General Movie Thread

[apsham]

Regardless of what it's based off - Warcraft as anything other than World of Warcraft hasn't been in the public's mind or even most gamer's minds for a very long time and while yeah, it matches up with the games' storylines it's just not a good move at all in my mind. The smartest thing they ever did was expand on their world and make it ten times more interesting in that regard.

[Jimmy]

21 hours ago, Benkid Nada said:

New Charlie Kaufman movie! It looks fucking gorgeous, I can't wait!

David Thewlis is one of my favourite actors as well, so very excited for this. 

[Hellraiser]

I have to vent about the new Bond movie again. It's probably the most disappointed I've been about a movie this year. I am one of these fans who like the darker tone and the overarching story of Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace (I actually enjoyed that movie a lot more than Spectre despite it's flaws) and ever since I saw those I've been waiting for the resolution of this plot. I was kinda disappointed when they decided to ignore it it for Skyfall but since that movie was so awesome (apart from the stupid Home-Alone-for-grownups ending) that it didn't matter much.

Now Spectre is supposed to be the end of this "saga" that weaves the story threads of the preceding movies together. And they do a piss-poor job at it. They want the Bond series since the Craig reboot to be this marvel-like universe where everything is connected together but they're not willing to put any effort into it like Marvel does.

WARNING: Heavy plot and character revelation spoilers and long, frustrated rant ahead:

Spoiler

 

It all starts with the fact that Quantum is suddenly Spectre. Now it could be that Quantum was a front for Spectre for some reason. If they went with that explanation and gave me a decent reason for it I would've been on board with that. But they can't even be arsed to explain it. Quantum is now Spectre because fan-service.

Then there is this stupid "It was me Austin! It was me Austin all along"-type reveal that is supposed to connect everything even though it makes no sense in context of the previous movies. Especially in the case of Skyfall. As mentioned above they broke with the story of Casino and Quantum. Silva had nothing to do with that organization. IIRC he even mentioned that he was working alone, making his own missions. His raison d'être was to get revenge on the MI6 and M in particular. That he got to mess with Bond was an added bonus. It makes no sense for that event to be orchestrated by some mysterious figure behind the scenes. They never even hint at that. But fuck it, they're going to bring it up anyway because they don't care about continuity.

And the motivation of the character who is supposed to be to Bond what Joker is to Batman, what Voldemort is to Harry Potter and what Hans Gruber is do John McLane is soooo laughable. It's literally daddy issues. They wasted Christoph Waltz for this nothing part. The reveal of his name is pointless as well. It has no significance in the context of the movie. It was never mentioned before and they never build up to it. In fact he kinda mentions it in passing. They could have named him Heinz Schröder Rübenfeld and it would've made no difference. It's purely fan service. And does anyone actually believe that Silva would've taken orders from this guy? For the record I don't think Waltz is doing a bad job. He is merely working with what they're giving him and that ain't much.

They also don't even try to capture the same dark mood that the first movies in the reboot had. This is much more like the 90s Bonds that are about the action, the chases and the one-liners. And if you enjoyed it that's fine. It just wasn't what I was looking for in this movie. I think I would've been much less critical of all this if Bond actually gave a shit about what happened and was still hellbent on avenging the one girl he actually loved. But at no point does it feel like the stakes are high or Bond is invested emotionally in what is going on. Craig may be more cool and laid back but that doesn't make sense for the story this movie is supposed to tell.

The villain also falls for the same mistakes all other bond villains fall victim too. I get that there are certain tropes and conventions that you just expect from a Bond film but it's 2015 and Bond #24 and they still haven't found a way to make it more believable. Also he's supposed to be the big boss. I expect him to be a bit more cunning and smart than the other villains. I'm talking especially about the “grande finale”, if you can call it that, in the old MI6 building. That was a beginner's mistake.

Then there is this sub-plot about a politically motivated new super-invasive security measure being introduced by the intelligence services for the common good and to replace the old guard of secret agents and their “prehistoric” methods. Of course that turns out to be a ploy instigated by the super shady secret organization that has infiltrated the agencies to gain more power which was ripped off straight from Captain America 2 and seems to be the theme of every spy movie that comes out these days. I just love that they pretend that M16 have the moral high ground here despite being just as shady. Albeit on a much smaller scale but still very shady. And you can't really compare the work a secret agent does with the work a drone does. Especially if he is deployed in a country like Russia or China where doing a drone strike would most likely cause WWIII.

Add to that the fact that this movie looks boring. One thing I loved about Skyfall was the awesome pictures that Mendes managed to conjure up. The vibrant colors. You could pause the movie at any point and have a perfect wallpaper. This is by the same director and despite having some good shoots it doesn't look nearly as breathtaking. They've also wasted Batista. And remember the fuzz they made about Monica Bellucci being the first Bond girl that is about the same age as him? Well, if you saw the movie poster you know that she isn't the one that gets the spotlight. She is only in the movie for about 5 minutes before they write her out and replace her with Lea Seydoux who is about 20 years younger. And like Christopher Waltz Seydoux isn't a bad actress. Like him she is merely working with what they gave her and like him it isn't much. And the worst thing about this is that for the short time they spent together Craig and Bellucci have actual chemistry.

Which is something you can't say about him and Seydoux. It is the same as every hokey Bond romance. At first she has no interest in him and proclaims that she hates any form of violence. Then after Bond violently as much as anticlimactically gets rid of Batista she suddenly falls for him and the powers of his magic penis.

I know most of what I do is rage against series tropes and conventions but when they rebooted the series they promised me something different. Something that was more mature and dark and I liked it. And I wanted it to end in the same manner as it began. But they seemed to have abandoned that approach to something more akin to the early movies in the series. And if you are into that you'll probably enjoy this movie. I just wanted something different and that is why I am so disappointed.

And then there is the song they choose for this movie. “Writing's on the Wall” by Sam Smith. I actually don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be. They obviously tried to capture the mood of “Skyfall” and make another big Bond ballad. And while the song never reaches the highs “Skyfall” did I think it's good in his own right. It's Sam Smith's singing voice which I can't stand. Especially when he is hitting the high notes using falsetto in the build-up to the chorus when the orchestra suddenly pipes down and they put the focus on his voice. It just sounds so whiny and weak. Adele would've nailed that part but Smith doesn't manage to do it. I'm not familiar with his work so I don't know if this is his trademark style of singing but it doesn't work for me.

 

 

Edited January 27, 2016 by Hellraiser

[livid]

On 11/7/2015, 3:23:29, GA! said:

This is screaming 'flop' to me. Swords and sorcery films (LOTR excepted, obvs) have never done well critically or commercially. It's amazing they still get made, in fact.

The branding is a weird one. The Warcraft name will help it be a cut above other films in the genre, but there's still an unfair stigma attached ("people who play Warcraft are fat virgins who live in their Mum's basement") which isn't too easy to shake off. That will make it harder to draw people in. Lest we forget, Star Trek still doesn't do as well in the box office as it could because of that age-old perception about Trekkies - arguably Warcraft fans are the modern day equivalent. 

 

Disagreed. The Tolkien universe and to a larger extent, Game of Thrones, have completely changed their viability as properties, which is why we're seeing more attempts at them. That's by no means a guarantee of success but it shows there is an appetite for it if it's done well. And I have confidence that Duncan Jones can pull it off. 

The second paragraph is especially weird to me in an age when comic book movies dominate the box office. Nobody gives a shit about that stuff anymore. If they did, Marvel wouldn't have succeeded. The biggest stigmas they have to overcome are that it's based on a video game and compromised of a lot of CGI. The Apes franchise proved that the latter isn't that big of a concern if it's done well. The jury's still out on the former but the Warcraft name carries a lot of cache.

It should open pretty well because it doesn't have a ton of competition that week. Subsequent weeks may prevent it from really taking off but they have enough of a window that they should be able to do decent business. The real money maker is foreign gross given how big the Warcraft name is. And while Star Trek isn't breaking box office records, they are making a lot of money so I don't see why Legendary would be disappointed if they were in that area.

Edited November 9, 2015 by livid

[GA!]

I know it's still a substantial amount, but there's something about Star Trek 'only' making $480 million when other worldwide recognised properties break $700-800 million no problem. Why will the new Star Wars probably make four times as much, if not more, when they're aesthetically the same? The latter has a much loved reputation while the former is still very much in a state of repair. 

[livid]

For one, Star Trek was always predominately a TV franchise (which is why CBS is using a new series of it to help grow their SVOD service) so it's never really been in the business of competing with Star Wars on that front. They've made movies but they were all considerably smaller in scale than Star Wars and they were tied into the shows. I believe this new franchise was the first time they were their own thing. It's also growing. Into Darkness made $100M more than the first one and shows there's a growing market for them, especially in the increasingly important foreign markets where a majority of that bump came from.

Beyond all that, not all box office situations are the same. If Warcraft ended up in Star Trek territory that would be considered a big win for video game adaptations where box office gross has been hard to come by. Those numbers would be considered a huge success, just like $585M for Iron Man was considered a success when the MCU was starting, even though that looks a little small compared to Iron Man 3's $1.2B. 

[GA!]

There have always been Star Trek films - almost parallel to when there have been Star Wars films. And characters notwithstanding, Star Trek's film franchise has been completely independent of the TV show (except, I believe, Khan was first introduced in the original series). The first Star Trek film had four times the budget of Star Wars. Star Wars was a legitimate phenomena, something the studio thought was a massive risk at the time, and they built an empire (*ahem*) from there. Meanwhile, Star Trek took the goodwill it had from years of ToS being in syndication and made some really plodding, unsatisfying films in the meantime. It's always been cool to be a Star Wars fan, while us Trekkies have always been seen to be losers and I believe those films played a huge part in that perception.

'Brands' take time to repair. While Star Trek does some enviable numbers at the box office now, but it's not as good as it can be compared to its peers. I imagine for some still (for reasons I can't fathom), them being seen in a Star Trek screening would be like me being seen in a Fifty Shades of Grey screening. To go back to my original point: Warcraft will be the same, hence why they've already gone with dropping the "World of" to shake off some of the connotations. I hope and pray it does well in every respect, because I fucking love Duncan Jones, but I think it'll be video game flop #525. 

 

 

(Apologies if I'm rambling and don't make sense, I had a long day at work )

[livid]

They didn't really drop anything, Warcraft is the name of the proper franchise. WoW was just one of the games in it (and it's not an adaptation of the WoW game).

I think you may be overstating how many people actually are afraid of being seen at a Star Trek movie because again, the nerdy stigma isn't really a thing anymore. At least not here. You want to argue that it will flop because it's another video game movie with mostly CG characters? Sure, that seems plausible but the argument that it's too nerdy doesn't track when the biggest movies and TV shows are all equally as nerdy.

I'm not even saying it will be a huge hit but I do think they positioned it well and have a big enough brand worldwide that they'll be able to make some money. 

Edited November 9, 2015 by livid

[Quom]

I wouldn't necessarily lump in GoT with Warcraft (or most fantasy stuff including LoTR). A lot of people enjoy GoT for the intrigue and drama far more than the action or fantasy stuff. The character development and the fact the show seems more 'real' than most since anyone can seemingly die at any time and the powerful become the weak and vice versa are much more of a hook than the white walkers, dragons or any of the other stuff. 

The Warcraft movie looks nothing of the sort and isn't anything I'd be interested in. It looks like a simple action movie with weird CGI.  

[Benjamin]

4 hours ago, livid said:

They didn't really drop anything, Warcraft is the name of the proper franchise. WoW was just one of the games in it (and it's not an adaptation of the WoW game).

I think you may be overstating how many people actually are afraid of being seen at a Star Trek movie because again, the nerdy stigma isn't really a thing anymore. At least not here. You want to argue that it will flop because it's another video game movie with mostly CG characters? Sure, that seems plausible but the argument that it's too nerdy doesn't track when the biggest movies and TV shows are all equally as nerdy.

I'm not even saying it will be a huge hit but I do think they positioned it well and have a big enough brand worldwide that they'll be able to make some money. 

This is just a personal observation, but there seems to be a difference in the type of nerdy stuff that is considered acceptable, for lack of a better term (for any of those terms  ). Something like Warcraft is still seen as something Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons would love, while other nerdy stuff has been accepted as "cool nerdy stuff" and something that successful people like to watch / play, so it's considered okay. There's even differences between the type of video games that are seen as nerdy and not nerdy, with games like FIFA and Call of Duty seen as games that are acceptable, while stuff like Warcraft or other fantasy-based games are still considered lame.

[MalaCloudy Black]

I would argue that. At its height, WoW had nearly 12 million subscribers. I don't think "plays WoW, is interested in Warcraft" is nearly the stigma you guys think it is - maybe it still is in some other places - but here, I know people from all walks of life who play and are at least familiar with the extended Warcraft universe. WoW and games like that stopped being "only neckbeards are interested in it" a long time ago - I know old folks who play, couples that play together, people that have no interest in other games who play, suit and tie types who unwind with it, and yeah, there are some stereotypical types who play. For the most part, however, we're pretty far away from Make Love Not Warcraft and the stereotype that "only gross neckbeards play these things!"

I find it kind of intriguing that we're smack in the middle of a society that openly accepts video games as a mainstream form of art and entertainment, you can't throw a rock without hitting someone who plays something - whether it's consoles, PC, or phone games - and yet we still have discussions like "oh this franchise isn't viable because nerds".

[apsham]

On the Star Wars/Star Trek front - I just always saw Star Wars as more of a spectacle.

Star Trek is about humans from the planet Earth in space whereas Star Wars is sold as something else entirely. Hell, the characters who look like humans aren't even technically humans.. they're entirely based off the planet they are from. I think it's just easier to get lost in and get hype behind something like that for most people when it all comes down to it.

[Monkey D. Lars]

 

 

[Benjamin]

Man, I can't wait for that!

[TheWho87]

Eric D Wilkinson has pitched an idea for the next Die Hard film through a full page ad in the Hollywood Reporter. The pitch, which he has addressed to director Len Wiseman, producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura and star Bruce Willis, has even taken in to account the suggestion that the next Die Hard will be an origins story, with the action heading all the way back to 1979.

This is the pitch

Quote

Former hero cop John McClane, 60 years old and beat to s**t, is a convicted felon, being carted off to a Federal prison. Why?

Flashback to 1979, where 24-year-old New York City Patrol Officer John McClane is part of a team of cops assigned to investigate the murder of 6-year-old Ethan Peller, working under the direction of an up-and-coming Detective Stan Winshaw. Strong police work leads McClane to suspect possible sex trafficker Clarence Sutton, who mysteriously vanishes moments before McClane can make the arrest. The rule-breaking McClane and his superior Winshaw butt heads. The trail goes cold and the case is never solved. When McClane makes unprovable accusations about Winshaw he is transferred to the city’s bleakest division.

34 years later, Detective John McClane takes a personal leave and heads to Moscow to help his estranged son, who is being tried in a Russian court. While McClane is out of the country, the remains of Clarence Sutton are discovered, not only with DNA evidence linking Sutton to the murder of Ethan Peller, but additional evidence that ties John McClane to Sutton’s killing.

Upon McClane’s return from Russia, he is arrested, tried and convicted for the murder of Clarence Sutton. He is given a 30 year prison sentence in ADX Florence, an ultra-maximum-security, or ‘supermax’ prison which houses some of the most dangerous criminals in the country, including Omar Al-Maqdisi and Abdul bin Saeed, masterminds of the two worst terrorist attacks on American soil.

Following the Russian adventure, John had successfully reunited his family and reconnected with his wife Holly. Now, while he serves his sentence, Holly has been spending all of her time and effort on his appeal – especially once new evidence surfaces which may not only exonerate McClane, but also implicate Stan Winshaw (now a decorated police Captain) who may have framed John for the murder of the suspect they were chasing nearly forty years ago. However the day Holly goes to the prison to deliver this news personally to John, a riot breaks out, and before she can safely leave, the prison is put on lockdown.

But this is no ordinary prison riot.

By nightfall, inmates control the facility, holding Holly McClane and many other hostages. We soon learn that the riot itself was a distracting subterfuge… part of a plan to break both Al-Maqdisi and bin Saeed out of prison so they can help complete a horrific new terrorist attack in New York City.

However the one thing the terrorists didn’t count on was the one man who is always in the wrong place at the wrong time… And when it comes to John McClane, old habits die hard.

 

[punky]

.. That's actually not a bad outline for a sequel at all. It's definitely interesting.

[GA!]

And here's my pitch for the next Die Hard film:

 

Please don't.

 

[Hellraiser]

3 hours ago, GA! said:

And here's my pitch for the next Die Hard film:

 

 

 

Agreed. And if you're doing another one:
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T reference that piece of shit that was Die Hard 5. And Die Hard 4 for that matter. I think no one will hold it against whomever they get to write the next one of they pretend these 2 movies never happened.

And I HATE HATE HATEEEEEEEEEE the idea of a John McClane origin story. These fuckers just don't get it, do they? One of the main reasons why the original Die Hard was so awesome at the time is that McClaine wasn't a indestructable special forces black ops Roidy Magoo demi-god like Schwarzenegger or Stalone. Neither was he a Martial Arts master that could take out hundreds of goons with his little finger like Jan-Claude Van Damme or Steven Segal. What made John McClane so relatable was that he was an everyman! Just a normal guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. No special training and no super powers or anything like that. Just a cop that happens to stumble into a hostage situation and has to think on his feet. THERE IS NO GOD DAMN ORIGIN STORY TO TELL! I would hate for them to tell a bullshit story that will no doubt try to sell us that he was somehow the chosen one destined to be at the Nakatomi Plaza.

At this point I'd be happy if they never made another Die Hard ever again because It seems like no one involved in these mvies these days seems to realize why we loved the original Die Hard and to an extend parts 2 and 3 as well. Just let it die already.

 

Edited November 12, 2015 by Hellraiser

[Nick Adams]

Honestly, a Die Hard origin story would be kind of cool. No gigantic heist, just John McClane solving a regular crime, and then meeting his wife.

[Hellraiser]

What would be cool about that? if you want to see regular crimes to be solved there are a metric shitton of cop shows on TV and just about as much movies out there. And given that John McClane ist just a normal cop I fail to see what would make that movie stand out from all the other movies other than the main characters name being John McClane.