Crainy
-
Posts
203 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Crainy
-
-
On 12/7/2018 at 12:23 AM, The Futurist said:
I already explained it.
It s the George Lucas syndrome all over again.
Like Lucas was the Father of Star Wars, Rowling is the Mother of the wizarding world and for this movie, nobody and I mean nobody, from Warner biggest suits to the director and the intern who brings her cofee can contradict her on her creation, in any shape of form, she has the final say on eveything.
I get that what you wrote is an opinion that gets shoved down peoples throats at every corner of the internet and that people feel clever when saying it (which is more important to alot of people than ACTUALLY thinking), but the "George Lucas" syndrome doesnt really apply here.
Rowling is a book author, not a filmmaker. For the most part she always had complete control over her franchise, especially after the first few books were a success. And most definitely when the movies were getting made. The reason that this entry in the Potter Universe presumably isnt that big of a success has other reasons.
-
Oh god. They made the Sonic memes into a movie. I wish Paramount all the best.
-
12 hours ago, dudalb said:
You really need more then great visuals for a hit nowdays. You could get away with great visuals and mediocre or bad everything else back in 2009 but nowdays you have to deliver more.
FIlm is not a trainwreck, but it really needed to be really good and get a really good reception to have a chance against the just plain brutal completion.A mixed reception just will not do it.
If it really cost 200 Million, the losses on this are going to be huge...probabl6 the heaviest in Jackson career.
Not true. Marvel movies prove that you can even take away the "great visuals" from a movie that appeals to the lowest common denominator and still make alot of money. The amout of money movies make is not about quality most of the time, especially in todays age. Its about a marketing campaign that is able to trick people into liking the film and convince them that watching it in the cinema is something that belongs in their lifestyle. Thats very hard to do with a unique and unknown property like Mortal Engines.
As for why Peter Jackson bough it: Because the guy follows his vision and was obviously interested in making this movie happening on the big screen. Directors like Peter Jackson are artists, and for most artists money is a secondary concern (but still an important one).
-
1
-
1
-
-
Jesus, from that glimpse, that sonic design looks absolutely horrific. Surely it cant be that bad when fully revealed.
-
1
-
-
Honestly, I think if Infinity War 1 and TFA couldnt even beat Titanic, no other movie till perhaps Avatar 2 will be able to beat that mark. People are overestimating what Lion King will pull I think, I dont see it beeing exceptionally huge. In a market where people are so conditioned to these comic book genre films, I dont think a movie like Lion King will have the pull it once had. Maybe in 10 years when things have shifted again. I see Lion King pulling BATB numbers, perhaps abit higher.
-
Whats wrong with the subtitle "The Way of Water"? Sounds pretty original to me. "The Way of Water" is an unusually sentimental title for a blockbuster like this, but I guess alot of people feel overly challenged by sentimentality of any kind and would be prefer it to be called "The Age of Infinite" or some shit.
-
On 9/18/2018 at 7:04 PM, JamesCameronScholar said:
My phone nearly exploded over Avatar news... sadly turned out to be for a children's TV show.
Let me correct you right there: "Avatar: The Last Airbender" is not a childrens TV show. Its a TV show for all ages and from what I have heard (I havent watched all that much of it actually) an excellent piece of media.
Anyhow James Camerons dope yo.
-
2
-
-
-
2 hours ago, JamesCameronScholar said:
Doubt Moore would disagree that there is room for both. The problem is that there is not enough that is "original" in that their inception isn't dated itself.
Take the concept of "origin story" that's a trope in itself, no one ever wonders where Winnie the Pooh came from, I don't need to know his origin story, yet it's a staple lately. These things don't have to be this way. I agree broadly with Moore that culture should be shaped by each generation, not grabbed from the previous and molded to the latter generation's needs. Then again, he and I are both grumpy old men, it's not really for us to decide.
Nah, doesnt every generation take what they have known before and reshape it to something that fits into their culture, while also creating new things? Its just a natural cycle thats always been like that and you can be damn sure that 50 years ago they remade and repurposed things that were made before that time. Its no different today than it was back then. You just happen to remember the outstanding stuff, while forgetting all the unremarkable, copy-cat and derivative works of that time.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, JamesCameronScholar said:
The superhero movies – characters that were invented by Jack Kirby in the 1960s or earlier – I have great love for those characters as they were to me when I was a 13-year-old boy. They were brilliantly designed and created characters. But they were for 50 years ago. I think this century needs, deserves, its own culture. It deserves artists that are actually going to attempt to say things that are relevant to the times we are actually living in.
Always read this and think of Avatar.
Mmh I dont know about this one. Dont get me wrong, I dont really care for most superhero movies and I adore Avatar, but this quote seems to imply that cultural icons arent capable of evolving with the times and changing to be more approriate for current generations, which they definitely can. And I mean this century has evolved a large amout of their own culture, while also drawing and expanding upon the culture of the past. Theres room for both and I think we can consider us very fortunate to live in a time where culture and meaningful art are thriving to a degree that is seldomly seen.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Yandereprime101189 said:
The whole thing with Venom having to be rated R has been silly to me. With Wolverine and even Deadpool it kinda makes sense that they could be R. But Venom? No.
People still have this mentality that "R-rating = better". It sounds cool to say, which is why people say it. But it doesnt make much sense once you think things through, which alot of people arent willing to do.
-
About the PG-13 thing: There are some movies who say fuck and some who doesnt. This one doesnt.
Im looking forward to it. I really hope its great, the trailers hint at alot of potential.
-
1 hour ago, Gavin Feng said:
No R-rating according to Variety report weeks ago.
Some marketing staff of Venom in China already saw some footage(unfinished). They thought it's very funny with many jokes and humor like a comedy, not a thriller or scary movie.
Yeah I wouldnt draw conclusions based on the second hand opinions from people who saw individual scenes. Every movie has some funny scenes in it, doesnt mean the entire movie is like that. We will see. I expect it to be mostly an action thriller with some Marvel esque comedy thrown in for good measure.
-
I dunno 88 Million seems like a reasonable budget for a movie of this scale in this day and age.
-
17 minutes ago, Valonqar said:
as someone who was bored out of his mind by IM3, consider it the worst MCU movie (yes, worse than TDW) and still doesn't get the praise heaped on it for Shane Black-isms (whatever that means), I'm not sad to see Predator getting turd reviews.
I really dislike IM3 aswell, I actually think its one of the worst movies I ever saw in the cinema. Its also the reason why Im really unsure if The Predator is going to be a good movie. I like the trailers, but IM3 trailers were also good. Infact, I dont particularly like any of the movies of Shane Black (that Ive seen). But maybe that changes with The Predator, I like what Ive seen so far.
-
God I hate todays movie review culture so much. What a disgrace to art.
Anyhow, gonna see this movie in the coming weeks, I hope its worthwhile.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, dX airdry zid said:
I always worry about the innocent having dangerous potential against the guilty. I feel sometimes the guilty wander to guilt while the innocent groom their nails.
At the end of the day, all I am really getting at is that the term "sex-offender" is a dangerous generalization and that alot of people are overly zealous to dehumanize people labeled as such.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Barnack said:
Criminal conviction tend to be public domain, with people having the rights and relatively easy access to that information, Steven Wilder was registered in a couple of place (if you use those offender search engine he pop-up), it was even on is wikipedia page since 2015.
If an actor does not work with a sex offender than can get an account on those service and look up everyone, the employer cannot do it legally but the co-worker can.
Yeah I know, but theres a big difference between having that information available and having it be mandatory to inform your workers of that information.
-
2 minutes ago, Valonqar said:
@Crainy You have to give a sex offense example cause the issue is sex offense not just any offense. Regular populace is still very patriarchal (despite denying it) so they view sexual crimes as the worst of all crimes, worse than murder. You'll never see anyone froth at their mouth while talking about murder but they all froth when they talk about any degree of sexual offense including the lightest. Take that into consideration when making a case though verdict is passed by default of that being a sex offense no matter what you say.
Nova just said that people should have the right to know criminals and their committed crimes, not just sex offenses. My example was directed at that, not the topic at hand, to show the implications of such a system.
-
1 hour ago, Nova said:
I think people do have the right to know that. And from there each individual can make the decision for themselves of whether they want to work with said person.
In regards to leaving criminals in jail, that doesnt make any sense. No one is saying these people shouldn't have jobs. What we are saying is that people should have the right to know who they are working with and be able to decide whether they want to work with said person. For example, if a person is difficult to work with, typically that gets around. Everyone finds out so and so is hard to work with. And from there people make the choice of whether they want to work with said person or if they want to avoid the headache and thus not be involved.
Why should it be any different for criminals? If someone has been convicted of beating the shit out of someone, yes I want to know about it. From there I will make my OWN decision of whether I want to work with said person as opposed to someone making the decision for me. Note I am not saying I would not work with said person. I am saying I want to have that choice.
Alright, thats fair and if you take that position, that is fine and I respect it. Im not saying you are wrong, but the law currently disagrees with you (atleast as far as I know).
However, I do have to say that the philosophy you have there is rather cold and unforgiving. For one, its proven time and time again that the regular populance is not good at judging this kind of stuff. Again, thats why we have a justice system.
But second of all, imagine this: You are 18, you do some hard drugs once or twice (In this example I assume its illegal in your country), you get caught and end up serving a short sentence in prison. Years pass, you are now 30. You havent done drugs in 12 years, it was just a stupid mistake you once did. You apply for a job. Your employer gets told you did hard drugs, 12 years ago. Despite all this, you still manage to somehow get the job (a miracle really, cause why should they take you if they can get someone equally qualified that didnt do hard drugs). In the job you have to directly work with around 50 people. All of those 50 other people get told you did hard drugs, even before they first meet you. Because of this, alot of the people there have a prejudice towards you. Some are ok with it, but some outright disrespect you. This makes working together very difficult at times, even though you try your best. Some even suspect you might still be using drugs, behind their back. Which isnt true, but rumors start. The rumors reach your boss. All those factors result in you getting fired. You are 35 now, without a job again, because of a stupid mistake you made when you were 18, even though you were basically a completely different person back then and did everything in your power to improve yourself.
Does that sound fair to you? Thats what the system you suggest would mean.
13 minutes ago, The Futurist said:I don't understand why sex offenders are released from prison in the first place and why they are not shot on sight for their crimes.
Thank you for proving my point. Do you really want someone like The Futurist, who just said that he would shoot you on sight, to be told your previous crimes? People are not responsible enough to handle that kind of information.
13 minutes ago, Valonqar said:How is chatting up someone on the Internet "most traumatizing and horrifying felony"? Clearly not as horrifying and traumatizing as maiming and murder. Sexual offenses have many degrees and in this case the guy was chatting up a minor on the internet so lets not pretend that's the same as gang rape that leaves a victim with internal bleeding, organ rupture and lifetime paranoia. Also, degree of crime is confined only to what was done, in this case Internet chat, not to assumptions what could have been. So this guy chatted up a 14 years old girl and served his time for that. He didn't attack her physically nor it is fair to judge him on something that didn't happen but one fears it could have.
This way of thinking is exactly why James Gunn was fired. In MeToo climate, which I'm sure MeToo didn't want to create but things always escalate and ruin the cause, minor offenses are overblown to the point of being treated like major offenses. You joke about pedophilia = you are a pedophile cause why else you would joke about it? You must have abused children in secret. Boom, one gets labelled a pedo and people proceed to discuss him on that term. make no mistake, Gunn didn't get fired because of Chernovich or whatever his name but because current climate allows that kind of spin and quickly rallies up people who'd believe it. You chat up a minor on the Internet and serve time for it, you are treated like a serial rapist and pedo who actually committed sexual abuse of minors judging by the sound of fury heaped at that guy. Sure, he's an offender but degrees are actually important. You can't say that chatting up is up there with an actual rape so why acting like it is? I just don't understand people's need for exaggerating. That doesn't help anyone, in fact, as in Gunn case, it can hurt wrong people.
Jesus, thank you. Finally someone with a reasonable point of view who doesnt want to murder people.
-
3
-
-
I do believe She should have the right to not work with a registered sex offender if she doesnt want to. And she does have that right. The question is rather if she has the right to be informed that she is working with a registered sex offender and that really depends on what the law says.
Wether or not its the moral thing to do, thats much harder to tell. Lets change the situation a bit: If Steve Wilder was convicted for beating some guy up, served his sentence and was released, would you still say that everyone on the production team has the right to know about this incident 8 years later? If not, wheres the difference? You could maybe argue that beeing a registered sex-offender makes him more dangerous to Munn, but thats an unfounded assumption and surely beeing convicted for assault would make Steve Wilder far more dangerous to her and the entire team than a convinction for trying to manipulate a minor over the internet?
If everyone suddenly has the right to know about all crimes anyone has committed right out of the gate, no matter how minor or major, rehabilitation and betterment would be impossible, and in that case you might aswell leave all criminals in prison forever.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Yeah, I also think that this could affect the box office.
-
2
-
-
Good to see Firepower beeing threadbanned, he deserved it.
-
7
-
-
27 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:
What indication is there that any critic saw this movie, enjoyed it, then heard about the controversy and went "nah I'm gonna downgrade this even though I liked it"? Cause if there isn't these are just nonsensical conspiracy-theory ramblings. "Pretty obvious" uh huh.
By examining their track record. Its not rocket science and its not a conspiracy. Its just a job to alot of them and alot of them rely on views to get their money. Appeal to the crowds = more views. And its often times easier to gain attention by writing negative stuff about a movie than positive stuff, the internet is a sucker for negativity.
Avatar: The Way of Water | 16 DEC 2022 | Don't worry guys, critics like it
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
If thats the statement you are gonna make after watching a movie like Avatar, your opinion isnt even worth considering.