What movie did you see today?

Agreed on all counts.

Spoiler:

What I didn't get is why the VP was willing to betray his country just to let his daughter get the "medication". The same "medication" that killed a decent portion of people who took it. I think I'd prefer that my handicapped daughter remained handicapped than to have a 25% chance of her dying...

Spoiler:

Yeah, I was a bit confused about that as well. Especially when it seemed like they wanted to go to market with the fixed product within a year, presumably making it available to the VP without having to commit treason. Also, why did they take 13 years to try to get Stark to explain his cryptic note? Why were the supermen sometimes able to literally tear Iron Man's armor apart, but other times couldn't even open it - i.e. to get Don Cheadle's character out of the Warmachine suit? How did the botanist go suddenly from party to kidnapping and a massive terrorism conspiracy to threatening suicide to let Stark go? A two minute conversation does the trick?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Downey Jr's performance, and I thought Gwyneth Paltrow did a decent job as well (though the whole 'damsel in distress' section was a bit meh for her character), and there was certainly plenty of cool and fun shots. It just was a little too full of holes to allow me to suspend my disbelief and just enjoy the show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I recently learned that movie "trailers" are considered AS important as the movie itself. They take the largest chunk of overall marketing costs, and exceed 10% of all filming and casting costs. :eek:

---

This shouldn't come as a surprise given that the average movie trailer contains about 80% of the interesting content of the average movie :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Spoiler:

Yeah, I was a bit confused about that as well. Especially when it seemed like they wanted to go to market with the fixed product within a year, presumably making it available to the VP without having to commit treason. Also, why did they take 13 years to try to get Stark to explain his cryptic note? Why were the supermen sometimes able to literally tear Iron Man's armor apart, but other times couldn't even open it - i.e. to get Don Cheadle's character out of the Warmachine suit? How did the botanist go suddenly from party to kidnapping and a massive terrorism conspiracy to threatening suicide to let Stark go? A two minute conversation does the trick?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Downey Jr's performance, and I thought Gwyneth Paltrow did a decent job as well (though the whole 'damsel in distress' section was a bit meh for her character), and there was certainly plenty of cool and fun shots. It just was a little too full of holes to allow me to suspend my disbelief and just enjoy the show.

---

Spoiler:

I also don't get why some of the people were much stronger than others. I.E. The main guy didn't even die from being blown up. One can make the case that his #2 was naturally strong before the procedure, but the main guy wasn't. Does he get extra badassness from being the main guy?

And why did the botanist call the crazy guy back after clearly not wanting to work with him?

Agreed on both points, Loki. There are some potential explanations for question 1, but nothing really satisfying for question 2.

While I've been catching up on the evidence for evolution the missus has been laughing her ass off at Darwin Awards which she's never seen before. It's been panned by many critics but the consensus in this household is that it's a hilarious and heartwarming movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I recently learned that movie "trailers" are considered AS important as the movie itself. They take the largest chunk of overall marketing costs, and exceed 10% of all filming and casting costs. :eek:

---

That they are the largest chunk of overall marketing costs is not surprising - that's what trailers are for. That it may exceed 10% of filming costs is not that weird either when you think about it - you tend to have the most visually impressive scenes in your trailer, which tend to be more expensive. Not sure what 10% of casting costs is even supposed to mean in this context, by far most casting costs are for the lead roles, and they get paid for the entire film, not per scene. Though I suppose big scenes are often in trailers, and may include a shitload of extras.

You should know that trailers are generally made from footage from the actual film, so it's not like they spend an extra 10% on filming trailer scenes, they edit it from existing footage which tends to be the most expensive scenes. And yeah, they are important, since it's what people see of your film and use to decide whether they will visit your film or not. So it can make or break your release.

Y'all are analyzing Iron Man 3 too much. Shit gets blown up and its funny. The purpose of movies - a perfect 10.

American Pie: The Reunion

Not nearly as amusing as the previous movies. Flogging a dead horse. Even Stiffler was tame. Everything was rather forced and contrived.

Although seeing Levenstein's knob pushed up against a glass pan lid did raise a chuckle. Rare to see man bits in American movies. Gets an extra half point for that.

3.5/10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Spoiler:

Yeah, I was a bit confused about that as well. Especially when it seemed like they wanted to go to market with the fixed product within a year, presumably making it available to the VP without having to commit treason. Also, why did they take 13 years to try to get Stark to explain his cryptic note? Why were the supermen sometimes able to literally tear Iron Man's armor apart, but other times couldn't even open it - i.e. to get Don Cheadle's character out of the Warmachine suit? How did the botanist go suddenly from party to kidnapping and a massive terrorism conspiracy to threatening suicide to let Stark go? A two minute conversation does the trick?

---

Spoiler:

Roughly in order:
Stark made it clear he didn't want to talk to either of them again, and it wasn't a cryptic note, it was just a correction to one of the botanists equations.

On the armor thing, they didn't want to break the Warmachine suit - they were planning to use it for infiltration later. When Killian started heating it up to force Rhodes out, remember that his goons were surprised and complained that he was going to damage it.

The botanist was a bit odd, but they did spend time setting up that she wasn't totally cool with the plot in the first place, that she was mostly just there for the science. Taken a bit further, it's not too difficult to imagine her heel-face turn, since she saw Tony as the key to more science.

I've got nothing on the VP thing. The only thing the movie really gave us on the VP's motivations was a single wordless shot of his daughter, so there's not much to go on.

They should have just had Cheney play the VP. :o

Wraith:

Spoiler:

So what if Stark sounded less than thrilled with Killian? He was clearly interested in the girl - he left a calling card with some thoughts on her problem. And if it wasn't cryptic, clearly she wouldn't have needed him to explain it. If it was really so important to her work, it would have been easy for her to get in touch with him to work out a collaboration - remember, back then he wouldn't have turned away from weaponizable technologies.

I recognize the damage argument, but we also saw bad guys literally tear gauntlets/parts/etc. off of the suits (rather than punching holes in them, which they also did) - I'm sure they could reassemble most of those, since the suits were modular. Just a small nitpick, though, I recognize there are potential explanations which partially deal with this issue.

I didn't buy the change of heart for the botanist; if she's such a good person, why was she even still working with them after all of the extremely unethical things Killian had been doing? Hell, why did Killian even need to do all that crazy shit when he could have made a killing through normal - and legal - channels?

The plot was full of holes. Didn't mean I didn't enjoy it, but definitely was lacking a certain something.

Spoiler:

I didn't get that she was asking for an explanation. Maybe I missed something, but it seemed like the exchange was "hey, you solved my last problem, but now there's this other problem and I want you to try to solve that too."

The botanist was a bit of a stretch, but I really don't think the point was that she was a good person. She was an amoral person, like Stark before the cave. She wasn't the control freak that Killian was, she wasn't out to kill people or do evil things, she just didn't care that much if they happened if it let her keep doing her research. Stark had something she wanted though, and that's what she cared about.

Also, you caught the stuff about how the 'terrorist bombings' were all accidents, and the terrorist part started as cover-up/sales motivator that Killian eventually decided to leverage into more power for himself, right?

Spoiler:

My impression from their interaction when Stark is strung up was that she was asking him for what his note meant. Perhaps my interpretation was wrong, but her problem back in 1999 was essentially the same one in 2013; remember, her plant overheated and blew up. Stark denied memory of writing the note (something along the lines of 'The night, I remember. The morning after, not so much.') which seemed to be an implicit acknowledgement that his not was indeed key to their problem. Whatever, this is a lot of analysis for a shoot-em-up film.

I just don't see your reading of the botanist to make much sense. If she's genuinely an amoral person as you say, why would Stark's two minute diatribe have been enough to change her actions so drastically? She literally threatens suicide just to let Stark go (note she still is planning on working with Killian; otherwise the suicide threat would be a moot point). That's a pretty selfless act for the person who two minutes ago was working with the guy planning global domination.

Lastly, I certainly got the genesis of the plot - the veteran test subjects who couldn't 'regulate' (whatever that means) and blew up accidentally. What I don't get is why he even bothered doing this elaborate cover-up - it seems like there was little to connect the blasts to AIM, so why invent a terrorist persona at significant risk for precious little gain? And then going from 'we're going to make a lot of money' to 'we're going to make a lot of money, but we have to manufacture a terrorist threat to cover our asses' to 'we're going to make a lot of money, but we're going to take over the world while we're at it, playing fake terrorists against a fake government' in the space of ~6 months seems wildly implausible. They tried to frame it as some life-changing event from 13 years ago that made him go bad, but his only really bad actions seemed to happen compressed right at the end. I just don't get his motivation at all; he could be fabulously wealthy (yes, and powerful) with this technology through completely legal, relatively risk-free means... so why go through all of this convoluted trickery?

I don't think the movie was confusing at all - I had no trouble filling in the blanks they wanted us to. I just didn't buy it.

Spoiler:

One more point. If removing the shrapnel from Iron Man's chest/heart was so easy, why didn't they do it earlier? Would have saved Stark a lot of trouble in the earlier movies...

spoilers don't work on the activity page, and the activity page is the default direct when loading theworldforgotten.com

I think you're the only one in the community who uses the activity page, Ominous. Filler text filler text filler text filler text filler text filler text.

Spoiler:

On the botanist, I've said twice now that it was a bit of a stretch. I see what they were trying to do, but they really rushed the character development, to the point where it becomes harder to believe. (also: It's only a selfless act if she thought she might actually do it. Her surprise implies she thought she was so invaluable, her demands would of course have been met, but I don't want to spend any more time on this now than we already have.)

AIM was an arms manufacturer and military contractor. The movie spent almost no time on the genesis of the plan, but honestly I probably wouldn't like it if they had tried to explain every single little step and all the changes that happened over the 13 years since Killian decided to become an evil puppet master. The guy wanted to control as much as possible, and he thought he had the arms industry under lock-down, and was making a play to control the entire US. That was enough for me.

Loki: He needed the Extremis tech to do it. He couldn't do it until after he did the work to fix Pepper.

Sorry, OG, but we DID try with spoiler tags! And now, to make it worse:

Spoiler:

Fair enough, Wraith. I think we're more or less in agreement on the salient points. I don't need everything spelled out for me, I just prefer the inferences to be at least plausible. If they aren't, then the inferred plot points aren't just making the audience do some work, they're actively covering up an absurdly implausible plot. *shrugs*

Loki: Wraith already said it. When he was already 'tinkering' with Extremis tech, he figured out a way to use it to take out the shrapnel. My guess is he gave himself a limited version so his heart could heal around the wounds when each piece was removed. Just a guess, though.

If I can skate out of work early enough I've got an offer to see Fast and Furious 6 today.

Might have to pass though :( work already knows I'll be leaving early tomorrow because the wife got the kids a disney princess meet & greet behind the scenes before their ice show tomorrow.

Into Darkness was worth the price of admission. The first two thirds were great, the last a little worse, the ending almost kinda meh. The opening was awesome, woulda been a worthy climax to a lesser movie all on its own :)

To my surprise, I found Chris Pine really growing on me in his portrayal of kirk. Quinto was good but he could have done a better job as Spock, esp. if he didn't have such a babyface. He worked well with Pine. Saldana as Uhura was too grumpy, but I loved her brief exchanges with Spock. Of the side characters, both Sulu and Chekhov were poorly served by both the writers and the actors. Pegg as Scotty was all right, as was Karl Urban as Bones, but both were def. exaggerated. I think some of the problems had to do with there being too little screen time available for doing these characters justice, although it should be said that I really hate seeing Harold try to be serious and menacing whether he's on earth or in space. The actor playing Pike was terrific, of course. Did not like Carol Marcus one bit.

Of all the actors, Cumberbatch probably had the best lines, the best action and the greatest skill. His endless exaggerated chewing (look at his mouth and you'll see what I mean) annoyed me a little, but all in all he did a great job of portraying a genetically engineered nazi-like evil mastermind madman megalomaniac.

The OTHER villain was all right, though he annoyed me a little. The big bad ship was def. menacing, way better than the Narada from the first movie. The visuals were FANTASTIC, def. did the movie justice and though very distinctive didn't get too distracting.


Saw Wrath of Khan again today and I've gotta say I was surprised by how well it's stood the test of time. Much of it is dated, but the key scenes with Kirk, Spock and McCoy are still really good. I think it does a better job of bringing out the key elements of these characters and how they relate to each other. Nimoy is def. a better Spock.

I thought the 'in' references to the Wrath of Khan were a lot of fun, as was some of the classic bickering (the glass door scene? Fantastic). The story itself was just 'meh', especially by the end. Cumberbatch was indeed a great villain though. And if I see even a single goddamned lens flare on the new Star Wars movie, I will personally track JJ Abrams down and smack him.

The future does seem to have a lot of lens flare. It didn't bother me so much in the first movie, but it started getting to me this one. It was decent until the ending, excepting maybe a few points where the actors started getting hammy.

Lens flares are JJ Abrams' thing, aren't they? I recall a lot of complaints about lens flares in Super 8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Lens flares are JJ Abrams' thing, aren't they? I recall a lot of complaints about lens flares in Super 8.

---

He considers it part of his "documentary style", and one of the main reasons star wars fans wanted him very far from their films.

28 weeks later was on the TV, actually I am disappointed, not really the same style as the first. And people make bad decisions all the time. That's actually my main problem with horror flicks, people in it are always so stupid. I found 28 days refreshingly different, and 28 weeks later unfortunately fitting the stereotype perfectly.

Star Trek was good, it felt like the 2 hours zipped past me...Sulu and Chekov need MORE screen-time however.

Benedict...wow, now I just need the next season of Sherlock to come out.

TED. Funny without being raunchy. Had some sort of love story, but you don't really care about it.

The Great Gatsby.

Baz Luhrman's take on Fitzgerald's classic. Luhrman also directed Moulin Rouge and Romeo and Juliet.

Starring Leonardo di Caprio, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton and Tobey McGuire.

We chose to see it in a rare 2D performance, the 3D version receiving less-than-favourable reviews.

A romping, stomping, extravagance of a movie. I found myself with a smile on my face through the first half with enjoyment at the scale, the cinematography, the sheer visual spectacular of it. Then by the second half I was gripped just by the story and the story-telling (I've not read Fitzgerald's book).

It was perhaps an updated take on the story, with contemporary music overlays (Jay Z was an exec producer), and very modern movie techniques. But the setting was the rip-roaring 1920's same.

di Caprio was brilliant as always, he plays intense parts extremely well, and Gatsby seemed made for him. And he's ageing nicely.
I'm not a fan of Tobey McGuire, but he was perfectly cast as the downtrodden Nick Carraway.
Carey Mulligan was stunning as Daisy Buchanan, caught between the headlights of Edgerton's Tom Buchanan and Gatsby himself.

An enjoyable afternoon.

8/10

Man of Steel: the antagonists' lack of morality gives them an evolutionary advantage, "And, if there's one thing history has taught us, it's that evolution... Always... Wins! Raaarrrr!"

Wtf, Snyder, wtf.

Despicable Me 2. Where Monsters University and the last Ice Age dropped the ball, DM2 carries the torch. Consistently funny and stuffed with adult humor that the kids don't notice.

Saw Superman the other weekend too. Honestly only so I could see the Hobbit preview. They aren't joking about this being an origins story. How many super hero births have been shown on the big screen? The first part is dull, and I think they knew that, so they cut it up and run it out of order, which made it confusing and dull instead of complex and exciting. But once it got rolling it was a good movie, worthy of Superman.