MovieChat Forums > spurtle467
spurtle467 (1509)
Posts
Spider-Man: Across the Di-Verse
Aliens: "We don't understand the concept of lying and therefore you can't be trusted"
Would the First Order have tolerated homosexuality?
What could go wrong?
How does the finger clicking to make people disappear work exactly?
Old man death and the mallet
The kids
Will the tornadoes increase in size and power as the film goes on?
The Thing facing Kurt Russell at the end
Two seasons of Jack Reacher fighting all sorts of big tough guys
View all posts >
Replies
The Simpsons doesn't need reviving it just needs to be ended. With each new inferior additional series the legacy dies that little bit more. Enough damage has already been done, nothing can change that now. The only thing that can change is how much more damage.
Yes I seem to want to compare to the 1999 film as well. I haven't read the novel or seen any other adaptation but to me the movie more clearly outlines the characters' motivations and they come across a bit more believable and make for a more enthralling story.
In the show, the killing of Dickie by Tom comes across as a bit sudden and jarring because he is neither shown to be particularly infatuated with Dickie, nor shown to be especially psychotic up to that point that he would decide on the spot he was going to kill him. Obviously the film's Tom is infatuated with Dickie, so the killing is somewhat justified as he is upset Dickie doesn't want to be around him anymore and they get into a row.
I don't know, there are quite a few things in this show I don't really buy in terms of the characters. Marge doesn't like Tom from nearly the get go but then seems to warm to him towards the end when there is even more reason to be suspicious of him, due to Dickie having disappeared. The character of Freddie was badly cast and with the way he's portrayed I just don't buy that Dickie would even hang out with him. At least in the film you can see why Dickie and Freddie would hang out together. They encapsulate that rich playboy, self-entitled attitude.
The whole thing with Tom evading capture was also a big suspension of belief. They seem to want to put everybody's picture in the papers relating to the murder of Freddie Miles, apart from the person most closely connected to it, who has also gone missing. I mean really? It would have foiled Tom's plans immediately if they had. Then dressing up differently to the inspector to pretend to be someone else, while acting the same, talking the same, and still looking a bit the same, and getting away with it. OK.
Great cinematography and production values but the writing and storytelling a bit hit and miss.
I'm not a homophobe by any means but our entry was just too much in your face gayness and yes, sleazy.
Let's be honest with SCD, is its audience going to be predominantly straight males? Cause I don't know any who willingly watch it.
The BBC's target audience seem to be gay people now. Strictly, Doctor Who...just look at who they sent for the UK's Eurovision entry last night. Luckily I've never been a big fan of Doctor Who so they can't ruin the experience for me by woking it up to the extreme.
Yes I suppose it's a promising sign if Boyle is returning because I think he said he wouldn't return unless the script was strong enough.
I still don't know what they can bring that will be new to the table? Zombie films have a habit of retreading the same ground because the genre is pretty limited by its story - survival from an apocalyptic pandemic that turns people into the living dead. Presumably there will be a zombie outbreak in this and you wonder how after 28 years down the line this can happen once again.
Yes covid I'm sure will have played a part, especially as it is the older members of the public more vulnerable and the target audience for this would be the older fans of the original movies. The younger age range must be the brunt of cinema goers these days. I can't explain how else those dreadful Transformer movies made so much money despite such lukewarm critical reception.
Obviously though if this opened to acclaim from critics it would have resulted in much better numbers, even despite the other issues you speak about. But without that people just didn't think it was worth it.
On the one hand I think a fifth Indiana Jones movie could have worked. You look at how well Top Gun: Maverick was written and its success at the box office with a much older Tom Cruise returning. Then on the other hand, it's a geriatric Ford playing essentially an adventurer, where action and physicality had very much been at the core of his escapades in the previous movies, unlike with the character Maverick. Only so much you can do with an 80 year old Indiana Jones I suppose.
So could it still have worked as well with the lead character being very old this time? Well I guess it could, although this already changes the tone and the direction the film goes in. It would require relying on good side characters to do some of the heavy lifting so to speak, and I don't believe we got them here. It was a problem with the previous film and it's a problem here as we're faced with a young, unlikeable woman patronising and undermining Indy, every which way. It's not what any true IJ fan wants to see.
Woke agenda and Ford's age aside, I just don't think it was well written enough overall. The action was generic and forgettable, the villains didn't feel threatening, it was neither as dark or tense as Raiders, nor as fun as Crusade. It just felt all too safe. If they'd done things differently it may have been the film Crystal could and should have been.
Whether it's woke or not, the quality does look like a drop off from MM:FR, visually speaking. Hard to know how good the writing will be, but if the standards have gone down in the visual department (and that was one of Fury Road's big selling points), then it's not that promising. This just looks like a lower budget retread. I even wonder how much Miller's heart was in it to do this compared to Fury Road.
It was a combination of things that led to its downfall: mixed reviews, the derailment of the franchise by the previous instalment, probably a lack of interest generally from a more modern audience for a character now being played by an 80 year old. Then there's the recent reputation of Disney producing quantity over quality and being overly woke.
In a way it might be fitting for it to end on a whimper, since a whimper is the best chance of it seeing its end. Had it been hugely successful, they'd already be thinking up what they can do with the franchise next.
I believe a rumour, and have no reason to suspect it's untrue, that the actor in question was Peter Dinklage.
View all replies >