If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadline)   World War Z is receiving a lot of press before its June premiere. Unfortunately, it's the same type of press that John Carter of Mars and Battleship got before their premieres; in short, this movie is destined to be 2013's biggest bomb   (deadline.com) divider line 166
    More: Obvious, World War Z, battleships, Christopher McQuarrie, Marc Forster, Rob Moore, J. Michael Straczynski, Brad Grey, GK Films  
•       •       •

3639 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 13 May 2013 at 2:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



166 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-13 12:28:30 PM

ShawnDoc: Tomorrowland (Which is going to be a high budget Disney film starring Clooney)


Wait, what? Disney has moved beyond making movies based on single rides and now is making movies based on whole sections of the park??
 
2013-05-13 12:31:54 PM

Carousel Beast: ShawnDoc: doglover: Better than any Transformers flick.

Stepping barefoot on warm dog shiat is better than any Transformers movie.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 215x328]

You shut your whore mouth!


Yeah, Michael Bay Transformers movies: bad.  "Transformers: The Movie": awesome.
 
2013-05-13 12:34:25 PM
We all know if will be bad because Brad Pitt's daughter turns to the camera and says, "Daddy, what's martial law?"   That is Razzie worthy alone.
 
2013-05-13 12:39:48 PM

Carousel Beast: ShawnDoc: doglover: Better than any Transformers flick.

Stepping barefoot on warm dog shiat is better than any Transformers movie.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 215x328]

You shut your whore mouth!


Sorry.  Any live-action Transformers movie.
 
2013-05-13 12:48:25 PM

Big Beef Burrito: BizarreMan: RyansPrivates: Saiga410: Ned Stark: I loved Battleship.

I loved American Battleships.

I loved American Graffiti

I loved Physical Graffiti

I loved Physical Education


I loved Rocky Road.
 
2013-05-13 12:59:07 PM

ShawnDoc: Carousel Beast: ShawnDoc: doglover: Better than any Transformers flick.

Stepping barefoot on warm dog shiat is better than any Transformers movie.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 215x328]

You shut your whore mouth!

Sorry.  Any live-action Transformers movie.


Oh, well then sure :)
 
2013-05-13 01:00:26 PM

Rwa2play: ShawnDoc: Mentat: The moment Damon Lindelof is called in to fix the script, it's doomed.

I'm curious, how did he got from writing a few TV episodes to being given so many high profile scripts?

Cowboys vs Aliens - Big budget flop, that should have been good.
Prometheus - I don't think this flopped at the box office, but almost all the hate is directed at the script and how dumb the characters were.

And yet somehow he gets:
Star Trek Into Darkness (Huge budget/hype movie)
World War Z (Which looks like its going to be a huge flop)
Tomorrowland (Which is going to be a high budget Disney film starring Clooney)

I'm fascinated by Hollywood's ability to repeat history.  As in:  get big name actors for a movie yet forget that you need a story that people will follow for the movie with big name actors to make money.  Then when said movie bombs, execs wonder "WHOA HOPPENED?!"; then decline to retrace the steps fearing that their name will come up as to why the movie bombed.


I wonder how much of it has to do with the number of people that pocket money whether the movie is a flop or not.  Isn't there canard about there being no movie that is "profitable" the way Hollywood does their financing?
 
2013-05-13 01:12:45 PM

ha-ha-guy: Freakin Rican: only a 75 min movie? are we sure about that? 200 million on 75 mins?
come on! at least a 120 min movie.

That's the really bad sign, because with 200 million they have to have more then 75 minutes of footage, so mass amounts must have ended up on the cutting room floor.  If they can't string together more than 75 minutes, it means shooting likely did not go well.


Is there a source for this? I can't believe the movie is only 75 minutes. I heard the reshoots added like 35-40 minutes to the movie, and that would make it half the film.

I expect the film to be 2+ hours.
 
2013-05-13 01:16:39 PM

manimal2878: devildog123: verbaltoxin: bborchar: Maybe I'm alone, but I hated the book.  Basically, EVERYONE in that story is too stupid or oblivious to the obvious, and no one is smart enough to take care of it from the start.  Then, when it's a problem, people are STILL stupid and don't do the easy and OBVIOUS things to get rid of the zombies.

Sorry, can't stand continuing stupidity.

For me it's the fact that the author doesn't seem to understand how 5,000 lb bombs, depleted uranium shells, or Hellfire missiles work. There's nothing left to get up when you strike zombies with those. The Battle of Yonkers would've been over in a few hours, with the humans winning.

There are plenty of other good parts in the book, though.

Yeah, it isn't like the zombies use tactics or take cover, they're an Air Force pilot's wet dream.  A few FAEs or some white phosphorus would have absolutely destroyed them.  The book made a point of saying that the bodies kept decaying, and could be damaged.  I don't care how little pain they feel, all the skin and muscle burned off the bodies, or every bone smashed to bits means that the zombies won't be moving anywhere.  The Battle of Yonkers would have consisted of the Air Force dropping a shiat ton of ordinance, some arty units firing off their M777s, and then the grunts getting up in a line and walking through the mass of wrecked zombies, putting a round into every head they could find.

I think you, and many people who point out things like the above, seem to forget is that the failure wasn't one of military might in that battle, it was one of the soldiers and military industrial complex being so arrogant about how extremely easy it was going to be, they could have easily annihilated the zombie hoard, had they planned to just do so, but instead it was set up as a media circus that went wrong, and new technology was implemented in disastrous ways just to show it off that ended up causing panic and such.  The point isn't that the Zombies were invincibl ...


No, not really.  Reread the book.
 
2013-05-13 01:17:52 PM
I'll still see the hell out of it, granted probably by myself... Loved the book... The movie looks different, but still better than most anything else that passes for zombie related, these days.
 
2013-05-13 01:24:45 PM

manimal2878: I wonder how much of it has to do with the number of people that pocket money whether the movie is a flop or not.  Isn't there canard about there being no movie that is "profitable" the way Hollywood does their financing?


If that were the case then Hollywood would stop making movies unless they were guaranteed to be profitable OR double ticket prices.
 
2013-05-13 01:26:10 PM
Good. Hopefully its being terrible will kill off all this zombie nonsense and people will be forced to have an original idea again.
 
2013-05-13 01:30:44 PM

Carth: timujin: Thing is, I enjoyed both of those.  They weren't great cinematic masterpieces, but they were fun popcorn flicks.  I also liked other bombs, like Howard the Duck, Ishtar and Waterworld, but I guess that just makes me weird.

Ironman 3 is a fun popcorn filck. Battleship was an insult to the intelligence of every person in the theater.


Well, there's your problem, you saw it in the theater.  It's not that bad when it's free.  I'd have been pissed off if I'd paid for it, too.
 
2013-05-13 01:31:57 PM

Supes: ha-ha-guy: Freakin Rican: only a 75 min movie? are we sure about that? 200 million on 75 mins?
come on! at least a 120 min movie.

That's the really bad sign, because with 200 million they have to have more then 75 minutes of footage, so mass amounts must have ended up on the cutting room floor.  If they can't string together more than 75 minutes, it means shooting likely did not go well.

Is there a source for this? I can't believe the movie is only 75 minutes. I heard the reshoots added like 35-40 minutes to the movie, and that would make it half the film.

I expect the film to be 2+ hours.


i tried looking online and found nothing. kinda dissapointing
 
2013-05-13 01:33:23 PM
weknowmemes.com

/for the LULZ
//and MeowMix
 
2013-05-13 01:36:54 PM

Carth: Battleship was an insult to the intelligence of every person in the theater.



There was a good movie in there somewhere trying to get out, it just failed to do so.

 appreciated that the aliens were not the usual omnicidal maniacs. They didn't even shoot first. Amusingly, letting both the JPJ and that dweeby scientist escape unharmed actually led to their defeat.
 
2013-05-13 01:37:28 PM

Nabb1: "Titanic" got a ton of bad buzz before it came out, too. Just saying.


So you're saying World War Z is gonna suck but make a ton of money?
 
2013-05-13 01:38:42 PM

Jaxotea: Rent Party: Battleship was farking awesome.   It didn't spend more than two minutes on the whole "romantic character development" angle, giving us enough for this...

[patpoh.fooyoh.com image 600x250]

and this...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x355]

And then spent the remaining 98% of the movie on "shoot the aliens in the face with the 5" gun" awesome sauce.

[geektyrant.com image 850x358]

That movie delivered, and you're a terrorist hugger if you disagree.

[image.blingee.com image 358x317]

But But But....

Hand-break turning....
A Battleship.....
On an ANCHOR!

(Just one of many issues)

/Brain Still Hurts
//So does Physics!


But you're OK with the aliens coming from outer space and forgetting their radio?   That movie was about giant gun fights and blowing shiat up.  And if they're gonna fire up the old Mo and cruise around blowing up the aliens, that ship *better* do a couple of broadies, get sideways,  and  fire a full broadside directly into ET's face.

So how's life in the Taliban these days, Mahomed?
 
2013-05-13 01:39:38 PM

manimal2878: devildog123: verbaltoxin: bborchar: Maybe I'm alone, but I hated the book.  Basically, EVERYONE in that story is too stupid or oblivious to the obvious, and no one is smart enough to take care of it from the start.  Then, when it's a problem, people are STILL stupid and don't do the easy and OBVIOUS things to get rid of the zombies.

Sorry, can't stand continuing stupidity.

For me it's the fact that the author doesn't seem to understand how 5,000 lb bombs, depleted uranium shells, or Hellfire missiles work. There's nothing left to get up when you strike zombies with those. The Battle of Yonkers would've been over in a few hours, with the humans winning.

There are plenty of other good parts in the book, though.

Yeah, it isn't like the zombies use tactics or take cover, they're an Air Force pilot's wet dream.  A few FAEs or some white phosphorus would have absolutely destroyed them.  The book made a point of saying that the bodies kept decaying, and could be damaged.  I don't care how little pain they feel, all the skin and muscle burned off the bodies, or every bone smashed to bits means that the zombies won't be moving anywhere.  The Battle of Yonkers would have consisted of the Air Force dropping a shiat ton of ordinance, some arty units firing off their M777s, and then the grunts getting up in a line and walking through the mass of wrecked zombies, putting a round into every head they could find.

I think you, and many people who point out things like the above, seem to forget is that the failure wasn't one of military might in that battle, it was one of the soldiers and military industrial complex being so arrogant about how extremely easy it was going to be, they could have easily annihilated the zombie hoard, had they planned to just do so, but instead it was set up as a media circus that went wrong, and new technology was implemented in disastrous ways just to show it off that ended up causing panic and such.  The point isn't that the Zombies were invincibl ...


Well, that and also because of the sheer numbers. The zombies are a menace not because of their inherent individual abilities, but sheer weight of numbers and relentlesness.The military planners also misunderstood the nature of the enemy as well. Several factors combined are why the Battle of Yonkers went badly, and I thought Brooks was pretty explicit about that.

If the military folks had more properly understood the threat they faced, they could have won it. Instead they were relying on different tactics and tools then they should have been, and because they underestimated the threat they didn't try to fall back on contingencies until it was too late. They ended up attracting millions of zombies (remember how dense the population of that area is!) into a huge, neverending wave approaching them from any direction possible. They'd annihilate what they thought was a big chunk of them, and sinince they were using big waepons the noise of the calamity ended up attracting zombies from mu further around then they otherwise would have.

Some of those weapons would also slow or mangle the zombies, but not destroy them, as pressure waves which - further out from actual center of the blast - would stop things made of living tissue were not nearly as effective on the dead (I remember Brooks describing how after some of the attacks there would be a bunch of zombies with lungs hanging out of their mouths or limbs missing, but still chugging along the best they could). Some of the weapons also relied on shrapnel, which was only effective if a piece of shrapnel actually penetrated the brain - again, unlike living flesh things.

And then using incendiary weapons backfired too, as fire will destroy the zombie - but not right away. So they ended up making a bunch of zombies still shuffling inexorably onwards but also now on FIRE, which only made them even more dangerous.

All those factors, combined with the massive columns attracted from an unforseen range of area all on to one spot began to look pretty dangerous to the military folksfighting them. Then once a few had slowly made their way closer folks were panicking on the future combat systems network, which served to panic and demoralize the rest, breaking down discipline and further weakening the military response.

It wasn't because of any one thing, it was because of ALL those factors all together. If even one of them had been accounted for then they would have had a much better chance. Sounded pretty reasonably realistic to me. Although, considering how many young folks in the military love zombie stories (many thanks to WWZ, I'm sure) I'm guessing if you wrote it today you might want to assume they'd be better prepared to meet the threat more effectively!
 
2013-05-13 01:39:40 PM

hulk hogan meat shoes: Good. Hopefully its being terrible will kill off all this zombie nonsense and people will be forced to have an original idea again.


Nah. This movie is already perceived as risky. There have been very, very few zombie movies that attempt an "epic" scale. The vast majority of them are smaller, more personal stories.  If anything, this will dissuade Hollywood from taking chances on grand visions, and cause them to fall back into the old remake/sequel playbook.

But don't worry, zombie movies are already on their downswing. In about 5 years, we won't see them anymore except for the occasional "Living Dead" or "Resident Evil" movie.

I think the next trend that will be over-capitalized on will be low fantasy (more akin to Game of Thrones than Lord of the Rings). Studios are starting to learn that this seems to have broad appreciation across many different demographic groups.
 
2013-05-13 01:42:00 PM

Rent Party: Jaxotea: Rent Party: Battleship was farking awesome.   It didn't spend more than two minutes on the whole "romantic character development" angle, giving us enough for this...

[patpoh.fooyoh.com image 600x250]

and this...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x355]

And then spent the remaining 98% of the movie on "shoot the aliens in the face with the 5" gun" awesome sauce.

[geektyrant.com image 850x358]

That movie delivered, and you're a terrorist hugger if you disagree.

[image.blingee.com image 358x317]

But But But....

Hand-break turning....
A Battleship.....
On an ANCHOR!

(Just one of many issues)

/Brain Still Hurts
//So does Physics!

But you're OK with the aliens coming from outer space and forgetting their radio?   That movie was about giant gun fights and blowing shiat up.  And if they're gonna fire up the old Mo and cruise around blowing up the aliens, that ship *better* do a couple of broadies, get sideways,  and  fire a full broadside directly into ET's face.

So how's life in the Taliban these days, Mahomed?


not for nothing and i tired to be open minded but battleship kinda sucked. i watched it finally last week. it was basically a movie to waste time. but it was bad. could have been better if they took it a different way and got rid of the game reference. rhianna was worse in it. nice body to look at but just unbelievable in the part.
 
2013-05-13 01:47:02 PM

Big Beef Burrito: BizarreMan: RyansPrivates: Saiga410: Ned Stark: I loved Battleship.

I loved American Battleships.

I loved American Graffiti

I loved Physical Graffiti

I loved Physical Education


I loved An Education
 
2013-05-13 02:13:26 PM

Mentat: The moment Damon Lindelof is called in to fix the script, it's doomed.


fix v.tr.
2.d. To kill and preserve (a specimen) intact for microscopic study.
9. To spay or castrate (an animal).
 
2013-05-13 02:19:54 PM

Freakin Rican: Rent Party: Jaxotea: Rent Party: Battleship was farking awesome.   It didn't spend more than two minutes on the whole "romantic character development" angle, giving us enough for this...

[patpoh.fooyoh.com image 600x250]

and this...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x355]

And then spent the remaining 98% of the movie on "shoot the aliens in the face with the 5" gun" awesome sauce.

[geektyrant.com image 850x358]

That movie delivered, and you're a terrorist hugger if you disagree.

[image.blingee.com image 358x317]

But But But....

Hand-break turning....
A Battleship.....
On an ANCHOR!

(Just one of many issues)

/Brain Still Hurts
//So does Physics!

But you're OK with the aliens coming from outer space and forgetting their radio?   That movie was about giant gun fights and blowing shiat up.  And if they're gonna fire up the old Mo and cruise around blowing up the aliens, that ship *better* do a couple of broadies, get sideways,  and  fire a full broadside directly into ET's face.

So how's life in the Taliban these days, Mahomed?

not for nothing and i tired to be open minded but battleship kinda sucked. i watched it finally last week. it was basically a movie to waste time. but it was bad. could have been better if they took it a different way and got rid of the game reference. rhianna was worse in it. nice body to look at but just unbelievable in the part.



I enjoyed it for what it is.

And they did bring their "radio" if I recall, but that crashed in Tokyo.  Hence why they had to re-establish communications using that outpost.

To me it seemed like the aliens were the good guys in the film.  There were too many instances where they were here to escape the enemy who attacked their planet.  They thought we were a peaceful planet.

1.  The "no man left behind" thing on the battleship.  They didn't harm any of the humans and they wanted to take back their wounded.

2.  Shortly after there's a "mind meld" with the main guy where the alien tries to show him that they were a group that received the signal, and went to escape the war to find solace on Earth.

3.  The stupid battleships mistook their hailing signal as a threat since it was so powerful it blew out their windows.

4.  They never attacked the one ship since it never fired on them, hence they had some sort of code to follow they only attacked immediate threats.

5.  At the end, when the scientist goes back for his briefcase, the alien allows him to take it.


I thought it was a pretty smart underlying story wrapped up in the stupidness of it's characters.
 
2013-05-13 02:21:04 PM
Did anyone else noticed that the article's author saw an advanced screening and said it was spectacular?
 
2013-05-13 02:29:23 PM

Fireproof: Did anyone else noticed that the article's author saw an advanced screening and said it was spectacular?


The content of the article is irrelevant.  This thread is for coming in and rehashing the arguments we've used in the last sixteen World War Z threads.
 
2013-05-13 02:34:14 PM
I think the big problem with all 3 of these movies is their names.
Battleship - Who wants to see a movie based on a board game that isn't Clue?
John Carter - That guy from ER?
World War Z - It's going to alienate the built in fanbase of the books because it strays way too far from source material.

Now I'm going to see it. I like zombies and Brad Pitt usually doesn't disappoint, but I'm just going to pretend that this has very little to do with the book.
 
2013-05-13 02:36:35 PM
Army ant zombies is what ruined my interest in this movie.
 
2013-05-13 02:38:59 PM
World War F
Battle of the Fire Ants.

thejetlife.com
 
2013-05-13 02:45:04 PM

Rent Party: Battleship was farking awesome.   It didn't spend more than two minutes on the whole "romantic character development" angle, giving us enough for this...

[patpoh.fooyoh.com image 600x250]

and this...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x355]

And then spent the remaining 98% of the movie on "shoot the aliens in the face with the 5" gun" awesome sauce.

[geektyrant.com image 850x358]

That movie delivered, and you're a terrorist hugger if you disagree.

[image.blingee.com image 358x317]


Battleship was awesome if you like giving a 131 min blowjob to the entire Navy.
 
2013-05-13 02:47:45 PM

fusillade762: So how many hot screenwriters did it take to finish a zombie movie?

Oooh, oooh, give me a minute, I've heard this one before...




Enjoy the random screencap from "Shaun of the Dead".

/too bad about Tyres...


Oh those unlucky people!
 
2013-05-13 02:58:44 PM

FLMountainMan: No, not really. Reread the book.


Yes really.  You reread it.
 
2013-05-13 03:04:51 PM

Rwa2play: manimal2878: I wonder how much of it has to do with the number of people that pocket money whether the movie is a flop or not.  Isn't there canard about there being no movie that is "profitable" the way Hollywood does their financing?

If that were the case then Hollywood would stop making movies unless they were guaranteed to be profitable OR double ticket prices.


I think you missed the point.
 
2013-05-13 03:08:21 PM

mongbiohazard: It wasn't because of any one thing, it was because of ALL those factors all together. If even one of them had been accounted for then they would have had a much better chance. Sounded pretty reasonably realistic to me. Although, considering how many young folks in the military love zombie stories (many thanks to WWZ, I'm sure) I'm guessing if you wrote it today you might want to assume they'd be better prepared to meet the threat more effectively!


Don't forget the part where they had the guys in  clumsy chemical and biological hazmat suits when  that was pointless, but they wanted the guys to wear them because it looked good on camera.  And then the part where panic spread because they used a new and untested com link system that was suppossed to increase battle field communication, but instead allowed one dudes misunderstanding of the situation to create mass panic that spread through all the troops.
 
2013-05-13 03:37:38 PM
The best sci-fi movie I have ever seen was District 9. The movie took relative unknown actors and inserted them into a story that, while retreading familiar themes (apartheid and aliens, most notably), created something new.

The movie I am most looking forward to seeing this summer is Pacific Rim, another sci-fi movie containing familiar themes (giant robots, monsters from the sea, apocalypse averted) yet doing so in a new, engaging way. The cast contains familiar actors but no mega A-listers.

Give us more of this. Interesting stories that do not rely on Brad Pitt to carry the film. The themes can be retreads, hell EVERYTHING is a retread, just do so in a way that makes us WANT to see it.

That last sentence is key, because NO ONE wants to see swarming, fast, hivemind zombies.
 
2013-05-13 03:54:47 PM

manimal2878: mongbiohazard: It wasn't because of any one thing, it was because of ALL those factors all together. If even one of them had been accounted for then they would have had a much better chance. Sounded pretty reasonably realistic to me. Although, considering how many young folks in the military love zombie stories (many thanks to WWZ, I'm sure) I'm guessing if you wrote it today you might want to assume they'd be better prepared to meet the threat more effectively!

Don't forget the part where they had the guys in  clumsy chemical and biological hazmat suits when  that was pointless, but they wanted the guys to wear them because it looked good on camera.  And then the part where panic spread because they used a new and untested com link system that was suppossed to increase battle field communication, but instead allowed one dudes misunderstanding of the situation to create mass panic that spread through all the troops.


Two things about World War Z.

Firstly, it clearly was in a slightly different world than our own based on history and ideology so some of what we expect can be reasonably different.

Secondly the whole zombie apocalypse scenario is complete bullshiat. Everyone now knows what a zombie is and how to deal with them. There's no way a zombie outbreak gets beyond the few dozen stage before people figure out what's going on and put a stop to it. Especially with the prevalence of the internet; FARK or Reddit would figure things out pretty damn quick.
 
2013-05-13 04:13:53 PM

RyansPrivates: Saiga410: Ned Stark: I loved Battleship.

I loved American Battleships.

I loved American Graffiti


I am a real American

pic.shuaijiao.com
 
2013-05-13 04:20:51 PM

Lunchlady: ...

Secondly the whole zombie apocalypse scenario is complete bullshiat. Everyone now knows what a zombie is and how to deal with them. There's no way a zombie outbreak gets beyond the few dozen stage before people figure out what's going on and put a stop to it. Especially with the prevalence of the internet; FARK or Reddit would figure things out pretty damn quick.


Oh fark, we're doomed.
 
2013-05-13 04:21:44 PM

Freakin Rican: Supes: ha-ha-guy: Freakin Rican: only a 75 min movie? are we sure about that? 200 million on 75 mins?
come on! at least a 120 min movie.

That's the really bad sign, because with 200 million they have to have more then 75 minutes of footage, so mass amounts must have ended up on the cutting room floor.  If they can't string together more than 75 minutes, it means shooting likely did not go well.

Is there a source for this? I can't believe the movie is only 75 minutes. I heard the reshoots added like 35-40 minutes to the movie, and that would make it half the film.

I expect the film to be 2+ hours.

i tried looking online and found nothing. kinda dissapointing


I'm sure there isn't a confirmed length of the movie yet, as there probably isn't a final cut yet.  I'll bet 2+ hours too, though.
 
2013-05-13 04:23:25 PM
Bomb? Subby, you're an idiot.

It's a zombie movie...regardless of the suckage IN the film, people are going to line up to see it...hence no 'bomb'.

Bet you a sixer...
 
2013-05-13 04:54:42 PM
Sorry, but the zombies are too cartoonish looking.
 
2013-05-13 04:58:10 PM

Lunchlady: Reddit would figure things out pretty damn quick.


But like CNN and the New York Post they would be looking for the wrong Zombies.
 
2013-05-13 05:15:28 PM
I thought this came out already? WOW.. maybe should have a nap
 
2013-05-13 05:22:17 PM

Lunchlady: Secondly the whole zombie apocalypse scenario is complete bullshiat. Everyone now knows what a zombie is and how to deal with them. There's no way a zombie outbreak gets beyond the few dozen stage before people figure out what's going on and put a stop to it. Especially with the prevalence of the internet; FARK or Reddit would figure things out pretty damn quick.


Eh. If there's a worse case scenario, with fast zombies and every dead person (rather than just bitten people) reanimating, I'd expect 98% of the world's population dead within two months.
 
2013-05-13 06:01:46 PM

flynn80: Rent Party: Battleship was farking awesome.   It didn't spend more than two minutes on the whole "romantic character development" angle, giving us enough for this...

[patpoh.fooyoh.com image 600x250]

and this...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x355]

And then spent the remaining 98% of the movie on "shoot the aliens in the face with the 5" gun" awesome sauce.

[geektyrant.com image 850x358]

That movie delivered, and you're a terrorist hugger if you disagree.

[image.blingee.com image 358x317]

Battleship was awesome if you like giving a 131 min blowjob to the entire Navy.


USS Ranger, CV-61.  Good morning, Rangermen!

Why do you hate America?
 
2013-05-13 06:15:07 PM
so, based off of the trailer, if I go see this movie I should forget that I ever read the book. Ok, so it's like Starship Troopers in that it only shares the name of a book but not the contents of the book.

It doesn't look like a good movie though, like a mash up of 28 Days Later and War of the Worlds.
 
2013-05-13 06:30:41 PM

Carousel Beast: ShawnDoc: doglover: Better than any Transformers flick.

Stepping barefoot on warm dog shiat is better than any Transformers movie.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 215x328]

You shut your whore mouth!


I love that movie, but I HATE the music in it. I wish someone would remake it with better music.
 
2013-05-13 08:04:46 PM
THey're probably trying to control the neck beard whining so that it doesn't sink what looks like a pretty exciting movie.  Neckbeards should all die, and the sooner the better.
 
2013-05-13 08:05:15 PM

Geotpf: Freakin Rican: Supes: ha-ha-guy: Freakin Rican: only a 75 min movie? are we sure about that? 200 million on 75 mins?
come on! at least a 120 min movie.

That's the really bad sign, because with 200 million they have to have more then 75 minutes of footage, so mass amounts must have ended up on the cutting room floor.  If they can't string together more than 75 minutes, it means shooting likely did not go well.

Is there a source for this? I can't believe the movie is only 75 minutes. I heard the reshoots added like 35-40 minutes to the movie, and that would make it half the film.

I expect the film to be 2+ hours.

i tried looking online and found nothing. kinda dissapointing

I'm sure there isn't a confirmed length of the movie yet, as there probably isn't a final cut yet.  I'll bet 2+ hours too, though.


It's already got a rating, so the final theatrical cut of the movie is finished. I don't think the 75 minute runtime includes credits, so it's probably clocking in at barely an hour and a half. However, with commercials and previews, you're still looking at 2 hours in the theater.

Plus, I'd wager a lot had to be cut out to get a PG-13, so it's a safe bet that the director's cut Blu-ray with 20 extra minutes will be coming down the pike.
 
2013-05-13 08:06:15 PM

doglover: John Carter was a good movie, given the press. The problem was the title.

World War Z will Duck Hot Bonkey Salls, though.


Carth: timujin: Thing is, I enjoyed both of those.  They weren't great cinematic masterpieces, but they were fun popcorn flicks.  I also liked other bombs, like Howard the Duck, Ishtar and Waterworld, but I guess that just makes me weird.

Ironman 3 is a fun popcorn filck. Battleship was an insult to the intelligence of every person in the theater.


Battleship made my brain hurt, the stupid was epic and I couldn't get more than a few minutes into the film. >.>
 
Displayed 50 of 166 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report