Booster4324 Posted November 17, 2010 Posted November 17, 2010 (edited) Looks great. Opening scene may be NSFW for some places (shows a couple cuddling in bed). Link Edited November 17, 2010 by Booster4324
Chef Jim Posted November 17, 2010 Posted November 17, 2010 Looks great. Opening scene may be NSFW for some places (shows a couple cuddling in bed). Link How far in to the trailer does it show a car flying through the air and blowing up?
Booster4324 Posted November 17, 2010 Author Posted November 17, 2010 How far in to the trailer does it show a car flying through the air and blowing up? Got a real nice helicopter crash towards the end.
Chef Jim Posted November 17, 2010 Posted November 17, 2010 Got a real nice helicopter crash towards the end. Your typical movie these days. Lots of flash, crash, explosions and computer generated crap and no plot or character development.
boyst Posted November 18, 2010 Posted November 18, 2010 Stern was staying it looked really good. He has been right on with all of the super hero movies.
Mark Vader Posted November 18, 2010 Posted November 18, 2010 Your typical movie these days. Lots of flash, crash, explosions and computer generated crap and no plot or character development. C'mon Chef, it's a superhero/comic book movie. It's supposed to look like that. As for the trailer itself, I can only say I am slightly interested. Next summer is going to be gigantic. I can't even imagine which movie will be the biggest grosser.
Chef Jim Posted November 18, 2010 Posted November 18, 2010 C'mon Chef, it's a superhero/comic book movie. It's supposed to look like that. Then explain to me why EVERY !@#$ing movie looks like that.
CosmicBills Posted November 18, 2010 Posted November 18, 2010 Then explain to me why EVERY !@#$ing movie looks like that. Because if you don't, you end up with movies like this: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/weinstein/bluevalentine/ Brilliant films that get slapped with an outrageously unfair NC17 rating assuring that no one will go see them.
shrader Posted November 18, 2010 Posted November 18, 2010 C'mon Chef, it's a superhero/comic book movie. It's supposed to look like that. As for the trailer itself, I can only say I am slightly interested. Next summer is going to be gigantic. I can't even imagine which movie will be the biggest grosser. I was wondering how deeply they'd jump into the alien stuff (kind of hard not to). Looks like they go all out.
UConn James Posted November 18, 2010 Posted November 18, 2010 (edited) Because if you don't, you end up with movies like this: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/weinstein/bluevalentine/ Brilliant films that get slapped with an outrageously unfair NC17 rating assuring that no one will go see them. Trailers usually kill any desire I may have had to see a movie. That one actually piqued my interest. ---- On topic, I was always a DC Comics type as a kid; never got into Marvel so these recent superhero movies have never lured me in. I collected The Flash into my teens, so it's awesome to hear that JJ Abrams is/was connected with an adaptation. Edited November 18, 2010 by UConn James
Chef Jim Posted November 18, 2010 Posted November 18, 2010 Because if you don't, you end up with movies like this: http://trailers.appl.../bluevalentine/ Brilliant films that get slapped with an outrageously unfair NC17 rating assuring that no one will go see them. So you're saying that if they don't blow **** up in movies we end up with brilliant movies that no one will see? The dumbing down is almost complete.
CosmicBills Posted November 18, 2010 Posted November 18, 2010 So you're saying that if they don't blow **** up in movies we end up with brilliant movies that no one will see? The dumbing down is almost complete. Well, I was being sarcastic ... but yes.
Buftex Posted November 18, 2010 Posted November 18, 2010 (edited) Stern was staying it looked really good. He has been right on with all of the super hero movies. I have to say, the super hero flicks, even those that are supposed to be "really good", leave me bored..."Dark Knight", IMO, was the only one that I mildly enjoyed (thought it was about a half an hour too long, so they could squeeze all the cliche's in)...as Chef implied, they are all pretty much the same...though some are awful, while others are just dull. Edited November 18, 2010 by Buftex
outsidethebox Posted November 19, 2010 Posted November 19, 2010 What a bunch of old farts we have here. I bet you yell at the kids to stay off your lawn. Damn plots are overrated anyway.
Mark Vader Posted November 19, 2010 Posted November 19, 2010 So you're saying that if they don't blow **** up in movies we end up with brilliant movies that no one will see? The dumbing down is almost complete. Ok Chef, I have to ask you this. What was the last movie you saw that you actually enjoyed?
Mark Vader Posted November 19, 2010 Posted November 19, 2010 Because if you don't, you end up with movies like this: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/weinstein/bluevalentine/ Brilliant films that get slapped with an outrageously unfair NC17 rating assuring that no one will go see them. Even if Blue Valentine did'nt have the NC17 rating, it would'nt make much of a difference. Blue Valentine may be a festival darling and might get some Oscar attention, but even if it was PG13, it's still going to make small money.
The Dean Posted November 19, 2010 Posted November 19, 2010 Even if Blue Valentine did'nt have the NC17 rating, it would'nt make much of a difference. Blue Valentine may be a festival darling and might get some Oscar attention, but even if it was PG13, it's still going to make small money. At some point in this movie, do gay cowboys eat pudding?
Chef Jim Posted November 19, 2010 Posted November 19, 2010 Ok Chef, I have to ask you this. What was the last movie you saw that you actually enjoyed? In general or in the theater? Any movie or a recent release?
CosmicBills Posted November 19, 2010 Posted November 19, 2010 Even if Blue Valentine did'nt have the NC17 rating, it would'nt make much of a difference. Blue Valentine may be a festival darling and might get some Oscar attention, but even if it was PG13, it's still going to make small money. I admit I kind of hijacked Chef's rant, but how much money it makes isn't the point. Chef was saying that every trailer now is loaded with explosions and huge SFX because the movies themselves have become nothing more than SFX vehicles designed to stimulate ADHD tweens and teens and the "good" films of yesteryear are not being made anymore (paraphrasing of course, Chef). Of course I don't agree with that statement in its entirety, there are plenty of good, even great, films made every year. Some that are even aimed at an adult audience who doesn't want to watch CGI heads exploding or two hours. Blue Valentine is one of those movies. Moving, adult, compelling and contains two of the best performances you'll see this year. Yet the ratings board slapped it with an NC17 because of one particular sex scene which, in my (jaded) opinion is quite mild. Harvey Weinstein pointed out that this is the same governing body that gave Piranha 3D an R rating even though they show a fish eating and coughing UP a dude's penis. The fact is that the only rating that really carries any weight anymore is the NC17 -- because exhibitors won't buy films that carry that rating, meaning those films that get slapped with it unjustly (like Blue Valentine) have no shot of ever reaching a wider audience. And that to me is a crime. The amount of money it makes isn't as important as having the opportunity for as many people to see it as possible.
Recommended Posts