Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 Let's get back to Trek. YES. MORE TREK PLEASE.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 Let's get back to Trek. YES. MORE TREK PLEASE. Trek will be fun. Simon Pegg wrote it and he's no slouch. I like the director too, I think he'll be more amped to deliver a fun movie than JJ would be going back for a third swing at that universe.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 Trek will be fun. Simon Pegg wrote it and he's no slouch. I like the director too, I think he'll be more amped to deliver a fun movie than JJ would be going back for a third swing at that universe. They really did up the fun factor with the franchise, while keeping its spirit intact. I have high hopes for this one, loved the last two.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 They really did up the fun factor with the franchise, while keeping its spirit intact. I have high hopes for this one, loved the last two. From what I've heard from people who've seen it, you won't be disappointed if you enjoyed the other two. I loved the first installment (though I'm biased) but felt the second was fun but I didn't love it like I did the first one. I'm hoping I'll love the third.
CommonCents Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 Taking the nephew to see the Pets movie this weekend, he has been waiting for this once since the previews came out with the Minion movie. Hopefully it's good I skipped Dory for this one!
Saxum Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 From what I've heard from people who've seen it, you won't be disappointed if you enjoyed the other two. I loved the first installment (though I'm biased) but felt the second was fun but I didn't love it like I did the first one. I'm hoping I'll love the third. The problem with 2nd one was shoehorning the actor to fit the character Khan Noonien Singh; yes Ricardo Montalban was not South Asian Indian but he was reprising a role he did on Television. Benedict Timothy Carlton Cumberbatch is an English actor for who character was made un-Indian. Why would the Federation do that when they had a multicultural staff? It was done to fit the actor in which is wrong reason which rubbed Star Trek fans wrong (no I am not a Trekkie but watched original TV series year 1&2 on TV when first broadcasted).
John from Riverside Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 It's also clear that you were just waiting for someone to mention women. You're so focused on that one criticism that you can't see anything else. The very first promo photograph from the production showed an all-woman film and cast, excluding the men. They pushed the SJW agenda from the start and it turned people off. If you think that wasn't their intent, you're a fool. People want a good movie, not to a lecture. If you honestly don't believe Feig wasn't pushing an agenda, why would he reverse the genders of the cast? Why not just change one character? (battlestar) After several instances of backlash from audiences, you don't think he knew what would happen? Making it ALL women proves their intent. If the point was to make money, (or entertain)why did he insist on the change despite the criticism from fans the very second the rumor was leaked? He even threatened to quit unless he was allowed to do it his way. He's stated several times how proud he was of his decision. Then when the trailers were released, he insults his audience and dismisses all criticism as sexist. (sound familiar?) That's not how you promote a film, unless the purpose is to bring attention to his "cause." They took an iconic movie, with a predominantly male-audience and decided to market it to a small demographic of women. Do you think that's how to make money? What do you think would happen if they had turned "fifty shades of Grey" into a story about two gay guys? Women would riot, and you'd still insist it wasn't pushing an LGBTQRS agenda. You're so far up Hollywood's @#&% you can't see straight. I am trying to figure out why you would even question Deranged in his area of expertise..... I mean....come on...
DC Tom Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 I am trying to figure out why you would even question Deranged in his area of expertise..... I mean....come on... 1) Questioning experts is how you learn. 2) "Expert" doesn't mean "infallible." 3) I know Deranged. He's aptly named.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 6, 2016 Posted July 6, 2016 1) Questioning experts is how you learn. 2) "Expert" doesn't mean "infallible." 3) I know Deranged. He's aptly named. Fair.
Mark Vader Posted July 6, 2016 Author Posted July 6, 2016 There it is. I dig McCarthy and think Wiig is outstanding. Jones is a great comic, not sure of her acting chops though and I don't know much about the SNL cast member who rounds out the cast. Hemsworth is also funny in spurts. The movie might suck, but the hatred being thrown around because it's ladies in the lead is distasteful and unfair to the project in my opinion. I personally wouldn't have rebooted it, but DA is behind it, so it can't be that far off. I don't have a problem with casting women to be the Ghostbusters, I'm just not excited by these women. Wiig is fine, but this does not look like the vehicle for her. McCarthy is incredibly overrated. She does the same thing over and over again. The other two look uninteresting. I also find Paul Feig's humor to be uninspiring and not all that clever. Like I said, he is no Harold Ramis.
Mark Vader Posted July 7, 2016 Author Posted July 7, 2016 Well this one got ugly fast Just wait until these movies are released.
dpberr Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 Bourne looks *bouring*. I've seen all of the others but they have run out of gas. That franchise needs something else to do but battle neatly named government projects and distinguished actors looking grouchy in nice tailored suits in an office in NYC. I won't see Ghostbusters because it looks like an almost frame for frame reshoot of the classic. Old wine, new bottle.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 I don't have a problem with casting women to be the Ghostbusters, I'm just not excited by these women. Wiig is fine, but this does not look like the vehicle for her. McCarthy is incredibly overrated. She does the same thing over and over again. The other two look uninteresting. I also find Paul Feig's humor to be uninspiring and not all that clever. Like I said, he is no Harold Ramis. I get that. Your earlier points were all valid, no problem with them at all -- and they might all turn out to be spot on.
shrader Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 I'm not going to rant about that movie. I'm just not interested in it and won't see it. I'm sure I'll each it someday when it is on free tv, but that's it. Star Trek will probably be the only one I see this month. I'm kind of curious to see how much of a role Chekov has, because I can't really remember a single scene with hm n the last one. I wonder if they just leave out the character in the future instead of recasting
Wayne Cubed Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 I have no interest in seeing or watching Guostbusters. For me, it's because it's a reboot. The original is such a classic comedy that this version will now always be compared to it. And I don't think the cast is all that spectacular. Wiig is alright but McCarthy is way too over the top. I feel like this is going for the easy laugh. The original was well written by Ramis/Ackroyd and clever.
Beef Jerky Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 So in other movie news Robert Downey JR doesn't want to be Iron Man anymore and now they are going to get some little black girl to be the new Iron Man... I guess this franchise is now over. They need to look at what is about to happen with Ghostbusters before they make that mistake.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 I have no interest in seeing or watching Guostbusters. For me, it's because it's a reboot. The original is such a classic comedy that this version will now always be compared to it. And I don't think the cast is all that spectacular. Wiig is alright but McCarthy is way too over the top. I feel like this is going for the easy laugh. The original was well written by Ramis/Ackroyd and clever. I was surprised and am bummed they decided to go with a reboot, especially considering how badly the marketing team bungled the first trailer which started with "30 years ago" -- just sloppy. From what I heard about the Channing Tatum / Seth Rogan version, which Reitman was going to direct at one point even though he's now producing this one, was that they were going to do a more traditional sequel based. That might have spooked Feig and Dippold into deciding to just reboot their version in an attempt to differentiate from them.
Saxum Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 So in other movie news Robert Downey JR doesn't want to be Iron Man anymore and now they are going to get some little black girl to be the new Iron Man... I guess this franchise is now over. They need to look at what is about to happen with Ghostbusters before they make that mistake. There are doing that a lot in Marvel comics - they have alternate Thor (Jane Foster), Hulk (Asian kid), Spiderman (black kid), Hawkeye (white girl), Iron Man (black girl), Giantman (young Hispanic man), Captain America (multiple), etc. It appears that Ronney Rule applies to Superheros.
Recommended Posts