MovieChat Forums > Wint3rFir3 > Replies
Wint3rFir3's Replies
So many. Just too many lol.
I really love Hook, a movie I've copped a lot of flack for liking over the years. I also enjoy a lot of campy, costume-filled movies, like Van Helsing, Dungeons & Dragons, etc.
I do think that - and I guess I'm in the minority of people who is not mad at the internet. Directors and actors were already getting paid too much and those amounts were going to rise regardless, and that was before the internet happened. If not for the internet, the movie industry might already be dead. Honestly, without piracy, how much would you be willing to pay for DVDs and/or movie tickets?
A lot of people assume that these things would be cheaper if not for the internet, but I've come to reconsider this. I think, given that actors, writers, and directors are constantly campaigning for more money, they'd still be paid the millions and billions they get now, and so the cost of DVDs and movie tickets would be exactly the same, if not more, given that piracy would not force them to set competitive prices.
Also, good movies are still being made, so it's not as though it's impossible to make them - don't know where the internet factors in here.
I would say it has changed the way we do business and socialize, for better or worse, but it hasn't destroyed it. We haven't stopped doing business or socializing.
I agree to an extent, people are still willing to dump their money into seeing movies - but I think piracy and the sale of DVDs etc. - that whole landscape would look entirely different if people who paid to see the films when they came out actually enjoyed them. We all still go to see movies on that thread of hope that things will change - but when they don't, that's as far as the money goes. And I know it's a lot of money - but I can see in the not too distant future, when ticket prices skyrocket and become unfeasible, then that will be the end of the industry.
F. an explanation as to how I currently have a son.
Kidding. A. If he had Saw in there, or something of the like, that's not really that hard to deal with. Everything else actually sounds like work.
Cool, he's finally recognised his latest films for what they are.
It was as good as I hoped it would be, if that answers your question. It was definitely more re-watchable than I thought. I could literally re-watch it now, no qualms, it's that good.
It had an equal share of pleasant surprises and drawbacks, but overall I enjoyed it.
How Hollywood treats its viewers like f*king idiots.
Here's the thinking:
Feminism is a thing - let's do a few shitty movies that have women in them, but don't represent feminism = money.
Superheroes are in - let's do every superhero we have the rights to do in anyway we please, with absolutely no respect for the source material and by casting a few himbos and one lone bimbo = money.
Let's make all young adult books into movies = money.
Everything gets a remake! You get a remake! And you! = money
Oh, no, they've noticed we rarely diversify our actors - quick, chuck an Asian actor in there, or Idris Elba in here, or you know who would be good? That Viola Davis chick, put her in it for five seconds = money.
You get the gist - and I have nothing against films making money. It's the fact that we the viewers get treated like we will literally love and watch and invest in everything and anything that Hollywood says is good, because of all these stupid and obvious tactics to lure us in. We know you're ageist, racist, and sexist, Hollywood. Instead of pretending you're not, just change. Maybe then we'd actually pay for the movies you make.
Could you please elaborate?
This is definitely an interesting idea - I would love to see this not just in WW, but also other films, just to see how/if it works.
Agree with many of those already mentioned. To add:
Ming Na-Wen (StreetFighter)
Bridgette Wilson (Mortal Combat)
Talisa Soto (Mortal Combat)
Lucy Liu (Kill Bill)
Carrie-Anne Moss (The Matrix)
Lynda Carter (Wonder Woman – not a movie but still)
Qiu Yuen (Kung Fu Hustle)
James Marsden in Bella Mafia. Why was I even watching this at a young age?
People who I think are talentless hacks or just find punchable:
Zooey Deschanel
Ben Affleck
Vanessa Hudgens
Nicholas Cage
Meg Ryan
Ryan Gosling
Diane Lane & Keaton
Matthew McConaughey
Tom Arnold
Honorable mentions (people who annoy me some of the time):
Emma Roberts
Jonah Hill
Jennifer Morrison
Damn I agree on all counts.
Also:
Jason Bateman
Emma Roberts
Michael Fassbender
Kristen Bell
Adam Devine
Josh Gad is slowly getting there.
Ben Barnes
Dylan O’Brien
Katie McGrath
Margot Robbie
Nick Galitzine
Samantha Boscarino
As a person, fine. As an actress, forgettable.
I think casting can be a huge deal, but it really just depends on the actor. For example, you know Leonardo Di Caprio is good because he is good in everything he is in - no one is lucky enough to get only good roles.
But at the same time...I agree that studios pick favorites regardless of talent and then put them in everything - heck, often picking people who have little talent.
To add, I think sometimes good actors - especially when there are many in one film - can butcher well written films.
Lots of good actors have elevated shit movies and made them hits. Lots of crap actors have ruined good movies.
Thanks! Yeah, I guess it is a spin off. Will check it out.
I agree that Twilight is trash and always will. But I think the point being made about feminism is that Hardwicke is one of the few mainstream, modern examples of a female director. Sad, but still pretty true.
Very cool, glad I found this, thanks!
1. What's a masculine role? And how does it differ from a feminine role?
2. Depending on who you're talking to, people are talking about the lack of male nurses and male elementary teachers.
3. Happiness is subjective.
4. Women in the past also played the role of bread winner and housekeeper, so...?