• Announcements

    • Jay

      PLEASE DONATE to JWFAN if you can!   08/16/16

      Hello JWFan members,   The team behind JWFan needs your help!   We need annual donations to keep our community running   This is for the domain name, IPBoard license, and server space.   We hope you can help use with a donation of any size.   Use this link or the link on the mainpage. Thank you!   The Administration team
Lonnegan

The Official Future Films Thread

11870 posts in this topic

Michael Bay is approaching to hit a deeper bottom than expected. I've tried to imagine what's going on in his head and I just can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't wait to see the Three Stooges, looks like they nailed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

absolutely not, I've always loved the Three Stooges. The original three that is. Moe, Larry, Curly.

Sorry if slapstick humor isn't one of your tastes.

you're probably more interested in the sophisticated humor of Judd Apatow and his cronies like Jonah Hill, and films that say fuck every 3 seconds and then someone hits a bong or roach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up watching the Stooges and love all the old Stooge shorts

The new film looks absolutely TERRIBLE. They completely missed, it's NOTHING like the old shorts, its a disaster. I mean cameos from the Jersey Shore? Really? Awful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well we'll see. I think making fun of Jersey shore is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well we'll see. I think making fun of Jersey shore is fine.

For the Stooges? This is nothing like the Stooges that we grew up watching. First of all, they were real people and not characters, they literally embodied what was on screen and I think many think its foolish to think others capture that feeling that the originals were able to emote. What's next, Laurel & Hardy and Abbot and Costello revivals? These were real people, playing thinly veiled characters but never straying far from what they knew. These are three actors who, besides the one playing Moe whom I've never heard of, have never been very successful on their own comedicaly and now we are supposed to believe they can inhibit three of the best slapstick actors ever?

Personally, I'm just ashamed that Larry David is in this utter piece of garbage. If it somehow manages to be even decent I'll be shocked but considering the Farrelly's output in the last decade and what has been shown so far I have zero faith in this. I stick to watching the classics off AMC on the weekends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Cronenberg is back!

Karol

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but did he ever really go away? I loved his last few films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's pretty graphic for a movie trailer.

Ahh, the beauty of Croenberg.

And as Quint said, I don't the man ever left and this looks like a Croenberg film if I've ever seen one.

The only thing I feel a bit sour about is the casting of Robert Pattinson. I've yet to see a single satisfying performance from him and I was not aware that he was casted for this film. Would he be suitable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope Cronenberg hasn't picked it just because it feels 'risky', to him. Remember eXistenZ? You do well to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Cronenberg thingie ... What you see is probably just in the head of the characters ... the 'magic' effect of a new drug in the future. Am I right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like Crash with bullet holes. Maybe it ends with a strobe lit sex scene between the leads as Blaine from Predator unloads his chaingun on them in slo-mo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they can jump back a few minutes in time. Pattinson shoots through his hand just for kicks and then undoes what he has done by going back in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well we'll see. I think making fun of Jersey shore is fine.

For the Stooges? This is nothing like the Stooges that we grew up watching. First of all, they were real people and not characters, they literally embodied what was on screen and I think many think its foolish to think others capture that feeling that the originals were able to emote. What's next, Laurel & Hardy and Abbot and Costello revivals? These were real people, playing thinly veiled characters but never straying far from what they knew. These are three actors who, besides the one playing Moe whom I've never heard of, have never been very successful on their own comedicaly and now we are supposed to believe they can inhibit three of the best slapstick actors ever?

Personally, I'm just ashamed that Larry David is in this utter piece of garbage. If it somehow manages to be even decent I'll be shocked but considering the Farrelly's output in the last decade and what has been shown so far I have zero faith in this. I stick to watching the classics off AMC on the weekends.

it's easy to dismiss when you haven't seen it. I disagree that they were playing 3 real people. They were characters, or charicatures. I seriously doubt that Moe could pull all of that hair out of Larry's head, time after time.

For the record the 3 Stooges were actually 6. Moe, Larry, Curly, Shemp, Curly Joe, and Joe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not real is the actual sense, but in the same way that a lot of comedians were doing at the time. They had a certain character and that is what they did. If you do something as much as the Stooges did, its only logical that eventually the two tend to meld together. I'm sure a lot of the real men eventually came through those characters and eventually I'm sure they adapted character traits into their personal lives. Maybe Larry had a very deceptively thick head of hair? :lick:

Yes, its easy to bash something when it hasn't come out, but previews are meant to portray not only the feeling and tone of the movie, but showcase the best the film has to offer. John Carter has taught many that fact may not always be the case, but its more tried and true than most. And considering not only the subject matter, I will be incredibly shocked if we see a massively different film than what I've seen in the trailers and commercials.

And as far as I'm concerned, there are only 4 Stooges: Moe, Larry, Curly, and Shemp. I refuse to accept the other two as Stooges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the quality dips with Curly Joe and Joe but they still have their moments. Shemp was loveable.

Look extreme Slapstick isn't for many these days, as I said most find humor in bongs, and roach clips, and extreme vulgarity. Simulated violence is a no no. For what it's worth I think in the latest clip it appears that all three have got there Stooges down. I'm not real worried about the quality of the film in that no Stooges film was quality to begin with. If they nail the performances as the stooges that's all the will matter. Nyuck nyuck nyuck, certainly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I suppose if some people like you and the ones that made it are happy then at least something useful will have come out of the film. Personally, I'll probably check it out on HBO or whatever but I've just never had an interest in it personally. Not many recent comedies tend to do it for me unless it's on television.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asylum films have announced the production of the third Mega Shark film, Mega Shark vs Mecha Shark.

I fear I would die the night before the premeire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks like that when it comes to movies I'm counting the days to. I remember being fearful that I might not live to see The Return of the King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mirror Mirror is the first of two Snow White movies. I'm puzzled if Snow White is the fairest of them all...why is this girl playing her so damned ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever it is, compared to the first teaser of Prometheus, it's a big fail. It almost says: "Don't see this movie, you wil regret it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chloe Moretz is the new Carrie. She is 15. What will they do for the opening. YIKES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gotta link to source articles for news items like that, Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since you insist go to www.darkhorizons.com or

www.aintitcoolnews.com http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=77778 http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/showbiz/ent-carrie-remake/index.html?eref=rss_showbiz

http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/chloe-moretz-lands-lead-role-as-carrie-in-reboot-of-horror-classic-2012273

if I say it it's true, but I wasn't talking about her selection as much as I was her age.

do you really want to see menstral blood running down the leg of a 15 year old simulating her very first period ever? followed by the teasing strains of other bitchy teenage girls yelling plug it up, plug it up. At least Sissy Spacek was over 20. DePalma's film was very shocking in 1976. Virtually ground breaking in that respect.

Nothing could prepare you for that opening sequence and once it was shown it made statement that said this director can go anywhere with this. Now the thought of a 15 year old is near pornographic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see. I haven't read Carry and I don't know what happens in it, but I've read it happens in high school. Personally, I don't want to see older people playing people in high school ever again (my main complaint for The Amazing Spider-Man trailers). So I think I'm fine with this.

Now, reading your comment, I don't see why that should be seen as near pornographic, given that it involves a 15 year old and it's supposed to be a horror story. Only if I were attracted to the situation despicted or if it was clearly intended to stimulate sexual excitement I would consider it pornographic myself.

Could it be disturbing? Maybe. Would that be wrong? In a horror story? I don't think so. It'd be like saying that it would be wrong to generate excitement in an action film by hanging Tom Cruise out of the Burj Khalifa.

Besides, special effects can be used to simulate what you don't want to see but it looks the same anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then you have alot of films and tv shows to object too. your objections are rather anal.

In this case the character is several years younger, based on your arguments it probably should go both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then you have alot of films and tv shows to object too. your objections are rather anal.

In this case the character is several years younger, based on your arguments it probably should go both ways.

I'm actually aware of my objections being anal.

If the character is supposed to be several years younger that might affect the kid. Also they'd need the consention of the girl and the parents to despict such a thing onscreen even if it was fake using the image of this girl and the girl probably shouldn't decide on that. It makes the whole "acting" part more difficult as well for several reasons. In the end it becomes impractical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you really want to see menstral blood running down the leg of a 15 year old simulating her very first period ever?

Hmmm...virgin blood!

I haven't been this aroused since Linda Blair pied on the floor in The Exorcist...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the character is supposed to be several years younger that might affect the kid. Also they'd need the consention of the girl and the parents to despict such a thing onscreen even if it was fake using the image of this girl and the girl probably shouldn't decide on that. It makes the whole "acting" part more difficult as well for several reasons. In the end it becomes impractical.

Well I certainly hope that we can agree it was more effective to cast a child in the role of Hit-Girl in the movie Kick Ass than a petite 20-something female gymnast. The shock value of Hit-Girl's key line alone made it worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but in some circles, hearing a child say the C word would be just as obscene as seeing a child go through what Joey described in Carrie.

It certainly is indicative of the times in which we live. When Carrie is remade, they will not use a 20-something. They will use a child, and probably tell her parents that she's filming a scene from any number of Judy Blume books-to-movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's official, guys! anchorman 2!

http://www.hitfix.com/articles/anchorman-2-moving-forward-with-will-ferrell-original-director-adam-mckay

Everybody break out the Sex Panther, because Ron Burgundy is back.

That's right: Will Ferrell has signed on to reprise his role as the oafish, teleprompter-bungling, chauvinistic San Diego newscaster in "Anchorman 2", the long-awaited sequel to producer Judd Apatow's2004 comedy hit. Also reportedly back for another go-round are Apatow, original director Adam McKay and co-stars Paul Rudd and Steve Carell (a scene-stealer in the first film as mentally-challenged weatherman Brick Tamland).

my first reaction: :shakehead:

but on second thought... it could turn out great. mckay better bring it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now