Alexdube
-
Posts
561 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Alexdube
-
-
1 hour ago, Captain Craig said:
Cameron's insistence that this film, Dark Fate, HIS film, is the actual TRUE 3rd Terminator film.
No Jim, it is not. Rise of the Machines is that film.
Now it is the THIRD James Cameron Terminator film, but it is not the TRUE 3rd film as he has stated.
His ego is dismissive that while he was off doing Titanic, Dark Angel(TV) and Avatar the franchise moved on.
I applaud his success, his ego I dislike.
then watch this, it wasn't his idea (they talk about in the first 2 minutes):
-
1 hour ago, Captain Craig said:
A-it looks like bad re-tread of films in the saga already
B-Joker is sucking all the attention out of the room
Even when Joker passes I'm not confident enough people really care about Jim's ego and Granny Connor fighting versions of Terminators we've already seen in T3 & Salvation.
I'm curious to know where this notion that Cameron is some sort of egomaniac comes from. Are people still not over that 98 Oscar speech, or is it some general resentment over people who are successful?
-
2
-
1
-
-
Korean tv spot looks badass
-
3
-
-
New r-rated trailer tomorrow?
They sound pretty excited... let's see if it delivers
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, WittyUsername said:
I believe the Rotten Tomatoes criteria states that non theatrical or limited release movies can be certified fresh with only 40 or so reviews.
It does, although it's 80 for wide-releases and Joker has 127, so more than enough
QuoteMovies and TV shows are Certified Fresh with a steady Tomatometer of 75% or higher after a set amount of reviews (80 for wide-release movies, 40 for limited-release movies, 20 for TV shows), including 5 reviews from Top Critics.
Of course The Irishman has 100% at 41 reviews which means it has virtually no chance of going under the 75% threshold. Joker can still easily go under 75%.
Overall I can't say if Joker is getting an unfair treatment or not. Do they normally wait longer when the score is close to 75% or are they supposed to give it right away when it passes 80 reviews and maintains 75%? The issue here is once they grant it, they don't remove it even if it goes below 75%, but if they wait long enough for it to go below the threshold (which it might), they might not have to ever certify it.
-
On 9/17/2019 at 5:07 AM, The Futurist said:
Can't help but think the " shot in water tanks" thing will end up as glorious at the I-Phone 11 design.
You know the idea of the water tanks is that you don't see them when you're watching the movie... kind of a terrible analogy comparing this to cellphone design
That aside, if there's 2 things that would come on top of a list to define James Cameron's career, it would special effects and water. You can put a solid bet Avatar 2 will make Aquaman look like a Saturday morning cartoon.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:
This is true, but I doubt Cameron cares about re-releasing Avatar. He didn’t seem too upset about Avengers: Endgame passing Avatar. He seems more concerned with not having any more delays on Avatar 2. Disney, otoh, has to figure out if they want to put Avatar on Disney+ or hold it back so they can theatrically re-release it.
Record breaking shit aside, it just seems like the most no-brainer re-release ever. 10 years anniversary, highest grossing movie for about 10 years, sequels coming, movie known primarily as a theater experience, what else do you need? It just seems weird to even consider it wouldn't get re-released in some capacity in theaters. Cameron has said again how he's all about the big screen, I feel like it would be some kind of gut punch to have it barred from theaters and kept exclusively for a streaming service.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:
wait what i thought the Cameron stans all ragequit when Avatar got Thanos snapped? admittedly haven't checked that on the lot thread in awhile
just like in the movie, the snap didn't have any real stakes and will be reverted once Avatar re-releases
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Walt Disney said:
Why would you think I worship Disney? You don’t even know me. You’re the one calling me “grandpa” and threatening violence. I was just correctly pointing out that Disney is the one who will either re-release Avatar or they won’t. Getting a life is an appropriate response to some random dude who is making crazy assumptions and trying to insult me and failing miserably.
If Cameron asks for something it's not like Disney will just say "NO". They both have an interest in maintaining a good business relationship with each other. Cameron can't just leave Disney and Disney cannot just fire Cameron without them both suffering heavy loses, Sure with the current arrangement Disney makes the call, but it's not like Cameron doesn't have any weight in this kind of decision, he owns the IP after all and ideally you want to keep happy someone who's handling a boatload of your cash. I think some of you like to fantasize that Disney is holding Cameron on a leash like a dog, but I don't think that's exactly how it works.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, dudalb said:
Jimbo comes around to badmouth another franchise. Just like clockwork.
replying to someone badmouthing Cameron...
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, dudalb said:
And the extreme fans of Non Comic Book Franchises can be just as toxic. You are seeing a real level of toxicity building between the Star Wars fans the Avatar/Cameron fans.
Star Wars fans are probably much more at war with themselves than with Cameron fans
-
55 minutes ago, dudalb said:
You know, this routine of the Cameron fanboys basically wishing bad luck for every franchise that is not a Cameron franchise has gotten really old.
oh don't make me cry, you know there's about 90% of the people on this forum just dying to watch Terminator fail
-
1
-
-
Alright let's change the topic. Not looking good for Spidey huh?
-
5 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:
Well, for one, IW and EG aren’t called part 1 and part 2. But in all seriousness, calling it The Godfather Part I/ Part Ii/Part III was just the title. It wasn’t one movie that was split into 3 parts. Unless you believe that all franchises are just 1 movie split into multiple installments. But no one believes that. I don’t think I have to define what a franchise is for anyone.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was one movie split into 2 parts. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay was one movie split into 2 parts. IW and EG are 2 distinct movies, with 2 different plots. They are both installments in the same franchise, but they are not the same movie. In order to believe they are the same movie, a person would have to have not understood the plots of IW and EG. Additionally, Kevin Feige was quoted in the article posted above stating that they are 2 distinct movies.
You can easily argue that both movies are part of the same plot. Again all of this is semantics and editorial decisions. You could also easily call them Avengers: Infinity War Part I and Avengers: Infinity War Part II and no one would be confused and say that it's "wrong" (except maybe you).
Listen this is cinema not algebra. There are no black & white answers to this not matter how hard you try to convince yourself
-
6 hours ago, Walt Disney said:
It really doesn’t make a difference. One poster brought it up, wanting credit for being right for saying it was a part 1/part 2 situation. However, there is a factually correct answer that it isn’t. Does it really matter if people want to believe otherwise? Not really. But there is an answer. It isn’t a case of semantics and it isn’t an unanswerable question.
If you think there is a right and wrong answer to this, I'm curious to know how you explain what makes The Godfather a part I / part II / part III situation but not your Avengers movie.
-
3 hours ago, LaughingEvans said:
To both sides:
So what if it is 2 parts or not? What's the essential point here?
it's exactly what I was addressing 3 posts above yours
-
1 hour ago, Thanos Legion said:
This is one of the stupidest debates in site history. Hopefully I have the good sense never to comment on it again. The only thing the Part 1/Part 2’ers demonstrate is that they don’t understand what makes something a Part 1+Part2.
Here's the reality: there is no authority or definition on what makes a "part 1 and a part 2" movie. It doesn't mean anything and both answers are valid. Are they 2 different movies? Yes technically they are. Are they part of the same larger story? Yes they are. It's just an editorial decision to give them different titles.
I think this "debate" isn't the real debate, it's simply a symptom of other questions about those movies. Do they stand on their own? Does Endgame diminishes the stakes of what happens in IW? etc.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Walt Disney said:
IW is as much of a part 1 as Empire Strikes Back was a part 1. Not really a part 1. It just ends with the antagonist winning.
I think some people misconstrue IW as a part 1 because at one time it was going to be re-labeled as a part 1 because of other films like Harry Potter going that route. However, the failure of Mockingjay being split into 2 ended that plan. The ironic part is that before the part 1 & 2 fad, IW and Endgame were envisioned as 2 separate movies. Most people didn’t know the orignal plans, so they mistakenly think it was always meant to be a part 1, and was changed because of Mockingjay. But the reality is it was changed back to its original plans of not being a part 1.
All of this is semantics. What does it matter if they call it part 1 & 2 or not? The point is the story was never meant to end with IW. Endgame simply doesn't make sense without IW and Endgame basically undoes everything that happened in IW. These movies are very much inseparable
The only thing is they have their own movie title, but you might as well have called them Avengers: Infinity War Part I and Avengers: Infinity War Part II. The problem is that it's a dead giveaway that what you're about to see in part 1 isn't definitive, so giving them their own movie titles makes sense. But it's essentially the same long movie
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, elcaballero said:
Man, this franchise is running on fumes.
I really don't see what superhero hero fans find in their movies that makes them so much more elevated than what we see in this trailer. I'd be really curious to see the reactions if it had a Marvel stamp on it.
-
6
-
-
4 hours ago, The Stingray said:
JC Scholar, is that you?
no I'm here since April
3 hours ago, dudalb said:You know, the worst thing about the Cameron fanboys is not that they carry their worship of James Cameron to ridiculous levels, but that they have to bad mouth every other franchise in existence.
If you haven't noticed, I'm replying to someone trashing the trailer
I guess it's fine to do it as long as you don't speak ill of the church of Disney
-
4 hours ago, The Stingray said:
This makes T3 and Salvation look like masterpieces.
Why is that? Is the dialogue bad? Too much CG? Action is not good enough?
Quick glance at your profile tells me you liked The Last Jedi so it can't be any of those things
-
2
-
3
-
-
5 minutes ago, ViewerAnon said:
Not a great trailer but better than the first. I wish they were selling Arnold more because he's really good in this.
Nah it's great
Here's another one:
-
7
-
-
well 10 times better than the first the one
-
4
-
-
trailer at midnight eastern
-
1
-
Terminator: Dark Fate | Nov 1 2019 | Estimated to lose 122.6M
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
that's such a double standard that is impossible for me to comprehend
"superhero movies can reboot as much as they want but for Terminator it's a crime or not interesting!"
it's such bs
Besides, Cameron created the damn thing, the only reason they were allowed to continue without him and mess up the thing is because he sold the rights (for 1$) when he made the first one. That's the deal he had to make if he wanted to direct it, he was a nobody at the time and had to make sacrifices. So I don't see a single issue in taking it back where he left it.