MovieChat Forums > sONOMArEturns > Replies
sONOMArEturns's Replies
I'm 99.9% certain the pilot wasn't picked up because SyFy had already tried a Tremors TV series back in 2003 that was extremely expensive for the station (at the time) and less-than-hoped-for ratings resulted in the loss of a shit ton of dollars (which was also why the show was cancelled halfway into its first season). After one show had been a big financial flop the first time, why would they take a gamble and potentially lose more money again? It'd be like making a sequel to a film that bombed at the box office.
Of course, there's also the possibility that the show was just THAT bad, or that the show would just be too expensive. Remember, SyFy likes their shit cheap.
"The films are better than ever" - Not sure how many people think the new films are better than the original trilogy, I've never heard anyone say that. I'm imagining that is a very small minority of people.
"loved by critics and audiences alike" - Nope. Definitely not. The new films are certainly getting praise from SOME people, but the haters definitely have a massive presence.
"Who in their right mind would want the hack responsible for those three prequels to come back?" - You also seem to forget that that same 'hack' also created the original films to begin with. Nobody is asking Lucas to write/direct the new films, but his involvement would certainly be appreciated, since, *ahem* he fucking created the franchise to begin with.
"Not to mention the fact that it has recently come to light that even the original Star Wars was a mess before Paul Hirsch saved it in the editing room." - As someone who has worked on films (studio films even), I can confidently say that 99.9% of films are a mess during the early editing phases. Your claim really means nothing. Sally Menke has stated that the first cut of Pulp Fiction was a mess before the two came together and made a tighter film, and thousands of other people could say the same thing about their films. That's why films have multiple drafts, just like writing.
"The farther Lucas stays away from the Star Wars films, the better it will be for the fans." - If that were the case, fans wouldn't be starting threads like this.
You come off as someone who was particularly offended by the prequels, or just someone who hates Lucas in general. The prequels aren't good movies (Episode 3 is great, though), it's shitty to act like these new films are flawless masterpieces that top even Episodes 4-6.
This page reeks of musty ballsack and week-old chicken tendies.
Great writing, acting, and directing all certainly helped...
Just because YOU don't understand how precisely written and directed this film is, that automatically means everyone who liked it is just trying not to look racist? Just because YOU don't see how excellent the all-around casting and performances are, that automatically means everyone who liked it is trying to be diverse? Just because YOU are in the minority means the majority must all be wrong?
If you don't like the movie, just say you don't like it. Don't make it seem like all the fans are SJW blue-lipstick libtards who only liked the film because it had black people in it. I could care less who the fuck is in it. As long as the film is good (and this film most certainly was), then I'll like it, and if you don't think it's good, then that's that.
...or maybe the film was actually very well written and directed, and also happened to revolve around black people? Perhaps that could be it?
The ending was perfect. After all the horrifying shit Christ went thru, it was so fucking nice to finally see him get a break and escape alive. When the cop car was revealed to be the TSA car instead, the entire audience roared in applause.
Armitage's grandfather was the most extraordinary track runner in the world who worked his ass off for years to be the best, but he was absolutely devastated by a black man in the Olympics, who they saw as a man who won simply because of his genetics. It's all rooted from there.
Both are great, but on two different levels. Get Out was alot more clever in its writing and directing; many may not see it, but there's a lot more to the film than the social commentary that allowed it to sweep up in the Oscar season. Get Out is also far more original and unique, whereas A Quiet Place is alot more atypical with one gimmick that makes it somewhat stand out (being silent). Study the two films side-by-side on an analytical level and you'll see how much more tight, precise, and well devised practically every single aspect of Get Out is over A Quiet Place.
That was my take too. Same thing happened to the girl who turned into the plant, her final words were her embracing what the Shimmer was doing to her DNA.
The script for the movie says they actually tried using boats first, but they too wouldn't come back, and that one in particular was attacked by a whale-sized dolphin that killed the entire boat in one fatal move. Not sure why this was excluded from the film, but it would've explained why they didn't use the boat in the final film.
Just watching this an hour ago, JC is definitely inspired a lot by Duel.
This film has always very obviously been a comedy first before being a horror film. It's always come off as a live action episode of South Park to me: clearly intended to be funny and satirical, but done seriously with a sick, dark sense of humor.
My favorite child death in a horror film is the kid getting run over by a steamroller in Maximum Overdrive.
Wow, I actually didn't know that. That's very impressive.
I'm glad at least someone found something out of this mediocre remake, but all of the elements you listed above were featured in the original. I fail to understand how ANYONE could find the "scope" of this film to be richer and broader than the original. Belle being an outcast was handled infinitely better in the 1991 film, instead it being a cheesy high school play version with melodramatic directing and writing in the 2017 version. And I'm not sure how characters who hated each other in the last scene suddenly loving each other is smarter and more believable than a gradual growth in character development over a realistic period of time, as seen in the original.
Judging by your vocabulary and your responses to other people, I'm guessing you're a very angry person. Writing and directing are two of the most important elements of a film, and your film does poorly on both elements, then your film will suffer. If you find my complaints on poor writing and directing to be shallow and superficial, then you simply cannot critique film.
If they were trying to secretly put pro-Hillary imagery in our heads, they definitely failed. Not because she lost the race, but because the president in this movie is portrayed as a thick-headed, loud mouthed, egotistical, "nuke them first, nuke them again, then ask questions" president, which are not good qualities to have. She doesn't even survive to the end of the film. I figured if they wanted to do pro-Hillary propaganda, then she would've been the smart and likable savior who comes up with all the bright ideas and at least lives to the end.
I agree. Mixed-race relationships were pretty taboo in the plague era and for pretty much any era until the last 30 years, so if just one would be weird enough, to see like 4 or 5 mixed-race couples in this film set in the 14th century is very strange. Also, a black person owned the library, and a separate black person ran the tavern/bar. For a black person to run a high profile building in this time period is also highly unlikely, and quite distracting.
I don't have any sort of issue with hiring a diverse cast, but it felt like Disney went out of their way to hire black people for the sake of hiring black people, as if to say "no, we need more black people to show how diverse and universal we are!" Why not write roles intended for black people? The same goes for the recent Magnificent Seven remake, where the entire cast is filled with Asians, Mexicans, native Americans, being led by a black cowboy, in a very racist era of American history, and none of the townsfolk bat an eye. It was okay for Django in Django Unchained to be black because of his skin color and the oppression he rises up against was the entire point of the film.
I can suspend my belief enough to buy magic and shapeshifting in this movie, but then the film states several real things that actually happened in history, such as the War Of France and the Black Plague. In fact, the film could actually be pinpointed to an exact year: 1374. That completely sucks out any magic or wonder the original film had. The animated version was timeless and genuinely felt magical, this one does not. I think the idea of the diverse cast would've worked better had the film felt more like a magical fantasy and not something grounded in reality.
Robbie Benson's Beast is unforgettable. I don't even remember Dan Stevens's Beast.
Did you honestly think a massive-scale blockbuster with a huge budget would have an all-Japanese cast, mostly unknown to world audiences? Nobody in the Western hemisphere and most of the Eastern hemisphere would give a flying fuck about the film had it not recognizable actors, white or not. As shitty as it is, there simply aren't many Japanese actors with worldwide billing power like Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt, or in this case Scarlett Johanson. It's our faults, really.