+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Sports Bar (/forum-531.html)
+---- Thread: The movie thread (/thread-433700.html)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
RE: The movie thread - PirateTreasureNC - 06-07-2011 10:15 PM
(06-06-2011 11:03 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:(06-04-2011 07:00 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote: Airwolf Season 1 / NF Stream.
--I loved the show.
I can't find the words to properly convey my thoughts on this. Airwolf was one of the cheesiest, rippoffiest tv shows I've ever seen. Was this one of those "guilty pleasure" things? What did you love about this show?
Not sure about cheese even though I agree that Arcangel was kind of wack. I think the concept of how Stringfellow Hawk gets to keep Airwolf thus having a bargaining chip to get intel on his POW/MIA brother is kind stretched. I loved the super armored helicopter and the theme song.
Not sure if I would say this was better than the tv show iteration of Blue Thunder as I watched and liked both.
Even digging through the wiki I can't get a definite if he ever found his brother Sin Jin.
RE: The movie thread - RaiderATO - 06-08-2011 12:29 AM
(06-07-2011 08:07 PM)BlazerJoe Wrote: Speed Racer was a terrible movie; I'll give it that. But, it remains a guilty pleasure of mine. I'll never own it under any capacity, but I'll stop what I'm doing to watch it when it's on
I own it on BluRay, and wish it was a 3D flick. I want a sequel. The cartoon was before my time, but it holds a special place in my heart/life.
RE: The movie thread - Lord Stanley - 06-08-2011 08:05 AM
(06-07-2011 09:36 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote: Liev Schreiber makes for awesome "dark" characters.
He's consistently been one of my favorite actors.
RE: The movie thread - Brookes Owl - 06-08-2011 11:03 AM
(06-07-2011 09:32 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:(06-07-2011 07:57 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:(06-07-2011 07:36 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote: As the price moves upwards so does the threshold for seeing something that is of lower quality. We just hit $10 around here and at $10 I had better see a LOT of good stuff for me to fork out that kind money. Even the matine discount might not get me to see something that is not heavily fx driven.
So fx=quality? Unbelievable.
NO, but you want to see a lot for your money.
OK, but I don't know what you mean by "a lot." Can that be a masterful performance in a drama? Can it be a terrific story, well told, without cgi? Try this: List your favorite 5 non-cgi, non-comedies of the last 10 or so years. Here's mine, off the top of my head, in no particular order: Memento, Lost in Translation, There Will be Blood, Slumdog Millionaire, Frost/Nixon, City of God.
Bottom line, we're talking about what "entertaining" means. If action and effects are what drive YOU to the theater, great. I don't believe, however, that's the case for the majority of audiences.
I think Hollywood's problem is that the risk aversion we're talking about is causing them to make fewer of the movies listed above, because they're green lighting too many blockbuster-budget films that aren't actually blockbusters. If you make $200 million on a film that cost $150 million, your ROI sucks (because with marketing and distribution you ended up losing about $17), and you've tied up too much money for too long. To make up for that you make a $175 million film, hoping it'll bring in $300 million. All that spending means that the $25 million-$50 million movies aren't getting made. You can still make a Memento ($5 million) but you're going independent, which means you've got to find your own financing. So a lot of movies that would make moderate money (but actually decent ROI) because they are fun/interesting/compelling are on the shelf because all these studio guys and gals are looking for the next Avatar. It's a shame.
RE: The movie thread - HoustonCougarNation - 06-10-2011 11:03 AM
(06-08-2011 12:29 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:(06-07-2011 08:07 PM)BlazerJoe Wrote: Speed Racer was a terrible movie; I'll give it that. But, it remains a guilty pleasure of mine. I'll never own it under any capacity, but I'll stop what I'm doing to watch it when it's on
I own it on BluRay, and wish it was a 3D flick. I want a sequel. The cartoon was before my time, but it holds a special place in my heart/life.
I am sorry but I have to say that it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Some cartoons should never be made into a movie and this was one of them. The other probably would be Gi Joe. I love the cartoon but the movie was really bad and I am a huge Joe fan.
RE: The movie thread - PirateTreasureNC - 06-11-2011 09:22 PM
The Other Guys / NF Stream
--Aside from the streaming quality being ass the movie was pretty good. I'd almost want to see a spin off Sam Jackson and The Rock's characters. Will Ferrell was funny and not crazy... Wahlberg played the straight guy....they had good chemistry together.
RE: The movie thread - BlazerJoe - 06-12-2011 08:51 AM
I plan on checking that out soon. Not sure when I'll get a chance, though. I'll figure something out.
RE: The movie thread - flyingswoosh - 06-12-2011 10:01 AM
Saw Super 8 on Friday. Very good movie. 7.5, maybe an 8. The sad thing is that it could've been even better. I'd definitely recommend seeing it though
RE: The movie thread - riyadsouza - 06-13-2011 04:38 AM
African queen, was the most enjoyable movie I have ever seen, the cinematography of the movie was superb and was very interesting also !!
RE: The movie thread - flyingswoosh - 06-13-2011 07:38 AM
that person might be a spambot, but African Queen was one helluva movie
RE: The movie thread - DrTorch - 06-14-2011 01:46 PM
(06-13-2011 07:38 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote: that person might be a spambot, but African Queen was one helluva movie
RE: The movie thread - DrTorch - 06-14-2011 01:53 PM
(06-07-2011 07:57 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: Cost $200 million to make, almost certainly not including marketing etc. Took in about $93 million. That movie was a joke. All icing, no cake. And even the icing was overbearing.
We disagree here. It was the icing that was the problem, effects too choppy.
The movie was pretty good. Better than average plot, decent script, some good delivery by the cast, and plenty of references to the beloved cartoon.
Now $200M is tough to recoup no matter what, especially on a nostalgia piece. So whoeover bankrolled it at that price was just plain foolish. $93M is not a bad take, and when you compare it w/ something like "Hulk" I think it's favorable.
RE: The movie thread - DrTorch - 06-14-2011 02:06 PM
Review- Joe Dirt. Seen on TV.
Ok, why would I spend time on this?
First, I like David Spade, and I've always been curious about this movie. The ads promoting it were terrible, seemed like a bad joke taken way overboard (which Spade has done on occasion), likely worse than Spaceballs. So I always wondered what it was about.
Turns out, it was far better than the ads, and was grossly disserved by them. When I read the guide description, it did explain the plot so I gave it a chance.
It reminded me of Adam Sandler's early formula movies (e.g. Wedding Singer) very over-the-top comedy but trying to tell a story w/ a character who had some depth. And frankly, the story was pretty fair.
I won't say it was a great film, some of Spade's juvenile humor gets old quickly, and it certainly it's more sap than the realism of Game Theory, but I liked it. I liked much of Spade's humor. The directing of Spade and even Kid Rock, was actually quite good. I liked the plot, the context that it was presented (Dennis Miller as a cutting shock jock who can't snuff out the sincerity of the character), and I liked the initial resolution. Spade didn't just walk away from his parents disappointed and hurt, he stood up to them and called them out. The final wrap up was cliche and predictable, but that wasn't a liability, and it was done well enough to be enjoyable.
Final thoughts, don't pay for it, but don't ignore it on the TV either.
RE: The movie thread - flyingswoosh - 06-14-2011 02:07 PM
(06-14-2011 01:53 PM)DrTorch Wrote:(06-07-2011 07:57 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: Cost $200 million to make, almost certainly not including marketing etc. Took in about $93 million. That movie was a joke. All icing, no cake. And even the icing was overbearing.
We disagree here. It was the icing that was the problem, effects too choppy.
The movie was pretty good. Better than average plot, decent script, some good delivery by the cast, and plenty of references to the beloved cartoon.
Now $200M is tough to recoup no matter what, especially on a nostalgia piece. So whoeover bankrolled it at that price was just plain foolish. $93M is not a bad take, and when you compare it w/ something like "Hulk" I think it's favorable.
not only was Hulk a very good comic book movie, it also made more than 93 million domestically
RE: The movie thread - PirateTreasureNC - 06-14-2011 02:27 PM
(06-14-2011 02:07 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote: not only was Hulk a very good comic book movie, it also made more than 93 million domestically
Which Hulk? I only saw the Ed Norton one. I liked it. Hulk, IMO, is hard to pull off if you want to put Hulk Mode into real world and give him his powers. I still preferred the tv show.
**************
Surrogates/ NF Stream
--Not bad... it got a lot more interesting than the trailers led me to believe. Was kind of a mix of Ghost in the Shell, Minority Report, and Matrix.
RE: The movie thread - flyingswoosh - 06-14-2011 02:46 PM
(06-14-2011 02:27 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:(06-14-2011 02:07 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote: not only was Hulk a very good comic book movie, it also made more than 93 million domestically
Which Hulk? I only saw the Ed Norton one. I liked it. Hulk, IMO, is hard to pull off if you want to put Hulk Mode into real world and give him his powers. I still preferred the tv show.
i don't count the eric bana version
RE: The movie thread - BlazerJoe - 06-14-2011 03:00 PM
(06-14-2011 02:46 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:(06-14-2011 02:27 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:(06-14-2011 02:07 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote: not only was Hulk a very good comic book movie, it also made more than 93 million domestically
Which Hulk? I only saw the Ed Norton one. I liked it. Hulk, IMO, is hard to pull off if you want to put Hulk Mode into real world and give him his powers. I still preferred the tv show.
i don't count the eric bana version
I liked the Eric Bana Hulk for Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliott, and the scene change effects. The rest of it was total bunk.
RE: The movie thread - gotigers1 - 06-14-2011 03:19 PM
(06-14-2011 02:46 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:(06-14-2011 02:27 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:(06-14-2011 02:07 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote: not only was Hulk a very good comic book movie, it also made more than 93 million domestically
Which Hulk? I only saw the Ed Norton one. I liked it. Hulk, IMO, is hard to pull off if you want to put Hulk Mode into real world and give him his powers. I still preferred the tv show.
i don't count the eric bana version
Same here. that Hulk was way too big to be believable. While Jennifer Connely was acorching hot in that movie (IMO), it wasn't that good.
Ed Norton's Hulk was not only more believable but had a better story. We also saw the birth of Leader, if there's no sequel, then we had better see him in the Avengers movie.
RE: The movie thread - Brookes Owl - 06-14-2011 03:24 PM
(06-14-2011 01:53 PM)DrTorch Wrote:(06-07-2011 07:57 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: Cost $200 million to make, almost certainly not including marketing etc. Took in about $93 million. That movie was a joke. All icing, no cake. And even the icing was overbearing.
We disagree here. It was the icing that was the problem, effects too choppy.
The movie was pretty good. Better than average plot, decent script, some good delivery by the cast, and plenty of references to the beloved cartoon.
OK, I'll buy some of this, but for me the choppy effects drove me to distraction. So I guess it was that the icing overwhelmed the cake. I grew up loving that cartoon, so it may just be that this movie couldn't meet my (likely unreachable) expectations.
Quote:Now $200M is tough to recoup no matter what, especially on a nostalgia piece. So whoeover bankrolled it at that price was just plain foolish. $93M is not a bad take, and when you compare it w/ something like "Hulk" I think it's favorable.
I wouldn't be surprised if the movie was actually planned at $150M or so, but creeped up to $200M. The investor(s) get pot-committed at some point and don't have enough control of the production to force budget controls so they just keep pouring money in until it's done. More importantly, $93M IS a bad take for a CGI/effects-intensive movie. The Hulk movies, by comparison, each cost in the $150M range to make and made in the $250M range.
RE: The movie thread - DrTorch - 06-14-2011 04:04 PM
(06-14-2011 03:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:(06-14-2011 01:53 PM)DrTorch Wrote:(06-07-2011 07:57 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: Cost $200 million to make, almost certainly not including marketing etc. Took in about $93 million. That movie was a joke. All icing, no cake. And even the icing was overbearing.
We disagree here. It was the icing that was the problem, effects too choppy.
The movie was pretty good. Better than average plot, decent script, some good delivery by the cast, and plenty of references to the beloved cartoon.
OK, I'll buy some of this, but for me the choppy effects drove me to distraction.
I completely agree w/ you on this.
I loved the show as a kid too. LOVED it. But I was so stunned that they'd try to make a movie like that that my expectations were low. I was pleasantly surprised that the script was so decent.
Quote:Quote:Now $200M is tough to recoup no matter what, especially on a nostalgia piece. So whoeover bankrolled it at that price was just plain foolish. $93M is not a bad take, and when you compare it w/ something like "Hulk" I think it's favorable.
I wouldn't be surprised if the movie was actually planned at $150M or so, but creeped up to $200M. The investor(s) get pot-committed at some point and don't have enough control of the production to force budget controls so they just keep pouring money in until it's done. More importantly, $93M IS a bad take for a CGI/effects-intensive movie. The Hulk movies, by comparison, each cost in the $150M range to make and made in the $250M range.
I did a quick check earlier and read Hulk did about $123M (might have been domestic), w/ over half coming in the first weekend. They pushed that movie like crazy, and while it started hot, it plummeted quickly, as in record territory drop.
IMO, Hulk has a larger fan base, is more contemporary, and got a much bigger push than Speed Racer. Yet, Hulk did 33% better.
$200M for SR was nuts. Make that $75-80M and it's a modest hit.
Could you cut that much from the budget? Maybe not, it sure seemed like they worked in every bit of CGI that they created
