[QuickTidal]

Coco with marshmallows, on 30 July 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

WinterPhoenix, on 28 July 2016 - 03:32 AM, said:

So how many times has Magnificent 7 (the story) been done now? Counting Seven Samurai of course.

Off the top of my head:

Seven Samurai
Magnificent Seven (1960s version) plus sequels (3 i think?)
The crap sci-fi remake with John Boy from the Waltons and Robert Vaughn basically reprising his role (Battle beyond the stars?)
Magnificent Seven tv series from late 90s/early 2000s (this was actually pretty good)
The anime mentioned above.
A Bug's Life


plus god alone knows how many one off episodes in tv shows round the world.

And pretty much any movie from the 80's or 90's where a ragtag group had to band together to stop the evil corporation from taking over the rec centre.

[WinterPhoenix]

I had arrived at a figure somewhere in the thousands in my head, your comments seems about right Coco and Quick

[Mezla PigDog]

Finally got around to watching The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. I enjoyed it immensely.

[QuickTidal]

Mezla PigDog, on 31 July 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

Finally got around to watching The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. I enjoyed it immensely.

Agreed. That was one of those movies that I KINDA wanted to see and never did till it was on Netflix,and then I was VERY pleasantly surpried by it. LOVE the ending. Proably my favourite Stiller-directed film. It never quite becomes Hollywood cliche, and as a result I think it succeeds where other directors might have ended up wtih schlock...Stiller gets whimsy and quirky.

[WinterPhoenix]

I've never liked Ben Stiller, which is not to say I haven't enjoyed movies he has been in, even some where he has been the star, but there is just something about him that annoys me every time I see his face. Which is the main reason I completely avoided Walter Mitty, from the trailers and such it just looked like way too much Stiller for my liking.

I have similar issues with Adam Sandler as well to an even greater degree, enjoyed a couple of his movies, but he makes it very hard. Really can't put my finger on exactly what it is about their acting that annoys me so.

This post has been edited by WinterPhoenix: 01 August 2016 - 01:27 AM

[worry]

Yah, what do these two gentlemen have in common that some people just don't like? Let me just remove this yarmulke so I can scratch the top of my head in contemplation. I'm sure given enough time we'll figure it out!

[amphibian]

WinterPhoenix, on 01 August 2016 - 12:52 AM, said:

I've never liked Ben Stiller, which is not to say I haven't enjoyed movies he has been in, even some where he has been the star, but there is just something about him that annoys me every time I see his face. Which is the main reason I completely avoided Walter Mitty, from the trailers and such it just looked like way too much Stiller for my liking.

I have similar issues with Adam Sandler as well to an even greater degree, enjoyed a couple of his movies, but he makes it very hard. Really can't put my finger on exactly what it is about either of them that annoys me so.

Stiller turns down most of his comedic mannerisms in Walter Mitty. It's nearly him at his most "normal" appearance. I think most people will enjoy that movie.

[WinterPhoenix]

Kanyemander West, on 01 August 2016 - 01:01 AM, said:

Yah, what do these two gentlemen have in common that some people just don't like? Let me just remove this yarmulke so I can scratch the top of my head in contemplation. I'm sure given enough time we'll figure it out!

I can assure you it has absolutely nothing to do with them being Jewish, why would you jump to that conclusion? It's not as though I've gone around posting anti-semitic remarks on this website. Frankly, the religious inclination of actors (in fact anyone at all) doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's just something about their comedic acting, it bugs me, always has done, which isn't to say - as I mentioned above - that I haven't enjoyed some of their films, because I have. I mean I realise that people on this site don't actually know me, I haven't been on here for years and years as many of you have, but have I really given any indication that, that is the kind of person I am? If so then point it out to me and I'll apologise and explain why it wasn't meant in the manner it has been taken.

Amph, if he does indeed turn down most of those comedic mannerisms, perhaps I might well enjoy the movie, I'm sure I will get round to seeing it at some point. I wonder whether it is on British Netflix as well.

EDIT: I think I made it confusing when I said, 'i'm not sure what it is about them' I really should have wrote 'about their acting' instead of 'them'. It reads like I meant it personally, when I didn't, I failed to explain myself clearly. If that is the source of the confusion then it was all in all a simple error in communication - which I have now fixed.

This post has been edited by WinterPhoenix: 01 August 2016 - 01:27 AM

[worry]

WTH I said I was gonna try to help figure it out. Jeez louise, you try to help a guy out and this is the thanks you get.

[WinterPhoenix]

Kanyemander West, on 01 August 2016 - 01:35 AM, said:

WTH I said I was gonna try to help figure it out. Jeez louise, you try to help a guy out and this is the thanks you get.

Oh damn, it never even occurred to me that you were probably just joking, I am sorry. I haven't slept in about 2 days and I just jumped straight into defensive mode, to my sleep deprived brain it read seriously and I suddenly went overboard instead of just asking.

EDIT: I've often said some people need a sarcasm font, apparently so do I. Least when I'm so thoroughly exhausted at any rate.

This post has been edited by WinterPhoenix: 01 August 2016 - 01:51 AM

[WinterPhoenix]

I should have realised, ya. Brain ain't working right at the moment clearly

[worry]

Okay, well you've dodged this particular ball, and I think we can be grown ups about this.

[WinterPhoenix]

Kanyemander West, on 01 August 2016 - 01:56 AM, said:

Okay, well you've dodged this particular ball, and I think we can be grown ups about this.

Indeed, in the future I'll just assume the opposite of whatever I'm thinking is true, should hopefully serve me well!

[QuickTidal]

Re-watched STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME last night...and it STILL holds up as an excellent Star Trek flick!

Also, the brief glimpse you get of Sulu admiring the Excelsior at the end...awesome. Still my fave ship of any class in any of the shows or movies.

[QuickTidal]

Pretty slick that one.

[worry]

Finally watched Zootopia. Pretty neat world, lots of beautiful rendering and great little touches (particularly loved the train w/ all the different size doors, and the mouse city, and the rhinos looking like the Robin Hood ones). I never read amphibian's critiques cuz I wanted to go in as clean as possible, and I was curious to see if we'd converge or diverge in opinions.

Spoiler

I thought the really big social metaphors were so misapplied it was almost ludicrous. A lot of the movie means so well that I'm really taken aback at the choice to stuff them into a predator/prey dynamic. Like the counter to "it's in their DNA" stuff would make sooooooooooo much more sense if it literally wasn't, in our real world and in the established history of this fantasy world. It smacks so much of "predators" having to evolve to catch up with civilized "prey" society that the metaphor becomes like White Man's Burden once white men have finally met their burden. Like "Okay, we've civilized them, ain't that great of us?" I know that in the end the movie argues anyone can be turned savage by this environmental cause, not an inborn condition. But set in a world where it's acknowledged that "savagery" appears to be the reversion of one subset of animals just makes it ring hollow. You might as well have written a movie that says everyone is fully evolved now, but just one wrong move and we could turn (and for some, turn back) into this: https://animationrev...walt-disney.jpg (not gonna embed that, but warning: it's racist). So it was like applying pseudoscience to the past, but we're all better now thanks to eugenics or whatever. I dunno how this whole movie could have been made w/o anyone seeing that. You can get a much better, smarter take on a related point in Watership Down, comparing Hazel's group to Woundwort's, and how societies breed violence or not from the top down. Zootopia, on the other hand, flattens everything so that it's tackling "microaggression" against everyone, while indulging in this fantasy that major prejudices -- especially that certain segments of the population are more dangerous than others -- aren't social fictions, but rather merely a thing of the past that we've worked out. It's a real road to Hell paved in good intentions argument.

Anyway, so other than that, I thought it was pretty good . Oh except I guessed who the "bad guy" was way too early too.

I really was going into it fully prepared not to come out of it with a hot take. I loved the DMV trailer, and still think a lot of the detail stuff was great. And I suppose it's cool that Disney would tackle the subject matter so overtly. Now I'm gonna try to find amph's old posts and see if we drew the same conclusion.

[amphibian]

Kanyemander West, on 04 August 2016 - 01:53 AM, said:

Finally watched Zootopia. Pretty neat world, lots of beautiful rendering and great little touches (particularly loved the train w/ all the different size doors, and the mouse city, and the rhinos looking like the Robin Hood ones). I never read amphibian's critiques cuz I wanted to go in as clean as possible, and I was curious to see if we'd converge or diverge in opinions.

Spoiler

I thought the really big social metaphors were so misapplied it was almost ludicrous. A lot of the movie means so well that I'm really taken aback at the choice to stuff them into a predator/prey dynamic. Like the counter to "it's in their DNA" stuff would make sooooooooooo much more sense if it literally wasn't, in our real world and in the established history of this fantasy world. It smacks so much of "predators" having to evolve to catch up with civilized "prey" society that the metaphor becomes like White Man's Burden once white men have finally met their burden. Like "Okay, we've civilized them, ain't that great of us?" I know that in the end the movie argues anyone can be turned savage by this environmental cause, not an inborn condition. But set in a world where it's acknowledged that "savagery" appears to be the reversion of one subset of animals just makes it ring hollow. You might as well have written a movie that says everyone is fully evolved now, but just one wrong move and we could turn (and for some, turn back) into this: https://animationrev...walt-disney.jpg (not gonna embed that, but warning: it's racist). So it was like applying pseudoscience to the past, but we're all better now thanks to eugenics or whatever. I dunno how this whole movie could have been made w/o anyone seeing that. You can get a much better, smarter take on a related point in Watership Down, comparing Hazel's group to Woundwort's, and how societies breed violence or not from the top down. Zootopia, on the other hand, flattens everything so that it's tackling "microaggression" against everyone, while indulging in this fantasy that major prejudices -- especially that certain segments of the population are more dangerous than others -- aren't social fictions, but rather merely a thing of the past that we've worked out. It's a real road to Hell paved in good intentions argument.

Anyway, so other than that, I thought it was pretty good . Oh except I guessed who the "bad guy" was way too early too.

I really was going into it fully prepared not to come out of it with a hot take. I loved the DMV trailer, and still think a lot of the detail stuff was great. And I suppose it's cool that Disney would tackle the subject matter so overtly. Now I'm gonna try to find amph's old posts and see if we drew the same conclusion.

That's so much better said than what I said previously.

Well done.

Btw, The Legend of Tarzan is somehow a movie you'd enjoy even after seeing Zootopia. It flat out confronts the Belgian evils in the Congo and treats everyone with respect. And Skarsgaard looks great as Tarzan, while Robbie does well as Jane.

[worry]

Briar King, on 05 August 2016 - 02:39 AM, said:

Hey worry I been watching Naked Guns. On 33 1/3 now

Damn there's a lot of dead cast in these movie now. Anna Nicole just came on and it hit me.

Lol I watched the first one but didn't follow up on that because Amazon Prime has NG and NG 33 1/3 but NOT NG 2 1/2! I felt like the butt of a terrible prank when I realized that. I need to find an alternative way to watch part 2.

@amph: That's pretty interesting. Tarzan is actually a pop culture blind spot of mine though -- I've seen the Disney movie once, and nothing else outside of references to the stories/movies/etc. I'm not sure if any of that matters though, if the movie (as I understand it) is more like a continuation than a reboot?

[amphibian]

The movie is... a reboot. But the "Tarzan meet Jane" part is already over and done with (shown briefly in very flashbacks).

The story starts in media res and we get shown through some flashbacks how Lord Greystroke became Tarzan and why that matters. Really unusual structure for a Tarzan story and it's amazingly able to do things like confront the Belgian evils as a primary story mechanism. Completely unexpected for me, as I went in thinking it'd be a doofy movie like the Disney one.

[worry]

Ah, I gave up cable for the Roku lifestyle a while back so no IFC for me.