[turtle]

I thought you guys were talking about this video of him talking about nothing and saying nothing over and over again..

Maybe I'll watch the one with Matt later.

As for the new Top Gun, I'll watching it but I've gotten bored with most of the other Cruise flicks. I'm less of a movie guy than I was when I didn't have kids and other things to do.

[pscates2.0]

I've never cared about who anyone worships/prays to...why would I start with, or single out, Tom Cruise (frankly, he'd be way down on my list)? I don't, and wouldn't, pay $9 to watch him espouse Scientology dogma for two hours, so there's no danger there.

Yeah, kinda flaky and certainly not my cup of tea. But, then again, neither is animal sacrifice, waiting for a ride on a comet, clitorectomy or protesting military funerals to let everyone know "GOD HATES FAGS!" . As long as you're not slicing my head off, bow to/believe in whatever you want. Unless/until it directly affects me, I couldn't give less of a shit what a total stranger believes in. The man seems pretty clean/normal otherwise. The day he's in an L.A. courtroom, struggling to put on a glove in front of a jury, I'll reassess my views on him.

[turtle]

[kscherer]

Since this stuff has a tendency to go down the toilet in a hurry, let's burry the religious/political chatter before it does. The trolls are hungry! Pretty and please?

—

One thing I can say about Tom Cruise, the dude has enough clout/influence that the Navy actually let them film a large chunk of this movie from the back seat of an actual F-18 Super Hornet (I knew this the first time I saw the trailer; the images are too realistic for CGI, and the Navy has no problem serving it's recruitment purposes by loaning out a plane to qualified people ). Pretty much all of the Tom-Cruise-in-the-cockpit shots are live, shot from some kind of special camera mounted on the control panel in front of Cruise, immediately behind the front seat where the actual pilot is flying the plane on cue, and likely communicating maneuvers to Cruise so he can prepare his body for whatever roll/bank/climb so he doesn't look like he's getting thrown around—which would be the case otherwise. That is some nifty filmography and great choreography, as it is not easy to anticipate high-G maneuvers without playing rag-doll. Those planes are flat out fast, and the high G's can black out an unprepared person in a matter of seconds.

Which is all funny as hell.

In other words, fighter jocks are in very good shape—physically and mentally—because they have to be! And that means that Tom Cruise also has to be in order to sell this thing as real.

P.S. What do you guys want to bet that there is now some footage, somewhere, of Tom Cruise blacking out in the back of this thing? I'll bet all my marbles that the pilot—in all his ego-driven, competitive flare—put one over on Cruise and knocked him cold.

[turtle]

I would love to see him blacked out by the pilot. That would be priceless.

[kscherer]

And here is Tom Cruise talking about that very thing.

[pscates2.0]

Apologies. But I only respond to, never start, such talk.

[kscherer]

It's all good, man.

Your insight is much appreciated.

[turtle]

Fine, I'll take the heat.

That is a funny interview of him talking about barfing though. It is true about the Navy pilots too, they are ruthless about stuff like that.

[pscates2.0]

I couldn’t last two minutes. I get car sick like nobody I know, so I’d be passing out/puking right away in a jet doing any sort of acrobatics. I’d love to try it but it just wouldn’t be worth the fuel having me go up.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I’d love to try it but it just wouldn’t be worth the fuel having me go throw up.

FTFY

My dad took my brother and I on a training flight when we were in high school. He was getting typed on a Beech twin engine, doing his IFR certification stuff. We flew out over the desert way south of Boise and were doing all these crazy maneuvers. In one instance, the instructor had my dad remove his hands and feet from the controls, lower his head (while wearing an IFR training hood) and close his eyes. The instructor put the plane into this crazy high AOA bank and then said "your aircraft". Dad had to take the controls (wearing the hood prevents you from seeing outside) and sort out the plane's attitude using instruments only. There he is, stabbing around and getting his bearings and suddenly—I mean Flash Gordon-esque—the instructor reaches down and throws the left throttle all the way to idle, which caused the plane to slip into this weird nose-high flat slide thing and the G-forces were nuts! By far the most I've ever experienced, probably something like 4 or 5. The biggest memory I had was when my eyeglasses got sucked off my face by the high G-force. Made my stomach crawl, but my brother and I were in the back seat laughing and carrying on and pretending to be fighter pilots. One of the best experiences of my life.

Fortunately, it takes quite a bit to get me motion sick. Rapid spinning will do it, but not the whacky stuff from driving, flying, being on the ocean, that sort of thing. Unless it's really gnarly, I don't get sick. However, the G's would knock me flat. Seriously, you have to be trained and in shape to cope with that stuff. I got out of that training flight with my dad and felt like I'd run a marathon!

[turtle]

You know, you wouldn't do good on the at sea part then even more. If you get sick in a car I can't imagine how worthless you'd be on a ship. I lived for it and loved a good storm personally. If you get even slightly motion sick on land then you would certainly be heaving on a ship or aircraft.

[kscherer]

Around the same time that that training flight happened, we were off the Oregon coast (Newport) deep sea fishing. One of the guys on the charter got real sick, and they do not turn around (unless it is life-threatening). You just have to suck it up for 6+ hours. Anyway, a couple 20-something's were on board and making fun of this guy, teasing him, poking at him, just acting like ass-hats. Well, karma is a thing. Those two were up on the bow draining a cooler of beer and eating Cheeze Snuffies or some other yellow cracker things and … well … the results, oh the results. They got sick, where by sick I mean "chumming for sharks".

The ocean is an up and down, back and forth sort of place, and it gets to everyone at least once.

I seem to recall catching a lot of sea bass on that trip. I think it was all the chum in the water.

Originally Posted by turtle If you get sick in a car I can't imagine how worthless you'd be on a ship. I lived for it and loved a good storm personally. If you get even slightly motion sick on land then you would certainly be heaving on a ship or aircraft.

I was seriously a signature away from joining you out there. I was a rebellious little turd and struggling with authority and wish I had signed the paper. Alas, I didn't. Too old for the Navy, now. Even so, I would have been angry as hell when I found out just how much of a lie that recruiter had told me while I was wallowing away in the depths of some engine room chipping paint off an old steam pipe. But I would have loved it out there. My current day dream is yachting the world.

Also, that whole sea-sickness thing usually goes away with time. You just get used to it, and then you can't walk straight when you put your feet back onto solid ground.

[turtle]

It is true. Sea legs are real. Coming home from a deployment the ground feels really odd. Like, "what do you mean I can lock my knees and not use my thighs and butt to hold myself up?"

[kscherer]

I think the longest I was ever out was 8 hours. When we got back the ground was all wobbly and weird. I can't even imagine being on a 3- or 6-month naval deployment, especially on something like a frigate or a small destroyer. Those things be bucking and snorting 24-7! Hell, even the bigger ships can really put on a show.

Maybey Paul will get sick and barf on his keyboard while watching those.

And, since the ocean is such a brutal place, here's a stomach churner! I love the experienced sailors cackling in the background.

[Brad]

I think some of the Tom Cruise "hate" is also levied on account of his involvement with the Church of Scientology, practically sitting as royalty among its leaders, and I hope I don't have to expand on how awful that corporation is. It's really hard for me to look at him and separate him from that reality, much like some people can no longer listen to Thriller or Billie Jean and mentally separate the music from the allegedly horrible deeds of the man who sang it.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Brad I think some of the Tom Cruise "hate" is also levied on account of his involvement with the Church of Scientology, practically sitting as royalty among its leaders, and I hope I don't have to expand on how awful that corporation is. It's really hard for me to look at him and separate him from that reality, much like some people can no longer listen to Thriller or Billie Jean and mentally separate the music from the allegedly horrible deeds of the man who sang it.

Holy shit. I hit reply when the thread was on the previous page around lunch, walked away from this tab for the day before finishing, and only now did I see others' comments about Scientology that appeared in the interim. I apologize for chiming in late again but I guess I'll let my post stand.

So, yeah, how 'bout them GHOST BUSTERS!

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by kscherer Since this stuff has a tendency to go down the toilet in a hurry, let's burry the religious/political chatter before it does. The trolls are hungry! Pretty and please?

Originally Posted by Brad I think some of the Tom Cruise "hate" … Scientology … reality

Originally Posted by Brad I guess I'll let my post stand.

You're banned! Is there a 5 minute ban option? Can I ban the Admin?

Originally Posted by Brad So, yeah, how 'bout them GHOST BUSTERS!

Atta boy. Way to get it back on track! Ban lifted.

[pscates2.0]

I heard Palpatine was in the new Ghostbusters...

*ducks*

[Brad]

This is the theme to my life for the next six months.

Bustin

Who am I kidding?

That's been my ringtone for the last four years.

And will be for the next 40.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I heard Palpatine was in the new Ghostbusters... *ducks*

Forceghostbusters: Aftershaft

[turtle]

Years ago I was a smoker while in the Navy. We used to have to smoke in a space called the "starboard windbreak". I've marked it in this picture which you can click on for one that's larger without the box. This is the ship I was stationed on when I was almost completely washed over the side by some of those waves in the videos washing down the side. The ship will issue a "secure the weather decks" during heavy seas so those who temp fate like me don't get washed over the side.


Basically you can't smoke inside the ships so they make you some outside now. There are watertight doors between the starboard break and the interior so it was designated the smoking area (along with the fantail when not under heavy seas). It was common for the aft break doors to be open because 20 men and women smoking in a space the size of a small garage sucks. I was sitting on the refueling station with others when a wave crashed on the side of the ship. It washed me over the side up to my armpits. If the rails weren't there I wouldn't be typing this now. The others that got thrown into the life lines were able to pull be up and get us all back into the break before the next wave hit.

I didn't push that line again...much.

Anyway, my wife got me this after hearing the story:


So for Afterlife I found this gem of a breakdown video. Sure some of it is speculation, but the connection to the original movies is really cool when you see someone lay it out.

[pscates2.0]

That’s neat. It’s a nice blend of nostalgia + new, at least how it’s presented in the trailer.

Makes me wonder how/why the original cast members show up. I could imagine the actual three remaining Ghostbusters (their friend and colleague’s farm, his grandchildren in peril, etc.). But Weaver and Potts? Unless they're married to one (or still working for the busters), there may be a scene set in NYC with them? I suppose the easy, expected answer is just when things are at their worst and the kids realize they’re no match for the supernatural forces in their small town, Aykroyd, Murray and Hudson kick open the door, all suited up and the Ray Parker theme kicks in? I’d like to think it’s not that pat and predictable, but that’s probably an uphill bet.

Man, tally up all the 80’s-originated sequels, reboots, remakes, etc. that have hit in just the past few years (including trailers for stuff coming in 2020)...quite a few! Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Terminator, Rambo, Alien, Top Gun, RoboCop, Halloween, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Bill and Ted and I’m sure I’m missing another dozen or so, easily. And if you want to get picky, you could add Superman and Batman as well (although their only real accomplishment was just making you realize how much you miss Christopher Reeve and Michael Keaton)? And there are rumors of Beetlejuice and Splash remakes. EDIT: And if you want to venture into the TV realm, you've got Roseanne, Murphy Brown, Full House, The Equalizer, 21 Jump Street and Lethal Weapon (a TV show based on an 80's movie). And, again, I'm sure there are more that I'm just not aware of or can't recall. I suppose the obvious reason/answer for all this is that all those who were kids or teens in the 80's are now in that 40-60 range, and heading up various studios, production companies, etc. and are just looking back to their youth and the things they enjoyed, and green-lighting all these revivals. Although it's really hard to believe there's a strong, groundswell of folks clamoring to see Roseanne Barr (ugh) or Candice Bergen (ugh x2) on their TV screens again. Hell, "B.J. and the Bear" probably would've had a better go of it (never underestimate the allure/appeal of a monkey in an 18-wheeler). With the whole “80’s kids on bikes having adventures” fad, I’m really surprised nobody’s announced a “Goonies” remake/sequel/reboot! I actually never saw it, but all my friends rave about it. And did vampires finally run their course because it seemed revisiting The Lost Boys would’ve been a no-brainer (in both senses of the phrase). Granted, the one Corey is dead and the other one is an insufferable twerp (who seems to think he’s Michael Jackson’s secret white stepbrother), but those characters wouldn’t have to be involved if they just wanted to focus on vampires in that same little town some more.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by turtle Anyway, my wife got me this after hearing the story:

Man overboard!

—

I don't mind reboots as long as they're done right. Remakes and sagas, on the other hand, are quite easy to screw up no matter what.

Let's see here:

Red Dawn—The original was fun and played into the Cold War perfectly. The characters were just scared kids with no experience who found a way to become heroes. The remake was … um … crap? Suddenly, North Korea has the military capacity to send a fleet of transport planes right over New York City? And that's where I rolled my eyes and basically tuned out for the rest of the show. Plus, the whole "kids are now experienced soldiers" thing just blew it to hell (why does every one of these things now have to have an experienced vet who just returned from his eleventeenth tour in Iraq?) Rather than remaking, they should have told the story from the other side of the country. In other words, while Red Dawn was happening in Colorado (is that right?) Red Dawn II should ahve been happening in, say, California. Or North Dakota. It was just slightly worse than stale crap.

Spiderman—Yeah, which remake?

Batman—Yeah, which remake?

Superman—The original was good, although they still hadn't figured out how to make a human at least look like they were trying to fly. The remake was OK, but there was just too much downtown city destruction for my taste. I didn't like it.

Star Wars—Episode VII was very well done, IMO, and I like it as a movie better than Episode IV, which it was clearly intended to replicate. Nothing will ever beat A New Hope—story wise—but I loved Episode VII.

Ghostbusters: Um, no! Fortunately, the creators of Afterlife are smart enough not to repeat that mistake.

I think that's it for the one's that I have seen. Never cared for It or Halloween. Maverick is smart enough to keep Tom Cruise around and you know he isn't going to "remake" Top Gun. So that will build upon Maverick's career as a perennial jackass but with lots of good flying.

Terminator and Rambo are just a couple of old-fart action heroes trying to stay in the game. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels? Had no idea, but is it a remake or carrying the franchise forward? A remake is going to wind up like Ghostbusters 2016, methinks. Bill and Ted I cannot wait for. Keanu Reeves has never been more himself than he was in those two gas-fests! Loved them! Beetlejuice and Splash? Please, please no.

I think what the "remakes" tell me is that Hollywood is running out of ideas and just trying to rake a few more dollars out of the nostalgia wallet. The franchise-extending movies, however, have the capacity to rake nostalgia, while simultaneously building on the franchise with fresh, new story ideas. Those can either go crazy right or hopelessly wrong, depending on who is involved. Star Trek and Star Wars are on the wrong path. Maverick and Ghostbusters remain to be seen (two weeks apart, maybe? ) but appear to be heading the right direction. Terminator keeps going back in time to try and save itself. Rambo? Just blow something up and grumble about fairness. (Speaking of which, The Expendables is flat out funny stuff. I mean, take all those decades of action heroes, plop them all into one movie, and just annihilate everything! ). DC is a crap fest. Marvel is trying really hard to make something beautiful, but it's getting pretty messy over there. The Bourne series was very good, but they should have left it alone after #3. John Wick was supposed to be 3, but hell, why end there?

Sigh. Just take me back to the '70s when the effects sucked so bad that you had to be able to write a good story and then you had one shot to tell it in 2 hours.

[pscates2.0]

Re: Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, it was actually called The Hustle and came out last spring. It starred Anne Hathaway and Rebel Wilson (the plan B go-to when Melissa McCarthy is already booked?), so it never stood a chance...those aren't exactly the most appealing, funny actors going (remember: when making a comedy, it always helps to cast funny people; this seems to be lost on some studios/filmmakers, oddly enough).

[kscherer]

That explains why I missed didn't watch it. Anne Hathaway is overrated, and watching Rebel Wilson try to be funny makes me vomit. There are certain movies that I will not watch based simply on who is in them. And those two are right up there.

Seriously, the last Hathaway flick I watched was Get Smart, and that was terrible.

Honestly, I don't understand what the world sees in some of these actors/actresses. They are neither particularly good at their jobs, nor particularly attractive. Yet Hollywood is stuffed with them.

The ones I love:

Tom Hanks; Morgan Freeman; Adam Sandler
Jennifer Anniston; Marissa Tomei; Adam Sandler

There are so many I can name, but those are my favorites.

Others: Michael Douglas and Alin Arkin are doing an absolutely amazing Netflix original called The Kominksi Method. Bryan Cranston's performances in Breaking Bad and The Upside made me a true believer (Cranston as Philip Lacasse in The Upside is one of the most believable performances I have ever witnessed on screen). Jack Nicholson? I mean, come on! (He and Morgan Freeman were absolutely brilliant in The Bucket List). Meryl Streep was awesome in Mamma Mia. Juliette Lewis in The Other Sister. Ah, the list goes on.

And then the losers.

And that list is waaaay too long. There are people in Hollywood who have never acted a convincing roll in a 50-year career.

[kscherer]

And just for giggles, that camera system I described for Top Gun? Well, a brand new behind the scenes trailer was just released today that shows it in action! Right at the end of the sneak peek we can see just how hard Tom Cruise has to work, and watching this stuff makes me think they are really trying hard to make this show as hard-core believable as they can within the creative license envelope that exists. Super excited for this!

Oh, and a few shots of actors trying not to barf.

That afterburner shot, holy crap!

The new bit is only in the first 3rd of the clip, but, wow. The camera system is something else. Six IMAX cameras in the cockpit (rear seat)! This will be one of those films you just have to see at the IMAX theater!

Think I'll take my wife. She gets carsick, so that should be fun.

Edit: And from about 10 minutes on, this video demonstrates just how challenging the G-forces can be.

[turtle]

I'm we have seen news on this but I saw this article and was glad to see a level of "official" in some of the returning actors. It is Vanity Fair so I didn't actually read the article, just scanned for the important parts of what I was looking for.

[turtle]

I watched an interview with Aykroyd and Reitman from 2014 for the 25th anniversary of Ghostbusters 2. In there they talked about working on the script for a third movie. It was talking about passing the torch and all. At the 13:35 minute mark on this interview Aykroyd goes into the details. Kinda cool finding this interview now that there is a genuine third one coming out. Knowing Ramis was likely part of it is even better.

Wonder if we get direct-to-home viewing with theaters being banned across the nation? I know a handful have already had that happen.

[turtle]

The virus is slowing the release of this film now too. It is one of the few movies on the horizon I'm actually interested in seeing.