[kscherer]

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 At this point I actively root for the dinosaurs and Xenomorphs.

This.

The humans keep making dumb mistakes and only seem to learn them from the belly of something with large, sharp teeth.

[Capella]

I extremely want the version of Jurassic Park movies where the dinosaurs eat everyone and we're rooting for them instead of the humans. I super disliked both leads in Jurassic World (and really, everything after the first one), so I'm totally on Team Dino.

[psmith2.0]

Team-Rex?

Yeah, Chris Pratt is one of those people whose appeal/fame I just can't quite grasp. Right place, right time? Right connections? He's got some dirt on the right people?

I love that very first Jurassic Park - most folks do - but everything after, including the original Spielberg and Johnston sequels back in the day, were quite lacking. But that first one - for story, thrills and spectacle - is hard to top and everyone involved was hitting on all cylinders. When it comes on TV, it's one of those movies I'll stop flipping through channels and sit and watch for a while. Good stuff! The acting, humor, tension, visuals, plot, message, Spielberg's direction, etc. are all top-notch. A perfect popcorn - and then some - movie!

If all that came after never existed, I doubt anyone would truly care. There's still this great movie that everyone can watch forever.

Originally Posted by kscherer This. The humans keep making dumb mistakes and only seem to learn them from the belly of something with large, sharp teeth.

That's what gets me. The people in these movies - the Jurassic Park and Alien stuff - are almost always scientist/engineer/builder/soldier types. Allegedly educated adults, and not teenage dumbasses like you always see in slasher movies. And yet these "intelligent" adults do all the mindless stuff all the Freddy/Jason/Michael victims-to-be do in those movies.

Just once I'd like to see a character go "hell no, we're not going to that island/planet, again...did you not hear what happened the last time people went?! Everyone died to death, and horribly so!" And then the credits roll after about four minutes.

Jurassic Park 7: Someone Had a Clue

[psmith2.0]

PS - It just dawned on me that new Ghostsbusters movie (Afterlife?) opened last month. For all the folks here eagerly awaiting its arrival, I've yet to hear any talk here. Did nobody see it? Did it make any sort of impact? I honestly haven't heard a thing about it, and usually that tends to mean one thing.

Looking at its Wikipedia entry, it seems to have made "only" $174M worldwide. For a major franchise property, in 2021, isn't that officially considered shitting the bed? Surely they were expecting a higher number.

I know things are weird/different right now, but others movies released during these weird/different times have made a bit of a splash or impact...including ones without the built-in fan base and history of Ghostbusters.

What happened?!

I also see where its budget was just $75M. Is that true? Am I reading something wrong? I just assumed any modern genre movie with even the minimum of CGI and reasonable star power costs easily $100+ to produce anymore. I can't remember the last time I saw a budget that "low" for such a movie. That's a mid-90's kind of budget number.

Well it landed with a thud because a) I forgot all about it, and b) I've heard nothing about it to remind me that it's out.

From the Wikipedia entry:

It was released in the United States on November 19, 2021, after being delayed four times from an original July 2020 date due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The film received mixed reviews from critics, who praised the performances, Reitman's direction, the dedication to Ramis, and nostalgic tone, but criticized the screenplay and fan service. It has grossed $174 million worldwide.

Many big, high-profile genre flicks cost that much to make/market.

This pandemic is kicking Hollywood squarely in the balls. Everything's been rescheduled, delayed, reconfigured, postponed, release date/formats monkeyed with endlessly, etc. Not a business (show) I'd want to be in right now. I think everyone's minds are just other places right now.

But then this new Spider-Man movies comes out and does really solid numbers. So I can't figure it out.

I truly thought a new Ghostbusters movie, with solid ties to the original one that everyone loves, would've been a huge hit.

[kscherer]

Ain't seen it. Waiting for home movie version.

No time to talk. Matrix premier is NOW and got popcorn and choc-chip cookies. No time for humans!

[drewprops]

Some friends saw the new Ghostbusters and said that they enjoyed it.

I'll probably do the digital version as well, what with all this Ohmigod sloshing around.


OLD MOVIE ALERT

I am looking for "Colossus: The Forbin Project" and it is NOT available ANYWHERE in a digital format.

I found a copy on Vimeo.

But what gives?

The movie is theoretically a Universal product, so why isn't it available through a conventional streaming service in the United States?





...

[turtle]

I'm looking forward to seeing Afterlife, but am waiting for it to come to home.

Resurrections, that should be seen within a day or so for me. Maybe even tonight. I just need time without the kids around so I can enjoy it uninterrupted!

[psmith2.0]

Movie-watching is so weird these days!

It used to be so easy...

"So, what do you want to see?"

"Fast & Furious 19: My Spoiler Is Bigger Than Yours."

"Cool. Says here there's a showing starting at 4:10. Grab your jacket and let's go...".

Done.

I never quite know when/where/how stuff is being released now. Some movies seem to tout the "in theaters only" aspect of their release, but, big picture, I think it kinda hurts them a bit. I still don't think people are heading to the multiplexes in droves, at pre-COVID levels. And with all that's currently taking place, enticing people out to sit in a closed space with a few hundred strangers whose views/stances on masks, vaxxing, etc. you have no way of knowing just seems a bit...odd. And asking for it.

These studios should just realize The Future™ is pretty much here, and do whatever it takes to just release stuff, same day, to home viewers as the (declining, on-its-deathbed) movie theaters. At some point, COVID or not, the numbers will shift/flip-flop and people will realize the moviegoing/multiplex experience isn't really all that, and can't truly compare to having their friends and/or family over for an intimate - and pause-able - movie night.

"Yeah, let me sit in a dark, closed room of 185 coughing strangers with their nasty-ass flip-flops on the back of my headrest while nobody around me will STFU!" - said no one, ever

By the time my 16- and 18-year-old nephew and niece are in their 30's and 40's, "going to the movies" won't even be a thing, guaranteed. But, sitting in the comfort of their own home, calling up/watching every major release on their 96" 12K 3D Samsung Cinetronic™ an opening Friday night will be. And they will not miss "the old way" one single bit.

The smarter studios/services will jump on this and start putting deals in place ASAP. It shouldn't even take that long. I should still be alive when this is an across-the-board thing, within a decade.

[kscherer]

The Matrix: Resurrection was fun. The movie took off from Revolutions, but in the future a bit.

Not gonna give away anything yet since most probably haven't seen it. One thing I will say is that right from the start it was billed as though the audience was involved somehow. It was fun. One political injection that I did not care for, but otherwise the movie stayed true to the franchise's general theme.

I love the franchise and, although this had the feel of a reboot, it both was and wasn't, and when it was it was done in a very creative way.

Streams free on HBO Max.

[turtle]

Paul, I can tell you I don't know that I'll ever set foot in a theater for a movie again. I have no incentive. All the reasons movie going sucks is enough. I could potentially see myself in a Cinema Cafe or something like that, but that is because the food and all more so than sitting in a nasty seat to watch a flick I can watch at home.

[psmith2.0]

Oh, there's little grey area/wiggle room on my end. It's been two years ago this week and there's been nothing out, not even 007, that made me want to go back. In fact, this latest Bond movie is the first one since Moonraker that I haven't gone to see in the theater, opening weekend (telling your mom you want to see a movie called Octopussy at 14, and why she should drop you off to do so, led to quite the conversation).

"No, it's a James Bond movie...I promise! Look, here's the listing/poster in the paper!" (remember that...having to get a newspaper to look up the theaters/showtimes for a movie?)

Fortunately I was driving myself to/from a few years later.

All the remaining Moore ones, the two Dalton movies, all the Brosnan entries and every Daniel Craig outing...there I was, on a Thursday/Friday night or Saturday afternoon. Until this one.

Kinda bummed me out, but it just doesn't sound like a good time, or particularly wise/safe at the moment. I'll see it on my TV soon enough.

[psmith2.0]

My favorite Christmas movie, Die Hard, is currently playing on Syfy. Not quite sure what's "sci-fi" about the movie, but whatever. It's still a hoot.

[drewprops]

I'm sure that I saw part of The Boys from Brazil with my dad when I was young but I didn't watch the whole thing until tonight. Not too many surprises for a film that worked its way into the collective consciousness in that era.


...

[psmith2.0]

A third full trailer for The Batman is out. Shows a bit more dialogue, possible plot details, way more Catwoman, etc.

But there is literally nothing here we've not seen 4-7 times before in every other live-action presentation of the character. And how many times has some chick asked some variation on "who's behind/under that mask?" (Vicky Vale, Selina Kyle, Chase Meridian, etc.).

Looks to be an action-packed thing, though. That's probably what a Batman movie should be. This trailer is edited weird, though. You can see the deliberate misleading/"gotcha" setups from two miles away.

Something about it just comes across as a trying-too-hard-to-be-edgy fan film (and I've seen a ton of 'em).

[Frank777]

Does the Batmobile fly though? This is currently my pet peeve with all modern Batman films.

The character came from the 60's, so it's understandable that he had a car that didn't fly.

But we're in the 2020's, and flying cars exist and are relatively cheap to make.
The problem is government licensing, which is not applicable to a billionaire genius superhero vigilante.

It's a weird thing to focus on, but I feel any screenplay writer who is actually paying attention should understand this simply fact.

[psmith2.0]

No, it’s just a muscle car type of thing. I’ve read in several places that this movie centers around a “year two” Batman, still somewhat new/fresh-on-the-job, with his gadgets and vehicles being a bit primitive/DIY. He’s still figuring stuff out, dialing things in, etc.

Kinda makes me think the closing, sequel-setting scene will be him taking the cover off either a new, updated suit or car. These kinds of movies are always so rooted in toys/merchandising. Even those "serious" Bale/Nolan bat-flicks featured a new suit/tech and/or vehicles with each movie (Tumbler, Batpod and The Bat), the original "panther neck" suit gave way to the "head-turning cowl/helmet" in The Dark Knight. The Burton and Schumacher movies certainly did this (three completely different Batmobiles, that Kilmer sonar suit, the boat, batwing, nipple edition suit, etc.). Even those Affleck ones had two distinctive bat suits (traditional grey, and a more "armored tech" design) across the various movies, plus that weird "desert nightmare" one with the goggles, brown trench coat, etc.

And there were toys available for every one of 'em. Shocking, I know.

No reason to think this upcoming one won't be more of the same. The sequel will surely feature a more distinct, stylized car. And probably a new suit too. This movie is the Batman Begins of this new crop, where all his earlier, initial designs are given updated, improved versions in the following movies.

I don't know if the movies drive the toys, or is it the other way around? Maybe a bit of both? Does Kenner/Hasbro/whoever go to WB and say "hey, here are some ideas we've come up with (dig that Aqua-Bat SCUBA outfit with Batspear!)...please work them into your storyline and we'll all reap the rewards."

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Frank777 flying cars exist Flying cars do not "exist" anywhere on planet Earth. There are airplanes with folding wings and car-shaped cabins, but there are exactly zero flying cars, as a flying *car* will have no need for wings at all. Airplanes have wings, cars do not. Flying cars are decades away. And I'm super curious how this thing is going to survive the NHTSA's crash-test ratings during an impact from any direction whatsoever! The insurance you would have to carry to put that thing on the road would be astronomical, especially considering any accident (and I mean ANY) would absolutely destroy the Airplane With Folding Wings'™ ability to be anything other than a hood ornament (the FAA alone won't allow any aircraft that has been involved in an accident to return to the skies until it has passed the inspection of approximately five hundred pieces of red tape). And, weight is a serious issue with aircraft — yes, I'm sure there's plenty of carbon fiber in use to combat that problem — so the only way this AWFW™ is going to meet crash standards is with hyper-car-style buckle zones, which means it will likely cost many millions of dollars per copy, and no reasonable person is ever going to drive it on the road. Only unreasonable billionaires will have them, and that only for flying into their private airstrips where they have a Land Rover waiting to take them to the cabin. A helicopter will be much cheaper and continue to be the standard for such things (although vastly superior, FAA-approved options are just around the corner), especially once said trust-fund turkey figures out he can't land it on the yacht.

IMHO, if the Batmobile can suddenly fly, it's one more reason I won't watch the movie (I'm not going to anyway, because DC is a lost cause of reboots, terrible plot lines, and atrocious super-heroes stuffed with absolutely nothing super-hero-y)

[drewprops]

A few nights ago I watched Soylent Green again.

It's not one of my favorites because it's so damned depressing and heavy handed. But it did have some interesting parts.

I was particularly struck by its setting of an Earth well into a warming cycle, which seems at odds with the prevailing 70s narrative of global cooling.

Dirty cops were a 70s mainstay, largely based on actual widespread corruption.

It was interesting to see representation of black actors in roles like police chief and priest. Was this surprising to 70s audiences?

The grubby urban setting of the film lends realism, and the difference of lifestyles between the haves and have nots is ageless.

The worst part of the film were the comically executed crowd scoops.

Wall mounted police call boxes seem a weird choice, but cellular telephones were a decade away and perhaps they felt wireless communication would undermine the tale of a crumbling civilization.

The "going home" of the old man is the best part of the movie, rising above the artifice of the mystery tale to remind us about what matters the most. It is intended to be haunting and it's fairly effective.

The action sequences at the Soylent Green plant was clumsy, but the setting was interesting.

I think the movie ultimately deserves the mocking it has received in society for its bland, low budget presentation.

The ideas were decent, the film fails those ideas.


...

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by drewprops It was interesting to see representation of black actors in roles like police chief and priest. Was this surprising to 70s audiences?

After nothing but stick-up men, car thieves, "gimme your wallet, sucka!" types, pimps, butlers, bellhops, janitors, county lockup background extras and the-first-to-die-in-an-Irwin-Allen-disaster-flick, I'd say so. Sidney Poitier aside, of course.

Wait, he wasn't the police chief or priest, was he?

[drewprops]

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 Wait, he wasn't the police chief or priest, was he?

That would have been interesting!

The police chief was played by Brock Peters, who nerds may best recognize as Benjamin Sisko's dad in Deep Space 9.

The priest was Lincoln Kilpatrick, who had a theatre background and guested on a lot television shows.

At the end of the day I will always think of Soylent Green as a "meh" science fiction movie.

Even though it got some things right, it just isn't a lot of FUN to watch.


...

[psmith2.0]

I feel the same way about Deliverance. I love that movie, and I think it's so beautifully shot. Burt Reynolds' character was ahead of his time and completely right in all he said about development and the loss of the wilderness/nature. Unfortunately he's been reduced to "The Bandit" by the same folks who only see this movie for the "squeal like a pig" scene, as though it's some wild, rowdy teen comedy.

Watching it always makes me a little sad, especially those earlier, pre-river scenes with the people they encounter (the Griner brothers, the old man pumping gas, the boy with the banjo, etc.). I've got distant relatives - as in "I met once, 45+ years ago" not too far from that sort of life (if they're even still alive; I assume their life expectancy was about 33) - so every time I watch it, I remember that trip with Mom, Dad and my grandparents up into the mountains back in the mid-70's. And realizing, even at 6-7, "how does someone live like this?" That was the first time I ever realized some people don't get a peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich and a glass of Kool-Aid, as I did, every time the urge/mood hit. That stuck with me, big time.

And then to think of all the little towns that probably did get dammed/flooded/lost in the name of "progress" and development. I don't wear any hippiedom on my sleeve, but that stuff weighs on me. We're (hopefully) going to look back some day and realize how we've absolutely ass-raped Mother Nature. Repeatedly. Without an ounce of lube. But, other than hanging our heads in shame, there won't be much left to do at that point.

So, yeah. It's a great movie. But it kinda takes it out of me a bit, watching it. On a couple of levels. Obviously.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by drewprops The police chief was played by Brock Peters, who nerds may best recognize as Benjamin Sisko's dad in Deep Space 9.

Speaking of great old movies, I'll also always remember Brock Peters' role as Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird.

and of course his other Trek role as Admiral Cartwright in Star Trek movies 4 and 6

[drewprops]

Originally Posted by Brad and of course his other Trek role as Admiral Cartwright in Star Trek movies 4 and 6

^^^ starfleet wannabe


...

[psmith2.0]

Apollo 13 is playing on AMC.

That is such a well-made, watchable movie. The actors/cast, the visuals, the attention to period detail, etc. I saw this in the theater upon release and loved it. And I've watched it on TV or other ways a half-dozen or so times over the years. I love everything about it.

[Capella]

I remember him as Joseph Sisko, as Admiral Cartwright, and as Opposer Solon in BSG.

[psmith2.0]

Watching the most recent Rambo movie on Syfy.

Whatever Sylvester Stallone is voluntarily having done to his face, surgically/cosmetically...he needs to stop.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 After nothing but stick-up men, car thieves, "gimme your wallet, sucka!" types, pimps, butlers, bellhops, janitors, county lockup background extras and the-first-to-die-in-an-Irwin-Allen-disaster-flick, I'd say so. Sidney Poitier aside, of course. Wait, he wasn't the police chief or priest, was he?

He’s died, at 94.

[Frank777]

I think Hollywood is a really messed up place, that doesn't even understand North America anymore.

[psmith2.0]

The story Kevin Smith tells about his time spent working on a Superman spec script is both hilarious (because you know every bit of it happened just like he said), and sad (because you know every bit of it happened just like he said).

I can’t imagine having to partner up with a yo-yo like Jon Peters and his clue-starved, point-missing notes and directives.

Funny how Affleck wound up playing Superman in that movie about George Reeves, and then, a decade later, he’s thoroughly miserable playing Batman for Zack Snyder/Joss Whedon in some really lousy, poorly-written and cobbled-together movies.

[Frank777]

I used to say I don't know how DC messed up its universe so badly, but Disney cratered a whole Star Wars trilogy and Target lost six billion dollars trying to open department stores in Canada. So I guess these things happen in business now.

As I've said before, Justice League needs a palate cleanser, like Star Trek 4, when you get some serious character development instead of always punching/fighting/shooting things. If Affleck's Batman had debuted in a slower-paced detective story leading up to JL, the character might have had a chance.

But absolutely no one...Republicans or Democrats, Mac or PC, iPhone or Android, Catholic or Protestant, Millennial or Boomer...

...wants to see him as Superman.