Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
It looks like 2011 is going to be an exceptionally poor year in film. This year is yet again heavy in comic book adaptations, reboots, sequels, and prequels.
Starting in the Spring we're going to be in for a downpour of terrible films.
April 15th: Scream 4. Has the 4th film in any series ever been good?
May 6th: Thor. They didn't cast Clay Matthews as Thor so this will definetely be a bad film.
May 20th: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. First one was funny, second one was okay, third one sucked. Does anyone actually think that the fourth Pirates film will be anything worthwhile? At least Depp is hilarious as Captain Jack.
May 26th: The Hangover: Part 2. I guess the Hangover 2 was too simple. They really needed the colon.
May 27th: Kung Fu Panda 2. Jack Black continues to claw for relevancy.
June 3rd: X-Men: Fist Class. Yay, more colons. Might actually be an interesting film though.
June 17th: The Green Lantern. Does anyone care about The Green Lantern?
July 1st: Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Michael Bay. Raping your childhood since 2007.
July 15th: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. At least it's not another Twilight film.
July 22nd: Captain America: The First Avenger. I think we might be overdoing it with the superhero films. Just a tad.
August 19th: Conan the Barbarian. I was excited until I saw the actor playing Conan. I now have confirmation that god does indeed hate me.
August 19th: Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World 3D. Who gave this movie the green light?
August 26th: Final Destination 5.
October 21st: Paranormal Activity 3. This will not end well.
November 4th: Puss in Boots. It's a Shrek spin-off, not a porno. Sorry to dissapoint.
November 18th: Happy Feet 2. Penquins are cute. Have to give 'em that much.
November 18th: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn: Part 1. Two colons in one title. This will be epic.
November 23rd: The Muppets. Oh well, I do like the Muppets. At least isn't another superhero movie.
November 23rd: Rise of the Apes. I wonder if Pierre would've believed that his excellent novel would be turned into one epic and 3007 crappy films?
December 16th: Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked. Real life chipmunks are cute. Squeaky cgi ones not so much.
December 16th: Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol. Who let Tom Cruise back into Hollywood?!
December 16th: Sherlock Holmes 2. I was pleasantly suprised by the first Sherlock Holmes film. Hopefully, RDJR can keep it up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/21 01:12:51
Considering them bible belt numnuts in america are most likely to prove the mayan calender right by voting Sarah Palin to presidency and bringing on the apocalypse I don't think we will make it to 2911.
You realize, Chris Hemsworth put on like 110 pounds of muscle to play Thor right?
Anyways it may all be gak this year, but a Prequel to The Thing comes out in October. The same studio brought us the dawn of the dead remake and slither so I have high hopes for that movie.
You've listed a bunch of Hollywood mainstream movies, then pointed out they're Hollywood mainstream movies. Duh.
If you want something better, look outside the goofball comedies and superhero action movies.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I kind of have to agree with Amaya. This is going to be the worst when it comes to movies. Nothing but sequels, reboots, and prequels. It seems like everyone has either ran out of ideas or the are afraid to try new movies.
Also don't forget that bad news about the Alien Prequel. Its now something totally different. The one series that needed a prequel reboot whatever was that one. Who would have thought that Giger and Scott would make a movie together again? I wanted something to right the wrongs of Alien Vs. Predator and it looks like it isn't happening.
In addition, the Uncharted Movie has mark wahlberg playing Drake, when they could have had Nathan Fillion.
Thor is actually the only comic book movie I'm interested in this summer. Chris Hemsworth I think will do a good job in the role. However, Clay Matthews as Thor would be pretty damn awesome! lol
Shhhhhh...be bwery bwery quiet, I'm huntin' hewetics of the Empewa. Huhuhuhuuu...
Lord Scythican wrote:I kind of have to agree with Amaya. This is going to be the worst when it comes to movies. Nothing but sequels, reboots, and prequels. It seems like everyone has either ran out of ideas or the are afraid to try new movies.
Because all you're looking at are the big releases, which will always be safe, dull films aimed at hitting known markets. If that's all you look at then you've only got yourself to blame when, lo and behold, all you see are safe, dull movies that have been done before.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:If I hear sebster use the word 'duh' one more time I am going to conclude absolutely that the soap Neighbours is 100% accurate to Australian life.
I think Home and Away is the grittier, more true to life series.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/21 02:09:41
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Lord Scythican wrote:I kind of have to agree with Amaya. This is going to be the worst when it comes to movies. Nothing but sequels, reboots, and prequels. It seems like everyone has either ran out of ideas or the are afraid to try new movies.
Because all you're looking at are the big releases, which will always be safe, dull films aimed at hitting known markets. If that's all you look at then you've only got yourself to blame when, lo and behold, all you see are safe, dull movies that have been done before.
Wasn't Lord of the Rings a big movie, I don't remember it being dull and it seemed Peter Jackson did take quite a few risks that paid off in the end.
If you mean dull in that they won't be challenging, than I agree. If you mean dull that they will not be entertaining I disagree. Many of the movies listed above will not be intellectual pillars carving away at the heavens in the search of the human condition, but I bet many of them will be a decent 2 hours of escapism at the theater. Not every book needs to be "As I Lay Dying", so to speak. Which, strangely enough, is also being adapted, and by James Franco no less.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
micahaphone wrote:So I can look forward to HP 7.5 (the first 1/2 was actually one of the best potter movies), and another sherlock holmes, hopefully with
Spoiler:
whats-her-face's death/moriarty's rise to villandom
micahaphone wrote:So I can look forward to HP 7.5 (the first 1/2 was actually one of the best potter movies), and another sherlock holmes, hopefully with
Spoiler:
whats-her-face's death/moriarty's rise to villandom
Spoiler:
Moriarty should already be a villian.
Spoiler:
He already is. He was orchestrating all sorts of villainy in the background of the original film. And why do you want to kill Sherlock's only love? Y s0 <3less?
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
Cheesecat wrote:Wasn't Lord of the Rings a big movie, I don't remember it being dull and it seemed Peter Jackson did take quite a few risks that paid off in the end.
Yes, and I liked the series a lot. I'm not sure I'd say there were many risks taken, outside of financing the full three movies from the start, but that was the producer's risk, not Jackson.
Look, I'm not saying blockbusters can't be really enjoyable. I'm saying that by their nature they will be safer projects, and because they need to be aimed at well established markets they'll be unlikely to try anything really new. Which is fine, and perfectly understandable, because they've got a lot of money invested in these movies, so they want to know they're onto a good thing.
It would make for a really dull list of movies across the board, but we have smaller films taking risks, exploring new markets and doing all that. Except... then we get a list like the above and they only look at the big budget films, and then they're surprised when they play it safe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:If you mean dull in that they won't be challenging, than I agree. If you mean dull that they will not be entertaining I disagree. Many of the movies listed above will not be intellectual pillars carving away at the heavens in the search of the human condition, but I bet many of them will be a decent 2 hours of escapism at the theater. Not every book needs to be "As I Lay Dying", so to speak. Which, strangely enough, is also being adapted, and by James Franco no less.
Yeah, dull as in not challenging. Safe is probably a good word. And I don't want to say blockbusters can't be good, because obviously they can. Some of my favourite movies are big budget, spectacle movies like Die Hard and Terminator 2. But they're going to be safer films, on the whole, so it's good we've got smaller movies making more risks. The problem comes when people restrict themselves to nothing more than the big budget spectacles and then act shocked when they see they're pretty safe movies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/21 03:30:07
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Cheesecat wrote:Wasn't Lord of the Rings a big movie, I don't remember it being dull and it seemed Peter Jackson did take quite a few risks that paid off in the end.
Yes, and I liked the series a lot. I'm not sure I'd say there were many risks taken, outside of financing the full three movies from the start, but that was the producer's risk, not Jackson.
Look, I'm not saying blockbusters can't be really enjoyable. I'm saying that by their nature they will be safer projects, and because they need to be aimed at well established markets they'll be unlikely to try anything really new. Which is fine, and perfectly understandable, because they've got a lot of money invested in these movies, so they want to know they're onto a good thing.
It would make for a really dull list of movies across the board, but we have smaller films taking risks, exploring new markets and doing all that. Except... then we get a list like the above and they only look at the big budget films, and then they're surprised when they play it safe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:If you mean dull in that they won't be challenging, than I agree. If you mean dull that they will not be entertaining I disagree. Many of the movies listed above will not be intellectual pillars carving away at the heavens in the search of the human condition, but I bet many of them will be a decent 2 hours of escapism at the theater. Not every book needs to be "As I Lay Dying", so to speak. Which, strangely enough, is also being adapted, and by James Franco no less.
Yeah, dull as in not challenging. Safe is probably a good word. And I don't want to say blockbusters can't be good, because obviously they can. Some of my favourite movies are big budget, spectacle movies like Die Hard and Terminator 2. But they're going to be safer films, on the whole, so it's good we've got smaller movies making more risks. The problem comes when people restrict themselves to nothing more than the big budget spectacles and then act shocked when they see they're pretty safe movies.
But wasn't LOTR a big risk because there was trouble trying to squeeze such a large book into a different type of media while still remaining true to the source material and still being entertaining to watch at the same time. Also trying to keep an
audience interested for three hours can be difficult task as well.
Cheesecat wrote:But wasn't LOTR a big risk because there was trouble trying to squeeze such a large book into a different type of media while still remaining true to the source material and still being entertaining to watch at the same time. Also trying to keep an
audience interested for three hours can be difficult task as well.
This is kind of my point. LotR is considered risky because it is compared to the very safe world of blockbusters. By the scale of risk taking in smaller films it's a very safe venture (apart from committing to three films from the start). LotR is vast and intepretation is difficult, but it's not like Tristram Shandy or anything like that. Worrying about having people sit ina theatre for three hours is a hilarious non-concern outside of the mainstream.
LotR was an incredible set of risks, when you consider they were plunging hundreds of millions into production. Compared to the risks taken by most films, though, it was a very safe venture.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/21 04:06:39
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Cheesecat wrote:But wasn't LOTR a big risk because there was trouble trying to squeeze such a large book into a different type of media while still remaining true to the source material and still being entertaining to watch at the same time. Also trying to keep an
audience interested for three hours can be difficult task as well.
This is kind of my point. LotR is considered risky because it is compared to the very safe world of blockbusters. By the scale of risk taking in smaller films it's a very safe venture (apart from committing to three films from the start). LotR is vast and intepretation is difficult, but it's not like Tristram Shandy or anything like that. Worrying about having people sit ina theatre for three hours is a hilarious non-concern outside of the mainstream.
LotR was an incredible set of risks, when you consider they were plunging hundreds of millions into production. Compared to the risks taken by most films, though, it was a very safe venture.
micahaphone wrote:So I can look forward to HP 7.5 (the first 1/2 was actually one of the best potter movies), and another sherlock holmes, hopefully with
Spoiler:
whats-her-face's death/moriarty's rise to villandom
Spoiler:
Moriarty should already be a villian.
Spoiler:
He already is. He was orchestrating all sorts of villainy in the background of the original film. And why do you want to kill Sherlock's only love? Y s0 <3less?
No idea who wrote it, but I've always liked the version (pretty sure it's non-canonical) where
Spoiler:
moriarty injects Holmes w/ Heroine, kills off the love, ect. Gives reason for pipe smoking (needed something to replace heroine as he recovered), and why he hates moriarty
You're looking to all the wrong movies.
March 4: Apollo 18, looking like thriller style first contact.
March 11: Battlefield: LA, Alien invasion viewed from the squad level. Yes please.
March 25: Sucker Punch. As others have pointed out. They forgot the samurai troll wielding a chain gun though.
April 8: Hannah. Young girl grows up in the far North trained by her father to be the ultimate assassin. Government "catches" her and all heck breaks loose.
June 10: Super 8. JJ Abrams Area 51/alien movie.
July 29: Cowboys & Aliens. Old west getting invaded by aliens and cowboys fighting back. Harrison Ford as a bandit leader.
Dec 23: Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Anyway, I'll be seeing all the superhero movies because I'm a geek and will giddily munch popcorn while watching them.
MadEdric wrote:You're looking to all the wrong movies.
March 4: Apollo 18, looking like thriller style first contact.
March 11: Battlefield: LA, Alien invasion viewed from the squad level. Yes please.
March 25: Sucker Punch. As others have pointed out. They forgot the samurai troll wielding a chain gun though.
April 8: Hannah. Young girl grows up in the far North trained by her father to be the ultimate assassin. Government "catches" her and all heck breaks loose.
June 10: Super 8. JJ Abrams Area 51/alien movie.
July 29: Cowboys & Aliens. Old west getting invaded by aliens and cowboys fighting back. Harrison Ford as a bandit leader.
Dec 23: Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Anyway, I'll be seeing all the superhero movies because I'm a geek and will giddily munch popcorn while watching them.
correction Samurai robot troll with a chain gun
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
Aren't we due yet for a remake of Beverly Hills Cop, starring some rapper as Axel Foley? Oh well, maybe next year... and when are they going to get around to remaking "Ishtar"?
I'm both chaotic and orderly. I value my own principles, and am willing to go to extreme lengths to enforce them, often trampling on the very same principles in the process. At best, I'm heroic and principled; at worst, I'm hypocritical and disorderly.
Chrysaor686 wrote:I actually like Green Lantern, but I find it strange that they got Ryan Reynolds (The same guy who played Deadpool in X-Men Origins) to play the role.
The Tainted - Pending