MovieChat Forums > Primrose > Replies
Primrose's Replies
so sick of people who can't handle other point of views and have to insult them.
AGREE! Saying Neve unattractve just because these people don't doesn't mean she isn't! Such entitlement these guys have! I found the other girl non attractive but i thought may be others wud find her attractive.
She was made to look bad! She is hot, charming and beautiful for my eyes. Not for some people's eyes who speak here.
Iam a Neve Campbell fan and i strongly disagree with anyone who finds her unattractive! Different taste for diff. people. Who are you to decide the other one is best and Neve is worst? Don't you have minimum ethics that her fans feel insulted on your own views made by your lens? I for myself didn't find what is there in the other girl! Neve is the best and special.
this movie is much better in atmosphere and acting. The girl acted well. Ofcourse i cant expect baby child to act well but he looked cute and naughty like someone said here not scary at all! Babies may scare some, but only some babies and this one definitely didn't.
I too thought about that. Onething Warner stereotyped her as dumb blonde and not looked her intelligence. He is not right for her. He cares only for himself! He just want the smartest girl. It is all about him. Another, she has now developed a bond with Emmett who really believed in her. On the other hand Vivian appreciated her being trustful. You do become friends with the enemies. It is common and past things are good memories. What Vivian did isn't as bad as Warner.
The movie only gradually becomes much better with every passing half an hour. I assure you. Iam not impressed when i first put it till an half an hour like you and even for an hour it is just ok, but as you go more and as the movie ends you are left with a sweet beautiful feeling just like after You've got a mail. you finish along with a new found love for romedies. Never write on a movie without finishing it!
Yes it is just you. Iam a girl and i found her gorgeous.
She is very, very intelligent actress.
Diff. tastes for diff. people. It didn't look good to u but it is very well from my lens. Gothic genre is not for everyone.
She is destined to die bcos she is bound to see her friend getting stabbed and killer shud kill her this time to not have her as proof of his first murder.
Are you serious? Every case of theirs is exposed to be fraud and made up by the families may be except this one and even here if the incident is true, the woman these two claimed as the culrpit is an innocent victim of theirs. Nor they are the only ones who did exorcism there are 8 other people with them and it is more of their success. They are just media management. Even in Amytiville horror, the family and lawyers accepted that it is a scam and made up but these two claimed there is paranormal activity which automatically exposes them as frauds. Are you living under the rock? Go through them.
https://www.ranker.com/list/ed-lorraine-facts/christopher-shultz?&source=pshare
https://www.cracked.com/article_21450_5-successful-people-who-everyone-forgets-are-exposed-frauds.html
Captain Marvel didn't appear in comics for more than a decade before Marvel Comics trademarked the name in 1967.
Due to Marvel's trademark, they couldn't publish a comic under his name and called it Shazam instead.
Following a trial in which DC Comics sued Fawcett Comics for breach of copyright, claiming Fawcett's Captain Marvel was too similar to Superman, the latter stopped publishing Captain Marvel in 1953.[2] In the late 1960s Marvel gained the trademark "Captain Marvel" with its first series.
In order to retain its trademark, Marvel has published a Captain Marvel title at least once every few years since, leading to a number of ongoing series, limited series, and one-shots featuring a range of characters using the Captain Marvel alias.[3]
In 1987, DC Comics relaunched Captain Marvel in a miniseries, Shazam!: The New Beginning, and purchased the full rights to all of the Fawcett superhero characters by 1991.[1] Captain Marvel has not proven to be a modern-day success for DC to the degree it had been for Fawcett, due in part to DC not being able to properly promote the character under the "Captain Marvel" name, which is a Marvel Comics trademark. As a result, when DC Comics rebooted its entire comic line under the New 52 initiative in 2011, Captain Marvel was renamed "Shazam" and was reintroduced to comics the following year under that name.[8]
It ultimately did bad to Fawcett, DC and Captain Marvel himself.
Captain Marvel didn't appear in comics for more than a decade before Marvel Comics trademarked the name in 1967.
Due to Marvel's trademark, they couldn't publish a comic under his name and called it Shazam instead.
Following a trial in which DC Comics sued Fawcett Comics for breach of copyright, claiming Fawcett's Captain Marvel was too similar to Superman, the latter stopped publishing Captain Marvel in 1953.[2] In the late 1960s Marvel gained the trademark "Captain Marvel" with its first series.
In order to retain its trademark, Marvel has published a Captain Marvel title at least once every few years since, leading to a number of ongoing series, limited series, and one-shots featuring a range of characters using the Captain Marvel alias.[3]
It is Fawcett's stupidity too. They shouldnt have backed out as there was a revival in 1960s for superheroes.
''Judge Hand did not find that the character of Captain Marvel itself was an infringement, but rather that specific stories or super feats could be infringements, and this would have to be determined in a retrial. He therefore sent the matter back to the lower court.
Instead of trying to appeal the Second Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court or going through the damage assessment on how much of an infringement Captain Marvel was in district court, Fawcett decided to settle with National out of court.[4] Superhero comics sales had decreased dramatically during the early 1950s, and Fawcett decided that it was not worthwhile to continue fighting National.[4][7] National agreed to settle with Fawcett out of court, and Fawcett paid National $400,000 in damages and agreed to cease publication of all Captain Marvel-related comics.[5]''
But DC got it's karma!
''Captain Marvel remained out of print for the rest of the 1950s and the entirety of the 1960s, a period during which superhero comics regained their popularity. In 1967 Marvel Comics trademarked a character of the same name for use in Marvel Super-Heroes #12, and a follow-up self-titled series, which created some difficulties when DC licensed the rights to all of Fawcett's superheroes in 1972, and revived Captain Marvel in a periodical entitled Shazam!. They also obtained reprint rights to the original Fawcett comic books, and began running older stories in their various reprint titles as well as Shazam! itself. However, the license agreement required a per-use fee for every appearance by a Fawcett character, which limited DC's willingness to use the characters, and as a result most of them appeared very rarely once the Shazam! series ended in 1978.''
The irony.
''National's argument was that Captain Marvel's main powers and characteristics (super-strength, super-speed, invulnerability, a skin-tight costume with a cape, and a news reporter alter ego) were derived directly from those of Superman.[4] Fawcett's counterargument was that although the two characters were indeed similar, the similarity was not infringing.[5]Fawcett countered in two ways: by providing examples of Captain Marvel performing those feats at even earlier points of publication, or by providing examples of other heroic comics characters such as Popeye or Tarzan performing those feats in earlier published comic strips.[5] ''
''While its lawsuit against Fawcett was still pending, a few of the elements unique to the Captain Marvel strip found their way into Superman comics, including making Superman fly, Superman's arch-villain Lex Luthor a bald "mad scientist" like Captain Marvel's Dr. Sivana, and introducing the adventures of Superman as a teenager under the title Superboy, after Captain Marvel's teenaged sidekick Captain Marvel, Jr. proved to be popular.''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Comics_Publications,_Inc._v._Fawcett_Publications,_Inc.
YES. And they gained nothing from it. It's Fawcett's prosperity and they only managed to kill the company and the character. F*** DC! They did to wonder woman too. Instead of facing their competitions like a tiger, they became cunning like fox.
Nope. She can easily say it is an accident and she lost the girl to it.
It is just conspiracy bcos Captain Marvel even surpassed Superman in sales in 1940s, so they claimed it is rip off of their Superman and conquered it. It just shows their clever mind and black heart. They said it ripped off superman doesn't mean they believed it. They know they are different. People are not good. Especially those from business and politics. This is dog eat dog world.
While your idea is great and i appreciate it, people are not robots, they act on their experiences and impulses. We cant say for sure that the killer would come from the same place even if she is the same way. Moreover this is a horror comedy. It is supposed to entertain you like a romcom. I don't even consider this horror but a spoof like scary movie except here it is very subtle and masks itself as serious horror for so long until it reveals slowly.