|
Yoshifan823 posted:Emily Blunt would be a pretty good "proper brit" and she's got great comedic timing. but there's not enough of an age gap between Blunt and Wilson.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
Spatula City posted:but there's not enough of an age gap between Blunt and Wilson. Just get Wilson to lie about her age again. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Why go British when we can go cougar: Marissa Tomei.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:lol I can't believe there was actually a real living person who didn't call Slipknot's death. The dude's thing is he ties knots good, of course he was fodder. It sucks because I actually liked the dude and his cool little stunt he pulled off in his three minutes of screen time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
Farm Frenzy posted:is poo poo so dire now that even low(er) budget comedies need to be remakes of 30 year old movies people vaguely remember liking Yeah, comedy remakes of 30 year old movies suck, such as... Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, a remake of Bedtime Story (1964) with Marlon Brando and David Niven.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
Sex Hobbit posted:What even WAS that with the chemical vats?? Toxins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
tanglewood1420 posted:Yeah, comedy remakes of 30 year old movies suck, such as... Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, a remake of Bedtime Story (1964) with Marlon Brando and David Niven. That kind of underscores how pointless remakes are these days. Back in 1988, if someone wanted to watch a movie from 1964 it was difficult, if not impossible. Today, if you want to see Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, you just go on your computer and rent it instantly for a couple bucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Part of what sells remakes now is the very fact that you can rerelease library movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Half of the reason those are remakes is it is easier to just buy the rights to remake something than to pay out the nose when your original script with the same plot gets sued for plagiarism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Half of the reason those are remakes is it is easier to just buy the rights to remake something than to pay out the nose when your original script with the same plot gets sued for plagiarism. Now I want this to be the plot of a movie, with a tone similar to Bowfinger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
tanglewood1420 posted:Yeah, comedy remakes of 30 year old movies suck, such as... Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, a remake of Bedtime Story (1964) with Marlon Brando and David Niven. At least Dirty Rotten Scoundrels added a new twist on the script by turning the wealthy woman they're fighting over into another conman who was playing them all along, in the original she was exactly who she seemed to be and Brando's character actually ended up marrying her. I doubt that the new remake will be adding any novel twists that similarly elevate the script but I guess we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
What the-quote:Variety said Wilson is also set to appear in a remake of Private Benjamin. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
precision posted:What the- Young Goldie Hawn was really loving good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
I just remember that movie being terrible
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
The show was terrible. I don't really remember the movie but it was well-regarded. Goldie Hawn was really good early in her career. She played off the ditsy blonde thing really well. But somewhere along the line she swallowed enough pills to actually turn her brain into the guacamole she always pretended it was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
A lot of people forget that second half of Private Benjamin where she goes to Europe after getting sexually harassed by a superior, and leaves the army to marry her doctor boyfriend (who turns out to be a communist), but leaves him at the altar because she's grown over the course of the film into an independent woman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Screenplay by Nancy Meyers no less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Screenplay by Nancy Meyers no less. Also, nominated for an Oscar for Private Benjamin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's a baptism. I think the biggest misstep was not going with Ayer's original idea of The Joker just showing up for 30 seconds to drop Harley off at the beginning and picking her up at the end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
One podcast I listened to posited that Suicide Squad would have been a great fit for Rob Zombie and while I'm not his biggest fan holy poo poo would Devil's Rejects: DC Edition be awesome. Or at least literally anything that didn't end up having yet another comic book move whose climax is a blue light shooting up into the sky at night while CGI things smash together.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
We now enter a new era of entitled dolts suing over trailers:quote:My brother (who is a lawyer) and I are going to sue WB and DC for false advertising, misleading visual images and gaining a profit from us and millions others due to these acts. Our case has been accepted. We begin 11.08.16
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
You can sue anybody for anything. I can sue you for the color of your shirt causing me mental distress. Doesn't mean I'll win. This isn't new. quote:Do Beautiful Women Really Come to Life When You Drink Bud Light? 1991, Richard Overton sued Anheuser-Busch for false and misleading advertising under Michigan State law. The complaint specifically referenced ads involving, among other things, fantasies of beautiful women in tropical settings that came to life for two men driving a Bud Light truck. In addition to two claims of false advertising, Mr. Overton included a third claim in his complaint in which he claimed to have suffered emotional distress, mental injury, and financial loss in excess of $10,0000 due to the misleading Bud Light ads. The court dismissed all claims. http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/bud_light_lawsuit.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Wait so you wanted MORE joker??
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
at first I thought people who sue over misleading trailers were entitled, but then I realized that we live in an era of commoditized pop culture. suicide squad is a product forced into existence by a company, rather than a work of art born naturally from the mind of a creative. thus, disgruntled consumers have every right to sue when the commercial product in question does not function as advertised. I think it's good that people are suing, because (in theory) it will lead to more responsible advertising and filmmaking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
This is about as stupid as the whiny nerds who tried to get the Better Business Bureau to shut down EA because they didn't like the ending of Mass Effect 3.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Next up: suing for false open trailers. Wait a minute that trailer is about a comedy not a horror movie! The beginning of the trailer tricked me as a consumer!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
SciFiDownBeat posted:at first I thought people who sue over misleading trailers were entitled, but then I realized that we live in an era of commoditized pop culture. suicide squad is a product forced into existence by a company, rather than a work of art born naturally from the mind of a creative. thus, disgruntled consumers have every right to sue when the commercial product in question does not function as advertised. Thing is that even if a commercial product in question functions exactly as advertised (superficial content), it may still not function as advertised (to be enjoyed). What you're essentially proposing here is that you can control quality in "art born naturally from the mind of a creative" in the same way that you can, like, make sure there's no tacks in Cheerios. The critique of "a product forced into existence by a company" is exclusively that it doesn't fulfill this essential, fetishistic promise of the advertising, that it undermines the 'choice' of the consumer, as opposed to the systemic industrial forces which really do damage the environment and impact people's health. The kicker is that "more responsible advertising and filmmaking" not only will not make films better, but it will also not lead to a freer environment for creatives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Yeah this is nothing new. A guy in New Zealand kicked up a stink because the trailer for the Jack Reacher film had a split second shot of a cliff exploding which wasn't in the final cut of the film and put in an official complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority. Paramount's response was pretty much "Yeah stuff from trailers often doesn't make it into the film, that's just the way it works" but they also refunded his ticket price. http://www.avclub.com/article/paramount-refunds-moviegoer-who-felt-tom-cruises-e-96082
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Dear the president: I was promised a movie called "The Woods"...
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
There probably is a point at which one could reasonably state that a movie was falsely advertised, but, yeah, none of this poo poo comes close. Dude drove 300 miles to specifically see "when Joker punchs the roof of his car." Gonna get laughed out of court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:This is about as stupid as the whiny nerds who tried to get the Better Business Bureau to shut down EA because they didn't like the ending of Mass Effect 3. I wish that had worked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Movies manipulate therefore lie and lead you astray from your own expectations. Nothing can ever give you back that sense of satisfaction with your own idealised image of a movie like COLD HARD CASH.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
I mean there probably is some threshold where a trailer and the movie it advertises are so different that you could reasonably have a case. I don't think Suicide Squad meets that threshold.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
I think the more important issue with that dumb trailer thing is what the hell is "mild cheese".
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:This is about as stupid as the whiny nerds who tried to get the Better Business Bureau to shut down EA because they didn't like the ending of Mass Effect 3. Dream big
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Remember the Narnia movies? A pretty successful movie about 10 years ago followed by two disappointing sequels that completely failed to cash in on the LOTR craze? It turns out they're not quite done with those.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Thing is that even if a commercial product in question functions exactly as advertised (superficial content), it may still not function as advertised (to be enjoyed). I'm not sure where that line I put in bold is coming from. I'm saying that there is a distinction between a franchise film and an artistic film. An artistic film is created and funded on the premise that the creatives will deliver something entertaining or otherwise enjoyable. A commoditized film is created to capitalize on a market opportunity regarding a specific brand/franchise that already exists. Advertising for each requires (or ought to require) fundamentally different approaches. In the latter case, you are drawing attention to specific points of interest within a brand and saying, "this, this and that will be in the movie." For example, from the beginning, I don't think anyone doubted that Suicide Squad was a studio movie. So implicitly, from the beginning, consumers would approach the movie as a transaction with guaranteed payoff. Advertising began very early, and increasingly relied on exploiting the public's relationship and cultural reference to the Joker up till release. It was reasonable to expect, therefore, that the Joker--a character which is a commodity itself, since his presence in a work translates directly to value due to his brand recognition--would share an amount of screentime proportional to his visibility in the advertising. When he didn't--when the studio, a corporate entity, went back on the transaction--people understandably felt cheated. The quality of the film was irrelevant, because the consumers did not pay for the movie on the basis of its quality, but whether the advertised Joker character would be present in the movie as much as was advertised. There is no such pretense in a film that isn't controlled end-to-end by a corporate entity with a profit motive. Therefore it doesn't make sense to sue the studio if a scene or character in an ad for an artistic film isn't present in the final cut. Because what's being sold isn't a collection of individual brand properties, which is what Suicide Squad and all the other franchise films are, but a complete whole unto itself. In response to more responsible advertising and filmmaking not helping creatives, I never said it would help them. I just meant that it would increase the (perceived) quality of franchise films if their advertising was more truthful and the filmmaking was less incompetent. No one was walking into Suicide Squad expecting a masterpiece, they simply paid to see the Joker (a brand), Harley Quinn (a brand), and Will Smith (a brand) do their thing. kalel fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Those guys really want to see a future where 'This footage is from a work in progress and may not be representative of the final film" is glaring at the bottom of every movie trailer like they have for E3 game footage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
The Suicide Squad trailer was better than Fantastic Fours. That was the worst I can think of
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 07:57 |
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Remember the Narnia movies? A pretty successful movie about 10 years ago followed by two disappointing sequels that completely failed to cash in on the LOTR craze? They should get the guy who directed God's Not Dead and have Kevin Sorbo play either Aslan or the chair.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:09
|
|