|
Post by kay on Oct 21, 2005 11:41:50 GMT -5
At least they haven't tried to make a movie out of Grand Theft Auto yet. Or do you guys think they'd do a good job on that? I don't think it'd work out. It'd be some mafia movie meets the fast and the furious...
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Oct 21, 2005 13:35:49 GMT -5
Grand Theft Auto isn't even a good game. Why would it make a good movie?
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Oct 21, 2005 18:02:47 GMT -5
I dig that game, it is pretty goddamn entertaining.
But as far as making a good movie, not a chance.
This game has pretty much been made already, just look at any michael bay flick, where the guys go around blowing people away, and every other scene is a car chase. Who needs plot anyhow? Just add more explosions.
|
|
|
Post by kay on Oct 22, 2005 10:39:26 GMT -5
There's probably a plot for the movie laying around somewhere, just no one's liked it yet. But if some damn exec does like it, Lord help us all.
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Oct 22, 2005 15:30:15 GMT -5
Shit, we're beyond help. Hollywood keeps belching out this pseudo-horror, and video game movies, and the public eats it up like roast beef.
Look at "The Fog", (a pg-13 horror-flick remake) it got a 27 on metacritic (which is a terrible rating) and led the box office last week at 11 million or something like that.
What we need to do is bap these dumb bastards who go to these shitty movies every weekend on the head, and drag 'em off onto a foreign island so they can't infect the rest of the world with their stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Oct 23, 2005 17:32:01 GMT -5
As I understand the original of that wasn't even any good. Why redo what sucks allready? Then again, why redo what's good?
Thus begging the ultimate question: Why redo at all?
|
|
|
Post by kay on Oct 24, 2005 14:34:30 GMT -5
Because some little pansy of a golden-boy director gets it into their little head that they could so do a better job and the studios approve it so said golden-boy doesn't throw a tizzy-fit.
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Oct 24, 2005 19:39:46 GMT -5
this coming from the person who liked Tomb Raider.
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Oct 24, 2005 20:26:36 GMT -5
Remaking a bad movie is more understandable then remaking a good one. Of course, the original had to have potential. Haven't seen the original fog, so can't judge on this instance.
Yet another video game movie is at the top of the box office. Doom raked in over fifteen mill at the box office this weekend, looks like there isn't much hope left for my plan.
|
|
|
Post by Rock Lobster on Oct 25, 2005 19:15:39 GMT -5
CGI titties are better than CGI bloody cock. Evidence: Tomb Raider vs. Irreversible. Not saying Tomb Raider is a better movie, don't get me wrong. But I'd rather see CGI tits than a CGI blood-stained cock. Lol! Wow, you lost me with the bloody cock thing...but I'm so very scared...
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Oct 26, 2005 16:03:50 GMT -5
Yeah, there is a scene where a dude rapes a woman. It's a fuckin 9 minute, single take shot. He rapes her then beats the shit out of her. Anyway, the director realized after he raped her that you could see he didn't have his cock out, so he digitally inserted a bloody cock to make up for it.
Bad fucking times. You want to see a brutal movie, watch one of Gaspar Noe's films: I Stand Alone or Irreversible.
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Oct 26, 2005 19:56:16 GMT -5
that sounds like nothing I ever want to see
|
|
|
Post by Rock Lobster on Oct 27, 2005 3:28:49 GMT -5
Yeah! I'm going to have to go with Jessy on this one. Sounds a wee bit too disturbing for me.
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Oct 27, 2005 19:49:33 GMT -5
I don't know if it is worth seeing, but there are some interesting themes in the movies. Irreversible is really hard to watch, not only because of the violence and brutality, but because it is in reverse chronology, and the transition between scenes is the camera doing a roll. It is really weird, and disorienting. Hard to describe as well.
|
|