie is quite possibly the worst movie of this type ever made, which is funny coz it really should never have been "this type" of movie. Like I posted on Peter Jackson's Facebook page... "Even Michael Bay is embarrassed for you." Not that multi-millionaire PJ cares what I think, but I felt better.


Hoping Godzilla is good, but not holding my breath.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Movie Thread: New, Rented, Whatever....I don't care

Good job, Sony. Way to screw up the Green Goblin for the 3rd time. Second greatest comic book villian of all time and you can't get it right?

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Movie Thread: New, Rented, Whatever....I don't care

No. About an ad exec employed with coming up with a campaign to oust Pinochet via election in Chile. Very well done, I loved the cinematic style used to really make you feel like it was 1988 all over again.

American Hustle. Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I thought there were more acting performances that shined and for me it was a better overall movie than Dallas Buyers Club.

[The Rube]

Re: The Movie Thread: New, Rented, Whatever....I don't care

American Hustle. Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I thought there were more acting performances that shined and for me it was a better overall movie than Dallas Buyers Club.

Because there were more essential characters, duh.

Just watched that tonight. I'd take Leto's performance overall, but then the rest go to AH's cast. And the movie was slightly better also, IMO. Really enjoyed it, and definitely worth a watch.

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Movie Thread: New, Rented, Whatever....I don't care

While AH had a few more essential parts, Garner and Zahn had plenty of screen time. But neither were that memorable and I think it hurt overall. Leto and MM though were obviously exceptional.

[The Rube]

Re: The Movie Thread: New, Rented, Whatever....I don't care

While AH had a few more essential parts, none of the secondary parts in DBC - even if relatively lacking time on screen such as Garner and Zaha - were that memorable and I think it hurt overall. Leto and MM though were obviously exceptional.

Yeah, DBC was a two-man show, really. AH, just like the cons they did, needed to be multi-layered and have multiple characters. About my only complaint about AH, was there were shots that were a little too artsy/stylized (oooo an odd camera angle showing a car door closing) or unneeded. Probably could have cut the movie by about 10-15 minutes, but that is total nit-picking.

[Handyman]

Good job, Sony. Way to screw up the Green Goblin for the 3rd time. Second greatest comic book villian of all time and you can't get it right?

I kinda liked Willem Dafoe as Goblin but havent wasted a penny on the new Spidey movies. what I have read about this one doesnt make me wish to change that

Gurt,

I would have liked Star Trek more if it was anything but Star Trek. I thought the characters were fine except not as replacements for those same characters in a different set of TV/Movies. I just dont see Simon Pegg as Scotty or the leader of the Rohirrim as Bones. It just doesnt work. Put them in another film and yes they can shine, in that movie all I think is "That isnt Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner" and their lame, half assed impressions of them didnt help. (and I am not a Trekkie either, I always preferred Star Wars but I watched enough Trek to not respect Abrams or how he tried to turn Trek into Star Wars)

I enjoyed Pacific Rim for what it was...I didnt expect any character growth I expected a cliche story with big robots fighting big monsters.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Movie Thread: New, Rented, Whatever....I don't care

I kinda liked Willem Dafoe as Goblin but havent wasted a penny on the new Spidey movies. what I have read about this one doesnt make me wish to change that

It was a mechanical suit. If Spiderman doesn't require a mechanical suit then why does the Green Goblin? It ruins the character.

[rufus]

Re: The Movie Thread: New, Rented, Whatever....I don't care

It was a mechanical suit. If Spiderman doesn't require a mechanical suit then why does the Green Goblin? It ruins the character.

Cause he wasn't bitten by a radioactive spider which gave him superpowers, but was the head of a corporation that developed weapons and other gizmos.

Why did Iron Man need a mechanical suit? Well, other than to keep him alive.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Movie Thread: New, Rented, Whatever....I don't care

Cause he wasn't bitten by a radioactive spider which gave him superpowers, but was the head of a corporation that developed weapons and other gizmos.

Why did Iron Man need a mechanical suit? Well, other than to keep him alive.

Sure but the original Green Goblin got his powers from the "Goblin Formula" not an ironman type suit. The glider was his technological tool, not his suit.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Movie Thread: New, Rented, Whatever....I don't care

Cause he wasn't bitten by a radioactive spider which gave him superpowers, but was the head of a corporation that developed weapons and other gizmos.

Why did Iron Man need a mechanical suit? Well, other than to keep him alive.

Do you know the origin of the Green Goblin? No, you don't. So why pipe up?

[Gurtholfin]

Re: The Movie Thread: New, Rented, Whatever....I don't care

Lol

[St. Clown]

Re: The Movie Thread: New, Rented, Whatever....I don't care

Do you know the origin of the Green Goblin? No, you don't. So why pipe up?

The movie is not the comic book. Changes will happen. Sometimes you will like the changes, other times you won't. Why get so wound up? I've not seen the new movie, but it sounds like they changed it to this suit. If that's the case, then they're probably trying to play off the younger generation's closer affinity to technological solutions to life's problems in the real world. The change is hardly shocking.