|
Timby posted:Nah, he shows up in his completely human form briefly on the Franklin's computer log at the end; Kirk and Uhura discover it as they're investigating the crash site. Don't forget that they actually started showing this scene in commercials before the movie even came out. Leading Simon Pegg to tell people not to actually watch advertisement for his new movie.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
Phylodox posted:I feel like Beyond would have made a better fifth or sixth movie. The whole "This life in space is wearing so thin! Ennui-i-i-i-i-i!" would have played better with a more established, world-weary cast. Also would have played better if Kirk's boring retirement wasn't running a crazy mega-city station on the edge of known space.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Also would have played better if Kirk's boring retirement wasn't running a crazy mega-city station on the edge of known space. And if the destruction of the Enterprise had had some real gravity to it, a story climax. In Beyond, it was just "Here's a scene showing how dangerous and powerful the villains are to establish the threat."
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:The villain is forgettable, but Beyond has great character moments for almost all of the cast. Urban's McCoy finally gets the spotlight he deserves and Pine gives a great Kirk performance with an actual motivation. It's a fun film. Yeah, Beyond's biggest strength is that everybody had a lot of stuff to do. Phylodox posted:I feel like Beyond would have made a better fifth or sixth movie. The whole "This life in space is wearing so thin! Ennui-i-i-i-i-i!" would have played better with a more established, world-weary cast. Every time I watch it (usually when I watch one of the reboot movies, I wind up going through all three) that feels like Pegg and Jung making a direct response to Orci and Kurtzman basically hitting a reset button with Into Darkness, where everyone was back to where they were at the beginning of '09: Kirk's still an arrogant rear end, Kirk and Spock are right back to hating each other's guts, etc. Pegg and Urban were both vocally unhappy with Into Darkness (to the point that Urban considered trying to get out of his contract until he read the Beyond script), and I think Pegg / Jung really wanted to move ahead after Into Darkness was all "five years in deep space! Five years in deep space!" ... and yet the entire movie takes place over the course of like two and a half days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
I think I said this before somewhere, but I think Beyond's biggest failing was it trying to have its cake and eat it, too. It wanted to play the "we've been at this so long, we're all so close, and this space thing is getting old" while effectively only being the third movie in the series. It wanted to recreate the camaraderie and introspection of the old Star Trek movies without the decades' worth of TV and film to back it up. Because, yes, these are versions of those well-loved characters, but with the reboot they've effectively become new characters, as well, so Beyond kind of felt like it was trying to cash in on the series' long history without earning it. But maybe that's just my take on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Beyond seemed to me like a good old fashioned fun Star Trek adventure, like a classic episode, streamlined, punched up and turned into a good time action movie. It's good is what i'm saying
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
So The Mummy's domestic opening of $32 million was better than Dracula Untold's $23m opening but wayyyyy worse than any of the Brendan Fraser 90s/00s trilogy (The Mummy Returns more than doubled it) but it couldn't even match the $36m opening of the lovely WWE co-produced spinoff The Scorpion King. LMAO Pictured: a film that did twice as well on opening weekend as Tom Cruise's The Mummy and managed to have a sequel and four spinoffs http://i.imgur.com/j8Yey0p.gifv Fun fact: The Scorpion King actually made a modest box office profit and had three sequels which were all direct-to-DVD junk made on shoestring budgets with a crazy cast of people like Ron Perlman, Rutger Hauer, Temuera Morrison, Dave Bautista, Lou Ferrigno and Billy Zane. Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Tom Cruise being a lunatic on Oprah killed his domestic drawing power and I'm not sure why anybody would be foolish enough to try to have him spearhead a new franchise. The Mission Impossible movies had a built in audience by that point, but he is pretty solidly a B-lister these days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Simplex posted:Tom Cruise being a lunatic on Oprah killed his domestic drawing power and I'm not sure why anybody would be foolish enough to try to have him spearhead a new franchise. The Mission Impossible movies had a built in audience by that point, but he is pretty solidly a B-lister these days. Not in Europe. Nobody cares about Oprah here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
That was like 10 years ago. Who cares
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:So The Mummy's domestic opening of $32 million was better than Dracula Untold's $23m opening but wayyyyy worse than any of the Brendan Fraser 90s/00s trilogy (The Mummy Returns more than doubled it) but it couldn't even match the $36m opening of the lovely WWE co-produced spinoff The Scorpion King. LMAO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnVPUK-8P0M
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Simplex posted:Tom Cruise being a lunatic on Oprah killed his domestic drawing power and I'm not sure why anybody would be foolish enough to try to have him spearhead a new franchise. The Mission Impossible movies had a built in audience by that point, but he is pretty solidly a B-lister these days. It's more of this movie looked really lame and people still had a slight interest in the Sommers films. They weren't gone from the mind. Even the title treatment they used is some weak boring poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Fun fact: The Scorpion King actually made a modest box office profit and had three sequels which were all direct-to-DVD junk made on shoestring budgets with a crazy cast of people like Ron Perlman, Rutger Hauer, Temuera Morrison, Dave Bautista, Lou Ferrigno and Billy Zane. I knew Arnold Vosloo and Billy Zane looked like clones of each other, but that is just insulting. Edit: Oh, looks like his role wasn't some sort of mummy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 09:12
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:The Mummy chat: That actually sounds kinda cool, mummy who is a monster hunter but come on no one gonna be intimidated by a 5'8 mummy
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
Mierenneuker posted:I knew Arnold Vosloo and Billy Zane looked like clones of each other, but that is just insulting. Edit: Oh, looks like his role wasn't some sort of mummy. Yeah that should have been a no brainer but I guess it's a bit too much to expect the guy who also directed Death Race 4, 12 Rounds 2 and Behind Enemy Lines 4: Seal Team 8 to be making intelligent decisions about movies.  Ammanas posted:That actually sounds kinda cool, mummy who is a monster hunter but come on no one gonna be intimidated by a 5'8 mummy Checks out, Sofia Boutella is only 5'5 and she wasn't intimidating either 
Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 10:14 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
I hope the DARK UNIVERSE continues to exist so we can witness the studio's struggle to find tinier and ever tinier actors for their monsters. Peter Dinklage as Frankenstein (monster or doctor, take your pick) would raise the stakes a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
Dracula, played by Clint Howard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
I saw The Mummy this weekend and I didn't hate it? The narrative device was loving terrible but it felt like there was a good movie buried in there. the amount of exposition and flashbacks were horrible and them leaning so hard on the shared universe thing with Jekyll felt like a mistake. Like I thought they were going to hint at Hyde but nah he's almost going crazy on their first meeting. There was some fun horror stuff in the movie and I enjoyed some of the set pieces. Even cursed dead buddy showing up as a friendly jerk ghost felt like a fun idea. But god drat what a mess of a movie this turned out to be. The ending would have been good but bringing the buddy back to life and having him explicitly thank you for bringing him back to life was just... eh. Completely unearned and with no emotional weight. My guess (if they do more of these) is that they'll have Tom Cruise as a Mummy/VanHelsing hybrid character who'll need to awaken the Mummy again to learn about his powers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I hope the DARK UNIVERSE continues to exist so we can witness the studio's struggle to find tinier and ever tinier actors for their monsters. Peter Dinklage as Frankenstein (monster or doctor, take your pick) would raise the stakes a lot. Peter Dinklage as the doctor and Ron Perlman as Igor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
Verne Troyer as the wolfman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
You can't cast a cinematic universe without HHH, guys. He would of course be Alucard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Simplex posted:Tom Cruise being a lunatic on Oprah killed his domestic drawing power and I'm not sure why anybody would be foolish enough to try to have him spearhead a new franchise. The Mission Impossible movies had a built in audience by that point, but he is pretty solidly a B-lister these days. If you look at this list, can you tell when Oprah happened? http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=tomcruise.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
The only other time one of his movies has made less than $50 million in the last, like 20 years was in Rock Of Ages, which I don't think anyone was expecting to be super profitable. The Oprah thing was barely a hiccup. It tarnished his image but not his profitability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Yeah, pre-Oprah his private life was very well-controlled and maintained by his people, post-Oprah is when that poo poo went completely bonkers. He's always been a deft hand at choosing his roles when it comes to either stretching himself or reaching for mass appeal, with the obvious ups and downs most actors have. Overall, Cruise has a shockingly solid filmography. I think there are only about 4 or 5 movies of his that I don't like and even in those he's good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
I didn't think the Oprah thing tarnished his image so much as the contentious Matt Lauer interview a few days later. I don't really think housewives were up in arms at him jumping up and down so excited by how much he was in love. It was just fun to mock on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:I saw The Mummy this weekend and I didn't hate it? The narrative device was loving terrible but it felt like there was a good movie buried in there. Yeah, they badly needed to excise most of that shared universe setup. Especially having Hyde show up to fight Nick for one scene just felt pointless. Introduce Jekyll in the movie, sure (but take out all that loving voice-over exposition and replace it with scenes that actually build up the characters in the movie), but turning into Hyde now adds nothing to this movie's plot or characters. Maybe leave that for a post-credits stinger or something if you really want to be coy with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
RLM theorized the reason for all the voice over was the film was designed for an international audience so having exposition in narration is a much more efficient way of getting information delivered across language and cultural barriers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Their point about the Egypt thing was interesting. For a movie called The Mummy, it hardly looked like one. I think there's two or so shots in the trailer that show the pyramids and all that. The rest is London, a plane, a forest and the Avengers lair thing. It is odd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Overall, Cruise has a shockingly solid filmography. I think there are only about 4 or 5 movies of his that I don't like and even in those he's good. I've said it before, if you just wanna watch a movie but can't pick, just pick a Tom Cruise movie because on average they're great. I wouldn't even call myself a fan, but I can't deny he's got just about the most solid filmography of any working film star. Al Borland Corp. posted:RLM theorized the reason for all the voice over was the film was designed for an international audience so having exposition in narration is a much more efficient way of getting information delivered across language and cultural barriers. That's a really interesting theory, and a pretty clever way to make your film multi-purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Also another thing that felt could have been good was tom's character having those mirages/visions as he was influenced by the mummy. I get what they were going for but they ended structuring it too neatly and they never attempted to blur the line of what was a vision and what was real. So you simply end up with a vision where something freaky happen followed by a clean cut to Tom "waking" up into reality. Then it happens 3 more times so you can tell exactly when each vision is happening. A better approach would have been to blur these situations/scenes to show Tom going crazy from the mummy's influence. Also showing the craziness from Jenny's perspective would have helped a bit. Honestly the ENTIRE movie being framed from Tom's character was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:RLM theorized the reason for all the voice over was the film was designed for an international audience so having exposition in narration is a much more efficient way of getting information delivered across language and cultural barriers. I haven't paid attention if voice over and flashbacks are a thing in my country's movies, but considering we have some oscar winning directors that sometimes do weird poo poo and that we LOVE...yeah, nah. My guess is that, in my case, the movie sold because of Tom and because sometimes people like to see some stupid action movie (Transformers is a super hit here).
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Honestly the ENTIRE movie was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
I remember when this came out, the movie bragged "our model of The Rock looks better than even the (WWF Game That Was Coming Out Soon) could do!" Literally comparing their CGI to a PS3 game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Not even that, PS2. Not lying though!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
I cannot find the guy bragging about it on the internet! I swear it was on the dvd, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
well why not posted:The only other time one of his movies has made less than $50 million in the last, like 20 years was in Rock Of Ages, which I don't think anyone was expecting to be super profitable. The Oprah thing was barely a hiccup. It tarnished his image but not his profitability. Honestly, it seems what's hurt him most is his obsession with franchises for the last ten years, or at least his attempts to start new ones up. Like he realized Mission Impossible is the only movie of his that still succeeds so he just keeps trying to replicate it. He was pushing for a Tropic Thunder sequel starring himself instead, he's gotten a third Jack Reacher and sequels for Edge of Tomorrow and Top Gun into development. Though I don't know how much of it is Cruise or the toxic culture he built around himself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Avengers did it better, of course, but I did dig how, in The Mummy, Tom Cruise uses his power to bring back that lady back to life by screaming at her, simply because he has literally no idea what he's doing with regards to said powers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
The Tom Cruise Oprah thing is really a shame because apparently the energy in the room fed it. The crowd was totally going nuts for it but once you watch it in the comfort of your living room/on your phone, it just seems insane. Here's an interesting article about that and while I don't agree with everything in it, I promise you the article is decent and not as bad as the terrible headline and teaser make it seem. http://www.laweekly.com/news/how-youtube-and-internet-journalism-destroyed-tom-cruise-our-last-real-movie-star-4656549 It makes some really keen observations about what happened with Cruise (who is a genuine weirdo but ultimately of the harmless variety).
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I think I said this before somewhere, but I think Beyond's biggest failing was it trying to have its cake and eat it, too. It wanted to play the "we've been at this so long, we're all so close, and this space thing is getting old" while effectively only being the third movie in the series. It wanted to recreate the camaraderie and introspection of the old Star Trek movies without the decades' worth of TV and film to back it up. Because, yes, these are versions of those well-loved characters, but with the reboot they've effectively become new characters, as well, so Beyond kind of felt like it was trying to cash in on the series' long history without earning it. But maybe that's just my take on it. Yeah, that's absolutely why I don't like the new films. The reboot was great because it gave them the excuse to ignore all previously established canon and just do what they want, but apparently what they wanted to do wasn't Star Trek, it was just Generic Space Action Movie In Space. Without the trappings of Star Trek, literally nobody would bother to go see them, and therefore these characters are just assumed to have the same interpersonal relationships and attitudes towards one another that the original versions did, even though they're not the original versions. Quinto's not playing Spock, he's playing Nimoy playing Spock. Urban isn't playing McCoy, he's playing Kelly playing McCoy. It's the laziest way to establish characterization, letting the previous films do the heavy-lifting and just carrying everything over even though these guys haven't been on a 5-year mission and thus gotten to know each other and become friends yet. It's just "Oh of course they're friends, they're Spock and Kirk and McCoy" even though the characters have no idea who these fuckin' guys are yet. Also I'm really getting tired of blowing up the Enterprise, big doomsday weapons that take forever to unfold and fire their movie-ending shot, thus giving the good guys time to escape from a seemingly-doomed situation and save the day, and evil Starfleet admirals. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:It makes some really keen observations about what happened with Cruise (who is a genuine weirdo but ultimately of the harmless variety). No. The Church of Scientology has literally murdered people by tying them to a bed and dehydrating them. Cruise knows every bit of the evil, evil poo poo they do, and they were even going to assign him a new girlfriend after he broke up with Nicole Kidman. You don't rise to his level in such an evil organization and get to be considered harmless. Going Clear doesn't even cover the worst of the things they've done. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The Tom Cruise Oprah thing is really a shame because apparently the energy in the room fed it. The crowd was totally going nuts for it but once you watch it in the comfort of your living room/on your phone, it just seems insane. Here's an interesting article about that and while I don't agree with everything in it, I promise you the article is decent and not as bad as the terrible headline and teaser make it seem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 17:12
|
|
