FARK.com: (935882) Giant dragonfly larvae shuts down $130 million Hollywood blockbuster, threatens multi-billion-dollar industry

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.

		Giant dragonfly larvae shuts down $130 million Hollywood blockbuster, threatens multi-billion-dollar industry (news.com.au)		60
		More: Unlikely

• • •

22272 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Apr 2004 at 2:31 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/935882

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

60 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

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

ransack.		2004-04-29 10:37:08 PM

KeithTheMoravianSwearingBear		2004-04-29 10:47:30 PM

Couldn't they find somewhere that isn't World Heritage Listed to make the film?

gershom		2004-04-29 11:10:21 PM

The dragonfly's what? I don't get it.

EveryoneLovesCleanUndies		2004-04-30 12:10:45 AM

not another Costner flick....

slavecycle		2004-04-30 02:34:04 AM

Lexx?

cuzman		2004-04-30 02:36:13 AM

Stupid farking tree huggers... Kill the farking bugs and let me watch Jessica's boobies jiggle

nemoxnine		2004-04-30 02:37:55 AM

This larva/e?

Check the filename if you don't know it, I sure as hell wouldn't.

EvilGnome		2004-04-30 02:42:24 AM

nemoxnine, i do believe that is mothra!

Talk about a threat to your industry...

sonofa-beauch		2004-04-30 02:45:24 AM

Oh no, an other multimillion dollar piece of shiat movie is coming out. And it is so bad that they are advertising for it this way?

fark you Hollywood. You suck. YOu put out more and more shiatty movies each year. Why do they do so many remakes? No one wants a new or original idea any more..

So you ass whipes in Hollywood can suck my balls when your, "Friends: The movie" or what ever the pile of shiat you are working on comes out, I wont see it. I will be busy reading a book, fark face.

gromky		2004-04-30 02:46:43 AM

Let me guess, sononfa-beauch, you don't own a television either. And you tell everyone about this every chance you get. What a special child.

godek		2004-04-30 02:50:03 AM

sonofa-beauch

I bet you spend 10 times more time on the internet than in a good book.

SoundsLikeChicken		2004-04-30 02:51:38 AM

That's $130 million Australian dollars, and it stars Josh Lucas, who played the bad guy in Hulk. So it's not really a blockbuster.

Poe		2004-04-30 02:56:20 AM

It does have Jessica Biel in it, so it might be worth watching...

Habeas Porpoise		2004-04-30 02:57:03 AM

It's hard to know which side is having themselves on here. The Blue Mountains are a beautiful part of Australia and it is easy to see the Government being happy for them to be pillaged in exchange for some easy money. On the other hand, some conservationists will protest against anything. I haven't yet found a non-partisan analysis of this situation.

gurglesnap		2004-04-30 03:01:02 AM

I'm excited about the FIREFLY movie.

I am also a tremendous dork.

Of course, this has nothing to do with this topic. Sorry!

/Nerd it up!

RazenCain		2004-04-30 03:04:56 AM

having worked in the film industry I can tell ya that the last thing you want is a film crew anywhere near anything of value.

they'll break it, smash it, trample it, and then pick it up and break it again.

spindly		2004-04-30 03:08:28 AM

gurglesnap

I'm excited about the FIREFLY movie.

I don't understand why they are making the movie if the cancelled the series

Brokken Frepz		2004-04-30 03:09:49 AM

So the temporary halt of one flick in Aus "threatens the multi-billion-dollar industry."??
How? Will all studios stop making moofies because the NSW guvvament told 'em to?? WTF?

Poe		2004-04-30 03:11:08 AM

They are making the movie because so many people complained when the cancled what was IMHO one of the better Sci-Fi shows on Tv. It is the same with family guy; So many people got pissed when they axed it, and so many also bought the DVD's, that they are bringing it back.

The Coz		2004-04-30 03:24:11 AM

MOTHRA

Wounded Elephant		2004-04-30 03:33:56 AM

Ok, fess up. Who else thought it was the NSFW Industry, rather than the NSW Industry?

Chariset		2004-04-30 03:34:39 AM

incorrect headline grammar. "Larvae" is the plural, "larva" is the singular.

daveuf		2004-04-30 03:35:38 AM

I just checked the IMDB info for Stealth. It appears to be a dud in the works. Wait, no. A $130,000,000 dud.

pomposity		2004-04-30 03:36:25 AM

Another "OMFG!!! AI GOES BATshiat!!!!" movie that's only been done 3000 times before.

As long as Biel has some nice bouncy running scenes, it might be worth watching...

/AIs aren't human
/AIs that go batshiat are anthropomorphic plot devices
/AIs have no reason to go batshiat except in bad hollywood movies

TruthMustBeTold		2004-04-30 03:40:23 AM

whoa, that's really cool. the "worm" character in Monster Rancher is a precise rip-off of mothra's larva.

green tokai		2004-04-30 03:51:01 AM

You are a machine. May the collective machine churn on.

Kekko_Kamen		2004-04-30 04:28:25 AM

I saw this and immediatly thought "what giant dragonfly?" and subsequently got pissed off cause they didn't say.

I want to see a picture of a giant dragonfly. How big is it?? Is it just another dragonfly? Is it 40 feet long with claws, fangs, and breaths fire? Come on damnit, details!

gromky		2004-04-30 04:33:47 AM

pomposity:

Like this?

Westworld (1973)

"A futuristic amusement park becomes a deathtrap when the androids and computer systems used in it begin to murderously run amok."

Gonzee		2004-04-30 04:43:37 AM

Yeah, but Westworld kicked ass.
Yul Brynner!

StealthRecorder		2004-04-30 04:48:41 AM

The Conservations have a good point. They also recommended 32 other locations where filming could take place without ANY difficulty.

Jessica Biel is probably the only thing going for this piece of shyte.

vesendak		2004-04-30 05:22:50 AM

Great more millionaires you want me to feel sorry for.

Give me 130 mil and I will make a real movie. People will be so farked up from it they will need therapy. Character driven exploration of the human mind that takes you to a place that your mind does not want to go.

I don't want to give too much away but it would be badass.

You would wind up with teenagers blowing there brains out after seeing it and rich old white guys drinking to death.

Skr		2004-04-30 05:36:03 AM

Wow. Those Dragonflies narrowly avoided complete
asplodination.

Do giant dragonflies eat giant mosquitoes?

/hates mosquitoes.

I wonder if the next movie will be halted due to the endangered habitat of the rare and elusive speckled Snipe.

Have you taken your friends on a snipe hunt lately?

Tokenfemale		2004-04-30 06:20:36 AM

A single dragonfly is more worthwhile than some craptacular movie, in the grand scheme of things.

stupid government (tautology?)

RobW		2004-04-30 06:25:23 AM

the judgment sent "the worst possible message for overseas film-makers"

I'm worried that someone would think that a better message is "Come on down! Trample our wilderness for a quick buck from a formulaic blockbuster!"

JohnnyC		2004-04-30 06:34:26 AM

These things are cool!

I've always liked dragonflies.

Suede head		2004-04-30 06:46:06 AM

That dragonfly has my respect. It is not to be messed with for some dreckwitted "blockbuster".

Cauchy_Riemann_equations		2004-04-30 06:56:54 AM

So what's the alternitive? Allow them to film and wipe out a perfectly good species for a film that will crash at the box office anyway? Or make them move?

Make them move. It's enough that some movie stars go to events in Hybrids, let them put their money where their mouths are.

Resonant		2004-04-30 07:04:24 AM

The movie sounds like crap, based on the IMDB description.
The dragonfly looks cool!
I say get some location shots from the already-built platforms WITHOUT the actors tromping through and destroying the pretty landscape that brought them there, then bluescreen in the actors later. The actors would probably appreciate being able to film in a nice studio instead of out in the field, anyway.

Stripe		2004-04-30 07:24:01 AM

JohnnyC, thats not a dragonfly, thats one of those "black helicopters!"

*still a cool insect*

Day_Old_Dutchie		2004-04-30 07:46:56 AM

That last flick involving dragonflies was a piece of crap.
Dragonfly

"Here's my advice, Kev. Start reading your scripts before signing that dotted line."
-- Mark Ramsey, MOVIEJUICE!

Weaver95		2004-04-30 07:58:10 AM

[The decision puts a $4 billion-a-year industry at risk and threatens 50,000 jobs in the NSW film and television industry," Mr Carr said.]

Telling the eco-nuts things like this only makes them work all the harder to shut you down. They've never really cared about the economic impact of thier actions after all. Putting people out of work is sort of a badge of honor for those folks.

I suppose everyone should have just been happy that nobody monkeywrenched thier gear.

BURNEDBYGREATWHITE		2004-04-30 08:01:34 AM

Call the whambulance. Why do they insist upon filming somewhere that has complicated environmental laws? theres a lot of great scenery in colorado that probably would work too. Im no environmentalist but killing a species for a bad movie is stupid.

Weaver95		2004-04-30 08:20:38 AM

[Why do they insist upon filming somewhere that has complicated environmental laws?]

See, that's the beauty thing about eco-nuts - no matter where you go, they'll find something 'rare' you're 'destroying' and sue to 'stop the environmental devastation'.

caiteach		2004-04-30 08:26:36 AM

$130 million spent on any action flick these days generally means (possibly) good special effects and shiatty everything else (yes,yes, Lord of the Rings can be considered an exception). I'd rather have those cool looking dragonflies than another god awful hollywood blockbuster.

If the environmentalists gave them a list of 30 alternative sites, it seems like their being the reasonable ones here.

caiteach		2004-04-30 08:32:29 AM

Weaver95,

If you think sacrificing your environment for short-term economic gain is a good idea, you need to take a tour of the Appalachian coalfields sometime. Their economy is in horrendous shape because of the long-term damage done by the coal mining industry. Their poverty levels are through the roof.

good environmental stewardship=good quality of life=good long-term economy

Weaver95		2004-04-30 08:41:34 AM

[If you think sacrificing your environment for short-term economic gain is a good idea, you need to take a tour of the Appalachian coalfields sometime.]

No, I think that the eco-nuts should reconsider thier hostility to any sort of economic activity and work to reach a compromise that'll end up protecting everyone.

All I ask from the environmental types is reasonable debate and to be open to the possiblity of compromise. It never happens tho. How do you discuss reasonable solutions when people like this are at large:

"Civilization as a whole has proved to be detrimental to humans and non human animals. We won't settle for anything less than complete collapse."
ELF communiqu dated June 3, 2003, claiming an attempted arson on a nearly completed home in Chico, CA

Adman12		2004-04-30 08:48:48 AM

Hmmm...

Preserving pristine wilderness for future generations versus letting the crew of some lame Hollywood crapfest stomp all over it for a few bucks.

These Australians are heroes. The real kind, who stand up for their principles even when it causes hardships, not the movie kind who just solve problems by blowing everything up.

Bush could learn from them.

caiteach		2004-04-30 09:03:50 AM

weaver95,

An ELF quote? That's the best you've got? Most environmentalists consider ELF to be wackos, and ELF considers most environmentalists to be traitors to thier cause.

www.repowermidwest.org

It lays out an environmentally friendly plan to develop a series of renewable energy and energy conservation technologies that would significantly boost the economy and jobs in the Midwest.