|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » 2009 Upcoming Movie Thread |
| 151-199 of 199 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | Page 4 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 08-28-09 04:41pm - 5501 days | #152 | |
|
GCode (0)
Active User  Posts: 386 Registered: Feb 23, '09 Location: USA |
Honestly, currently being single I rarely go to the movies. Whenever I seem to get a girlfriend, it becomes way more apparent that I go. However, I do have netflix and have 4 out at a time, so I basically can watch all these movies eventually or older ones and can even watch sometimes up to 8 a week if needed. So, I am watching them just not at the theater right now :( To go even further, while I find the theater nice, nowadays with a huge screen lcd and a decent home theater sound system, I find it nicer to relax on the couch and watch a movie (and just as quality). You can pause and rewind :) Sexted From My iPad | |
|
||
| 08-28-09 04:50pm - 5501 days | #153 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
I usually see 3 or 4 movies in theatres a month with my GF. However, we usually go to the cheap theatres (showing stuff just about to be released on video), go to matinees or use our stash of discount coupons we got out of an entertainment book. It's definitely cheaper that way but you still pay between $10 and $20 for two people. | |
|
||
| 08-28-09 05:47pm - 5501 days | #154 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
Or maybe they're just too busy browsing/downloading/sorting porn to bother posting in this thread - ya gotta have your priorities straight, after all! | |
|
||
| 08-29-09 10:02am - 5501 days | #155 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I think that the advent of DVD's and their significantly lower cost to VHS started a trend in moviegoers. There was a time when VHS were next to impossible to afford. That's why video stores were so popular. When DVD's came on the market you saw a drop in video store sales because poeple could now buy 3 dvd's for what it costed to buy one VHS. Add the lowering cost in large screen TV's and Home Cinema's. The other reason and I think it's the bigger problem is that movies simply suck. I'm not talking bad "B" movie sucking but complete waste of time. You know it's bad when a remake of a bad B movie is worse then the original. Then there's the idea that adding all green screen special effects is going to make a movie so incredible to watch. It actually does the opposite. A good example is if you compare the 1977 Star Wars to 2002's Attack of the Clone. The first required enormous amount of originality to create certain visuals because you had to design machines to make those effects. Because of the cost and lack of technology. The story was very important. That means rely mor on your actor to add drama rather than effects. All of the ships in the first 3 movies add a look of reality. They had scratches, pealed paint, dents that made them look real. For the most part all of the ships in the 3 most recent movies all look shiny and new. Who really wants to spend 10$ or more per person, 12$ for snacks then to have to suffer with someone talking to his/her neighbor or on a cellphone throught the movie for something that you probably won't rent in a couple of months? Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 08-29-09 04:22pm - 5500 days | #156 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I haven't seen a film in a theater since early 2007, and I am not planning on going anytime soon. I don't have much interest in recent releases and frankly there have been so few that made me think they were worth the time once I had watched them. I recently saw "Frost/Nixon" on DVD and enjoyed it, but it is far removed from the over-the-top releases, and it is anything but a date movie. I have to say it was nice to be able to watch in peace, not pay $10, and still pause, stop, or rewatch it if I wanted. What can a theater offer that a DVD cannot? Well, in a theater the majority of releases are still film projections, so they are technically higher picture quality, as well as offering better sound quality, but like my earlier point, I have not seen anything that was deserving of these benefits. I mean, the latest teen sex farces or goofball comedies are barely worth the film they are distributed on, at least in my narrow point of view. As for the 'experience' the perpetual cynic in me says it is overrated, as I still want to ultimately be able to enjoy and appreciate the film being shown -- regardless of how nice the seating is, or even how civil the audience remains -- something a 140 characters of Twitter babble cannot address. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 08-29-09 05:33pm - 5500 days | #157 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
What's the theater experience got? The smell of popcorn permeating the place - where you don't have to live with it once the movie is over - the reactions of other people in the audience, for better or worse - the size of the screen, the latest previews, a good sound system - hopefully cranked nice and loud without the neighbors complaining. The size of the screen is the key thing for me. If I want to see a movie on a big huge screen, I'm going to the movies to see it. | |
|
||
| 08-29-09 06:43pm - 5500 days | #158 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
The theater experience, in truth, is not what it used to be. And even in the old days, I think the theater experience was more a matter of fondly remembering what should have been, as much as what it really was. The great sound that you should have in a theater is offset by the talking of people in the audience, the sound of a baby crying, etc. I can't remember the last time the audience reaction to an enjoyable movie really made me enjoy the movie more. The home entertainment systems today can have great sound that compares to what the theaters offer. And the benefits of lower cost for home viewing, not having to bother with parking the car, greater casualness in the viewing experience, at your own time and pleasure, being able to rewind or rewatch the parts you want, etc. etc. etc. The price of the theater admission keeps rising, and I honestly wonder why people still continue to go in such large numbers. I paid $10.50 for a senior ticket to a matinee show (discounted from regular evening price). They charged an extra $2.50, I think, because they were showing the movie in their large-screen theater. The movie was Inglourious Basterds. I enjoyed the movie, the plot, the acting, the visuals, the fast action (when it happened, because there was a lot of dialog leading up to the action in each sequence), etc. But I was still wondering, at the end of the movie, if I couldn't have waited to see it on DVD. I did not get any special benefit from the audience, or from the speakers at the theater, or from the larger screen, which didn't seem that extra-large to me. When I think about it, for the price they are charging for a single movie, it's usually better to wait for it on DVD or cable or whatever. I like popcorn and soda while watching a movie, but to pay $8 for popcorn and a soda is crazy. I can do it at home for less than $2. Even when the movie is exceptional, I think watching the movie at home is better cost-wise, and experience-wise as well. So I'm going to be cutting back on my theater-going expenses. | |
|
||
| 08-29-09 08:19pm - 5500 days | #159 | |
|
james4096 (0)
Suspended Posts: 132 Registered: Mar 02, '09 |
I think the only thing I love as much as porn is movies. But I only watch movies at the theater in special cases. Usually when it's a movie I've been dying to see since I heard about it month and months earlier, movies I don't want to have to wait to see. In the past few years the Harry Potter films are the only movies I absolutely couldn't wait to see. Anything else I'll wait for it on DVD or even premium cable. I agree that the whole movie theater experience ain't what it used to be. Part of it has to do with the type of movies produced today and the current costs, but mostly times have just changed. | |
|
||
| 08-30-09 09:47am - 5500 days | #160 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
These are the same reasons why I still go see movies in a theater. My observation is that so few movies in the last couple of years have been worth the bother. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 08-30-09 05:17pm - 5499 days | #161 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
There are some theaters that try to cater to people who really want an experience -- and don't mind paying for it -- with stadium style theaters, comfortable seats, better sound, huge screens, but to me it is still overrated. The film should still be the draw, and sometimes big crowds for highly anticipated releases are part of the experience that some are looking for, though not me personally. Some of the more interesting films I have seen in the last few years have all been on DVD and would have a been a pain to find in a theater. Foreign films, especially those with nudity or sex, face the unending wrath of our puritanical interpretation of freedom of speech, so they see virtually no American theatrical release. Similarly, documentaries have pretty small releases, and because of their death of CGI and star power, they can be hard to find due to limited promotion. In a way both of these types of films are speaking a foreign language. In the case of foreign films, this is done literally and culturally. In documentaries, this is done by addressing a non-fictional subject seriously, with little fanfare or glitter, and if audiences are looking for an escape, they can be too depressing or deep to offer any. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 12:54am - 5495 days | #162 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
My last post on this thread stated I will be spending less money at the theater because the prices are too high compared to watching the same movie on DVD. I like to stand firm behind my principles, but a new movie, Gamer, with Gerard Butler, is out today. This might be a strong action movie, with some story to it. I really enjoyed 300 with Gerard Butler. I doubt Gamer will come anywhere close to 300 as entertainment. Did I mention that my strong principles (not wasting my money at the movie theater) will withstand anything except temptation? Has anyone seen this movie yet, or heard whether it's really exciting, just so-so, or what? One possible strike against the movie is that it was not released for reviews by movie critics, so apparently the studio thought the critical reception by critics would be negative. I certainly don't always agree with the critics in my personal enjoyment of a movie, but it's still a negative that the movie was not available to critics to review. I don't mind violence as long as it's good and entertaining. Inglourious Basterds was very entertaining. But G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra was just plain stupid and a bore and a waste of time and money. What's the verdict on Gamer? Better to see it in the movies, or wait for DVD? | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 05:21am - 5495 days | #163 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Expectations for Gamer, the sci-fi action picture starring Gerard Butler, are low. I just read an article that said the picture could open in the "single-digit millions", so that would be a low-grossing movie. If so, it could be here today, gone in 2 weeks from your local theater. Looks like I will wait for it on DVD. But if any PU members do go see it, I wouldn't mind reading your reaction to the movie. | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 07:15pm - 5494 days | #164 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Gamer doesn't look like it's going to have a long box office life. I just chekced Rotten Tomatoes score and unless they are way off this time then it's Game Over for Gamer. A 25% positive rating is really bad. Rotten Tomatoes is often right on the money when it comes to their rating and box office gross. On the plus side. I just saved another 12$. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 07:25pm - 5494 days | #165 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
If the a studio refuses to release it for critical review that is a red flag. It's a not too subtle way of saying that a movie is so shitty that it will have dismal reviews and letting critics see it in advance is a waste of time. The recent G.I. Joe film was not screened for critics either and I have yet to hear a genuinely positive review for it. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 09-04-09 08:15pm - 5494 days | #166 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I used to look at the Rotten Tomatoes site years ago, when it was mainly an overall score with links to critics reviews. But it's been a long while since I looked at the site. Now it seems hugely expanded with a large number of sections that are completely new: * Movies * DVD * Celebrities * News * Critics * Trailers & Pictures * Community (Beta) I guess I'm going to have to study the site at least a little, because it sure doesn't seem to be the same animal any more, and the scoring system and the icons they use seem more complex. What's the simplest (easiest) way to use the site to get a quick read on the value of a new (and old) movie? I'm looking at the Rotten Tomatoes FAQ, which I guess includes their explanation of how to use the site and how to understand a score, but there should be an easier way to look at the score of a movie and understand what it means. I mean, this FAQ just goes on and on with all kinds of miscellaneous details in it that I could care less about. They even throw in whether they are currently hiring people to work for the site, whether they are currently selling merchandise, and contact information on celebrities that might be available. Sheesh. I'm glad they've been such a success (based on the huge increase in the site size), and maybe I will look around to see if any of the different sections have any interesting material to glance through, but it sure makes the site less easy to use to get a quick read on the potential value of a movie. OK, I've got to study the FAQ to understand their scoring system, because it sure seems to be more complex than what it used to be (or maybe I just didn't understand that the scoring system was complex back in the good old days of 4-5 years ago. | |
|
||
| 09-05-09 10:43am - 5494 days | #167 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I never bothered to read their FAQ page and after reading your post I'm not going to bother. All I know is that they tend to be on the money more often than not. I guess it's alot like PU in that they have many different people reviewing movies so you don't just have professional reviewers but regular folks. I'm affraid quite a few critics are rather biased when it comes to movies. Some movies that were nominated for awards were so unwatchable that you know people voted for them based on what criics said about them. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-15-09 01:50am - 5484 days | #168 | |
|
james4096 (0)
Suspended Posts: 132 Registered: Mar 02, '09 |
Have you guys heard about this new movie about Charles Darwin? The name of the film is Creation and it stars real life married couple Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly as Charles and Emma Darwin. Well I don't think I'd pay 8 dollars to see it in a theater or anything, but I had never heard of it until yesterday when Rachel Maddow mentioned it on her show. It's already in theaters in most of Europe, but apparently they can not find a distributor in the United States. It's 2009 and a film about the family life of Charles Darwin is too controversial for the US!! I understand why film distributors are afraid to touch this film. Most Americans are not backward Christian hicks who think the earth was literally made in 6 days, however the few that are can really raise a stink. They're actually not in the majority, but they are good at boycotting, spreading misinformation through email, calling into radio shows and getting media attention by holding up misspelled protest signs.(SEE ALSO 9-12 movement) Looks like we'll have to wait for the DVD release. | |
|
||
| 09-15-09 06:28pm - 5483 days | #169 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Well, I am going to get on my soapbox for a minute (because I will be quickly knocked off) and say that in 2009 the United States is too dumb for a serious film about Charles Darwin. Okay, there was Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed last year...but it was so slanted it implied Darwin's theory led to the rise of the Nazis and their Holocaust (with Stein saying he wasn't comparing Darwin's theory to Nazism while he visited a concentration camp). No, most American's are not "backward Christian hicks who think the earth was literally made in 6 days," but like the 9-12 Project you mentioned, we are easily and grossly misguided and misinformed. I think after the way politics have been gone this summer, a film about Charles Darwin -- even one about his family life -- would be the straw that broke the camel's veritable fucking back. Hollywood could always release another perversely violent and anti-Semitic film about Jesus' last hours and hear nothing but kind words and adulation from the quasi-religious right, but if they ever did release something like this those same people would want it boycotted, banned, and burned. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 09-15-09 06:40pm - 5483 days | #170 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I'll bypass any name calling and say that maybe and I say maybe the reason why they can't find a distributor is that who gives a shit about the life of Charles Darwin. The fact that his theories on the origin of evolution may be a compelling story for a documentary is one thing but honestly do we really need to know about his personal life? The fact that they got real life husband and wife Paul Bethany and Jennifer Connelly to make this movie is interesting because I think that both of them are quite talented actors. I still have no interest in this movie. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-15-09 06:45pm - 5483 days | #171 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 20, 2023, 01:47pm | |
|
||
| 09-15-09 07:04pm - 5483 days | #172 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
You may be right but did you notice that Bruno did not stay in theaters very long. It was suppose to make truck loads of money but that did not happen. It's true that art house movies tend to have a harder time getting a distributor but one of the reasons isn't always because they are foreign as much as they are plain crap. I remember the critics and awards show saying that Lost in Translation was such a great film. Wow, I certainly would't have equalled that movie with the word great except if you added waste of time in the phrase. I think that 12$ for a art house movie that probably cost less than 5 million to make may be asking the public more than we are willing to pay. I'm not saying that it doesn't deserve to make money but if the producers think that this is such a great movie to see than drip you asking price at the theater. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-15-09 07:05pm - 5483 days | #173 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Pat362 and Wittyguy, you may have a point, but most of the problems of Creation's U.S. distribution seem to be from genuine fear of too much controversy, specifically religious controversy. I am not too interested in the film itself -- just thinking of the Victorian era almost makes me sick to my stomach -- but that's not a good reason for preventing release either. I am sure it will be found in limited (hard to find, no promotion) release in a few cinemas that actually dare to screen foreign films, but nowhere else until it gets a DVD release. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 09-15-09 07:16pm - 5483 days | #174 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I never really understood the fear that Religious groups had for science and in this case the evolution of man. I'm a practicing Catholic and I have no problem with Darwin's theories. I think the Bible is worth reading but not everything within it's pages should be taken literaly. That's all I say on the subject. I still think that a part of the problem is that I can't see an interest in the subject. I'm in Canada and as far as I know they don't have a distributor up hear at the moment. It's being premiered at the Toronto Film Festival as we speak so maybe we are jumping the gun on all the possible controversy. That's ll good I can add another movie that I've said money by not seeing. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-16-09 05:49am - 5483 days | #175 | |
|
mbaya (0)
Suspended  Posts: 891 Registered: Jul 07, '08 Location: new jersey |
I see James 4096 heard about this movie on Rachel Maddow's show. I think she is the most intelligent political commentator on TV. Her show is head and shoulders beyond the usual drivel we are subjected to. You can find her on the radio on Air America as well as on TV at MSNBC. Edited on Sep 16, 2009, 05:52am | |
|
||
| 09-16-09 06:09am - 5483 days | #176 | |
|
james4096 (0)
Suspended Posts: 132 Registered: Mar 02, '09 |
No doubt. I'm always telling people that Rachel is the most brilliant person on TV news. | |
|
||
| 09-16-09 08:24am - 5483 days | #177 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I have not read any articles specifically about the new Darwin movie. But I have read several articles that mentioned that many independent films are having a hard time finding distribution during the current economic downturn. Several of the independent distribution arms of major studios have closed. That makes independent distribution more difficult. Studios (and distributors) are currently supposed to be less willing to pay money for independent films because they see less chance of making money off of them, and the prestige factor of releasing an "important" or "worthwhile" film in the current economic downturn takes second place to not losing money on those films. Also, the subject matter of the film is not as commercial (a serious film about a scientist and his wife) as a raunchy comedy or a shoot-em-up. Where's the audience for this film? Who's willing to pay money to see it? The film might have two good lead actors, Paul Bethany and Jennifer Connelly, but that's not enough to make the film commercial. I don't know how important the religious aspect of this film is (theory of evolution versus theory of creation), but the major reason studios are not jumping on the film is probably financial: they don't think it will make a lot of money, and could lose money instead. I think my comments are just an extended explanation of Wittyguy's statement: "It's not the content, it's the fact that it's a serious and intelligent movie and that's what hollywood thinks America can't handle." My understanding of his comment is that America won't pay to see a serious and intelligent film unless there is a massive campaign to sell the film. And studios and distributors are not going to bet that kind of money. What is needed to sell this film (and to get it strong distribution) is a low-cost marketing campaign with a gimmick that catches the interest of the American public or the art house crowd. The internet has been used to sell films, the internet is a low-cost tool, but I don't know what kind of gimmick or campaign could be used successfully for Darwin's film. Unless the producers of this film were complete dreamers, they probably knew, going into production, that this film would be a hard sell in a commercial market. TV distribution would have been much easier (but with less prestige and smaller financial payoff). In other words, the producers and cast and crew were hoping to make a "good, serious film" for the sake of "art", and not with the expectation of making much if any money. That's my guess, anyway. | |
|
||
| 09-16-09 11:11am - 5483 days | #178 | |
|
james4096 (0)
Suspended Posts: 132 Registered: Mar 02, '09 |
Yeah you guys might be right. This isn't the type of movie that is highly profitable these days. It also must not be that stellar because if the distributors thought they had a film with possible oscar nods then somebody would snatch it up. I do think the subject matter is slightly controversial though here in the States and that's a factor. The message board for this movie on IMDB is burning up. I think no matter what once a movie is already shot, it's worth it to give it at least a limited release and promotion. Otherwise it will be even tougher to get people to buy/rent the DVD. But then again from what I hear film companies are not against letting films lose money to write-off. | |
|
||
| 09-16-09 06:21pm - 5482 days | #179 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
These are the kind of movies that don't need to make hundreds of millions to be a success because they usually cost next to nothing. Most of the actors will do it for pocket change since it's a good way to add to their resume. The director and producer are usually doing the same thing as well. This is the kind of film that should go straigth to dvd. This way you guarantee that you won't spend more money on marketing then on the actual production. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-18-09 06:35am - 5481 days | #180 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Gamer (the action science fiction movie with Gerard Butler) is gone from my area already. The movie lasted 2 weeks in our area. The shelf life of a movie, unless it catches on to be a hit, is like a popsicle on a summer day: gone before you can blink, unless you're paying close attention. Oh well, I guess I can wait to see it on DVD-that will save me a few bucks. | |
|
||
| 09-18-09 06:27pm - 5480 days | #181 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Imagine how bad a movie like Gamer has to be when there is next to nothing coming out and almost no carry over from summer and you stiull can't stay active for more than 2 weeks. The reviews were all pretty bad on this one. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 09-19-09 10:12am - 5480 days | #183 | |
|
james4096 (0)
Suspended Posts: 132 Registered: Mar 02, '09 |
Gamer looked like it would bomb to me for some reason. It's a cool idea, but maybe it should have been done 5-10 years ago. They really missed the train. | |
|
||
| 10-02-09 07:25am - 5467 days | #184 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
The movie we've all been waiting for is coming to a neighborhood theater near you July 1, 2011. Transformers 3 will be directed by Michael Bay, the man who brought us such amazing blockbusters as Transformers 1 and 2. Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox are slated to return. The first two films have grossed more than $1.5 billion worldwide. The excitement is starting to build already. Everyone at PU will have to take extra care not to hit their climax before the opening day (premature ejaculation is kind of a letdown). I haven't seen Transformers 2 yet. Is that out on DVD already? Edit01: Transformers 2 will be released on October 20, 2009. I have to see Part 2 before I see Part 3. Edit02: On second thought, probably don't need to see Part 2 before watching Part 3, because the story-line on these movies is completely incidental, and what you're watching for is the crash-bang-boom fights and explosions. Even the eye-candy like Megan Fox is just an afterthought. Edited on Oct 02, 2009, 07:46am | |
|
||
| 10-05-09 07:43am - 5464 days | #185 | |
|
Mahmilton (0)
Active User Posts: 5 Registered: Oct 05, '09 Location: USA |
Hmm...Terminator Salvation is one of the good movies.But actually my expect ion was more. Okay...Transformer 2 is one of the other good movies . | |
|
||
| 10-07-09 05:05am - 5462 days | #186 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Would you pay to see Megan Fox (the Transformers chick) with hair on her chest? Michael Bay, the director of the Transformers movies, says the actress may suffer unfortunate side effects working under his direction. >>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<< http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/take5-10-05-09.html October 5, 2009 Michael Bay Orders Megan Fox to the Doctor Before 'Transformers 3' Director Michael Bay announced a third "Transformers" movie will be hitting theaters on July 1, 2011 -- and not 2012 as originally thought -- on his web site on Thursday. And he also took the opportunity to further his war of words with his star, Megan Fox, by telling her to consult with a doctor before getting on board. Fox originally drew Bay's ire while promoting this summer's "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," when she said that "working with Michael Bay is not about an acting experience." Bay responded, "She says some very ridiculous things because she's 23 years old and she still has a lot of growing to do." Most recently, Fox compared Bay to "Napoleon" and said she and costar Shia LaBeouf "almost die when we make a 'Transformers' movie... He has you do some really insane things that insurance would never let you do." In this latest blog post, Bay writes, "Megan Fox, welcome back. I promise no alien robots will harm you in any way during the production of this motion picture." He goes on to say, "Please consult your Physician when working under my direction because some side effects can occur, such as mild dizziness, intense nausea, suicidal tendencies, depression, minor chest hair growth, random internal hemorrhaging and inability to sleep. As some directors may be hazardous to your health, please consult your Doctor to determine if this is right for you." Awww snap! And your comeback Megan? | |
|
||
| 10-07-09 10:57am - 5462 days | #187 | |
|
GCode (0)
Active User Posts: 386 Registered: Feb 23, '09 Location: USA |
On a side note, this may be a great site for others who love to look at reviews. This site takes all reviews ever made by huge legit critics and averages the score to make one score that gives you a better clue as to what might be good. It does this for movies, dvds, music, and games. http://www.metacritic.com Check it out, Transformers 2 got some extremely unfavorable reviews and an average score that is really low. This site has helped me when buying dvd's, seeing new movies, and buying new games. Obviously, it is still other peoples' opinions and you can still have your own; it's still better to see the average of like 30+ reviewers and get a general consensus. Sexted From My iPad | |
|
||
| 12-06-09 12:09pm - 5402 days | #188 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
This is not a 2009 movie, but I am watching Slumdog Millionaire (2008) on DVD right now, and the movie is hilarious. Anyone who missed this movie (I know it won Oscars, but that is not much of a recommendation for me) should see it. The Amazon.com price for a new DVD of this is $7.99, eligible for free shipping. Or it's worth renting. A really funny movie, and very enjoyable. And the Indian (Indian continent, not U.S. indians) aspect gives the move an interesting flavor. | |
|
||
| 12-20-09 12:53pm - 5388 days | #189 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Actress Brittany Murphy dead at 32 December 20, 2009 | 12:26 pm MURPHY Actress Brittany Murphy died early today after going into cardiac arrest, law enforcement sources said. Los Angeles city firefighters responded to "a medical request" at Murphy's home in the 1800 block of Rising Glen Road in West Hollywood. Murphy, 32, was transported to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where she was pronounced dead. Murphy starred in films including "Clueless," "8 Mile" and "Don't Say a Word." ============================================================ She wasn't a porn actress, just a regular actress. But 32 seems a very young age to die. | |
|
||
| 12-20-09 06:55pm - 5387 days | #190 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
That is so sad and made even worse because this is another Hollywood young person dead because of excessive drug use. Her husband asked that there not be an autopsy but he was overuled. It was rumored that she had to have reconstructive surgery to her nose because of her cocaine habit. Take a look at some older and newer picture to see the difference. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 12-20-09 07:31pm - 5387 days | #191 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
You're not kidding. "Cardiac arrest" at 32 is not exactly a natural cause either. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 12-28-09 08:22am - 5380 days | #192 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I saw Avatar the other day and I truly enjoyed myself. I can't say that I looked at my watch once during the movie and that's saying a lot for a 2:46hrs movie. It's a CGI marvel to behold. I don't want to take anything away from James Cameron because I don't know how many other directors could have done this movie, but the fact still remains that it's mostly all CGI. How much directing do you do when a computer operator is the person doing the work? Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 12-28-09 12:31pm - 5380 days | #193 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Doesn't a similar argument apply to the director of what used to be called a cartoon, but is now an animated feature? Because of the tremendous amounts of money these cartoons can earn (Finding Nemo, $340 million U.S. box office alone, not counting foreign box office, DVD sales, etc.), these cartoon are big business and command serious respect. Is the director really talking to the cartoon characters and telling them what to do and say? I'm not sure what the director is doing in a cartoon. But supposedly, James Cameron was all over the place in the making of Avatar. I think the movie is regarded as his baby, and he was responsible for creating/making the movie, whatever that means. I guess we would have to take a couple of college courses in directing to understand the technical background of modern movie-making. I mean, in the olden days, a director told the actors what to do. But in a carton/animated feature, what is the specific responsibility of the director? | |
|
||
| 12-28-09 03:09pm - 5379 days | #194 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I believe they do what you already mentioned; tell the actors what to do. From what I have heard actors have to record their lines over and over in animated films (considerably more so than live ones) because the directors want the perfect emotions and the voices are all they can get from the cast. The directors probably have to really know the story and characters intimately in order to get the "right" readings from the actors. "Avatar" is closer to live films as the actors still had to move and act for the motion capture instead of just reading their lines. From all the promotional stuff out now about the film it sounds as if they really had to use their imaginations as they were capturing/filming in big empty studios with giant green screens and wearing motion capture suits. Cameron seems to be taking a lot of credit, or at least the promotion, of the film but he has mentioned that it took huge teams of animators and designers to actually make the film, hence the cost and time. I saw an interview of him where he was making what I thought was a good defense of the cost as he said the production of the film employed people instead of building stuff and blowing it up and he didn't feel guilty about doing that. As far as anyone else who could 'do' this my guess would be Michael Bay, though the number of cuts he would have done in a 166 minute film is something I don't even want to think about. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 12-28-09 05:41pm - 5379 days | #195 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Maybe somebody will come up with a new title to replace the term director whenever discussing any movies that involve large scale CGI. I have no problem with them using the term a Cameron in honor of James Cameron. I still think that this movie would never had been done without him. The logistic involve in making this movie must have been gigantic. I know the actors wear special suits and sensors at key points on their bodies that allow a computer to record body movement and facial expressions. This helps the CGI animator to overlay their computer generated character and also cuts the time of matching sound with lip movement. In any case I highly recommend that you see this on the big screen. I saw it in 3D but I don't think you will get less of the experience in a standard 2D theater. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 12-28-09 08:57pm - 5379 days | #196 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
Whether you call Cameron a "director" or "creator" or "art director" or whatever, Avatar was certainly his baby. He was in charge of the whole shebang. I'm tempted to see it, but I really don't like Cameron as a human being - lots of artists are arrogant as hell, but when I dislike someone as a person, I can't see going out of my way to see their work. I'll see it on cable soon enough. I really liked Invictus, the new Clint Eastwood movie - in fact, Eastwood is probably the most consistently worthwhile film-maker working over the last decade in my opinion. | |
|
||
| 12-28-09 11:01pm - 5379 days | #197 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I understand that a lot of artists are arrogant but if I chose not to see the work of someone I didn't like I wouldn't be able to see anything! I always try to separate the art from the artists and judge the work not the person. Not to defend Cameron too much, but he doesn't seem that arrogant and he at least hasn't been convicted of a crime and fled the country, and even if he had would it ruin his films? I doubt it. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 12-29-09 05:59pm - 5378 days | #198 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I think one of the worst things for fans of any media is to hear all about their favorite performer/director/singer and so on. How many of us can watch a Tom Cruise movie and not think of the bat-shit suff he's done or still does. How many people who used to listen to Bobby Brown or Chris Brown actually still do? How many of us think that Tiger Wood is an upstanding guy? I know I don't. I still think he is the greatest golfer that I'm likely to see but the 14 women he slept with will always be on my mind when I hear his name. How about Charlie Sheen? How many of us can watch Two and a Half Men and think how funny he is without thinking about what's happening in the news? The internet has killed all of our stars. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, but how many women had the hots for Liberace and Rock Hudson? How many would still have it if they knew then what we know now? Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 12-29-09 08:58pm - 5378 days | #199 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Saw "Avatar" in 3D--quite an experience! The previews (including one that happened to star Tom Cruise) looked terrible though, and CGI-fueled to boot; maybe all this post-production SFX mayhem is going way too far. No offense, pat362, but I never thought Tiger was an upstanding guy, he "played" golf for christ's sake! I don't even consider that much of a sport, much less one that's worth the hundreds of millions he was given as its rising (now falling?) star. Plus Charlie Sheen has done far worse; he accidentally shot his former girlfriend Kelly Preston (now married to John Travolta). Call me crazy, but I think an accidental gunshot wound is pretty serious. And as far as Liberace and Rock Hudson are concerned, I don't think anybody needed the Internet to see that they would never have the hots for any of the women who were hot for them. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 12-30-09 06:21pm - 5377 days | #200 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Let me rephrase my last statement and say that Tiger Wood was portrayed as an upstanding guy by the media. Whether many people were aware of his indescration and hid that fact is open for debate. If it had been one mistress than I might have believed that only a few people knew but when you have about 14 women coming forward then I'm less inclined to believe it. What is it about guys like that that attarcts women to them? Is it the money, fame or what? I had forgotten about the Kelly Preston shooting. Not too disagree with you but there was a time where at least Rock Hudson was considered the next Cary Grant. I've watched enough of his movies to tell you that he was an amazing actor to pretend the way he did to be in love with all the women he filmed with. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 12-30-09 07:59pm - 5377 days | #201 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 20, 2023, 01:47pm | |
|
||
| 151-199 of 199 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | Page 4 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
