[worry]

I can see you are very passionate about this topic. I assure you I wasn't aiming to strike a nerve or derail the thread (though it seems no one's roaring to go see the movie, so I guess it's fine).

So that said, I'll dive in a bit: one HAS to conflate the two things, because they're the same subject with the same principle. People who make astronomical amounts of money just have to pay relatively astronomical amounts of money to the people they chose as spouses. It's all relative because it's all supposed to be -- you don't condemn your ex-spouse to a significantly worse life because you chose to divorce him or her, at any income range. That's the system.

And to be honest, I have significantly less sympathy for Fraser than I would anyone with a "normal" range income. Theoretically sure, you might want to argue that alimony should be adjusted year by year, as a proportion of income rather than a fixed amount. But when you do that with someone whose income is "abnormal"ly high, you potentially incentivize resting on their laurels -- living on past wealth without garnering new income. The judge seems to think it's a reasonable amount for Fraser to pay, and the consequence of that seems to be -- as Macros points out -- he has to act in worse movies for a living instead of the semi-prestige (or at least blockbuster) films he made his name on. Looking up the details, their divorce agreement seems to include a clause that if he makes < $3 million in a year, his payments can be reduced. If that's not a world's-tiniest-violin situation I don't know what is. He could always pursue a different, less lucrative career. Also, we've been talking alimony, but it appears the $900k is child support, not alimony, so that's even less astounding imo.

And when I said it's a separate issue whether anyone should make these sums, I just mean both Fraser and his wife fail the camel-through-the-needle's-eye test.

I have no interest in debating whether the woman Brendan Fraser fell in love with, married, and had three kids with "turned into a money-grubbing villain".

[Vengeance]

I liked the first two Mummy movies. I still would like to see this mummy movie. But am going to wait until I can stream it.

[QuickTidal]

@worry, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think my points of rebuttal would have you see this in another way. Just know that I came at it with passion because I've lived through it, and watched how poorly the courts treat men and fathers (they are set to auto-assume "deadbeat dad"), and I highly disagree with it.

On topic (sort of), I got my boxed set the other day, so we re-watched Fraser's 1999 THE MUMMY last night on BluRay (gorgeous audio and video transfer BTW for a 90's movie). It not lonely holds up, but I forgot just how fun and exciting a film it is. Oded Fehr is still GREAT in his role. I can still quote a tonne of lines from it (much to my wife's chagrin)..."You must not read from the BOOK!"...."Hey O'Connel, looks like I have all the HOR-SES!" "Hey Benny, looks like you're on the wrong side of the RI-VER!"...."He still looks...juicy"

Up next: THE MUMMY RETURNS.

Oh, and the set came with an $8 off coupon to see the new film....I don't think it looks worth it, even with an $8 discount on the ticket.

[Abyss]

worry, on 14 June 2017 - 08:02 PM, said:

I can see you are very passionate about this topic. I assure you I wasn't aiming to strike a nerve or derail the thread (though it seems no one's roaring to go see the movie, so I guess it's fine).

So that said, I'll dive in a bit...

I do so enjoy it when rational semi-intelligent worry sneaks in for a coherent post before vanishing back into the ether of wit and wonkyness.

[Macros]

[Illuyankas]

Saw it. Pretty crap. You guys are very correct about the damsel stuff, the character Jenny was abysmal.

Also I missed most of this thread but BvS needed a motivation for Luthor that was released in cinemas, amongst other things, and the only way it's getting thought about in ten years is as part of the evidence in Zac Snyder's trial against cinema.

[Aptorian]

It's a good action film.

I agree with the stuff about archeologist woman turning into a damsel in distress at the end and the story is certainly as generic as possible, but the film is fun. For a tie in to a new cinematic franchise, it doesn't waste too much time on world building. The film moves quickly and it has a ton of great action scenes.

Also if they make a Russel Crow Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde film I will watch the shit out of that. Crow is great for that role.

[QuickTidal]

Briar King, on 18 June 2017 - 09:45 PM, said:

Sooooommmehow I don't think anyone of us are surprised Apt liked this.

I was also going to say this.

LOL

I WILL watch it when it eventually pops up on Netflix...but I'm not paying for it.

[QuickTidal]

The MUMMY RETURNS is still awesome. It's WAY more "fanciful" and fantasy-tinged than its predecessor, but it's excellent in its own way under that guise. The kid is a plot point, but I like that they give him just enough of a mix of Evy and Rick to make him worthwhile. Speaking of, they let Evy be a little saucier, and a lot more kickass in this one. I think Imhotep comes across even better on this one, as the depth of his relationship with Anyuck-Sun-amun is dipped into more explicitly...and you find out that his love for her was true, but that she was just about getting out from under Pharoah's household. The look in his eyes as she leaves him to his fate after the Scorpion King dies...and with nothing to live for, he allows himself to die. It's heartbreaking enough that Rick has a moment of sorrow and looks like he's about to save him. It's a brilliant scene, that I think I always glossed over because of how you focus on how bad the CGI on The Rock-Scorpion King was...and it was bad...the rest of the movie has largely serviceable and decent special effects, but the Scorpion King is Rooooough. Especially since this was the same year that Gollum was introduced in the LOTR. Anyways, now that I can ignore how bad 2002 Universal-budget effects were on that creature...I got to actually focus on what that scene was about. Arnold Vosloo does a great job in this film. I've never noticed before how wasted the Rock feels in this. I mean, this was the first big acting gig, and the role that launched his acting career. But for that, he barely speaks, and is only REALLY in the prologue...as the CGI Scorpion King is entirely CGI. I recall it being a bigger deal.....but maybe that's in hindsight of how fun the standalone Scorpion King film is.

Anyways, I'm TEMPTED to re-ewatch the non-existent 3rd movie...but I may just skip it and hit up THE SCORPION KING instead.

[WinterPhoenix]

You know to this day I've still never seen, 'The Scorpion King' film, is it actually worth watching?


My mate asked if I wanted to see the new one today, think he was half joking but even still, I'll be president of United States before I pay to see this new one after the things I've heard about it.


The Mummy and The Mummy Returns are great movies and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise lol Always liked Brendan Frasier, and goddamn but they are so quotable, I actually knock out that 'wrong side of the river' one for absolutely no reason sometimes


Oh and I won't get into it but I genuinely could not agree with you more QT about the whole alimony discussion above.

[Macros]

Scorpion king is pretty good, go watch it

[QuickTidal]

WinterPhoenix, on 20 June 2017 - 05:46 PM, said:

You know to this day I've still never seen, 'The Scorpion King' film, is it actually worth watching?

It's hokey, fun, adventure popcorn stuff. WELL worth watching, and it gave the Rock a bigger canvas to play on as the character in his original time. Please note: There are NOT 3 more sequels to that film though.

[Abyss]

The Rock was at the height of his popularity and they planned a... wait for it.... trilogy... shocker i know... that would let him be the hero for a while and then have some kind of dark fall at the end that would lead to where he is in MUMMY 2.
Scorp King tanked and the plan was tossed.

[Macros]

Abyss, on 21 June 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

The Rock was at the height of his popularity and they planned a... wait for it.... trilogy... shocker i know... that would let him be the hero for a while and then have some kind of dark fall at the end that would lead to where he is in MUMMY 2.
Scorp King tanked and the plan was tossed.

I feel like this post should be in the movies you're glad weren't made thread.
AFAIK Scorpion king did alright on the box office front, definitely doubled it's budget anyway...
And so...

There are 4 scorpion king films, do not watch any of the sequels.

[WinterPhoenix]

Wait The Rock is huge nowadays BK, way bigger than he was come the end of his original WWF/E run. Last film I saw at the cinema had a trailer for the Baywatch movie, he's absolutely massive! The natural progression is mountain next I think lol

Not sure what he was like in The Scorpion King, I'm sure I saw trailers for it or something, but a long time ago obviously. I'll give e it a watch at some point.

[Aptorian]

No, BK is right. The Rock looked big in the Scorpion King. But it was "wrestling" big. heavy looking but not lean. Back before every actor started doing Tren or what ever to look superhuman in action films.







Compared to now a days where he basically bodybuilds for a living.





The difference isn't that big. I think it's mainly the level of conditioning he's able to maintain now compared to when he was wrestling and on the road a lot.

This post has been edited by Seduce Goose: 21 June 2017 - 03:23 PM

[WinterPhoenix]

Yeah I'll give he looks leaner in those last photos, I think he's still 'bigger' in terms of pure muscle mass than he ever was wrestling, he looks genuinely colossal in some recent films/photos lol

And yeah I can see what you meant by it being more noticeable in the face, BK.