Be Excellent To Each Other https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/ |
|
The Movie topic https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3817 |
Page 333 of 423 |
Author: | Doctor Glyndwr [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 14:14 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
It ends up owning most of Hulu, too, as the BBC also noted. This is a huge deal in every sense of the words. |
Author: | DavPaz [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 14:33 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
This image was created by Disney Edit: Hmm, that's a bit small... |
Author: | RuySan [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 15:39 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
MaliA wrote: Doctor Glyndwr wrote: The Xenomorph, born of an Alien Queen, is now officially a Disney Princess. Boy's got a point. Now i have a good excuse to buy a Xenomorph plush to my nephew. |
Author: | Cras [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 15:46 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Aren't they drones? |
Author: | Cras [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 15:47 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Not that I believe that being genderless should disqualify someone from being a princess. Maybe the acid blood and all the killing tho. |
Author: | Mimi [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 15:54 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Cras wrote: Maybe the acid blood and all the killing tho. Liz II was the same as a nipper. |
Author: | Doctor Glyndwr [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 16:04 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Cras wrote: Maybe the acid blood and all the killing tho. Stupid patriarchy, imposing its standards of beauty on innocent princesses. |
Author: | Curiosity [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 16:48 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Cras wrote: Not that I believe that being genderless should disqualify someone from being a princess. Maybe the acid blood and all the killing tho. But enough about Elsa from Frozen. |
Author: | LewieP [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 18:21 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Disney will now (assuming it goes ahead) own the 1966 Batman TV series and currently airing Gotham. |
Author: | asfish [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 19:15 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
LewieP wrote: Dunno if it's worth it's own thread. It's official, Disney are buying Fox. Xmen, Fantastic Four, Deadpool, Silver Surfer, Dr Doom & Galactus will now be in the MCU. Plus all the other stuff that Fox owns. Alien, Avatar, Independence Day, Planet of the Apes, Kingsman and so many more movies are going to be disney property. Bit of a reversal for Murdoch, he appeared to be hell-bent on owning all of SKY. The deal appears to have no guarantee that his kids will get executive positions either. Still, no doubt a good chunk of the $52 Billion Disney just shelled out is coming his way |
Author: | MaliA [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 23:46 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Curiosity wrote: I finally saw ‘In Bruges’ the other night. Really, really enjoyed it. Still thinking about it and smirking a couple of days later. Loved how there was care taken with all of the characters, even the minor ones, and nobody was purely good or bad. Lots of callbacks and themes going through it, and genuinely funny moments balanced with a lot of pathos. 9/10, will seek out the director’s new movie, which just garnered a load of Golden Globe award nominations. Just watched this. It's wonderful. |
Author: | MaliA [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 23:47 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Mimi wrote: Jennifer Connelly is in Labyrinth. Robin Wright is in Princess Bride. There’s no need for other movies. Days of thunder |
Author: | Satsuma [ Thu Dec 14, 2017 23:50 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Watching “IT”. Fat kid’s nipples are freaking me the fuck out more than the clown. |
Author: | Satsuma [ Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:36 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
“IT” was, surprisingly, really fantastic. Pennywise was great and I especially loved the FX work on that character. That technique where (I don’t know the name of it, if it has a name) his face is almost still in the frame and the camera dances around with the surrounding scenery blurred and noisey is such a fantastic technique that suited this film. I’ve seen it before but it was put to great use here and with restraint. Two complaints in an otherwise great film: 1) I’m not a fan of supernatural horror, and the bodies floating was pants. I thought the gist of the horror bit was that it was all in the mind but this gave the impression that it wasn’t. Didn’t like that. Horror is scarier when it’s grounded by the laws of physics. 2) There were too many kids. 2 too many in fact. You could have taken them out and had a much tighter party to focus on. Them inside out nipples though - I hope they’re the villain in part 2. That shit will be haunting my dreams tonight. Fuck. |
Author: | Grim... [ Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:34 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Have you seen the TV two-parter from the nineties? |
Author: | Mimi [ Fri Dec 15, 2017 18:40 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Grim... wrote: Have you seen the TV two-parter from the nineties? Is that the film (or not, as I am confused?) with Tim Curry, Jonathan Brandis and John Boy Walton? If so I had no idea that was anything other than a film. I’ve seen it several times but I’m sure I’ve only ever seen it presented as a straight run-through movie. I mean... I’ve Googled it before pressing submit now and I can see you’re completely correct, I just can’t believe I didn’t know. |
Author: | Satsuma [ Fri Dec 15, 2017 20:56 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Grim... wrote: Have you seen the TV two-parter from the nineties? Yup. I only really remember the spider though. I’d read the book in my youth too and can’t remember for the life of me a single word of it except a basic outline of the story. I had to look at the wiki for the summary and was surprised I couldn’t remember the 7 page kiddie gang bang. |
Author: | Grim... [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:46 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Satsuma wrote: Grim... wrote: Have you seen the TV two-parter from the nineties? I had to look at the wiki for the summary and was surprised I couldn’t remember the 7 page kiddie gang bang. Wait what |
Author: | LewieP [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:04 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Pretty sure that's in the book but not in either movie. |
Author: | Mimi [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:24 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Gang bang in which sense? Sex or a brawl? |
Author: | MaliA [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:50 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Mimi wrote: Gang bang in which sense? Sex or a brawl? Sex. |
Author: | DavPaz [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 14:57 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
The kids figure that virgins are all more vulnerable to Pennywise, so they all line up and take turns with Bev. Not overly surprised that it didn't make it into the movie |
Author: | MrChris [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 15:11 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
DavPaz wrote: The kids figure that virgins are all more vulnerable to Pennywise, so they all line up and take turns with Bev. Not overly surprised that it didn't make it into the movie If it had been directed by Woody Allen it might have. |
Author: | Grim... [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 15:57 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
DavPaz wrote: The kids figure that virgins are all more vulnerable to Pennywise, so they all line up and take turns with Bev. Not overly surprised that it didn't make it into the movie The fuck?! How don't I remember that? |
Author: | LewieP [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 16:22 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
MrChris wrote: DavPaz wrote: The kids figure that virgins are all more vulnerable to Pennywise, so they all line up and take turns with Bev. Not overly surprised that it didn't make it into the movie If it had been directed by Woody Allen it might have. Or Roman Polanski. Or Luc Besson. Or Bryan Singer. Or Victor Salva. I think Hollywood might have a problem. |
Author: | Cras [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 16:36 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Grim... wrote: DavPaz wrote: The kids figure that virgins are all more vulnerable to Pennywise, so they all line up and take turns with Bev. Not overly surprised that it didn't make it into the movie The fuck?! How don't I remember that? I don't know? It's really jarring and weirdly out of place in the book. |
Author: | Grim... [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 19:42 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Did it get taken out in later revisions? |
Author: | Grim... [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 19:44 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Apparently not. Maybe I'll read it again. |
Author: | Findus Fop [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 20:11 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Grim... wrote: Apparently not. Maybe I'll read it again. Read what again? |
Author: | DavPaz [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 20:18 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Findus Fop wrote: Grim... wrote: Apparently not. Maybe I'll read it again. Read what again? It |
Author: | Curiosity [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 21:21 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Grim... wrote: Apparently not. Maybe I'll read it again. Because you’re into child sex? |
Author: | Grim... [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 23:44 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Curiosity wrote: Grim... wrote: Apparently not. Maybe I'll read it again. Because you’re into child sex? Who isn't? |
Author: | DavPaz [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 23:46 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Grim... wrote: Curiosity wrote: Grim... wrote: Apparently not. Maybe I'll read it again. Because you’re into child sex? Who isn't? The children |
Author: | Findus Fop [ Sat Dec 16, 2017 23:48 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
DavPaz wrote: Findus Fop wrote: Grim... wrote: Apparently not. Maybe I'll read it again. Read what again? It Fine, be that way. |
Author: | DavPaz [ Sun Dec 17, 2017 0:05 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Giphy "pennywise": https://media3.giphy.com/media/IdWGz4ZLyP6Fi/giphy-loop.mp4 |
Author: | MrChris [ Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:07 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
LewieP wrote: MrChris wrote: DavPaz wrote: The kids figure that virgins are all more vulnerable to Pennywise, so they all line up and take turns with Bev. Not overly surprised that it didn't make it into the movie If it had been directed by Woody Allen it might have. Or Roman Polanski. Or Luc Besson. Or Bryan Singer. Or Victor Salva. I think Hollywood might have a problem. When did Luc Besson have sex with kids? I picked woody because he'd actually done it (allegedly). I'm not sure Leon was in any way inappropriate, if that's what you're referring to? Then again I haven't watched it for years. He can fuck off for Valerian though. |
Author: | Hearthly [ Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:14 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Leon was a bit more inappropriate in the 'international version'. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110413/alternateversions |
Author: | LewieP [ Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:48 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
There's also the fact that her parents totally objected to shooting a lot of that stuff, but he went ahead and shot it anyway. I didn't mean to suggest he had sex with a child, but it's absolutely inappropriate. |
Author: | Hearthly [ Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:52 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Those crazy Frenchmen! |
Author: | RuySan [ Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:16 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
LewieP wrote: There's also the fact that her parents totally objected to shooting a lot of that stuff, but he went ahead and shot it anyway. I didn't mean to suggest he had sex with a child, but it's absolutely inappropriate. Still, kind of harsh to put him in such an "illustrious" company. Besides, do you think writers or movie directors should never tell immoral stories at all? Besides, it's not uncommon for a grown child/early teen girl to have a crush on a grown adult. There's the question on how did he protect the underage actress in this instance of the story he was about to tell. I do remember that the fake name "Natalie Portman" came into being to protect her, but i don't know if it was the director's or the parents idea. |
Author: | GazChap [ Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:52 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
Jem and I took the kids to watch Paddington 2 yesterday - we've not seen the first one though. Great film, and I was in tears for a lot of it (not through laughter either!) - they really went for my heartstrings. I'm getting soft. |
Author: | KovacsC [ Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:15 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
GazChap wrote: Jem and I took the kids to watch Paddington 2 yesterday - we've not seen the first one though. Great film, and I was in tears for a lot of it (not through laughter either!) - they really went for my heartstrings. I'm getting soft. Yes I cried a lot.. they hit that well. |
Author: | MrChris [ Mon Dec 18, 2017 14:12 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
I'm not sure if this follows from the previous posts - did Paddington boff a kid? |
Author: | LewieP [ Mon Dec 18, 2017 14:19 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
RuySan wrote: LewieP wrote: There's also the fact that her parents totally objected to shooting a lot of that stuff, but he went ahead and shot it anyway. I didn't mean to suggest he had sex with a child, but it's absolutely inappropriate. Still, kind of harsh to put him in such an "illustrious" company. Besides, do you think writers or movie directors should never tell immoral stories at all? Besides, it's not uncommon for a grown child/early teen girl to have a crush on a grown adult. There's the question on how did he protect the underage actress in this instance of the story he was about to tell. I do remember that the fake name "Natalie Portman" came into being to protect her, but i don't know if it was the director's or the parents idea. I think it is child abuse to force them into sexual situations explicitly against the parents wishes, and that includes acting. Main point isn't really to condemn him, but to condemn the movie industry for not giving a shit about this kind of thing. |
Author: | MrChris [ Mon Dec 18, 2017 14:39 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
It's a real shame that they switched from Katie Holmes to Maggie Gyllenhaal in the Batman films. |
Author: | RuySan [ Mon Dec 18, 2017 15:54 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
LewieP wrote: RuySan wrote: LewieP wrote: There's also the fact that her parents totally objected to shooting a lot of that stuff, but he went ahead and shot it anyway. I didn't mean to suggest he had sex with a child, but it's absolutely inappropriate. Still, kind of harsh to put him in such an "illustrious" company. Besides, do you think writers or movie directors should never tell immoral stories at all? Besides, it's not uncommon for a grown child/early teen girl to have a crush on a grown adult. There's the question on how did he protect the underage actress in this instance of the story he was about to tell. I do remember that the fake name "Natalie Portman" came into being to protect her, but i don't know if it was the director's or the parents idea. I think it is child abuse to force them into sexual situations explicitly against the parents wishes, and that includes acting. Main point isn't really to condemn him, but to condemn the movie industry for not giving a shit about this kind of thing. Indeed, it's just a matter on how it was done. We don't know for certainly what occurred behind the scenes and how the director and parents explained to her the script and what the movie was about. For example afaik, the kid from the shining didn't know he was acting in an horror film at all. |
Author: | DavPaz [ Mon Dec 18, 2017 15:57 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
MrChris wrote: It's a real shame that they switched from Katie Holmes to Maggie Gyllenhaal in the Batman films. Nah |
Author: | RuySan [ Mon Dec 18, 2017 16:00 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
DavPaz wrote: MrChris wrote: It's a real shame that they switched from Katie Holmes to Maggie Gyllenhaal in the Batman films. Nah Maggie is way more charismatic imo, and a better actress. Katie is prettier but too vanilla. |
Author: | DavPaz [ Mon Dec 18, 2017 16:01 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
RuySan wrote: DavPaz wrote: MrChris wrote: It's a real shame that they switched from Katie Holmes to Maggie Gyllenhaal in the Batman films. Nah Maggie is way more charismatic imo, and a better actress. Katie is prettier but too vanilla. Should've gone with Jennifer Connelly, am I right? |
Author: | RuySan [ Mon Dec 18, 2017 16:02 ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Movie topic |
DavPaz wrote: RuySan wrote: DavPaz wrote: MrChris wrote: It's a real shame that they switched from Katie Holmes to Maggie Gyllenhaal in the Batman films. Nah Maggie is way more charismatic imo, and a better actress. Katie is prettier but too vanilla. Should've gone with Jennifer Connelly, am I right? That's the right answer for every question in life. |
Page 333 of 423 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |