Wednesday 4 Jan SW R1 4.237 | Sing 3.61 | Pass. 1.747 | LLL 1.437 | Moana 1.39 | WhyHim? 1.377 | Ass.Creed .966 | Fences .948 | FB .505

[Captain Craig]

28 minutes ago, La La Panda said:

 

It's also funny when people talk about 'liberal hollywood' like it's one entity.  When in reality, every film has a different cast and crew that determine the themes and tone of a movie.

It seems you've not seen a single Oscar telecast this century, at minimum. 

Staying recent, have you not seen the actors commercial trying to appeal to the Electoral College to not elect Trump. Whedon and his merry Marvel actors all but saying "Vote Hillary" in their thinly disguised "Just Vote" commercial.

Ideologically Hollywood is very, very, liberal and lock step with the Democrat party save a few, very few.

 

If you can't see that then it's on you.

[Xavier]

48 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

Its his opinion and hes entitled to it. No one has to agree with him, of course.

 

Kinda stating the obvious there, baumer. I think we treated him quite leniently, judging from what he said.

[filmlover]

38 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

Star Wars is about to become the first major franchise to feature gay jungle fever. Equality!

[robertman2]

36 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

 

Why single the Mouse out here? Sure, Disney bought Marvel and Star Wars properties, but Warner's bought DC comics, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter. 

 

Maybe Paramount should get credit for the  Transformers series, because that was a toy line that was past its commercial prime when they movietized it?

 

Universal developed the Jurassic Park franchise from a popular book.

 

I guess Dreamworks did develop Shrek from scratch.  

 

Then again, Disney did develop the Toy Story and Pirates of the Caribbean franchises so I'm not sure Disney is more guilty of "buying" big movie franchises than anyone else.  And they certainly aren't the only one with enough money to do so. Warner's, Universal, and Sony are right up there too. 

Shrek had a book well before the movie

[Captain Craig]

Poe and Finn, classic case of people seeing what they want to see. 

It's like some people(sjw) totally forget it's possible to just have a solid same sex friendship.

Get back to me when they kiss.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

39 minutes ago, baumer said:

Some movies don't resonate with people. You don't have to like a film just because it's about poverty or gay people or black people are Asians or women's rights or any other kind of hot topics. Some movies are just boring to some people. There's nothing wrong with that.

There's a difference between not caring for a movie and acting like anything that doesn't appeal to you simply shouldn't have a right to exist, and it's pretty easy to spot which attitude a person has.

[RandomCat]

8 minutes ago, Captain Craig said:

Poe and Finn, classic case of people seeing what they want to see. 

It's like some people(sjw) totally forget it's possible to just have a solid same sex friendship.

Get back to me when they kiss.

 

It's just pretty obvious Poe definitely has a thing for Finn. I mean like flashing neon sign obvious.

[Captain Craig]

No, not really. Only "obvious" if you want it to be something more than what it is. But, hey fan fiction the hell out of that shit if you want to. 

[FlashMaster659]

 

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

I mean, that lip bite is all the evidence I need.

[RandomCat]

2 minutes ago, Captain Craig said:

No, not really. Only "obvious" if you want it to be something more than what it is. But, hey fan fiction the hell out of that shit if you want to. 

 

Or that I see something different than you.  

Plus nothing wrong with my thinking that, not like I'm going to be upset or care if it doesn't turn out that way. It's all in good fun after all.

[filmlover]

3 minutes ago, Jayhawk said:

I mean, that lip bite is all the evidence I need.

Seriously. How oblivious do you have to be? lol.

[fnitte]

No one in this thread has said that everyone needs to like Moonlight because it's about gay people. Not sure where people are getting that from.

[baumer]

41 minutes ago, BoxOfficeChica said:

There's a difference between not caring for a movie and acting like anything that doesn't appeal to you simply shouldn't have a right to exist, and it's pretty easy to spot which attitude a person has.

 

No its not. Why do you care if he doesnt care for it? Is it some personal affront to you?

[SteveJaros]

43 minutes ago, robertman2 said:

Shrek had a book well before the movie

 

OK, so scratch my "from scratch" comment.  But beyond that, was it a big deal as a book? Not a rhetorical question, I just don't know.

 

If the Shrek book was a big hit, like Crichton's Jurassic Park or the enduring popularity of the Lord of the Rings books, then I would agree that Dreamworks "bought" rather than created a franchise. But IMO, if a book is relatively obscure, and a movie company turns it into a big movie franchise, then it's fair to say the movie company "created" the franchise, or at least deserves the lion's share of the credit for it. 

[elcaballero]

4 hours ago, FantasticBeasts said:

Thanks for the response! Just a question; but DH2 and GoF had more screens at the same point right? Wouldn't this be a problem?

They did, but both of them fell to around 1000 theaters in their 8th weeks. We'll see how FB compares this time next week. 

[robertman2]

2 minutes ago, SteveJaros said:

 

OK, so scratch my "from scratch" comment.  But beyond that, was it a big deal as a book? Not a rhetorical question, I just don't know.

 

If the Shrek book was a big hit, like Crichton's Jurassic Park or the enduring popularity of the Lord of the Rings books, then I would agree that Dreamworks "bought" rather than created a franchise. But IMO, if a book is relatively obscure, and a movie company turns it into a big movie franchise, then it's fair to say the movie company "created" the franchise, or at least deserves the lion's share of the credit for it. 

It has a few awrds, but wasn't too popular

[Incarnadine]

Catching up on the last few pages and all that comes to mind is...

 

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, Incarnadine said:

Catching up on the last few pages and all that comes to mind is...

 

Remember when Heath Ledger was cast as The Joker and most reactions consisted of "eewwwwwww he's gonna be spending the whole movie trying to fuck Batman grooossss!1?" Good times.

[terrestrial]

41 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Remember when Heath Ledger was cast as The Joker and most reactions consisted of "eewwwwwww he's gonna be spending the whole movie trying to fuck Batman grooossss!1?" Good times.

I managed to completely miss that kind of crap posts.

Wow to what you all had to endure then