Print Page | Close Window

CGI Krakens?? NO THANX!!!!

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: 31st Annual RAZZIE® Award Nominees & "WINNERS"
Forum Name: CLASH OF THE TITANS (in FAKE 3-D!)
Forum Discription: Nominated for 2 RAZZIES® including WORST EYE-GOUGING MIS-USE of 3-D!
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4217
Printed Date: April 21 2014 at 3:14am


Topic: CGI Krakens?? NO THANX!!!!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: CGI Krakens?? NO THANX!!!!
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 9:02am
HOLLYWOOD's LOVE AFFAIR with ENDLESS REMAKES of IT'S OWN OLD MOVIES REACHES a ZENITH (OR IS THAT NADIR?) with the MEGA-BUDGET/FAUX 3-D "RE-IMAGINING" of ONE of the 1980's MOST ENJOYABLE GUILTY PLEASURES: http://www.razzies.com/forum/clash-of-the-titans-3d_forum425.html -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082186/ - , ONE of the LAST FILMS STOP-MOTION MASTER http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0366063/ -
WITH CGI MONSTERS LIKE WE'VE ALL SEEN BEFORE ( http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jabbas_rancor -
FEEL FREE to EXPRESS YOUR OWN CLASHES with the MAKERS of THESE CGI TITANS BELOW..




PERSEUS: "Yo, Snaggle-Tooth -- Who's yer hairstylist - 
Donald Trump?!?!"


-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 9:13am
Ah, a remake AND it's in 3-D. Hollywood double dipping into it's bag of "how to make a quick half billion dollars with minimal effort" tricks.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 2:16pm
I knew from the beginning this forum would appear soon. Clash of the Titans Part 1 was among the 30 or so best movies of 1981, so...wait a minute! The national debt of Peru?!?! If I were a movie studio or publishing executive, I wouldn't realize how hard it could be to stay afloat after paying it off. 

-------------
My deadlines for Member-Started Forums, given 35% approval rating or less: Apl. 29; The Other Woman. May 6; Walk of Shame. May 20; Godzilla '014. May 27; Blended. Jne. 3; A Million Ways...


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 7:39pm
I think we crossed the line.


Posted By: Headbanger14
Date Posted: March 28 2010 at 10:01pm

I recently saw the original Clash of the Titans and I remember the scene with Medusa. She was nothing more than a stop-motion puppet with scales and a bow-and-arrow. She looked so primitive and yet that's what made her look scary.

The CGI Medusa on the other hand looks like a joke and it's not scary. The movie's going to be crap with cheesy CGI, but 3D as well? People say 3D is the way of the future. Well, if I ever wanted to go 3D, I want to be able to go inside my television and interact with the characters on screen like I'm in a Virtual world, not just have them randomly pop out of my TV and hurt my eyes.



Posted By: PopcornAvenger
Date Posted: March 29 2010 at 6:18am
I don't share the nostalgia and don't possess any warm feelings for the original. It was terrible. I remember seeing it with a group of friends and we almost walked out on it (many others did). So instead we made fun of it ala MST3K style and threw things at the screen.
 
There's also a reason why it was Harryhausen's last film. Stop-Motion was old technology even in 1981, and, really, we were rather amused to see it still in use.
 
This is one reboot I really don't have much of a problem with (aside for the fact that, yes, as a reboot it's not original) . . . they'll have to really fail on a grand scale to surpass the first movie's mediocrity.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 29 2010 at 8:54pm
Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

I think we crossed the line.
Oh come on. We don't cross any lines that Hollywood doesn't cross first. They choose to drag their history through the mud in exchange for quick and easy profit. There's no classic movie that is safe from being remade into a 3-D, CGI porn, s***fest! 

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: March 29 2010 at 11:32pm
i guess im in that camp too, the original movie put the M in mediocre. I have some nostalgia from it because even as a kid i remember laughing my ass off when i saw all the stop-motion effects. Even now i still think it was kind of cool but at the same time i always thought wow with todays technology this movie could look amazing. unfortuatley the movie itself is filled with acting that ranges from god-awful at its worst and wooden at its best, it doesnt help that the dialogue is terrible which almost makes the film unwatchable. At worst this new movie will be just like the original, style over substance. That is unless the director screws up on a biblical scale, which in that case we can just go nuts. On a side note was anyone else taken aback a little by headrazz complete disgust with this movie? I know its a remake and it maybe just me, but it seemed to me that he's taking this really personal. Its almost as if the director is headrazz's perverted uncle who once bought him ice cream, and then followed him into the mens room to watch him take a number 2 while he fondle himself... think about that one before you fall asleep tonight.   


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 12:32am
WTF, Mayheim?! . . .
 
Anyway, I recall the original Clash of the Titans as being the worst movie I had ever seen up to that point.  And I had seen plenty of Japanese B monster movies as a kid as well as The Poseidon Adventure.  Yet, as HeadRAZZ mentioned, I wanted to see it again to see if it was as bad as I felt it was.  Then I reminded myself, it was.
 
A remake should have fixed all the plot holes, made the monsters real and scary, improve the dialog and give us wonderful performances from the actors while pulling us into mythological face-offs.  Instead, we get a giant scorpion.  Ever see a scorpion sting itself to death?  That's what this films appears to be doing to itself, with all its problems displayed in 3D eye candy.
 
I'm guessing the type of 3D movie that puts things in your face and throws things at you is going to become passé compared to 3D movies like Avatar where the whole scene is 3D all the way back.  It's not as hokey as using stop action filmmaking for monsters in 1981, though.
 
Here's a problem: I'm not sure how many sequels, remakes and ripoffs we've had this year, because I'm not sure how many of the rom com bombs should count as ripoffs (all of them?).  However, along with The Wolfman, Clash of the Pie Tins 3D is the second bad remake this year.
 


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 4:41am
Well, what about "Tron", which was by no means a blockbuster or run away hit, but because it has a cult following, it gets a sequel two decades later? It's Hollywood scraping the bottom of the barrell for old ideas to rehash!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: PopcornAvenger
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 8:21am
Don't look now, but another american-based Godzilla movie is in the works . . . .


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 11:24am
Originally posted by PopcornAvenger

Don't look now, but another american-based Godzilla movie is in the works . . . .
Let me guess, Michael Bay this time? No, maybe Peter Jackson, he has to make up for "King Kong".

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 6:17pm

Despite all your entertaining arguments and advice against seeing this film, I'm not convinced.



Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 7:05pm
Despite the fact Louis Leterrier (who directed the better Hulk movie released last decade) is directing, I feel, from seeing the trailer just once, that it will be an overblown, soulless action only video-game-minus-the-interactiveness film, just like 300. 

No wait, 300 kicked ass all because we saw body parts and copious amounts of blood being flung around. Is this movie rated R? No, so I feel like this film will all just be your standard action sequences. Zzzzz....

-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 7:08pm
Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

Despite all your entertaining arguments and advice against seeing this film, I'm not convinced.
Hey, it's your $15. If you want to give it away to Hollywood's get-rich-quick scheme, have at it hoss!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 8:03pm
Where I come from, matinee price is $7.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I bet for a 3-D showing, even a matinee ticket is more like TEN BUX -- Unless you really live in the proverbial "boonies"!! 


-------------


Posted By: sampsoninc916
Date Posted: March 31 2010 at 6:28am
I'm all so skeptical about 3-D technology, especially 3-D TV. I know the world around me is changing, and that I have a difficult time adjusting, but the kind of TV that I want is a Full HD LED TV. Since the prices just to go see a movie have rapidly increased to a point where going to see a 3-D movie costs $17-20, it would probably be better just to wait till it comes out on DVD, Blu-ray, or On Demand. Guess this might be a reason why the dreaded Smurfs movie could be a stink bomb. Seeing ads for LG's 3D ready TVs, I saw on the bottom that "Watching 3D video may cause discomfort" One of the biggest highlights for drug commercial watching is to listen for the side effects, some of which are funny to hear. I want a Full HD LED TV for graduation, because high picture quality makes movies look real enough. I also want to connect a computer to the TV because people at Micro Center are satisfied with using their TV's as computer monitors.

-------------
Do you think I was young enough to grow up watching Smurfs, Thundercats, and reruns of shows like A-Team and Dukes of Hazzard, and Alvin and the Chipmunks?


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 31 2010 at 7:38am
Not if you pay for the full 3-D IMAX experience that studios want you to go see!  

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

 
Where I come from, matinee price is $7.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: March 31 2010 at 8:56pm
I didn't see Avatar in 3-D and I probably won't see this one in 3-D.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 01 2010 at 6:33am
Good for you. Clap   

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

I didn't see Avatar in 3-D and I probably won't see this one in 3-D.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: April 01 2010 at 3:32pm
James Cameron said himself that when he filmed Avatar in 3D, he wanted to do it so that you forget that you're watching a movie and wearing the glasses and instead make you feel immersed on the planet Pandora. The movie wasn't about having stuff coming at your face every 30 seconds but rather to make the planet scenery seem tangible and realistic, like there was no screen and that you could just walk past the seats and explore the jungle area. While most movies use 3D as a gimmick, James Cameron utilizes it so that we get a seemingly authentic viewing of the world he's created. 

Titans was originally shot in 2D, and they decided to go back and adjust each frame manually to give it a third dimension after seeing how Avatar revolutionized 3D, so I don't have much hope for this one. From what I hear, the screen is so saturated in dusty, sandy color that you barely notice any difference with or without 3-D glasses.  


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 01 2010 at 7:41pm
HAHAHA! This is the funniest damn review I have ever read for a movie!
 
http://www.nj.com/entertainment/movies/index.ssf/2010/04/the_gods_must_be_cringing_at_this_clash_of_the_titans_remake.html - http://www.nj.com/entertainment/movies/index.ssf/2010/04/the_gods_must_be_cringing_at_this_clash_of_the_titans_remake.html
 
Too good!


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: April 02 2010 at 7:36am
You are the saddest human being I've ever met! 


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 02 2010 at 1:44pm
But you haven't met me.Wink

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: April 03 2010 at 9:51am
I've had experience in imaging with 3-D gaming, you really have to put an lot of thought into the look before you commit.

If you're going to make the movie in 3-D, don't do it half-assed like this "Trash of the Titans" is. Converting a movie into 3-D makes it look cheesier than Dynamation. Avatar's shots are all designed with 3-D in mind, note the longer shots and sequences because 3-D doesn't work well in short shots! Your eyes need several seconds to adjust to a 3-D scene and when you do a bunch of fast clips, the effect isn't fully processed. Consequently, the short clip effects in Trash of the Titans look half-assed. Because they are.

The original movie was campy and cheesy and it was the last hurrah for Dynamation. But it still had some charms because you knew that Harryhausen put a lot of love, sweat and effort into it. This remake doesn't have that singular vision, it's just another modern hodgepodge that has a dozen different teams doing a dozen different sequences without a single unifying vision guiding them. And it shows. It's the typical bucket of half-baked recycled crap that modern Hollywood MBAs love to market. 

Honestly, if Harryhausen was 60 years younger and tried to get into the movie business today, he'd be shown the door. Hollywood no longer is interested in an individual with ideas, they just want team players.


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: April 03 2010 at 9:17pm
man, the reviews on this are weak. But the funniest reviews ever were for the movie Radio -- although most of them are not available anymore.... 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I assume you are referring to the 2003 film http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/radio/index.html - . got a multi-title Worst Actor nomination?  If so, here's http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316465/ - to the film's listing there, and http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/radio/ -


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 05 2010 at 7:49pm
Yeah, never heard of that one, let alone saw it.  

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: April 05 2010 at 9:00pm
Radio was the movie with cuba gooding jr playing a mentally challenged man, it was supposed to be a serious drama, but might be one of greatest unintentional comedies of all time.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 05 2010 at 9:59pm
Oh yeah, that movie. Further proof of Cuba Gooding Jr's post-Oscar career going to s***.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: DaveThePhotoGuy
Date Posted: April 05 2010 at 11:26pm
Never heard "Radio" myself, but if it's as bad as you guys are saying. I will have to check it out.
On topic- F***ING HOLLYWOOD!!!! just because Avaturd made a sh*t load of money does'nt
mean all 3D films will make that sort of money.
*NOTE* Avaturd was filmed in 3D, so the 3D works****
Even hough the film itself was a steaming pile of....... well at least Clash and Avaturd have that in common! Hollywood really dropped the ball on this one, promising so much...  


-------------
I think they kinda sound like Depeche Mode


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 06 2010 at 9:12am
Yes, thank you. This is a point I've been trying to make about "Ava-turd"!  

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: April 06 2010 at 1:12pm
Originally posted by DaveThePhotoGuy

Never heard "Radio" myself, but if it's as bad as you guys are saying. I will have to check it out.

It's not a bad movie. My teacher showed it to the whole class one time and we ended up liking it. I'm surprised by the Razzie nom myself (just found out now) because it was a great performance from Gooding.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 06 2010 at 2:38pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy


It's not a bad movie. My teacher showed it to the whole class one time and we ended up liking it. I'm surprised by the Razzie nom myself (just found out now) because it was a great performance from Gooding.

Maybe the Razzie nod was because Cuba went against the Golden Rule that was mentioned in "Tropic Thunder": never go full retard!


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Julianstark
Date Posted: April 08 2010 at 11:51am
For what it's worth, I made a huge mistake in seeing this movie as a birthday venture. I was expecting it to be a decent action movie and nothing more. I was so wrong...

This movie fully deserves some Razzie attention. It had a horrible script and no real premise. Sam Worthington is good, and Liam Neeson dominates without much to do, so I don't think they deserve Razzie nominations. However, I'm all for Ralph Fiennes getting one. He was terrible.

Oh, and my review:
http://julianstark-moviesandotherthings.blogspot.com/2010/04/film-review-clash-of-titans-2010.html - Clash of the Titans Review

-------------
For Your 2010 Razzie Consideration: The Bounty Hunter and Leap Year --
Check out my blog! http://julianstark-moviesandotherthings.blogspot.com - Movies and Other Things


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 08 2010 at 11:57am
Originally posted by Julianstark

For what it's worth, I made a huge mistake in seeing this movie as a birthday venture. I was expecting it to be a decent action movie and nothing more. I was so wrong...
Ah, see, even one of our own (who has seen the movie for himself) agrees it's Razzies material.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: April 08 2010 at 10:15pm
Yesterday, my "daigaku no shinbun" (college newspaper) credited this remake for good action, but otherwise disliked it.

-------------
My deadlines for Member-Started Forums, given 35% approval rating or less: Apl. 29; The Other Woman. May 6; Walk of Shame. May 20; Godzilla '014. May 27; Blended. Jne. 3; A Million Ways...


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 12 2010 at 12:11pm
Well, if there's just one good thing that came from this movie, it's a new catchphrase in the form of "RELEASE THE KRAKEN!".

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: tghtrkk
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 3:10am
The movie is not that bad...yeah, it lacks a strong story-line, but the background score is awesome and the hero, after a strong performance in AVATAR, fails to deliver. But, overall  a time-passing movie. 


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 18 2010 at 6:24pm
Originally posted by tghtrkk

The movie is not that bad...yeah, it lacks a strong story-line, but the background score is awesome and the hero, after a strong performance in AVATAR, fails to deliver. But, overall  a time-passing movie. 

Yeah, the movie's score shouldn't be the saving grace of the entire movie.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 03 2010 at 3:54pm
I first heard of it because of the trailer durin'the People's Choice Awards.After all this time,I still don't know what the plot is.I guess they thought that,since it was O.K. for ECLIPSE...

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: May 03 2010 at 4:49pm
Originally posted by Vits

I first heard of it because of the trailer durin'the People's Choice Awards.After all this time,I still don't know what the plot is.I guess they thought that,since it was O.K. for ECLIPSE...
Just do yourself a favor and rent the original. Sure, it's dated by today's standards, but hey, it's a classic.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: robson12
Date Posted: July 21 2010 at 1:37am
I knew from the beginning this forum would appear soon.



-------------------------
http://www.boxset4less.com/products/Mickey-Mouse-Clubhouse-DVD-Boxset-DVDS-1239.html - Mickey Mouse Clubhouse dvd box set is one of my favorite tv shows, if you like things such as http://www.boxset4less.com/products/Bleach-Seasons-1-10-DVD-Boxset-DVDS-1786.html - Bleach dvd box set , http://www.boxset4less.com/products/30-Rock-Seasons-1-4-DVD-Boxset-DVDS-2017.html - 30 Rock dvd box set or http://www.boxset4less.com/products/Project-Runway-Seasons-1-7-DVD-Box-Set-DVDS-2063.html - Project Runway dvd box set and order you will enjoy this show very much.. definitely recommend to anyone one


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: July 21 2010 at 11:33am
Originally posted by robson12

I knew from the beginning this forum would appear soon.
 
It sounds like you've hardly noticed this topic before. If that's the case, that's odd. It's been here for almost 4 months now. What do you hate most about this movie?


-------------
My deadlines for Member-Started Forums, given 35% approval rating or less: Apl. 29; The Other Woman. May 6; Walk of Shame. May 20; Godzilla '014. May 27; Blended. Jne. 3; A Million Ways...


Posted By: TheMovieCritic
Date Posted: December 08 2010 at 11:26am
Didn't bother with this terrible movie. I would rather watch the 1981 version than this sorry excuse for a "remake." At least the 1981 version's special effects were decent, especially compared to the terrible CGI used in this film.

-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 08 2010 at 12:05pm
How do you know that if you didn't watch it?

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: TheMovieCritic
Date Posted: December 08 2010 at 3:48pm
This film's trailer says it all.

-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 09 2010 at 1:03pm
That you won't like the effects?Sure.That it's a terrible movie?No.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vermn
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 10:00am
I remember seeing the original movie way back when. Although the effects weren't all that great, I appreciated the work of Ray Harryhausen and his history.
I just recently saw the remake, and I can say, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.
Whenever I see a remake, I try and forget the original, especially if it's a movie I like.
Although it was a bit jumpy and quick moving, it wasn't so overdone that it was unwatchable like the Transformers movies.
I think the problem with CGI is that it's way overused. They use it even when it's not needed. Perhaps they have to justify the budget, so they throw in some animation at every twist and turn. I don't know.
Look at what George Lucas did with the last three Star Wars movies. Going by the time line, the last three were supposed to take place BEFORE the first three, yet the technology in the last three makes the first three look like a silent movie. I doubt that a second goes by without some sort of CGI. Those movies were way overdone.
Then he goes back and ads to the original trilogy? What's the point? Now I'm not talking about adding in Jabba the Hut in the first movie. Lucas had said on numerous occasions that he wanted Jabba in the first film, he just didn't have the money or the technology to do it, so he goes back years later and adds in a character he wanted. All fine and good. But to add all these little things in that have nothing to do with the story?
There are some pretty amazing scenes in movies that were done before the advent of CGI, so it can be done. Sadly, Hollywood has chosen, in many cases, to take what could be a great meal, and turn it into the film equivalent of McDonalds. Quick, dirty,cheap and not very satisfying.
Maybe that's why people don't go to the movies that much anymore, besides the cost of course.
People realize what Hollywood is doing. They aren't trying to make a decent movie, just a quick buck, and alot of people don't want to fall for it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 12:35pm
I have a new crazy theory.Please hear me out.Everything in the STAR WARS universe seems futuristic.However it happened "a long time ago in a galaxy far,far away".Maybe their evolution goes backwards.Or maybe because of the Republic turning into Empire it all went to sh*t.Look at how countries look during war,and how they look before and after.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 12:55pm
Originally posted by Vits

I have a new crazy theory.Please hear me out.Everything in the STAR WARS universe seems futuristic.However it happened "a long time ago in a galaxy far,far away".Maybe their evolution goes backwards.Or maybe because of the Republic turning into Empire it all went to sh*t.Look at how countries look during war,and how they look before and after.
There's one big flaw to your theory: R2D2. He had a bunch of gadets and abilities in the prequels that he didn't have in the original movies. Sorry, but that's just massive plot holes by George Lucas.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 1:17pm
But that's exactly what I said.He lost those things.The same happened to everything related to technology.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 3:11pm
Originally posted by Vits

But that's exactly what I said.He lost those things.The same happened to everything related to technology.
But HOW did he lose those things? PLOT HOLE! It's just an epic goof on Lucas' part. You don't make prequels that take place in the past but they look a thousand times better than the furture, because it's a plot hole. Even characters like Obi-Wan, Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru are plot holes. In Episode 3, they are in their 20s or 30s, but then in Episode 4, only 20 years later, they look like they are in their 70s!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 3:18pm
I didn't say Lucas intended for that theory on purpose.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 4:41pm
Originally posted by Vits

I didn't say Lucas intended for that theory on purpose.
And I say he didn't intend ANYTHING at all. He didn't plan it all the way through, he just wanted to further cash in on his creation, plot holes be damned.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 8:33pm
Was Batman Begins the only film prequel anyone's liked since 2000?
Scratch that, Batman Begins was a reboot. Since New Year's Day 2000, have there been any successful, well-received prequels that were not considered reboots? Because while sequels sometimes stand some chance of success, prequels are harder to make, and harder to avoid continuity errors and other contradictions.
 
By the way, I declare Clash of the Titans [remake] to be the #18 Worst Film of 2010. Horrible CGI images that are arguably lower-quality than the stop motion technology used in the 1981 original, poor plot, below-average acting, but this movie and its reviews are not as bad as those that follow.


-------------
My deadlines for Member-Started Forums, given 35% approval rating or less: Apl. 29; The Other Woman. May 6; Walk of Shame. May 20; Godzilla '014. May 27; Blended. Jne. 3; A Million Ways...


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 8:52pm
DEATH PROOF and http://www.razzies.com/forum/paranormal-activity-2_forum464.html - PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 .The rest are either direct-to-video(not enough reviews to judge)or were only technically prequels like IRON-MAN 2 being technically a prequel to THE INCREDIBLE "HULK".

By the way GTA I've seen 7 of your Dirty Dozen.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 9:30pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

Since New Year's Day 2000, have there been any successful, well-received prequels that were not considered reboots? 
Nope, the list of good prequels is even shorter than the list of good sequels, because none exist! No, "Paranormal Activity 2" doesn't count, it was a mid-quel that took place before, during, and after the events of the first movie. And "Death Proof" doesn't count either because we don't know when it took place, before or during the events of "Planet Terror", although the scenes in question had NOTHING to do with the events of "PT" besides a wink-wink to the audience that the two movies exist in the same universe. "Iron Man 2" doesn't count either, again mid-quel, events happening during the same time that just so happen to be interconnected. A true prequel takes place YEARS before the events of the original movie and usually sets up events and introduces characters that will later have a major impact in the original movie. The "Star Wars" prequels fit that description ... and they sucked to high heaven. And there was that "Underworld" prequel, which was okay at best if you want a guilty pleasure to watch.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 09 2011 at 8:25pm
Ah Clash Of The Titans. It's a seriously dumb movie with stiff acting, but compared to the other crap I've been watching lately (specifically Rob Zombie's joyless Halloween movies) I'll take it.
 
The good:
 
The action scenes: When the film features action scenes, it gets exciting. If this featured more action and less boring scenes this film's RT score would be... a little higher, not in the fresh zone.
 
The (non 3D) special effects: The special effects that were ment to be in the film are really good.
 
Gemma Arterton's hotness: It's been a while since I've put an actress's hotness in a review. She's really hot, but her acting is... meh. Not really bad, but not good. Her performance in Prince Of Persia was pretty bad although I actually liked that one.
 
The bad:
 
Character design changes from the original: While I did like the Cthulhu-like appearance of the Kraken, the new designs aren't very good. Specifically, Calibos. In the original, he was an awesomely hideous thing. Here, he's Two-Face in a toga.
 
The Bubo insult: There's a brief scene where Perseus picks up Bubo, but throws him back in a chest. Bubo was awesome in the original film. He headbutted Calibos in the groin!
 
The ugly:
 
Sam Worthington: Worthington's just bad here. He's since apologized for it, but there's another reason for him being here. Read this* and find out!
 
The fake 3D: The fake 3D in this is an albatross around the film's neck. If this movie is brought up in a conversation, it's bound to be about bad 3D.
 
As you could tell from the review, I'm a big fan of the original Clash Of The Titans. I gave it a B+. Grade: B-
 
Next-up: P2! (Again, no reason)
 
*http://www.chud.com/23299/by-zeus-the-version-of-clash-of-the-titans-you-didnt-see/


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Up-next: The Island Of Dr. Moreau '96


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: July 29 2012 at 2:47pm
I know I'm gonna offend a lot of people here (specially HeadRAZZ and SchumacherH8Ter), but I thought this was better than the original. Skip to 04:57.
[TUBE]CYeQFcQgDMQ[/TUBE]
Any thoughts?
Originally posted by Vits

By the way GTA I've seen 7 of your Dirty Dozen.
Now I've seen them all but ALONE IN THE DARK.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile



Print Page | Close Window