The Shrine

http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.as ... j_id=49143

"We're not forgetting about the fans" generally means "we're doing what we want and just tossing in some stuff from the source material for you lifeless idiots". Ugh.

??? I think you're over-reacting.

Interested in a friendly wager?

And note the word "friendly"

I can't really do movies anymore...they're not interactive enough...

I want to see Rize, but that's about it.

SineSwiper wrote:Now I want to see -THIS- even less

BASTARDS! She has a nice rack...

Barret wrote:??? I think you're over-reacting.

Of course he is. He's been doing this for about a year now.

Z: Agreed. Miss Johannsen does have an excellently formed figure.

Kupek: I remember when he did go insane and begin this tirade, I think it was 2 years ago. Zeus, I love you man, but innocent until proven guilty my friend.

I repeat, would you like to put a friendly wager on it? Bragging rights, since that's the easiest thing to do over the 'net.

Guys, name me a film where they drastically changed the source material and it turned out good. I can think of one, Forrest Gump (dear Lord, that book was awful). Now, take a look at how many of those were based off of old TV shows (say, from the 80s and 90s) or even most older films and see how many of those were good (since they're trying to appeal to both the 18-29 and teen age group).

Take Alien vs Predator for an example. Why the fuck do you make a PG film that's based off two R films? Easy, you try to increase the appeal. Or Dukes of Hazard. So, you don't think they're going to fuck with this to try and make it appeal to more than just the original fans? That's a certainty, it's how much they fuck with it that's the question, not if.

There is at least a 95% chance this film will blow chunks, 4% chance it'll be tolerable, and 1% chance of being good. I'm basing this on my experience with movies of this type. I will admit that because I loved the original material so that those figures are skewed, but only slightly (5% or so).

Also, since you guys all like to say "you're just ranting, shut up", maybe it'll be your turn to shut up, which is why I'm proposing the wager to begin with. Particularly since any time I dare to express my displeasure with anything on any level, no one ever says "well, let's see and then we'll prove you wrong" it's always "you're always ranting about everything, shut up". Which, of course, isn't true, considering how many movies I praise. Of course, that goes completely unnoticed......

A film where they drastically changed the material and it turned out good? Escaflowne.

I'm not going to make a wager because one, I don't care about Transformers, and two, it's too early to tell anything. Which is my point.

I know that's the thing, it is too early to tell. There was a shit load of stuff they changed in the X-Men movies.

Barret wrote:I know that's the thing, it is too early to tell. There was a shit load of stuff they changed in the X-Men movies.

Yeah, though they were trying to condense the entirety of 50+ years of comic book history into a two-hour movie, so even I'll give them a benefit of a doubt. The result turned out pretty good, though.

Also, I may give Dukes of Hazzard a chance. I hated the series, but the idea of Knoxville and Seann William Scott playing the Duke brothers seems appealing. Also, there seems to be a host of other stars in the movie, so at least the acting won't suck.

Like *cough cough* JESSICA SIMPSON *cough*

Kupek wrote:I'm not going to make a wager because one, I don't care about Transformers, and two, it's too early to tell anything. Which is my point.

And my point is, based on the history of other similar films, the direction in which they are going is much more than likely to end up in a sub-par film at best. I never said "there's no chance in hell I'm going to see this", I said "I want to see it even less". I'm still going to follow the development and check out the trailer to see if I want to see it in theatres, but as it stands currently, I feel it's much more than likely going to be shit.

SineSwiper wrote:

Barret wrote:I know that's the thing, it is too early to tell. There was a shit load of stuff they changed in the X-Men movies.

Yeah, though they were trying to condense the entirety of 50+ years of comic book history into a two-hour movie, so even I'll give them a benefit of a doubt. The result turned out pretty good, though.

Also, I may give Dukes of Hazzard a chance. I hated the series, but the idea of Knoxville and Seann William Scott playing the Duke brothers seems appealing. Also, there seems to be a host of other stars in the movie, so at least the acting won't suck.

X-Men did turn out surprisingly well, I have to admit. The second was much better than the first. I'm iffy on the third, I want to see how much Ratner's going to change

I'm on the opposite side of the fence than you on Dukes. I loved the show growing up, so Knoxville and Scott actually lessens the appeal of the movie big time. Simpson actually doesn't do a bad Daisy but that's 'cause all the character was in the show was eye candy, and that's the one thing she can do well. I love the fact that Nelson is Uncle Jesse and as much as I like Reynolds, he's not Boss Hog. BTW, where's Rosco?

Dukes is a "for free" one for me (in other words, on TV). I don't think it's going to be that bad, but I don't want to pay to see it.