What Upcoming Films Are You Most Looking Forward To?

[ame="http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/redbelt/high.html"]Apple - Trailers - Redbelt - Trailer 1 - High@@AMEPARAM@@http://movies.apple.com/movies/sony/redbelt/redbelt_h.640.mov@@AMEPARAM@@http://movies.apple.com/movies/sony/redbelt/redbelt_h.640.mov[/ame]
 
[ame="http://www.apple.com/trailers/newline/sexandthecity/trailer/large.html"]Apple - Trailers - Sex and the City Movie - Large@@AMEPARAM@@http://movies.apple.com/movies/newline/sexandthecity/sexandthecity-tlr_h.640.mov@@AMEPARAM@@http://movies.apple.com/movies/newline/sexandthecity/sexandthecity-tlr_h.640.mov[/ame]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[ame="http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=33429578"]MySpaceTV Videos: Twilight in HD by Trailer Park[/ame]
 
Out of the list, I'm most looking forward to: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull, The Dark Knight, and Wall - E

I'll defiantly go see Indiana Jones and The Dark Knight in theaters, especially since I've waited 10 years for Indy. And lets just face it, The Dark Knight will be the highest grossing moving this year, not only is it the sequel to the best Batman movie ever, it's also featuring Hugh Ledger in his last big role before his death, and he just happens to be playing the biggest super villain of all time.

I'll probably also be seeing Sex in the City, Harold and Kumar, The Strangers, and Wanted when they come out on DVD. Though I may break down and see Wanted on the big screen.

ALL HAIL BATMAN!! Dadadadadada BATMAN!
 
I'll be honest. a lot of those movies look like absolute rubbish. Oh and DR dont be surprised if you come out of Indy wishing for that period of time back. Its not in the same league as the rest of the series.

Superhero movie is funny but completely stupid. The whole parody thing has gone too far really cos its starting to get pathetic.

If Batman 2 is like batman 1 then it should be good. Other than that I'll be watching hellboy 2 cos 1 kicked ass for me and Hulk shall be watched to see how bad they made it this time. I will watch H&K cos the first one was good and mindless kinda like cheech and chong and after that I will watch the animated ones with my girlfriend simply cos she wants to watch them. Especially ice age cos she loves that little critter getting beaten senseless while trying to get that nut.
 
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on a few things.

Indy. It delivered for me, and is now one of my two favorites of the four.

On the other hand, I was tricked into watching Harold and Kumar go to White Castle, and I still have to resist the urge to stab myself in the upper thigh everytime I think about it. If I want mindlessness, I'll go look up Anne Coulter videos on YouTube.

Batman was good. I still have some issues with plot devices that seem to plague Batman movies. Like how the villain's origin HAS to tie into the hero's somehow. Like he won't have the motivation to fight him otherwise, you know, being a hero and all. Still don't see why the gadget guy had to be Lucius Fox, but I digress. The new one might still be interesting.

I still don't see the what the problem was with the Hulk movie, other then the left field ending. I saw it. I liked it. I even liked Nick Nolte up until the, as I said, left field character development. But I highly approved of the creation of the inner turmoil of Bruce Banner. Rage comes from somewhere. About time they acknowledged that. I disagree with some who said he looked fake. You'd have to compare him to other 8 foot tall indestructible green behemoths to make that assertion.

So, yeah, like I said. I'd have to disagree with you on most of those. I'm looking forward to a good number of these. But then, I come from a different kind of movie upbringing. You youngins' are spoiled. ;)
 
Digital Jedi said:
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on a few things.

Indy. It delivered for me, and is now one of my two favorites of the four.

On the other hand, I was tricked into watching Harold and Kumar go to White Castle, and I still have to resist the urge to stab myself in the upper thigh everytime I think about it. If I want mindlessness, I'll go look up Anne Coulter videos on YouTube.

Batman was good. I still have some issues with plot devices that seem to plague Batman movies. Like how the villain's origin HAS to tie into the hero's somehow. Like he won't have the motivation to fight him otherwise, you know, being a hero and all. Still don't see why the gadget guy had to be Lucius Fox, but I digress. The new one might still be interesting.

I still don't see the what the problem was with the Hulk movie, other then the left field ending. I saw it. I liked it. I even liked Nick Nolte up until the, as I said, left field character development. But I highly approved of the creation of the inner turmoil of Bruce Banner. Rage comes from somewhere. About time they acknowledged that. I disagree with some who said he looked fake. You'd have to compare him to other 8 foot tall indestructible green behemoths to make that assertion.

So, yeah, like I said. I'd have to disagree with you on most of those. I'm looking forward to a good number of these. But then, I come from a different kind of movie upbringing. You youngins' are spoiled. ;)
Click to expand...

Pfft, me and slither used to have these arguments all the time about movies. Trust me, I've seen a good MANY movies, and I'm can guarantee that I've seen a good many you haven't, especially in the horror genres. I am and always will be a Movie Guru.

As for some of your posts:
1. Don't blame the Batman movies for the villains origins being tied into Batmans, it just happens to be that way in the comics. Though like in all things, the origins do differ from series to series.
2. H&K was CLASSIC the first 2 maybe 3 times. Movies such as they are always good the first couple of times, I still remember watching "Dude, Wheres my Car?" like 3 times in a roll then it died on me after that. You just have to be able to turn off that side of your brain that says "STOP KILLING ME!!".
3. As for the HULK, if he was Purple and a chick, I'd watch it.
 
Youd watch a purple hulk with boobs? You my friend are sick.

Now DJ I will let it slide that you enjoyed Indy because youre obviously an Indy fanboy but heres my take on it. I loved the other 3 movies. I watched the 3 of them nearly every year at christmas almost religiously and several times during the year Id stick them on as well. Then this one came out.

Now i will admit that a lot of the movie looks great. The CGI gophers suck ass though. The nuke looked cool and the whole temple being sucked into another dimension looked cool. The story was absolutely horrible. It started fine as all good Indy movies do but it deviated from the plot even more so than temple of doom which saved itself in the end unlike this one. As soon as you start adding in interdimensional aliens thats when ya say "Damn you Lucas you turned it into just another one of your movies instead of the great showstopper it was meant to be you LONG SERIES OF EXPLETIVES"

Oh and as for batman DR is right. the movie was a lot closer to the comics than the original depending on which version you read.

I liked the hulk movie except for the end because everything though it was wildly fantastical had a believable quality to it. I dont think Norton will deliver a similar feeling in his performance.
 
I submit, that the only reason you disliked the CGI gophers, is because you knew they where CGI gophers. But that's a theory of mine best left for another day. I do know that I've heard criticism of many a CGI effect in a movie, only to find out later they weren't CGI effects. (Zathura for example)

I wouldn't call myself an Indy fanboy. I only really got into it around Last Crusade. I liked them fine before that, but I more of a fan of the last two then the other two. Okay, I like the hat.

But, let's be honest here, the plot couldn't really go into another biblical or mythical storyline without the risk of playing that line out. I've found alien storylines to be more believable then the mythical/pseudo-biblical ones anyway.

Now with Batman, I don't know about Ra's being tied into his origin in other comics. I don't recall that in the DC line. But my thing is how they would have tied it in anyway, whether the comic did so or not. Just like they did with Jack Nicholson Joker in Batman and in a bunch of other forgettable super hero movies of the 80s-90s.

dimensionruler said:
Trust me, I've seen a good MANY movies, and I'm can guarantee that I've seen a good many you haven't, especially in the horror genres.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't doubt that. But what I mean is- well, look at it this way. There was a time when the only good science fiction movies in the theaters was either Star Wars or Star Trek: The Motion Picture. There was a time when seeing the little black line that traced the outside of the spaceship, or the monster, or the giant scorpion was acceptable, because it was the best they could do. There was a time when all movie monster looked like they had Parkinson's Syndrome, because stop motion was the only way to make it happen. There was a time when extreme close-ups of miniature cities, or scorpions, or iguanas, or lobsters what the most believable way to make then seem giant.

I guess what I'm saying is, I hear someone criticized some CGI gophers, and all I can think about is the giant lobster.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqBQo5lu_JU"]YouTube - Teenagers From Outer Space" (1959) 8/9[/ame]
 
DJ i dont mind that they were done in CGI. I mind that they were done so poorly in cgi especially when compared to the rest of the cgi in the movie. Certain things will age well such as the parts in the old indy movies filmed in front of a blue screen but those gophers wont age as well as the rest of the movie and thus will be very hgorrible in relation to the rest of it.

Oh and BTW i regularly watch old movies and love the horrible quality of the monsters. I liked them cos they fit in well with the movies they were used in. Clash of the titans is my fave monster movie ever. Te guys in that were horribly done in general but were great in the context of the movie.
 
But in context to who made Clash of the Titans, they were extremely well done. That was the last movie Ray Harryhausen worked on that I know of. And his stop motion work is considered legendary. His work set the tone for the CGI work that would later come.

That's what I mean by a lot of things. I think we put things into the wrong context. I mean, have you seen the majority of the work done with CGI and hair? It's pretty much all looks the same. They didn't look any less realistic then the CGI monkeys later in the film, and any hair covered creatures in other CGI films. By the way, they were Prairie Dogs, not gophers.
 
Actually, I really enjoyed the older effects over the new CGI. As far as I'm concerned the old King Kong looked much better then the new Kong. I'm almost sorely against CGI in most movies unless the CGI is either extremely well done, used minimally, or is done entirely in CGI (This does NOT include movies such as Bewolf where they used CGI just because they could and there was no real point in it). As far as I'm concerned the best use of CGI so far has been Transformers where it was used primarily for transformations. You used the Lobster to say how bad the old effects could be, I say look at "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and tell me how great the old effects could be.
 
Now see, I really liked the new one, having appreciated the storyline of the old one and it's subsequent spin-offs and sequels. I think Kong and Mighty Joe Young (Kong more so, of course) were extremely well done.

I also have always liked Close Encounters of the Third Kind. But you do have to admit, the special effects in that were minimal because the story called for it. Great, yes. But also limited by the ability of the times (the ship wouldn't have looked anywhere near as realistic had the script demanded it to be shown during the day) and I'm fairly sure they cleaned it up for the most recent DVD release.

Hrm, I know I had a point here somewhere. I supposes it's I just feel like we're spoiled nowadays. I think we're seeing the greatest movies we've ever seen at any point and time in movie history. I don't think we know what we've got and I don't think we appreciate it for what it is. I also think that our opinion of movies is colored a great deal people who are the most outspoken about what they like, be they friends, movie critics or what have you.

I remember seeing a couple of films with the same group of friends (Specifically Batman: Mask of the Phantasm and Star Trek: Generations). I enjoyed both, and I remember quite clearly listening to my friends enjoy the same scenes that I did while in the theater. But when we get out, there's one of my friends standing in the middle of a circle talking all kinds of junk about the movie, and everyone just falling right behind him because he was the dominant personality in the group (a guy who didn't like any movie he ever saw since Star Wars). Not necessarily because they agreed, but because the dominant and supposedly "cooler" friend thought that way. (I still laugh when I remember him saying how the Special Effects sucked and would have been better had they gotten the "people who did Star Wars" to do it. When, in fact, they had and he just didn't know who ILM was or how to read credits.) Suffice it so say, I was somewhat perturbed. I think people should make their own minds up about films.

So I really do feel like folks these days are influenced a great deal by other people. These days, you've always got these blockbuster hits that see millions of dollars and are seen by millions of people within the first week, but because some guy on a blog or a group of people decided that the movie "sucked", then everyone else does too. I think a great percentage of movie viewers nowadays, or at least, a more vocal majority of movies goers, simply don't like movies---of any kind. And there stronger, more outspoken personalities are spilling over into everyone else's opinion to. I mean, look at Emerald. He already thinks most of these films are going to be bad, and he hasn't even seen but a few seconds of each of them. I don't think Emerald is easily influenced by other people, either. But what could make him make up his mind so readily based on such a minimum of information?

But somebody is going to see these movies, and someone is recommending them to their friend in the first week and for some reason their making sequels that do almost as well or better. And I can't imagine it's because the movie was truly bad, and I believe the term "fanboy" to be a fallacy. I think a good number of us are really missing out a good thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Digital Jedi said:
Now see, I really liked the new one, having appreciated the storyline of the old one and it's subsequent spin-offs and sequels. I think Kong and Mighty Joe Young (Kong more so, of course) were extremely well done.

I also have always liked Close Encounters of the Third Kind. But you do have to admit, the special effects in that were minimal because the story called for it. Great, yes. But also limited by the ability of the times (the ship wouldn't have looked anywhere near as realistic had the script demanded it to be shown during the day) and I'm fairly sure they cleaned it up for the most recent DVD release.

Hrm, I know I had a point here somewhere. I supposes it's I just feel like we're spoiled nowadays. I think we're seeing the greatest movies we've ever seen at any point and time in movie history. I don't think we know what we've got and I don't think we appreciate it for what it is. I also think that our opinion of movies is colored a great deal people who are the most outspoken about what they like, be they friends, movie critics or what have you.

I remember seeing a couple of films with the same group of friends (Specifically Batman: Mask of the Phantasm and Star Trek: Generations). I enjoyed both, and I remember quite clearly listening to my friends enjoy the same scenes that I did while in the theater. But when we get out, there's one of my friends standing in the middle of a circle talking all kinds of junk about the movie, and everyone just falling right behind him because he was the dominant personality in the group (a guy who didn't like any movie he ever saw since Star Wars). Not necessarily because they agreed, but because the dominant and supposedly "cooler" friend thought that way. (I still laugh when I remember him saying how the Special Effects sucked and would have been better had they gotten the "people who did Star Wars" to do it. When, in fact, they had and he just didn't know who ILM was or how to read credits.) Suffice it so say, I was somewhat perturbed. I think people should make their own minds up about films.

So I really do feel like folks these days are influenced a great deal by other people. These days, you've always got these blockbuster hits that see millions of dollars and are seen by millions of people within the first week, but because some guy on a blog or a group of people decided that the movie "sucked", then everyone else does too. I think a great percentage of movie viewers nowadays, or at least, a more vocal majority of movies goers, simply don't like movies---of any kind. And there stronger, more outspoken personalities are spilling over into everyone else's opinion to. I mean, look at Emerald. He already thinks most of these films are going to be bad, and he hasn't even seen but a few seconds of each of them. I don't think Emerald is easily influenced by other people, either. But what could make him make up his mind so readily based on such a minimum of information?

But somebody is going to see these movies, and someone is recommending them to their friend in the first week and for some reason their making sequels that do almost as well or better. And I can't imagine it's because the movie was truly bad, and I believe the term "fanboy" to be a fallacy. I think a good number of us are really missing out a good thing.
Click to expand...

Of course the special effects in Close Encounters was limited, special effects are ALWAYS limited by the technology you have at the time, but the difference is; those in the past KNEW what their special effects could and couldn't do (most of the time) and didn't try to push it to far. If you look at the current work of CGI's, I think they just throw it around and hope that it works out, they don't think about what might work and look better for the movie. The new Beowulf might of been GREAT (doubtful but maybe) had they not decided to just use CGI the entire time to make it look like a video game.

As for Kong; the CGI isn't the only reason I disliked this movie. The original King Kong had a run time of 104 minutes at its newly restored condition, the remake King Kong had a run time of 187 minutes or 201 minutes for the extended version, thats an extra hour in forty minutes of movie for the extended version. A remake should NEVER be longer then its original counterpart, I already know the ending, I know the ape dies, so why would I want to sit through a LONGER version in order to see it?

I totally agree with you in the rest of your post. People will always be easily swayed towards the opinion of the more dominate, "popular" person in the group they happen to be in or want to be a part of. I could get into real specific technical reasons why this occurs, but instead of making a long boring post I'll sum it up in a few words: People seek acceptance. People will change who they are and what they think in order to be accepted into a group they consider to be prestigious, cool, or popular.

Of course this doesn't just apply to movies, it applies to most opinions and ways of thinking. Rather it be music, cloths, movies, tv, even dueling. Lets look at cloths for example. It has become amazingly popular for guys to wear jeans and pants that hang below the butt, however; this started in prison to show that you where someone's property and you wore the jeans low to show off "the goods" to other possible "clients". Some how this translated into being "gangster" because a few popular rappers started wearing their jeans this way. Everyone wanted to be cool so they started coping the rappers with little to no knowledge of what it may symbolize.

Currently it is the most acceptable thing to just not like anything and be unduly harsh in your criticisms until someone more popular tells you other wise. Its because the vast majority of people are easily swayed that that us true Individuals become so important, because we will be the onces that force change and look beyond the box.
 
I did get the opportunity to go and see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of The Crystal Skull a couple of weeks ago and I must say that It didn't let me down... much. After 10 years of anticipation of course my expectations where a little to high for the movie, I'll admit that. With that said, it was an overall pretty good movie, it lived up to the potential of Temple of Doom at least.

The only real problem I had with the entire movie was the nuclear explosion and Indiana's ability to survive it by hiding in a refrigerator and being tossed a few miles out of the explosion by the force of the impact. I could even believe Inter - Dimensional Aliens over that, after all, it wasn't to much of a stretch from all the religious happenings in the previous movies.

So I give it a 8/10, much like what I'd give Temple of Doom, but not as good as Last Crusade or Raiders.
 
I chalked up to Indy's toughness. I mean, he survived slamming into a mountain face from more the 50 feet away (even remains conscious), somehow managed to find land after jumping from an exploding boat in the middle of a churning sea, and repeatedly finds himself on the friendly end of being shot at. Being tossed around in a fridge didn't seem like a stretch after all that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top