Sal

If they were going to make it live action and change up the design a lot... why not make him look more like an actual hedgehog at least? Random fur coloured spikes makes somehow even less sense.

Does anyone have a link to a source other than Brietbart? I refuse to give any traffic to that site.

Possibly relevant, but I do find it interesting that virtually none of the articles about this have brought up the fact that Gunn was apparently subject to abuse as a child. From the article: I found an article from 2014 where two quotes were taken from James Gunn’s now deleted blog. It was out of a list he had made of “100 things I hate” which was written in 2006. On the list he had mentioned Obmann in the two following statements: 10) Monsignor Russell J. Obmann, the pastor at my grade school, St. Joseph’s in Manchester, Missouri, who gave the young boys in my class alcohol and showed them porn, and probably other stuff as well. He was later caught having sex with a male student, but was only reprimanded by the Catholic Church. Now he’s dead. 11) The fact that we all told our parents that Russell J. Obmann was doing this shit, but they thought we were being silly and making up stories because he was a dick even outside of being a child molestor. This is only a piece of information, but on another Buzzfeed article I found from 2017, Gunn goes a little deeper into the subject on Russell J. Obmann. In the article, Gunn describes how his school was dominated by “pretty maniacal bullies” who made his life hell. According to Gunn, the catalyst for that behavior was the school’s monsignor, Russell J. Obmann. He describes again that he was giving young boys in class alcohol and pornography and that he was molesting the kids in fifth grade. He also talked about how he mentioned this to his parents, but their response having been ‘Aw, Jimmy.’ James Gunn’s noting “You know, this was back in the ’80s, before people were sensitive to that stuff. They just thought we were making up something about the monsignor at our school.

This is an area where I can definitely actually make a knowledgeable comment. I'm a trans guy and I'm in a community of a lot of trans folks. There was a comment earlier that it's actually less of an issue for the trans community when you have a cis guy playing a trans guy or a cis woman playing a trans woman. I can verify that this is true. The trouble with casting a woman to play a trans man is that a trans man is A MAN. It's very insulting to say that you need to cast a woman for the role, especially when most trans guys are really hard to tell from cis guys, especially given how many now transition in their teens. People get so hung up over changing the gender of a male character to be a female (Iron Man can't be a woman, etc) except when it comes to transgender casting. I mean ideally you'd want a trans character played by a trans person, but if you're going to make the actor cis, at least make sure they're the right goddamn gender for the role. Also plenty of trans actors and actresses exist, they just never get roles. And you can bet your ass they don't get roles playing cis characters, which is the one thing I find really annoying about the comparison of straight actors playing gay characters, since frequently gay actors do get to play straight characters, so there is at least a little bit of give and take in that area in a way that there definitely is not with trans actors. Also, for those complaining about people wanting to see a specifically trans role treated with respect as though it's just a "social justice warrior' issue... It's NOT. These aren't just outraged people with no knowledge of the community on the internet. We see that shit too and we get the 'shut up and accept complete lack of representation' shoved in our faces all the fucking time. Gods forbid that maybe the straight cis audience have to acknowledge we exist every once in a while.

Please keep Brad Dourif as Chucky.

I'm actually fine with him being taken off the film. Though to me I don't really care if he is. I think it'd be more useful to everyone if they could justify docking his pay on the film and sending it to charities helping victims of rape, child abuse and the other things he thought were great choices of shock jock material (I recall a particularly bad joke at the expense of people with AIDS, for example). Show that there's consequences to your words... and it helps a lot of people in need of help at the same time. Money talks and it'd certain emphasize that what you say comes with consequences even if those consequences aren't being thrown in prison or something.

I'll be honest. I was raped as a child by TWO different people so that's something to keep in mind when I voice this opinion... I actually find it incredibly insulting when people equate jokes about rape and child abuse to actual child abuse. Not because I approve of rape and child abuse jokes (and I do think those people who joke about it need to face consequences), but because by comparing ACTUAL RAPE to JOKES ABOUT RAPE is really belittling to ACTUAL RAPE VICTIMS. That's saying our pain and suffering as victims of this crime is somehow equivalent to "this was a bad thing to say and made me uncomfortable". I can guarantee you, experiencing it happening is worse than hearing a joke about it... A LOT. And inevitably when people start calling terrible statements as though they're the same as the actual act, it doesn't just make the jokes come across as worse... but it also makes the act come across as 'less severe' because you're comparing it to words. Raping someone is worse than making a rape joke. Killing someone is worse than making a joke about homicide. Beating someone for their race is worse than making a racist joke. All of those other things are bad, but please, for the sake of people who experience actual rape, violence and other issues, please do not try to equate those bad things you say as being somehow just as bad as the things they mock. Don't forget that people laugh at those kind of awful tasteless jokes... and equating them to the same as the act isn't going to stop them from being terrible people who laugh at those things... if anything, it might lessen the actual impact of those acts in their minds since it's basically 'the same as a joke'.

I'm curious how the heck they're gonna do this. There was word that they wanted to make an animated adaptation at one point and that honestly might have been an easier sell.

The other tweets were really bad, but I gotta point out, with the "happy ending for the giving tree" joke... at the end of the Giving Tree, the kid was like an 80 year old man, so that's not pedophilia by any stretch of the imagination. Did these people not read the book?

I mean it's to I2's overall benefit numbers-wise that it's behaving like a CBM rather than an animated one, considering the usual cap on what animated films can make in the US. It would never have opened as high as it did if it played like an animated film. But then you can't expect a movie to open like a CBM and then play out like an animated one. Given that I2 is playing more like a comic book film, how much are people anticipating AM&TW to affect it next weekend?

What CoolEric said. Lion King adjusted is listed in several of the animated top grossing film lists.

I guess I got lucky. There's three AMCs within 20 minutes of me and a fourth big one if I'm willing to cross the river into Kentucky.

I'm not sure Moviepass' decision to add charges for popular movies is going to endear them with the audience. http://www.indiewire.com/2018/06/moviepass-surge-pricing-imax-plan-bring-a-friend-1201977305/

I don’t know. Most of the comic fans I deal with haven’t brought it up, and a lot tend to get behind on comic movies that aren’t the big tentpoles. One guy I know didn’t even bother seeing Doctor Strange and Ragnarok until Infinity War came out. Also people are acting like a prediction 450-500 is somehow majorly lowballing when only 4 animated films and like 7 superhero films have even crossed 400m, much less 500.

Also does it really have a 2 hour running time?

I hardly think there’s enough people ‘begging for a sequel’ to account for over a 250% increase over the first one.

People making insanely high predictions for this. I’d say 450-480 is a pretty reasonable range with a shot at 500m. There’s only 5 animated films that have passed 400m domestically (4 if you don’t count The Lion King’s rerelease). It’s like people are forgetting just how rare it is for a film to hit 700m. This is especially true when you look at the first film’s box office numbers and video sales stats both of which massively trail Nemo. Nemo sold 41m copies on video and The Incrdibles sold barely half that, yet Dory only rose 30% from Nemo even with inflation. Saying I2 will more than double from the first one... well... I’m just not seeing it.

Didn't the second one drop overseas?

Ninjago is not a spinoff of The LEGO Movie. The show has been around for like 7 years.

Yeah. I think the Ninjago movie was a misstep since the series is ongoing. It seems like most of the time putting out a movie for an ongoing series just lowers demand for the movie, especially in this case where there wasn't even a lot of incentive for Ninjago fans to see it since it's basically not in the series continuity.

I'm not sure. I mean there's been a butt ton of DTV LEGO superhero movies and it didn't effect LEGO Movie's gross. I'm not even sure if the majority of people will think about LEGO Batman or Ninjago as being in the same universe as The LEGO Movie.

Tigress is a great example of a design. Honestly, this wouldn't bug me so much if HTTYD wasn't normally so good with designs. The 'make the female like the male but smaller, paler and sparkly' is not a good tactic. They could have done a better design for her. Also just from a biology standpoint, there's really no sensible reason for her to be white unless she's an arctic variation or something.

The HTTYD movies are good, but man is that female dragon a lazy and rather dumb design. She'd better turn out to be albino or some kind of genetic abberation and not a case of all female nightfuries are white because that's a tremendously stupid design choice. Also making her look like a softer less spikey version of Toothless just comes across as a lazy design choice anyway.

Most kids probably get told they can do anything when they grow up. I always got the message that we jut had to play nice with white folks if we wanted to get by in life. So there's that. Also when I was small they thought I might have autism or some other learning disorder and my mom decided she'd rather ditch her kid in a park instead of dealing with a potentially special needs kid, so the Jack Jack thing really struck me as the way a lot of parents react to having autistic or special needs kids. Instead of being like "I'm going to love you because you're my kid" it becomes so centered on the parent needing to find out if their kid is normal/can be normal or not. That's never a great thing for a kid.

Primarily because I didn't like the first one, so I don't see much reason that I'll like the second, especially since it's got the same director. The classism thing is basically the whole concept of being special as used in the film. In the beginning, they're shown as not just being special, but more important than 'normal' people and continually express disdain/aloofness toward normals. The message that you have to be 'born special' and that it's something you cannot attain (as so callously stated by Mr Incredible to Syndrome when he was a boy) is also reflected in Mr Incredible's fear that Jack-Jack has no powers. Which always struck me as a bit odd anyway, like are you not going to love your kid if he for some reason doesn't live up to having powers? Syndrome's goal is to make everyone special (which is basically to level the playing field with those born in privilege) but he is ultimately defeated, thus proving the point that you should never aspire to be one of the elite or you will find yourself crushed. AKA: Know your place, don't step out of line. As a poor minority kid watching the first movie, it was a very disheartening sort of message. And I'm not saying it won't appeal to those people, since most minorities are also used to consuming white media. I mean if I waited to only watch movies with just Latino characters in them, I sure wouldn't get to see a lot of movies, so we're pretty accustomed to having to project on white leads. I'm just saying I doubt either of the Incredibles movies are made with minorities in mind.