[Brujah]

Lady Bliss, on 22 June 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Abyss, on 22 June 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

Finally finally saw RIDDICK: DARK FURY. Pure animated awesome. Why, oh WHY, OH WHY THE FUCK have they not made a dozen of these????

Was then forced (perhaps in retaliation) to view TWILIGHT: BREAKING YAWN PART 1. S'ok, i needed the nap. Even the vamp vs werewolf action was lame this time.

Based on this information, we can now deduce that you are either:

A) The father of a 13 year old girl
B ) Being held against your will by a sado massochistic freak that is forcing you to perform painful and demeaning acts In a loving relationship between equals that respect each others needs and desires

My woman MAKES me take her to the Thursday night midnight showing each time a new movie comes out.
Because waiting to go the next night at 7pm is 19 hours too much wait.
I've had to sit through all of these AT THE THEATRE, opening night, which is completely packed with screaming pre teens who should be asleep at this time , and having had to get there an hour early to get decent seats .
My overall experience was that the hour of staring at the looping picture of dancing popcorn and fountain drinks was only slightly less interesting than the next two hours.

[McLovin]

Took the kids to see BRAVE.

Great animation, nice but bog-standard story. We're starting to see the Disney influence on Pixar, in all the wrong ways.

Worth it for LA LUNA, the animated short at the beginning. That is the real Pixar.

[yuna_anomander25]

idk if this counts here, but since its a movie, just watched earlier:

Macross Frontier Movie: The False Diva - celebrating their 25th year last year, w/c started from SDF Macross(AKA Robotech in USA) just a movie version/summary of the whole series w/ new footages added,
and planning to watch Studio Ghibli's Tales from Earthsea, has anyone seen this? how faithful is it to Le Guin's book?

[amphibian]

McLovin, on 24 June 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

We're starting to see the Disney influence on Pixar, in all the wrong ways.

That's off the mark. What you're seeing is that Brave used different directors for this movie than previous ones - and there was an unsmooth handover of creative power between them in the middle of the movie.

Brad Bird and Andrew Stanton went off to make live action movies (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and John Carter of Mars). John Lasseter directed the two Cars and the three Toy Story movies, which made Pixar tons of money. Lee Unkrich has a project in the works. Jan Pinkava (the guy who made most of the rough work for Ratatouille before giving way to Brad Bird) isn't with the company. Pete Doctor is working on another project.

If you want to charge Disney influence, charge it to the likelihood that there's going to be a 4th Toy Story, that Cars got a sequel and that kind of stuff. The different experience of Brave isn't that altered by the affiliation with Disney.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 24 June 2012 - 11:03 PM

[Morgoth]

So Pixar makes what is reviewed as a typical Disney movie and yet this not a result of Disney's influence?

[amphibian]

Morgoth, on 25 June 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

So Pixar makes what is reviewed as a typical Disney movie and yet this not a result of Disney's influence?

Pixar was bought by Disney in 2006. Only Toy Story 3, Cars 2 and Brave have been movies written, animated and released by Pixar since that time. People loved Toy Story 3 in both a mass appeal and critical way and the masses loved Cars 2 even if the critics didn't.

Brave was initially announced in 2008 and went through a director change mid-way. It's also an original story, as opposed to the sequels that the Disney-fied Pixar had previously released.

I think charging the Disney influence to all three movies or to none is a better idea. I don't think that this one was particularly messed with.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 25 June 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 25 June 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

So Pixar makes what is reviewed as a typical Disney movie and yet this not a result of Disney's influence?

Pixar was bought by Disney in 2006. Only Toy Story 3, Cars 2 and Brave have been movies written, animated and released by Pixar since that time. People loved Toy Story 3 in both a mass appeal and critical way and the masses loved Cars 2 even if the critics didn't.

Brave was initially announced in 2008 and went through a director change mid-way. It's also an original story, as opposed to the sequels that the Disney-fied Pixar had previously released.

I think charging the Disney influence to all three movies or to none is a better idea. I don't think that this one was particularly messed with.

Amph is very correct here. The Disney-fied thing is actually a moniker that can only apply to the past, with LITTLE MERMAID, BEAUTY & THE BEAST, LION KING and such all the way up to the end of the 2D era of the Disney Golden Age in the 90's. This doesn't apply to any of the Pixar films, even post-Disney purchase. In fact, all you need to see the difference is compare BRAVE with TANGLED (which, while good, was still a Disney movie in the vein of its older 2D movies mentioned above), while recent Pixar fare has been pretty stellar and well-received above and beyond anything else in the genre recently, just like previous Pixar films. You also have to remember that WALL*E is a post-Disney Pixar film, and is probably one of the BEST films Pixar has ever done in its history, so the idea that Disney is having any detrimental effects on Pixar films is quite incorrect as a statement.

[amphibian]

Well, Wall-E was begun a really long time ago (Stanton was working on the very gleamings of the idea back in 1994) although the bulk of the real creative work was indeed done post-Disney buying, it's hard to classify it as a post-Disney buy film for me at least.

And Brave has already made $80 million in combined domestic and international box office, as well as beating out every other film this weekend.

[Catherine]

loved Brave, very funny in many places, also a bit of the tears spilled at the end. The music however is one of the best part of the movie. Reese Witherspoon would have been a really bad choice, glad a scotish lass played the part IMHO.

[QuickTidal]

Saw JAWS for the first time last night (in the theatre too) and enjoyed it immensely!

[McLovin]

Saw MOONRISE KINGDOM. The first Wes Anderson film I really liked.

[QuickTidal]

Aside from miscasting shorty Tom Cruise as the supposedly towering Jack Reacher...this looks pretty good.

http://movies.yahoo....acher/trailers/

[polishgenius]

See, I know absolutely nothing about Jack Reacher and even I'm having trouble buying Tom Cruise in that role. It's so obviously trying to paint as physically intimidating a guy who never ever will be. It's not even just his size/height, he's just got the wrong sort of charisma.

Which is a shame, because everything else looks good.

[worry]

Yah, they're really reaching with that casting choice.

[amphibian]

So this new Spiderman movie is the best superhero movie ever made. It's better than Hellboy II or Iron Man (1 and/or 2).

The battle in the middle with the Lizard is the finest boss battle I've ever seen in a movie. Ever. That's what I want a superhero/supervillain fight to look like.

Phenomenal story, great villain, great acting by everyone involved. And this Peter Parker version is orders of magnitude better than Tobey Maguire's.

[Binder of Demons]

polishgenius, on 04 July 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

See, I know absolutely nothing about Jack Reacher and even I'm having trouble buying Tom Cruise in that role. It's so obviously trying to paint as physically intimidating a guy who never ever will be. It's not even just his size/height, he's just got the wrong sort of charisma.

Which is a shame, because everything else looks good.

I actually read a bunch of those books a few years ago from the library, and the first name that came to mind for the role was LIAM NEESON (this was my choice long before TAKEN made it seem so plausible). Considering the character is supposed to be about 6ft5inches tall and physically intimidating without being bulky, I can't fathom why they would cast Tom Cruise (I know oney money money). REACHER's physical size is such a big part of who he is in the books i don't see how they can just cast it aside so casually.

I wanted to see Liam Neeson wander around dismantling people in another franchise. Ah well, at least there is the sequel to TAKEN coming up soon.

[QuickTidal]

Binder of Demons, on 04 July 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 04 July 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

See, I know absolutely nothing about Jack Reacher and even I'm having trouble buying Tom Cruise in that role. It's so obviously trying to paint as physically intimidating a guy who never ever will be. It's not even just his size/height, he's just got the wrong sort of charisma.

Which is a shame, because everything else looks good.

I actually read a bunch of those books a few years ago from the library, and the first name that came to mind for the role was LIAM NEESON (this was my choice long before TAKEN made it seem so plausible). Considering the character is supposed to be about 6ft5inches tall and physically intimidating without being bulky, I can't fathom why they would cast Tom Cruise (I know oney money money). REACHER's physical size is such a big part of who he is in the books i don't see how they can just cast it aside so casually.

I wanted to see Liam Neeson wander around dismantling people in another franchise. Ah well, at least there is the sequel to TAKEN coming up soon.

Indeed, I'm willing to put that aside for the action, but the movies will clearly be different entities from the books...which an actually be a good thing in the long run.

At any rate the author Lee Child said this:

Lee Child is quoted as saying, “Reacher’s size in the books is a metaphor for an unstoppable force, which Cruise portrays in his own way.” Some critical fans complain that he is not the same height as in the books for the role. However, In an interview with the BBC, Lee Child said that it would be impossible to find a suitable actor to play the giant Reacher and that it is impossible to recreate the feel of the book on the big screen, but Cruise had the talent to make an effective Reacher.

If the author is cool with it, I'm cool with it.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 04 July 2012 - 06:25 PM

[polishgenius]

The thing for me is that, from the trailer, even the filmmakers seem to be going for a sort of slow casual menace with the way they build him up, shrugging the coat on, holding the gear etcs, then Cruise starts to act and it's all manic and twitchy. It comes off as odd to me.

It's not even really about the height - I think Russell Crowe would be a good fit and he's not that tall. It's Cruise's whole manner.

[JLV]

Saw Moonrise Kingdom. Very quirky and I loved it.
Saw Ted. Did not like it.
Worth seeing Spiderman? I have 1 person with no, another with yes.

Edit: make that 2 for no

This post has been edited by JLV: 05 July 2012 - 12:45 AM

[Primateus]

I saw Lockout the other day. Not really that special plot and it could (as in should) have ended 5 minutes earlier. But other than that, it was actually pretty decent.