Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Time)   Ten movie sequels that thankfully never happened. Could you imagine the awfulness that would have been a Speed Racer 2?   (entertainment.time.com) divider line 161
    More: Spiffy, Lemony Snicket, Emily Browning, sequels, Philip Pullman, ranges, Orson Scott Card, Russell Crowe, Jim Carrey  
•       •       •

9577 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Nov 2013 at 11:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-07 02:21:00 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Jake Leg: I've often wondered if those who hate John Carter so much have actually seen it. I went into it thinking it was going to stink, and found it to be pretty damn enjoyable. It is a fun, entertaining and well made diversion - what more could you ask for? Sure it was flop, but that doesn't make it a bad movie. Disney just screwed the release because they had no idea how to market it, same as they did with Lone Ranger (which I also thought was a decent action flick).

I watch John Carter and I know nothing of the source material.  The movie had potential and I found the storyline taking place on earth to be quite intriguing.  There was something about the lead actor that to me just didn't fit the role.


My biggest issue with it was the inconsistency with his strength and athletics. Ok so in one scene, he can swing a massive boulder like a yo-yo, and in another he's struggling an one on one fight with an alien about his same size. He can jump 8 football fields in one scene, but can't get higher than 10 feet in another.
 
2013-11-07 02:22:36 PM  
Remember the competing Mars movies that came out at the same time, Mission to Mars and Red Planet? Yeah, they sucked too.
 
2013-11-07 02:25:45 PM  

ReapTheChaos: I actually liked Cowboys and Aliens, I don't know why it did so poorly.


I liked it also, especially the fact that it was played straight, and not like a comedy.

Daniel Craig was especially good in it.  He should do more characters like that.
 
2013-11-07 02:28:34 PM  

BalugaJoe: I am still waiting for Sky Captain 2.


This!!!!
 
2013-11-07 02:29:46 PM  

dittybopper: You know that almost all of the scenes in Jurassic Park featuring the raptors, they were puppets, right?


dudes in suits, captain of wrong.  dudes in suits.

http://www.stanwinstonschool.com/blog/jurassic-park-evolution-of-a-r ap tor-suit
 
2013-11-07 02:32:32 PM  

Dack48: BalugaJoe: I am still waiting for Sky Captain 2.

This!!!!



'Sky Captain and The World of Today' isn't a very interesting screenplay.  Too much FCC and OSHA.
 
2013-11-07 02:32:35 PM  

dittybopper: Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the film cost $163 million, made $100 million domestically, and an additional $75 million overseas, then it made $175 million total, which, last time I checked, was more than $163 million.


Maybe they meant:

Production Cost = $163 million
Gross Earnings to the Studio = $175 million
Promotional costs, taxes (including overseas), financing cost, etc > $8 million

Although IIRC Hollywood accounting is pretty messed up and studios frequently work very hard to show the IRS that their films barely made money.
 
2013-11-07 02:35:02 PM  

Mugato: Remember the competing Mars movies that came out at the same time, Mission to Mars and Red Planet? Yeah, they sucked too.


Huh.  Looks like our exploration robot buddy here was switched to "homicidal".  There we go, that fixed it.
 
2013-11-07 02:35:45 PM  

frepnog: dittybopper: You know that almost all of the scenes in Jurassic Park featuring the raptors, they were puppets, right?

dudes in suits, captain of wrong.  dudes in suits.

http://www.stanwinstonschool.com/blog/jurassic-park-evolution-of-a-r ap tor-suit


Holy crap that must've been killer on those guys legs, having to keep your knees bent like that for so long.
 
2013-11-07 02:38:21 PM  

dittybopper: DjangoStonereaver: whereas
the baby GINOs were basically the raptors from JURASSIC PARK with slightly updated rendering software.

You know that almost all of the scenes in Jurassic Park featuring the raptors, they were puppets, right?


I had heard that, but the raptor who chased the girl was CGI for a good deal of the time, wasn't it?

Also, how many different ways can you portray a bipedal dinosaur-like creature that size?  Precisely *ONE*.   The reason why they look like raptors, is because that's the only effective way to make them bipedal, fast, and, well,  not stupid looking at that size. Theropods shared a pretty consistent body plan, and it's a good one.

Remember that Gojira was designed back in they day when we thought bipedal dinosaurs walked upright, and Gojira is a dinosaur of some kind.  If you look at the posture of the original Gojira against the more recent versions, the back has gone from being largely vertical:

[i40.tinypic.com image 650x491]

To being closer to horizontal, at about a 45 degree angle:

[i44.tinypic.com image 450x300]

And of course, we have Zilla, who has a very theropod-like body plan and a correct horizontal posture:

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 400x300]

You can get away with a somewhat different body plan at the huge size, but if you go with it at the size of the baby Zillas, it looks tremendously stupid:

[static1.wikia.nocookie.net image 403x479]

Aside from the silliness of the picture, I wouldn't feel that threatened if I saw something like that coming down the street at me, because it's obvious that I could out-run it.

My biggest beef with Zilla wasn't the locomotion or body plan, it was the head.

We associate significance to faces.  That should have remained more "Gojira-like".  I don't care for the stupid huge lower-jaw look.

When all is said and done, though, the 1998 version was *BETTER* than most of the Japanese films.  And I say this as someone who has been a kaiju fan since I was a young kid (watching Ultraman, the Godzilla films, Johnny Sokko, Gamera, etc.).

It has a much better plot than most of the Japanese films, and a better origin story than all of them.  The science is better than all of the Japanese films, including the original.  Godzilla is treated as an animal with needs and feelings, not as some malevolent or benevolent supernatural (and mostly unkillable) force.

I think it actually suffers because of the name.  Calling it "Godzilla" instead "The Monster that ate New York" or something like that invariably invokes feelings for both fans and detractors of Godzilla.  Godzilla fans don't like it because the monster was too different from what they were used to seeing.  People who don't like Godzilla wouldn't see because they don't like Godzilla.

Had the film and monster been called something else, I'm betting it would have done a bit better.


All excellent points.  It is a bit unfair to compare the GINO movie to the Toho ones because they
were made with very different mindsets:  The GINO movie was made to be based in the real world (as
was the original GOIJIRA, though not as strongly), whereas every Toho film after GOIJRA is based in its
own comic-book-like universe with its own rules and science.  In that sense, GINO works better as an
updating/remake of THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS, which was also based on the science of the
time, and with Jean Reno in the Lee Van Cleef role.  But that wouldn't have sold Taco Bell chalupas.

The biggest shame, I think, is that the female lead's career really never went anywhere.  I thought she was quite cute:

www.probertencyclopaedia.com

(I have to say, though, that the one thing I cannot forgive the US producers for doing is not giving their
monster a breath weapon.  Yes, I know its not scienfically accurate, but fercrhissakes, what they did
instead was hardly more accurate).

/Say "Hi" to Jack's beer for me.

;-)
 
2013-11-07 02:38:52 PM  

scottydoesntknow: frepnog: dittybopper: You know that almost all of the scenes in Jurassic Park featuring the raptors, they were puppets, right?

dudes in suits, captain of wrong.  dudes in suits.

http://www.stanwinstonschool.com/blog/jurassic-park-evolution-of-a-r ap tor-suit

Holy crap that must've been killer on those guys legs, having to keep your knees bent like that for so long.



http://youtu.be/rvHzTnfZUjY
 
2013-11-07 02:40:59 PM  

Jake Leg: I've often wondered if those who hate John Carter so much have actually seen it. I went into it thinking it was going to stink, and found it to be pretty damn enjoyable. It is a fun, entertaining and well made diversion - what more could you ask for? Sure it was flop, but that doesn't make it a bad movie. Disney just screwed the release because they had no idea how to market it, same as they did with Lone Ranger (which I also thought was a decent action flick).


The marketing didn't help.  It made it look like Tarzan versus the critters in the pit from Star Wars Episode II.  But good reviews or good word of mouth might've overcome that.  That would've required a more compelling plot.  But the plot was overcomplicated with too many alien bad guys and no time to sort them all out.
 
2013-11-07 02:44:46 PM  

frepnog: dittybopper: You know that almost all of the scenes in Jurassic Park featuring the raptors, they were puppets, right?

dudes in suits, captain of wrong.  dudes in suits.

http://www.stanwinstonschool.com/blog/jurassic-park-evolution-of-a-r ap tor-suit


Same thing.  They were practical effects, not CGI for almost the entire film, which was my point.
 
2013-11-07 02:48:20 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: (I have to say, though, that the one thing I cannot forgive the US producers for doing is not giving their
monster a breath weapon.  Yes, I know its not scienfically accurate, but fercrhissakes, what they did
instead was hardly more accurate).


GINO had a breath weapon

And I agree with you about Ms. Pitillo.
 
2013-11-07 02:54:24 PM  

Mugato: Remember the competing Mars movies that came out at the same time, Mission to Mars and Red Planet? Yeah, they sucked too.


I almost walked out of that one, I stuck through till the end and then we it got to the got damn insect part I wanted to go get a plane ticket to LA just so I could find the writers and kick them in the junk
 
2013-11-07 02:55:06 PM  

MithrandirBooga: I would have replaced John Carter with Godzilla (1998). That movie was clearly designed to be turned into a sequel, with that ridiculous teaser ending. Thankfully it never happened.

John Carter wasn't terrible. It was decent, and a lot better than most crap that has endless sequels these days.


This

It was not nearly as bad as the article states but the title was terrible, it still deserves a sequel since it made a ton in DVD sales and overseas.
 
2013-11-07 02:55:13 PM  
The only thing Golden Compass had going was Daniel Craig and Sam Elliot.
 
2013-11-07 02:55:57 PM  
BTW, the American reboot of Godzilla is due out in May of 2014, and from what I've seen, it's a somewhat more traditional look.

http://godzilla.wikia.com/wiki/Godzilla_(2014_film)
 
2013-11-07 02:56:00 PM  

MithrandirBooga: However this is becoming an increasingly large problem with most blockbusters nowadays. 3 of the top 10 movie flops of all time were released just this summer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_bombs#Biggest_box_of fi ce_bombs ); Hollywood has got to stop spending so much money on gigantic films and spending money on smaller niche films. This idea that every movie has to appeal to everyone is watering down films so much that it's actually turning off most viewers.


There are some decent movies on that list, sadly. Hugo may have been a little overrated by critics (as are all movies about movies) but it was still decent. Treasure Planet really wasn't bad either.
 
2013-11-07 02:56:31 PM  
i171.photobucket.com

There's 20 of these farkers.
 
2013-11-07 02:58:24 PM  

whereisian: Master and Commander was an amazing movie. I wish more like it were made.


It's one of my favorites.
 
2013-11-07 02:59:45 PM  

ArkPanda: dittybopper: OK, now, this is odd:
Cowboys and Aliens (2011)
Harrison Ford as the iron-fisted Colonel Dolarhyde and Daniel Craig as a stranger with no memory of his past in Cowboys & Aliens.
Timothy White / Universal Studios and DreamWorks II
Source: Scott Mitchell Rosenberg's graphic novel
Budget: $163 million
Domestic Gross: $100 million
Post-Mortem: The title seemed like a no-brainer, and yet the movie failed to deliver even on the fun promised by those three words. Even with $75 million in overseas grosses, the movie failed to recoup its costs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the film cost $163 million, made $100 million domestically, and an additional $75 million overseas, then it made $175 million total, which, last time I checked, was more than $163 million.

I actually liked the film, btw, but it's not really sequel material anyway.  There really wasn't anywhere to go with it, except having more alienses invade the West.

Rule of thumb is you always divide by two.  About half the gross goes to the theaters, distributors, etc.  So a $163 million movie needs to make $326 million to be successful for the studio.


Basically everything loses money, just ask Art Buchwald.
 
2013-11-07 03:08:14 PM  
Nobody's mentioned Mac and Me? They threatened us with a sequel at the end of that movie.
 
2013-11-07 03:23:19 PM  

steve_wmn: Jake Leg: I've often wondered if those who hate John Carter so much have actually seen it. I went into it thinking it was going to stink, and found it to be pretty damn enjoyable. It is a fun, entertaining and well made diversion - what more could you ask for? Sure it was flop, but that doesn't make it a bad movie. Disney just screwed the release because they had no idea how to market it, same as they did with Lone Ranger (which I also thought was a decent action flick).

The marketing didn't help.  It made it look like Tarzan versus the critters in the pit from Star Wars Episode II.  But good reviews or good word of mouth might've overcome that.  That would've required a more compelling plot.  But the plot was overcomplicated with too many alien bad guys and no time to sort them all out.


I didn't see it in the theaters either.  As you said, the marketing was freaking horrible.  I honestly thought it was a g-rated children's movie from the tv advertisements.
 
2013-11-07 03:25:58 PM  

Jake Leg: I've often wondered if those who hate John Carter so much have actually seen it. I went into it thinking it was going to stink, and found it to be pretty damn enjoyable. It is a fun, entertaining and well made diversion - what more could you ask for? Sure it was flop, but that doesn't make it a bad movie. Disney just screwed the release because they had no idea how to market it, same as they did with Lone Ranger (which I also thought was a decent action flick).


The main problem with John Carter is it had 100% less dong than the books.
 
2013-11-07 03:35:15 PM  

mechgreg: JayCab: It at least lives on today as my "official movie to test the sound system" whenever I upgrade/move the home theater setup. The opening, up through the battle, is great to put speakers through its paces.

That's funny, that is totally what I use that movie for too. It is amazing how during pretty much the whole movie you can constantly hear the creak of the ship and the splashing of waves against the boat just faintly, but not enough to over power any talking. Plus the sound of the wood cracking when cannons hit is awesome.


Same here.  It's got the clearest multi-channel, positional audio and lots of low frequency.  And a good movie to boot.

I don't get all the hate for the Broderick Godzilla; I mean it's no masterpiece, but it's a fine popcorn munching monster movie.  My guess is the rabid fans of Japanese Godzilla movies would have been fine with it as a monster movie if only it didn't have the Godzilla name stamped on it.
 
2013-11-07 03:57:15 PM  
Just wanted to drop in and say I liked Speed Racer

/Never saw the cartoon.
//Watch back to back with Killer Joe
 
2013-11-07 03:59:14 PM  

cirby: bungle_jr:
but at any rate, it at least broke even, according to this stat.

You're forgetting "Hollywood Accounting 101."

Any movie that loses money is a disaster.

Any movie that breaks even is a huge money loser.

Any money that seems to show a profit is also actually a big money loser, and you'll probably never see a dime from it, even if the studio has to invent expenses to make that happen.

New Line swore up and down that the Lord of the Rings lost money. Really.

Warner Brothers said Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - a movie that grossed $600 million - lost $167 million.

The king of this might be "Return of the Jedi." It cost $32 million to make in 1983. It grossed $475 million. It still hasn't shown a profit.


Forest Gump lost money.
When the studio came to the author (who had a cut of the net, so nothing) to ask about doing Gump & Co, he said that he could not sell them another story that would lose them money.
 
Ant
2013-11-07 04:00:02 PM  
I want a Golden Compass sequel. Maybe a reboot.

/if you think the church in the Golden Compass in any way reflects your church, you belong to one really farked up church!
 
2013-11-07 04:01:25 PM  

SinisterDexter: I don't get all the hate for the Broderick Godzilla; I mean it's no masterpiece, but it's a fine popcorn munching monster movie.  My guess is the rabid fans of Japanese Godzilla movies would have been fine with it as a monster movie if only it didn't have the Godzilla name stamped on it.


Exactly.

And the people who weren't Godzilla fans stayed away because "Oh, another rubber suit monster movie".

So you ended up with a film that had no constituency, but in fact it is a pretty darn good giant monster movie.  I mean, we're not talking "Doctor Zhivago", here, but within its genre, it's a decent effort.
 
2013-11-07 04:04:56 PM  

Car_Ramrod: I liked Cowboys & Aliens...


It did have at least one redeeming feature:

mattcampbellart.com

Olivia Wilde nude is always a selling point, even if it is only implied.
 
2013-11-07 04:20:22 PM  
Missing from the list:
www.entertainmentwallpaper.com

/Most blatant sequel setup since Buckaroo Banzai
 
2013-11-07 05:36:55 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: Car_Ramrod: I liked Cowboys & Aliens...

It did have at least one redeeming feature:

[mattcampbellart.com image 800x343]

Olivia Wilde nude is always a selling point, even if it is only implied.


So sad. People get excited about the thought of nudity to the point that becomes a positive argument for a super huge piece of shiat movie?
 
2013-11-07 05:52:30 PM  
Master & Commander is an amazing movie! It's in my top 5 of all time.

puckrock2000: Missing from the list:
[www.entertainmentwallpaper.com image 850x680]

/Most blatant sequel setup since Buckaroo Banzai


I actually really enjoyed Sorcerer's Apprentice. I expected crap and was very pleasantly surprised.
 
2013-11-07 05:53:10 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: steve_wmn: Jake Leg: I've often wondered if those who hate John Carter so much have actually seen it. I went into it thinking it was going to stink, and found it to be pretty damn enjoyable. It is a fun, entertaining and well made diversion - what more could you ask for? Sure it was flop, but that doesn't make it a bad movie. Disney just screwed the release because they had no idea how to market it, same as they did with Lone Ranger (which I also thought was a decent action flick).

The marketing didn't help.  It made it look like Tarzan versus the critters in the pit from Star Wars Episode II.  But good reviews or good word of mouth might've overcome that.  That would've required a more compelling plot.  But the plot was overcomplicated with too many alien bad guys and no time to sort them all out.

I didn't see it in the theaters either.  As you said, the marketing was freaking horrible.  I honestly thought it was a g-rated children's movie from the tv advertisements.


There was some speculation around here that Disney bombed the advertising on purpose to sabotage the movie because they knew at that point they were buying star wars and didn't want to have two sci-fi franchises self competing.

Who knows how true that is.
 
2013-11-07 05:54:56 PM  

dittybopper: frepnog: dittybopper: You know that almost all of the scenes in Jurassic Park featuring the raptors, they were puppets, right?

dudes in suits, captain of wrong.  dudes in suits.

http://www.stanwinstonschool.com/blog/jurassic-park-evolution-of-a-r ap tor-suit

Same thing.  They were practical effects, not CGI for almost the entire film, which was my point.


They were originallt stop motion puppets. There's a screen test on the DVD of them. They were creepy. Had flicking tongues and shiat. I guess when they switched to CGI half way through production they figured that guys in suits would be less jarring against CGI than the jerky motion of stop motion.
 
2013-11-07 05:55:45 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Mugato: Remember the competing Mars movies that came out at the same time, Mission to Mars and Red Planet? Yeah, they sucked too.

I almost walked out of that one, I stuck through till the end and then we it got to the got damn insect part I wanted to go get a plane ticket to LA just so I could find the writers and kick them in the junk


I walked out on that movie and I was watching it in my own home.
 
2013-11-07 05:56:44 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Exactly. It's like the people biatching about the Speed Racer movie never ever saw the horrible one dimensional cartoon that my 8 year old self loved. I mean honestly the cartoon was crap, utter and complete crap, and you had to be a little boy to enjoy it.

The movie was fun, but Susan Sarandon and John Goodman make that movie into something that was awesome.

Speed Racer

was exactly what it was intended to be... and a whole lot more.  Way too much more.  If they'd cut about half an hour out, it would have been a much tighter and better movie.

Still, I enjoyed it, and I too believe a lot of its negative criticism and box office disappointment was simply backlash against the Matrix sequels.  I suspect Cloud Atlas had a similar backlash, which is a shame since that one actually got a lot of positive reviews.
 
2013-11-07 06:07:42 PM  

Ned Stark: There was some speculation around here that Disney bombed the advertising on purpose to sabotage the movie because they knew at that point they were buying star wars and didn't want to have two sci-fi franchises self competing.

Who knows how true that is.


Sounds like a crazy theory but so is the notion that Disney unintentionally can't market something
 
2013-11-07 06:08:33 PM  

Ned Stark: There was some speculation around here that Disney bombed the advertising on purpose to sabotage the movie because they knew at that point they were buying star wars and didn't want to have two sci-fi franchises self competing.

Who knows how true that is.


Seems kind of dumb.  They could have pushed the movie better and then just ignored doing a sequel.  I seriously thought it was a little kids movie from the ads.
 
2013-11-07 06:14:12 PM  

Hebalo: DjangoStonereaver: Car_Ramrod: I liked Cowboys & Aliens...

It did have at least one redeeming feature:

[mattcampbellart.com image 800x343]

Olivia Wilde nude is always a selling point, even if it is only implied.

So sad. People get excited about the thought of nudity to the point that becomes a positive argument for a super huge piece of shiat movie?


You take what you can get where you can get it.  In full disclosure, I haven't seen C&A, but would like to one day
and not just because of Ms. Wilde, who I respect as an artist and health activist:

cdn.fd.uproxx.com
 
2013-11-07 06:19:09 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: You take what you can get where you can get it.  In full disclosure, I haven't seen C&A, but would like to one day
and not just because of Ms. Wilde, who I respect as an artist and health activist:


It's a fairly basic story about aliens invading the old west in search of gold (why is gold rare and valuable everywhere in the galaxy? Same with the Ferengi). And Harrison Ford mumbles and growls a lot.

Question: Who comes off as more bored in the movies they've done in the last 10 years, Harrison Ford or Bruce Willis? I personally don't give a shiat about Willis' movies anymore but I hope they shoot Ford up with something before they start Episode 7.
 
2013-11-07 06:27:13 PM  

NathanAllen: Jake Leg: I've often wondered if those who hate John Carter so much have actually seen it. I went into it thinking it was going to stink, and found it to be pretty damn enjoyable. It is a fun, entertaining and well made diversion - what more could you ask for? Sure it was flop, but that doesn't make it a bad movie. Disney just screwed the release because they had no idea how to market it, same as they did with Lone Ranger (which I also thought was a decent action flick).

The main problem with John Carter is it had 100% less dong than the books.


Didn't read the book but I enjoyed the movie. Granted I came in with low expectations, but it was a decent flick. After I watched it I went back online and was a bit saddened that there would never be a squeal, which could have been better. Then I realized that rarely happens and quickly forgot about the movie.
 
2013-11-07 06:28:33 PM  

Mugato: DjangoStonereaver: You take what you can get where you can get it.  In full disclosure, I haven't seen C&A, but would like to one day
and not just because of Ms. Wilde, who I respect as an artist and health activist:

It's a fairly basic story about aliens invading the old west in search of gold (why is gold rare and valuable everywhere in the galaxy? Same with the Ferengi). And Harrison Ford mumbles and growls a lot.

Question: Who comes off as more bored in the movies they've done in the last 10 years, Harrison Ford or Bruce Willis? I personally don't give a shiat about Willis' movies anymore but I hope they shoot Ford up with something before they start Episode 7.


Harrison Ford hands down. He's been phoning it in for years. Now I haven't seen Ender's Game yet, but I'll assume he's the exact same as all the other roles.

At least Bruce Willis had fun with RED. That was a great movie. But I heard the sequel kinda sucked.
 
2013-11-07 06:30:51 PM  

Mugato: why is gold rare and valuable everywhere in the galaxy


Gold is rare because it's pretty hard to make. In fact, our sun can't make it. All the gold in our universe is created when suns go supernova, and our sun is too small to do even that. It's valuable because it's pretty and very malleable and doesn't react with other elements to oxidize or tarnish.
 
2013-11-07 06:35:09 PM  
Speed Racer wasn't bad at all, if you viewed it as a live action cartoon with cartoon physics.

/more like a NONja
 
2013-11-07 06:48:11 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Mugato: why is gold rare and valuable everywhere in the galaxy

Gold is rare because it's pretty hard to make. In fact, our sun can't make it. All the gold in our universe is created when suns go supernova, and our sun is too small to do even that. It's valuable because it's pretty and very malleable and doesn't react with other elements to oxidize or tarnish.


OK, I'll buy that I guess.


scottydoesntknow: Question: Who comes off as more bored in the movies they've done in the last 10 years, Harrison Ford or Bruce Willis? I personally don't give a shiat about Willis' movies anymore but I hope they shoot Ford up with something before they start Episode 7.

Harrison Ford hands down. He's been phoning it in for years. Now I haven't seen Ender's Game yet, but I'll assume he's the exact same as all the other roles.

At least Bruce Willis had fun with RED. That was a great movie. But I heard the sequel kinda sucked.


I guess for me it's that Bruce Willis sort of forgot to play John McClane. And I don't think Harrison Ford did too bad with Indy 4, given the script he was given. But he has looked bored or irritated in everything else he's been in since I dunno, Air Force One.
 
2013-11-07 07:19:31 PM  

sign_of_Zeta: Speed Racer was no masterpiece but it was exactly what a Speed Racer movie should have been.  I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and in fact, I am going to go buy it today.  Thanks subby.


I did too. I thought it was a fun and entertaining watch. The camera angles and effects were awesome and Christina Ricci looked amazing in that movie. Top it off with john Goodman as pops and a crazy monkey up to crazy antics. Sign me up for a sequel right now.

Also thought john carter was much better than most people gave it credit for.
 
2013-11-07 07:31:15 PM  

Gleeman: Speed Racer wasn't bad at all, if you viewed it as a live action cartoon with cartoon physics.

/more like a NONja


If you liked Speed Racer (or if you didn't, but like the idea of a hyper-kinetic racing animated movie) you should check out Redline.
 
2013-11-07 08:06:13 PM  

Skyrmion: Gleeman: Speed Racer wasn't bad at all, if you viewed it as a live action cartoon with cartoon physics.

/more like a NONja

If you liked Speed Racer (or if you didn't, but like the idea of a hyper-kinetic racing animated movie) you should check out Redline.


Already own it. When I recommend it to friends/family  I say that it is 50% 'Beyond the Impossible', 50% awesome and 50% testosterone.
 
Displayed 50 of 161 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report