Tyrian

I havent seen all of the MCU films Endgame is a resolution for, but I thoroughly enjoyed it nevertheless. People will no doubt chime in with countless things to discuss here, but heres a couple points of note that stuck out to me: - time travel is such a risky plot point to introduce. It can get tired/confusing/convoluted etc very fast - we've seen in so many other movies and stories how things quickly degenerate into a narrative mess. With that said, I think they did a VERY good job of managing a time travel plot ...without having (what I was expecting) many negatives that typically come with it. - Captain Marvel usage reminded me of the Eagles from LOTR. IE a "warning: gets tired and repetitive and a lame copout when overdone" alarm going off. She appears when all hope is lost to save the day. Here, shes so powerful they had to kick her out of 80% of the film because she was 'busy elsewhere'. Maybe the character is simply too powerful, because if they continue to use her like this in future its going to get repetitive and lame pretty fast. She did the solo-save-the-day thing at the end of Captain Marvel (movie) and she did some similar moves during Endgame too. - Hulk CGI was a bit off in some scenes. It was good, yes (the facial expressions were fantastic), but sometimes it wasnt working for me as much as i'd have liked. - there was a scene at the start (around when Antman first appeared I think) which was pretty dark/subdued in colour,... then it cut directly to a bright white/well lit screen that near blinded me and the audience before our eyes had a chance to adjust. Yeouch! - I left the cinema confused why Gamora/Black Widow were still dead. Because I knew they are making a Black Widow standalone film - which made me wonder if I missed something during Endgame because she cant be dead if theres going to be a Black Widow movie set after?!?!!? And surely when Iron Man had the gauntlet and snapped he couldve just brought them back too with the virtual omnipotent power he wielded anyway? My biggest unexpected delights were seeing Thor interact with Frigga (I thought the mother was used beautifully), Pepper Potts final words to Iron Man were poignant and perfect (something like "We'll be ok without you. You can relax/let go now" = those are the real world words many people DO speak to a dying family member in hospice - I said nearly the exact same thing to my dad shortly before he died) - and the very final shot of the film (Captain embracing his lady) ending with a kiss/love = the perfect way to end the film. Overall it was a very entertaining film, even though ive only seen a handful of the many films it serves as a conclusion to. People who live and breathe Marvel and have seen every prior film will no doubt be over the moon with how well it serves and respects the prior source material it concludes. A

Grace is my favourite movie/box office related personality on youtube.

Yeah so ive got no idea what those mean. edit - ok ok i get it now =) nice one.

SOO... about that Shade Colin Trevorrow is throwing around right about now on twitter... https://twitter.com/colintrevorrow Interesting time for Mr Trevorrow to come out and tell us this anecdote about his son, while Solo crashes and burns (reigniting the debate that TLJ compromised the core tenets of a beloved franchise. Oh wait....)

Eh. Its more like, "You can check out some more posts.... RIGHT NOW" When I first saw your profile I was like 'omg its grace' - the thing that gave it away was your profile says 'male'.

On the theforce.net (Star wars) forums right now, half the fanbase think its 'obvious' that TLJ was a huge and negative factor contributing to Solos unfolding failure. The other half is saying TLJ had no impact. https://imgur.com/Z2yBmtH

The real delight in watching their videos is seeing them squirm trying to avoid being too critical - avoid talking about the biggest elephant in the room (so many fans hated TLJ) - for fear of being blacklisted by Disney and disinvited to their premieres/events etc etc.

The Headline this weekend: Fans and audiences give a giant middle finger to Darth Kathleen, Rian Johnson, Disney - reject Solo en masse by not even bothering to show up.

Absolutely. TLJ hurt the brand. I saw Solo, only begrudgingly, because I intensely disliked TLJ. But I really wanted to give Solo a chance. (And Solo disappointed me again). Theres going to be lots of people whos bum will never be on the Solo seat, because they simply dont care about SW enough to give it a second chance after TFA.

Rubbish. Going by this logic: There should also be an asterisk next to every asterisk, reminding people that someone can always find an asterisk to credit/discredit any accomplishment they do/dont like.

Sophia Lillis has said BOTH jessica chastain and amy adams could play her. It depends on which interview you were watching - in some interviews she said amy adams, in other jessica. In one interview she basically acknowledged an awareness that jessica had a relationship with the director from a previous film... so I think she probably feels like jessica was a shoe-in as the directors personal choice (which would no doubt affect what she says as well).

Pratt would be expensive, but if him and his agent were smart, they'd do this for next-to-no $ and maybe just some backend. This is the sort of film Pratt needs (assumings its gonna be as good as part 1) if he wants to maintain his longterm career.... and not just coast off short term bullshit like Passengers and a few comic book movies which will bore ppl soon enough. Still a little dissappointed its not Amy Adams as Bev. I can see Jessica has physical similarities, and know about her prior relationship with the director etc etc... but Amy Adams is Bev. Jessica will just be playing Bev. Its a missed opportunity, but i'll give Jessica a chance I guess...... Now I know people would (rightfully) say Amy Adams would be expensive. But geez, if there is ONE loser worth blowing the budget on - its Bev I think. She was the emotional heart of part 1, but hopefully part 2 as well.

Fantastic film. I really hope this film DOES get a sequel. It doesnt necessarily need to involve this family. It could be a 'set in the universe' sequel like Cloverfields ones. It could be about another family. It could be about Day 1-10 of the invasion. It could be this family again at a later date. It could be anything really. --- Really important to stress that, for some people, your fullest enjoyment of this film will REALLY depend on the type of audience and environment you see it in. I myself ordinarily get driven nuts by babies, noisy popcorn, crunchy wrappers being scrunched, people outside the cinema chatting loudly because the door was left open etc - in any movie. I like a quiet cinema in general anyway.... ... but this film takes that to a whole new level. Your film experience could easily be ruined if you have a bad or un-courteous audience. if you wanted to give that little noisy kid a dirty look in any other movie, in this movie you'll want to break his arm and gag him with duct tape. I already knew this before I saw the movie, but didnt realise just how true it was.

"Shape of Water" is like "Free Willy" - except the boy has sex with the whale and goes to live in the ocean with it after setting it free. (And it was a gloriously beautiful, wonderful film).

I thought CGI Tarkin/Leia looked laughably video-game terrible, but I intimately knew both of their faces beforehand - and knew they were both actually dead (well, their actors) as I saw the movie. Ive never seen the original Blade Runner and hadnt heard of (or seen) Sean Young before..., so when I watched Blade Runner 2049 I thought that 'rachel chick at the end with the funny black dress and whacky hair/lipstick' was a real actress. Only when I googled her after the film did I discover its actually the same actor as the original, with cgi de-aging. The biggest giveaway for Tarkin to me was his unnatural movements, specifically subtle facial expression / lips etc. I think I need to really rewatch the Blade Runner 2049 Rachel scene carefully to see why I was fooled this time. Is the technology that much better since Rogue One, or did they simply hide its limitations better?

Just got back from seeing this and I must echo what others said: See this film as early as possible to avoid inadvertently finding out major spoilers. Arrival was one of my favourite films ever, and now Denis delivered this masterpiece only one year later?

Thats a really cool tidbit, pity the movie never went into those details. (Doesnt excuse Henry - but really understand why hes so goddamn unnaturally angry during this scene towards Ben, aside from just seeming like being a dick for the sake of it)

Monologue at next years Oscars... "Last year, audiences across America and indeed the world were terrorized by an evil, orange haired clown" *pause* "Oh, and the movie IT was released, also featuring an evil clown."

If shes smart she will do it for a super low up front amount and agree to some kind of backend deal. Then they can keep the budget way down as it seems they want. The films all but guaranteed to make a ton of cash...

Its hard to imagine that Jessica Chastain hasnt already been cast as Bev, even if she hasnt yet signed.. http://variety.com/2017/film/news/it-movie-andy-barbara-muschietti-interview-sequel-details-1202554099/ And: http://collider.com/it-movie-barbara-muschietti-interview/ Coupled with us knowing Jessica was in Mama, stated as being a 'very good friend' who they would 'love her to play bev' and 'jessica loves the movie' and commenting on the very day Sophia walked into the room how they saw the resemblance... id imagine shes either already signed on or they'll all be fighting for it , and after they delivered Chapter 1, as if the studios going go say no to giving them what they want?

Amy Adams would be my perfect adult Bev, and maybe Jessica Chastain or Bryce Dallas Howard as Audra. With that said, I too think Jessica has already secretly/privately been cast as adult Bev and they are just waiting to announce it at the appropriate time etc. Indeed. It will be hard for the audience to watch / learn / discover, but that will make for compelling viewing.

Several questions I need answered since I havent read the book: - Was the pharmacist (in the book) a paedophile? After watching the film I was wondering whether Bev flirted with him because she knew/suspected he was, maybe based on prior interactions? Or is he just meant to be some creepy dude dont read into it too much etc - Was Bevs dad (in the book) explicitly stated as sexually abusing or molesting her? Or is it kept merely implied/ambiguous - like the film? - What extent of abuse did Henry suffer at home? (film implied he was emotionally abusive for sure, and i read scenes were filmed or planned showing he was physically abusive as well?) - Is 'Bevs fear', the fear of blood/first period, because the dad was going to see that 'first blood' as a sign she was now a woman and can start abusing her in a more explicit way than previously? (ie maybe he was just touching her before, but now that shes 'a woman', he might want to start doing other things etc etc) - Are any of the boys implied to be gay in the novel? (Including the bullies, and I think its eddie the miniseries implied might have been?)

Oh god how i'd love for Amy Adams to be Adult Bev. But Jessica Chastain would also fit the bill so well, and reading the quote from the producer on the first page almost makes it sound like it could even already be a done deal. And, in a fantasy land dream casting scenario, wouldnt it be amazing if we got both! Amy and Jessica as Adult Bev and Audra.

Open question: With the films opening weekend blowing up - making shit tons of money and quickly becoming the 'once in a generation horror film event' - i'd imagine Warner Bros executives will quickly be seeing the $$$ and wondering whether they could give audiences more IT than just Chapter 2. Studios did it with the final Harry Potter film, twilight film, hunger games, hobbit etc. Like it or not - we all know the power of the $$$. So my question is this: Is there enough material in the novel, that hasnt been fleshed out in Chapter 1, that could potentially be split into two and form a workable BASIS for 2 movies (with creative liberties taken in filling in or fleshing them out if needed etc): Chapter 2 and Chapter 3? And secondly - is it possible/conceivable that, with all this attention on IT once again - that Stephen King himself is inspired to create new stories / a new novel etc for future adaptation to film? Whether he just writes a novel, or is inspired to provide more ideas for future IT stories that could be used in future films etc Do you guys think WB is seeing $$$ and wondering whether they could milk even more out of IT - long term - than just killing their new Cash Cow with Chapter 2?