Random movie news

[Silver]

Anyway, there's a new Superman movie coming.

Upgrade or Downgrade?

Depends, who's the new guy?

[Rev. Rye]

Apparently, the whole movie is set in one room over many centuries, and considering it's not a bathroom, my guess is that the movie ends with Hanks drowning in his own

Okay, for the record, the movie is called Here. It’s based on a graphic novel, which is, in turn, based on a six-page comic story. It’s less “one room over many centuries” and more “one particular spot over the entire history of the planet.”





 And, frankly, saying it takes place over many centuries is actually under-selling how expansive the time span of the film is. In the original version, the timeline actually starts at 500,957,406,073 BC, and ends sometime around 2033. In the graphic novel, which I own, the timeline is a bit more reasonable , with the date farthest back being 3,000,500,000 BCE and the furthest in the future being 2314 CE. So, if you saw the dinosaurs in the trailer and got confused,  that’s literally why. 

The original story can be seen (faithfully replicated on what is admittedly a budget of fuck-all) here:

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Apparently, the whole movie is set in one room over many centuries, and considering it's not a bathroom, my guess is that the movie ends with Hanks drowning in his own

Okay, for the record, the movie is called Here. It’s based on a graphic novel, which is, in turn, based on a six-page comic story. It’s less “one room over many centuries” and more “one particular spot over the entire history of the planet.”





 And, frankly, saying it takes place over many centuries is actually under-selling how expansive the time span of the film is. In the original version, the timeline actually starts at  500,957,406,073 BC, and ends sometime around 2033. In the graphic novel, which I own, the timeline is a bit more reasonable , with the date farthest back being 3,000,500,000 BCE and the furthest in the future being 2314 CE. So, if you saw the dinosaurs in the trailer and got confused,  that’s literally why. 

The original story can be seen (faithfully replicated on what is admittedly a budget of fuck-all) here:

Never read the comic or the novel. Everything I’ve heard gives me negative interest in seeing the film.

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

Looking forward to some weird (but probably boring) horror movies

[arewethereyet]

Apparently, the whole movie is set in one room over many centuries, and considering it's not a bathroom, my guess is that the movie ends with Hanks drowning in his own shit.

---

Anyway, there's a new Superman movie coming.

Upgrade or Downgrade?

Lateral move.  Unimpressed by both.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Actors I’d like to see as Superman:

-Elijah Wood

-Steve Buscemi

-Kathy Bates

-Danny DeVito

-John Goodman

Any one of those might re-ignite my interest.

Boru

Edit: and Samuel L. Jackson, only because I’d love to hear Superman telling me that he ‘fights for truth, justice, and the American way, motherfucker.’

[Angrboda]

No Ru Paul?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No Ru Paul?

I was thinking of him for Wonder Woman.

[Fake Messiah]

First look at Gladis 2



But it seems to me that the first one was a hit mostly because it was the first time someone recreated Rome in CG, and Russell Crowe. The movie was riding on that "yet unseen" factor.
But today, it's meh. Since then there were LOTR movies, Rome TV show, GOT...

[Angrboda]

I'd argue that the first was a hit because of the screenplay and standout performances from the actors -- such as Crowe, Phoenix, and Reed. Connie Nielsen as Lucilla was also impressive.