MovieChat Forums > horrorfan000 > Replies
horrorfan000's Replies
Some of the jump scares worked but some were predictable and didn't work.It wasn't horrible.It's good for a watch once.IMO it pales in comparison to the original 3 films though.
That sold me on it.I love 80s slasher films.It's weird i don't remember this as a slasher at all.Although my memories are extremely vague.All i can recall is Linda Blair and Peter Barton in costume at what i think was either a haunted house or maybe a castle.
I just read February 25th.Well that sucks.I was really looking forward to it this month.Now I have to wait nearly 4 months.
Yea my post on the other board was accidental.I thought i was posting here.Anyway i was happy to see him too.I think Doctor who might have been the last thing i had seen him in before this.He needs more work.
Don't see a fourth.1 and 2 are constants in all timelines.3 is a separate movie.And Zombies films are remakes not new timelines.I only count 3.
How was that sexist?.
I remember liking on ER and NYPD blue.She dropped off the radar after those 2 shows though.
Another sad loss for the horror genre.First Craven then Romero now Hooper.
I remember that episode.It was suppose to be a backdoor pilot for a possible spin off but it never happened.
CGI werewolves almost always look like crap when compared to old school hands effects.The big CGI werewolf transformation at the end of Cravens Cursed looked like a cartoon compared to An American werewolf in Londons effects.
Sorry for spoilers.I don't know how to black out sentences like that.If I remember correctly Johnny does find his father alive but he dies anruptly there after.And the Stillson/Armageddon arc was somehow averted when Sarah chose Johnny over Stillson.at least thats how I recall it.No loose ends.
I don't recall any cliffhanger.I do remember it kind of went down hill after the first few seasons.They dragged that Greg Stillson arc on way too long and tied it up in a very lackluster way.
I remember those promos from when they originally aired on tv.Some of them also featured Anthony Michael Halls character from the Dead zone.
When you consider how much Willis and Shepherd didn't get along it is amazing that they had any chemistry at all on camera.I've read that there was a lot of bad blood behind the scenes between the two.
I think it has for the most part.I've enjoyed the show from beginning to end.Season 3 is definitely worth a watch.The Season 3 Nogitsune story arc is my favorite in the series.Dylan O'briens talent really shines in that one.
According to what I read he's doing 25 million dollars worth of reshoots.That sounds like more than just a couple of reshoots.I'm happy he's involved.Love his writing,his shows and most of his movies.
Snyder on the other hand has never really impressed me.His Dawn of the dead remake was terrible.
"Why is the gender of the person doing the things that the Doctor does in the show more important to you that the personality and manners etc of that person?"
I thought I answered that question quite clearly in my last response.
My idiosyncrasies and personality traits don't dictate who I am much because they are always evolving year to year.My gender however has played a huge role in the paths I've chosen in life and the decisions I've made.My gender greatly defines the person I've grown into.
Do think you would have taken the same route in life,have the same job,made the same decisions or have the same friends if you had you been born a different gender.Of course not.
The Doctors gender defines how he's been written and how he's been played for over 50 years.Turning him into a woman erases that character history.
"I'm asking the OP how the gender of the tv character is more important to them in relating to what they do than their personality, mannerisms, kindness, courage etc."
Mannerisms or personality traits are relatively not very important because much like the idea of regeneration as people we are always changing and evolving.I don't have the same personality traits or like the same things I did 10 years ago.That doesn't mean I'm a different person.I've just grown and learned as a person.
Gender on the other hand is a core part of a person's self.If I woke up tomorrow as a woman I would be completely lost.My views on the world and how the world perceives me would have dramatically shifted.in other words I would be a completely different person.
You can't change the Doctors gender and say it's the same person.Because men and women are not the same or interchangeable.
Remake or recast. Makes no difference.they both refer to changing the gender of an established beloved character.
Mythology and explanations aside movies and tv shows need to stop screwing with the characters we love like this.whats next.a white female Shaft.
And if the franchise your hinting at is Ghostbusters then it's a terrible example.That movie sucked.
Firstly i meant switching Buffy's gender in a remake.And secondly your extremely niave if you think feminist groups everywhere wouldn't protest at the idea of taking a strong female role model like Buffy and switching her gender.And rightfully so.Strong female role models like Buffy are important.I sure wouldn't accuse them of being feminist man haters.Yet if you defend the Doctor's gender and position as a strong male role model your somehow labelled sexist and can't handle change.