The Shrine

Looks like it may actually get the Equilibrium director

http://movies.ign.com/articles/859/859615p1.html

I can understand Kojima's comments that film is different from games, but they could so easily do a modified version of the MGS3 storyline for a movie, just take out the supernatural aspects of the Cobras and the electric guy (name starts with a V; getting very forgetful in my old age :-). And they HAVE to get rid of Ocelot's meowing :-) That would be a great first film I would think

What?! No John Carpenter?!

Dutch wrote:What?! No John Carpenter?!

Yeah, Ghosts of Mars was a great movie.

BTW, this movie will probably suck. Kurt Wimmer might be a good director or action sequence developer, but not as a writer. Ultraviolet was a good film for its flair, effects, and action, but the story was beyond terrible. Aeon Flux was even a better story than that.

And a better not see Gun Kata in this film either. You can't fit it into every movie you direct. I put him with the likes of M. Night and Aronofsky: they can go one movie well, but once they start doing multiple films, you notice the same bullshit over and over again, and realize that they are one-trick ponies.

Zeus wrote:Looks like it may actually get the Equilibrium director

http://movies.ign.com/articles/859/859615p1.html

I can understand Kojima's comments that film is different from games, but they could so easily do a modified version of the MGS3 storyline for a movie, just take out the supernatural aspects of the Cobras and the electric guy (name starts with a V; getting very forgetful in my old age :-). And they HAVE to get rid of Ocelot's meowing :-) That would be a great first film I would think

You lost me when you dared to suggest the cutting of Ocelot's meowing. Honestly wtf Zeus, just wtf.

SineSwiper wrote:

Dutch wrote:What?! No John Carpenter?!

And a better not see Gun Kata in this film either. You can't fit it into every movie you direct. I put him with the likes of M. Night and Aronofsky: they can go one movie well, but once they start doing multiple films, you notice the same bullshit over and over again, and realize that they are one-trick ponies.

Aronofsky is a BRILLIANT director and you are just an unwashed ignorant puissant. Every single one of his movies has been a masterpiece, and they're not at all identical.

RentCavalier wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:

Dutch wrote:What?! No John Carpenter?!

And a better not see Gun Kata in this film either. You can't fit it into every movie you direct. I put him with the likes of M. Night and Aronofsky: they can go one movie well, but once they start doing multiple films, you notice the same bullshit over and over again, and realize that they are one-trick ponies.

Aronofsky is a BRILLIANT director and you are just an unwashed ignorant puissant. Every single one of his movies has been a masterpiece, and they're not at all identical.

you are correct Yahtzee minus the wit. Ultraviolet was the greatest movie ever

Manfarb wrote:

RentCavalier wrote:

SineSwiper wrote: And a better not see Gun Kata in this film either. You can't fit it into every movie you direct. I put him with the likes of M. Night and Aronofsky: they can go one movie well, but once they start doing multiple films, you notice the same bullshit over and over again, and realize that they are one-trick ponies.

Aronofsky is a BRILLIANT director and you are just an unwashed ignorant puissant. Every single one of his movies has been a masterpiece, and they're not at all identical.

you are correct Yahtzee minus the wit. Ultraviolet was the greatest movie ever

Aronofsky didn't direct Ultraviolet you dumb-ass, he directed Pi, Requiem for a Dream, and the Fountain--the Fountain being one of the greatest movies ever made.

Also, for the love of Christ, use some fucking capitol letters. If you're going to try and be an ass, at the very least you could be a literate one.

RentCavalier wrote:Aronofsky is a BRILLIANT director and you are just an unwashed ignorant puissant. Every single one of his movies has been a masterpiece, and they're not at all identical.

***MAJOR SPOILERS on both Pi and Requiem for a Dream***

I'll admit that I haven't seen The Fountain, but Requiem for a Dream, while a nice piece of art in its own right, suffered from the same two problems with Pi:

1. Aronofsky has this need to showcase the fact that he invented "actor-mounted cameras" by including several of these shots in both of the movies. It's annoying, and cliche, just like bullet time (after the Matrix) and liquid metal (after T2), except it seems like he makes it a cliche right out the door before anybody else starts using it.

2. Lower than usual expected realisms. Pi's story was kinda fast and loose on realism, from the "OMG, it's real" conspiracy theories to DRILLING A FUCKING HOLE IN HIS HEAD AND STILL BREATHING. RfaD has the same issue, especially with the unrealistic endings on all four characters:

2a. Inaccurate use of drugs. As a former drug user, I am annoyed at this cliche every single time I see it in movies.
2b. A mentally ill person can't sign for their own treatment.
2c. Doctors cannot just get you arrested for suspected drug use. They'll want you to seek treatment, but even being high isn't against the law.
2d. Prisoners go through a through medical evaluation. Any infections would have been dealt with way before losing an arm.
2e. I guess the chick might have ended up in that situation, but it's just the most extreme situation possible.

That's not to say that I don't love both movies, but I loved Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, too. Now look where M. Night ended up.

Um...all of your criticisms with RfaD are unwarranted because it's...you know...based off a book, and it sticks pretty close to the books plot (though, as per usual, everyone tells me the book is better.)

All the complaints about pseudo-realism are also utterly unfounded because that's sort of the INTENT of the film. Requiem for a Dream, the book, is written in a very abstract, stream-of conciousness style that lends credibility to the visual dreamscape that Aronofsky constructs in the film. The few scenes he uses actor-strapped camera shots are not important enough scenes to utterly ruin a movie, and calling it "cliche" is retarded because, by your own admission, he does it first.

His movies are similar in style, but how is that any different from Kevin Smith or Oliver Stone? Most great directors have a distinctive style, and the difference between Aronofsky and others is that his distinctive style takes whatever movie he is making an elevates it into a great and powerful art form. Most of his shots contain subtle symbols and great use of geometry and symmetricality.

The Fountain especially. If you haven't seen the Fountain, I highly HIGHLY reccomend it. It's a movie that is ahead of its time.

Rent, please keep all of your personal insults to Seek only :-)

Awww, but I have SO MANY...