Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    It's got a TV!    Sequels and Prequels and Remakes, Oh My! (Upcoming Films) « previous next »
 Topic locked! 
Author Topic: Sequels and Prequels and Remakes, Oh My! (Upcoming Films)  (Read 21446 times)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 20 Print
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #160 on: 04-02-2012 23:41 »

I'm torn. My basic instincts are sharing your excitement but then I'm also very aware that the Farrellys haven't made a good film in over 10 years and that Jim Carrey is only returning because his career recently died on its arse and so this has to be a project born out of complete desperation that has a very good chance of sucking because I don't trust the Farrelly's to make good films any more.

But yeah, I'm excited.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #161 on: 04-02-2012 23:59 »

With the Farrellys on board, we know it's impossible for it to suck as much as Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #162 on: 04-03-2012 00:51 »

Well yeah. It's impossible for it to suck as much as WWII too, but that doesn't mean it's going to be a good film.
Beanoz4

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #163 on: 04-03-2012 01:19 »

Dumb and Dumber 2 confirmed!

Jim Carrey, Jeff Daniels and the Farrelly Brothers are on board, BEYOND excited! big grin
That happened because I finally got round to watching it yesterday.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #164 on: 04-03-2012 10:05 »

Well yeah. It's impossible for it to suck as much as WWII too, but that doesn't mean it's going to be a good film.

WWII didn't suck.  Sure, it was not as great a build up as WWI, but man it was awesome.
Frisco17

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #165 on: 04-03-2012 20:11 »

You only like it because for a while your country was run by Germans.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #166 on: 04-03-2012 22:05 »

It wasn't.  Learn history.
Frisco17

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #167 on: 04-03-2012 22:18 »

Puppet governments count.
SpaceGoldfish fromWazn

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #168 on: 04-06-2012 01:56 »

Well Nick Clegg is either a hand puppet... or being worn like a hand puppet. 
Solid Gold Bender

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #169 on: 04-08-2012 01:39 »

Worst movie idea ever.
Frisco17

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #170 on: 04-08-2012 02:13 »

It's actually based on a book that I've been told is good. Never read it so I can't say but it definitely isn't made to be serious.
YaBender!

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #171 on: 04-08-2012 02:34 »
« Last Edit on: 04-08-2012 02:41 »

I saw that trailer a few weeks ago. I knew it wasn't meant to be serious. To be honest, I think it's pretty kickass! But, will I see this? Probably not.
TheMadCapper

Fluffy
UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #172 on: 04-08-2012 02:45 »

Yeah, this movie would pretty much HAVE to poke fun at itself.

On the other hand...

YOUR EVIL SIMULATED VAMPIRE-HUNTING LINCOLN IS BACK!
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #173 on: 04-08-2012 05:10 »

I was somewhat looking forwards to it before the trailer came out. Back when I assumed it was a comedy.

The trailer's just so... boring. It does look kind of crap but I mean... I'll hold judgment for now.
homerjaysimpson

Space Pope
****
« Reply #174 on: 04-08-2012 06:02 »

The movie Ted looks worse than cancer. I thought it was an April fools joke at first.
Professor Zoidy

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #175 on: 04-08-2012 08:49 »

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who sees no humor in that film whatsoever. It should really be called "Peter Griffin the Bear Mascot Goes on a Stupid Pot Adventure with his Owner" or something ridiculous. I mean, the concept may have some sorta... value? to it but I'm just not digging it. But then I'm biased against Seth's work in general so it certainly doesn't help. I'll just pretend it doesn't exist by thinking about the Spiderman reboot.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #176 on: 04-08-2012 13:25 »

Not so keen on the new Spider-Man movie. Just not feeling it... hmpf

Never understood why people bashed the Raimi trilogy, they were awesome... This new film has nothing on them. I mean, the Lizard looks kind of crappy...

I do like Spidey's new costume though. And how the web comes out of those metal thingies he puts on like in the comics, not out of his wrists like in the Raimi movies...
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #177 on: 04-08-2012 13:42 »

Never understood why people bashed the Raimi trilogy, they were awesome... This new film has nothing on them. I mean, the Lizard looks kind of crappy...

I liked the Raimi trilogy too, a lot. The third wasn't the greatest, but it was still good. All of them were some of the best superhero movies. Fuck the reboot...
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #178 on: 04-08-2012 13:46 »

I found the 3rd to be the best one.

It combined Sandman, Venom, Harry as the "New Goblin", the Symbiote and Peter's dark side coming out, without feeling to messy or hard to follow. Epic.
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #179 on: 04-08-2012 13:49 »

I liked Sandman, and Harry as the New Goblin, but the Venom thing seemed too shoehorned in to me. It was a bit overkill. Still, I liked the movie overall and it was even quite funny in places...
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #180 on: 04-08-2012 13:50 »

One thing I don't think I can forgive though: Peter's walking/smug scene. Oh God... no no
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #181 on: 04-08-2012 13:51 »

It was bad, but it was funny bad...
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #182 on: 04-08-2012 13:58 »

On a random side-note, I remember watching a funny parody of the movie on YouTube, where the guy who made it basically replaced items in the movie with other stuff, and the scene after Peter tells Aunt May that he's going to marry Mary Jane and she holds up the ring Uncle Ben gave her, the guy replaces it with a condom. laff
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #183 on: 04-08-2012 15:45 »
« Last Edit on: 04-08-2012 15:48 »

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who sees no humor in that film whatsoever. It should really be called "Peter Griffin the Bear Mascot Goes on a Stupid Pot Adventure with his Owner" or something ridiculous. I mean, the concept may have some sorta... value? to it but I'm just not digging it. But then I'm biased against Seth's work in general so it certainly doesn't help. I'll just pretend it doesn't exist by thinking about the Spiderman reboot.

I don't find the trailers hugely funny, but it strikes me as a film with a sense of humour like Superbad where you can't really take bits out of context and expect them to work - plus it's easier to just pander to the people who find a bear doing drugs funny.

I still have high hopes for the film despite the trailer not being great and I suppose it's partly because the concept is great.

Never understood why people bashed the Raimi trilogy, they were awesome... This new film has nothing on them. I mean, the Lizard looks kind of crappy...

I do like Spidey's new costume though. And how the web comes out of those metal thingies he puts on like in the comics, not out of his wrists like in the Raimi movies...

What are you talking about? Making the web an organic part of Spidey is the best thing that Sam Raimi did for the franchise.

Still, I agree that even if this new film does end up being good, it won't be half as good as Raimi's films which were just so energetic and fun. Almost every scene has some cool little bit of "movie magic" in play, be it the camera on its side as Tobey McGuire climbs up the wall or him catching all of those objects on the lunch tray as they fell with the aid of some sticky coatings.

I found the 3rd to be the best one.

It combined Sandman, Venom, Harry as the "New Goblin", the Symbiote and Peter's dark side coming out, without feeling to messy or hard to follow. Epic.

Let's not get crazy. I, too, like the third one, but it's a messy film; self-indulgent at times and pandering to fans at others. Sandman isn't developed enough to really work or care about, Venom is used spectacularly badly and we've already seen the goblin enough in the franchise, surely.

The 2nd film is the best, hands down.

One thing I don't think I can forgive though: Peter's walking/smug scene. Oh God... no no

See, I love this bit. It's another scene that falls into the self-indulgent category, but it was basically just Raimi taking the piss. Maybe it's just because I "get" his sense of humour, being such a huge fan of The Evil Dead trilogy, but I found it hilarious and I can guarantee you that it was intended to be funny.
It made sense to me, anyway. Peter Parker is a little goody two-shoes. His dark side shouldn't be anything more than an emo prick. He doesn't have it in him to go out and murder people, for instance.
I can understand why people didn't like it - because it was just Sam Raimi doing something because he found it funny rather than it being a good direction for the film... but I mean, I can enjoy it because whatever self-indulgent stuff he does is also indulgent for me because I share his tastes if that makes sense.


Anyway, I took the news of Spider-Man 4 being cancelled than any celebrity death to date. It really, genuinely upset me. Raimi was so adamant that he was going to fix the wrongs with the 3rd film and make a great new chapter and the studio just wouldn't let him do it.

The rumours of Morbius being the villain really got me excited too. Raimi's horror background really shines through in some of the best Spidey-scenes (Doc Ock's surgery, Green Goblin in the burning building) so imagine a horror-themed film! It could have been brilliant. But then it turned out that Raimi was pushing for the Vulture, the worst Spider-Man villain of all time... so... well, maybe this new film won't be so bad after all.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #184 on: 04-08-2012 16:17 »
« Last Edit on: 04-08-2012 16:23 »

I heard they were trying to get the Lizard into the 4th Raimi film too...?

I mean Dr. Connors was in Spider-Man 2 and 3 and there was no sign of the Lizard... hmpf Except the fact that his arm was missing... What a waste...
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #185 on: 04-08-2012 17:35 »

There were rumours of pretty much every villain being in Spider-Man 4 at one point or another - all we know for sure is that Raimi wanted the Vulture to be in it.

In fact, they had actually cast John Malkovich in the role by the time that the film was shut down. He's spoken about his disappointment about not being able to do it in a few interviews since.

It's possible that the Lizard would have been in it too, but I think they were saving him for Spider-Man 5 or 6. I'd be so gutted if I was the actor playing Dr. Connors, though. 2 extended cameos setting up an awesome role he never got to play. They were definitely keeping him about to use at some point.
ShepherdofShark

Space Pope
****
« Reply #186 on: 04-08-2012 20:53 »
« Last Edit on: 04-08-2012 21:03 »

Peter wasn't dark when he wore the costume in the comics, why did they feel the need to even make it a weird parody of darkness in the movie?

SM3 sucked, the others didn't, that's why we have a reload - deal with it.

And btw:

Peter Parker is a little goody two-shoes.

Wrong! Parker is a scared little boy caught up in his own neurosis about what his own inaction might or might not do.
Beanoz4

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #187 on: 04-08-2012 21:06 »
« Last Edit on: 04-08-2012 21:14 »

In the movie did the suit respond to Peters thoughts? I can't remember if it did like in the comics or not..

Peter Parker is a little goody two-shoes.

Wrong! Parker is a scared little boy caught up in his own neurosis about what his own inaction might or might not do.
In the films he's a wuss but he's braver in the comics.
ShepherdofShark

Space Pope
****
« Reply #188 on: 04-08-2012 21:14 »

Nope. He never made it look like what ever he wanted or anything like that.

As far as I'm concerned the only way to do justice to the Venom storyline is to give an entire movie to the alien costume/Peter storyline first. Then you have a platform.


Peter Parker is a little goody two-shoes.

Wrong! Parker is a scared little boy caught up in his own neurosis about what his own inaction might or might not do.
In the films he's a wuss but in the comics he's more brave.

That's far too simple a statement.

What is bravery? Is it being fearless? Or is it facing dangers in spite of your fears? The constant anxieties of Peter in the comics is what makes his travails as Spider-man so much more human and engaging. Couple that with the fact that despite his efforts he still feels like he's hurting everyone he loves...
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #189 on: 04-08-2012 22:45 »
« Last Edit on: 04-08-2012 22:50 »

It was bad, but it was funny bad...

This. I couldn't help but laugh at it. It (along with the jazz scene) was so over-the-top that there's no way Raimi wasn't doing it intentionally. Most likely he did it to fuck with the studio who were being assholes to him about how to make the film.

See, I love this bit. It's another scene that falls into the self-indulgent category, but it was basically just Raimi taking the piss. Maybe it's just because I "get" his sense of humour, being such a huge fan of The Evil Dead trilogy, but I found it hilarious and I can guarantee you that it was intended to be funny.
It made sense to me, anyway. Peter Parker is a little goody two-shoes. His dark side shouldn't be anything more than an emo prick. He doesn't have it in him to go out and murder people, for instance.
I can understand why people didn't like it - because it was just Sam Raimi doing something because he found it funny rather than it being a good direction for the film... but I mean, I can enjoy it because whatever self-indulgent stuff he does is also indulgent for me because I share his tastes if that makes sense.

I read this after I typed the stuff above...I agree with everything you just said.
I also agree with you that the second film is the best, hands down. I do differ with most people though in that I feel the third is the stronger film than the first.

The new Spider-Man reboot looks awful. I expect pure shite.
ShepherdofShark

Space Pope
****
« Reply #190 on: 04-08-2012 23:07 »
« Last Edit on: 04-08-2012 23:12 »

The new Spider-Man reboot looks awful. I expect pure shite.

I'm rather concerned that they seem to have some sort of parent story going on. This is bad, but everything else seems to be fine. And the Lizard looks great because it isn't the McFarlane version.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #191 on: 04-09-2012 00:00 »
« Last Edit on: 04-09-2012 00:08 »

SM3 sucked, the others didn't, that's why we have a reload - deal with it.

Wrong. Taken from Wikipedia:

Sony Pictures announced in January 2010 that plans for Spider-Man 4 had been cancelled due to Raimi's withdrawal from the project. Raimi reportedly ended his participation due to his doubt that he could meet the planned May 6, 2011 release date while at the same time upholding the film creatively. Raimi purportedly went through four iterations of the script with different screenwriters and still "hated it".

Also, some good-ish news, the Venom spin-off that was first mentioned way back in July 2007, but was unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on if you approved of this movie or not...) cancelled seems to be coming back to life, as again, it says on Wikipedia:

In March 2012, Chronicle director Josh Trank is negotiating with Sony about his interest in directing the film. Whether or not it will be a part of the upcoming Marc Webb film is unknown.

And yes, both paragraphs have sources...
ShepherdofShark

Space Pope
****
« Reply #192 on: 04-09-2012 00:53 »

SM3 sucked, the others didn't, that's why we have a reload - deal with it.

Wrong. Taken from Wikipedia:

Sony Pictures announced in January 2010 that plans for Spider-Man 4 had been cancelled due to Raimi's withdrawal from the project. Raimi reportedly ended his participation due to his doubt that he could meet the planned May 6, 2011 release date while at the same time upholding the film creatively. Raimi purportedly went through four iterations of the script with different screenwriters and still "hated it".

I don't really care about the creative reasons for SM3 sucking. But it did. The rails had come off this little love child of Raimi's for whatever reason. It still sucked. And sucking is bad for directors and studios. I think that's what you were saying.
Beanoz4

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #193 on: 04-09-2012 00:58 »

It's not about Spider-Man 3 sucking it's about why there isn't a Spider-Man 4.

 LEARN TO READ!
ShepherdofShark

Space Pope
****
« Reply #194 on: 04-09-2012 01:01 »

SM3 sucking is the reason there is no SM4!

Lrn to life.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #195 on: 04-09-2012 01:05 »

This isn't looking to good, SoS... We win!
Solid Gold Bender

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #196 on: 04-09-2012 01:19 »

I like how in SM3 you hear the crowd claps at MJ's play, but you see no one clapping.
ShepherdofShark

Space Pope
****
« Reply #197 on: 04-09-2012 01:31 »

This isn't looking to good, SoS... We win!

If you can't get the difference between "to" and "too" right, you have no business using the word "win".
Spacedal11

Space Pope
****
« Reply #198 on: 04-09-2012 01:31 »
« Last Edit on: 04-09-2012 01:40 »

SM3 is the bane of my existence. My problem with it above anything else is the villains. I hate Sandman, biggest pussyass-bitch I've ever seen in a superhero movie. And the fact that it turns out he's the one who shot Uncle Ben completely shits on the first movie, it didn't make me care about Sandman any more it made me hate the writers more. And Venom wasn't handled well at all and was only put it to please the fans and that blew up in our faces (and he blew himself up too so you know it was like a big fuck you anyway). I know Raimi didn't want Venom in the script so honestly he shouldn't have put him in there because I would rather wonder what could have been compared to what did happen.

I honest to god hate Spider-Man 3. It was the film that I was so excited for and I was expecting so much but left so incredibly disappointed. And I can't forgive it. So I'm more excited about the new one because it's not adding on to the crap of SM3 it's starting fresh. But because I don't have any expectations I can't be disappointed I can only like it or not like it.

Also I side with SoS, it doesn't matter what the facts say the movie itself still did not turn out well. The film is what it is and it is a pile of shit.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #199 on: 04-09-2012 02:25 »
« Last Edit on: 04-09-2012 02:27 »

SM3 sucking is the reason there is no SM4!

Lrn to life.

But it's not. Like it or not, Spider-Man 3 made a fuck-load of money and the studio was eager to make another.

Sam Raimi wanted the 4th to be good and it soon became apparent that Sony simply weren't going to let him make a good film so he jumped ship because otherwise Spider-Man 4 would have been a mess like Spider-Man 3 was. Sony were happy to reboot it because it meant that they could snap up some new talent for considerably less money.

So I suppose you could argue that if Spider-Man 3 was better, Raimi would have been less precautious about what he did with the 4th one and it might have just gone ahead without him being completely happy with it... but it's not a simple case of "Spider-Man 3 sucked so they didn't make any more".

Edit: Two in one day.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 20 Print 
 Topic locked! 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.215 seconds with 17 queries.