 |
|
|
|
|
Viewing
1-10 of 19 User Comments
1
-
2
|
 |
 justinpdrew
on Aug 28 2008, 8:42:43 PM writes:
ZOMBIEFLANDERS
That's what I'm hoping for.
I call tops. |
| Profile | E-mail | WWW | Buddy |
|
ZombieFlanders
on Aug 28 2008, 2:20:47 PM writes:
Dude, why don't you two just fuck and get it over with! |
| Profile | Buddy |
|
justinpdrew
on Aug 28 2008, 2:49:30 AM writes:
SHADOWYOURFATHERPROBABLYTOUCHEDYOU
First off, Will Ferrell is NOT a desperate comedian. Jon Lovitz: desperate comedian. Andy Dick: desperate comedian.
Will Ferrell is a talented man with genuine comedic timing. He's one of the casualties that come with super-stardom; it's become cool to write him off as a one-note comedian, to simply say that his films are full of him just yelling and taking his shirt off. Will Ferrell knows how to do subtle humor too, rent Stranger Than Fiction. It's even evident in his movies; he's an intelligent guy doing unintelligent things. Sure, there've been times in all his movies when he takes it too far, and he's headlined a couple shitty films, but he has more hits tallied than misses in my book.
Newsflash: every major work of entertainment has some form of symbolism when you analyze it. There have been books written on the religious metaphors in the Simpsons. I could say there was a circular nature to the episode of Spongebob where he's stuck in Rock Bottom and the buses keep coming and going and he's never fast enough to jump on. Eventually he learns to trust the strange fish that scared him, or THE UNKNOWN, and only then does he return home. Does that mean the show is intelligent?
And no, the Krofft brothers don't write or direct the movie, but they did stay on set for the shooting of the film and they have been overseeing everything, which counts for something. I'm not saying they're not just in it for the money, just that they haven't shown it yet. They've never "cashed in" on one of their "classics" before. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. And, besides, the show wasn't THAT sacred anyway. It's not like Will Ferrell is remaking Star Trek. Jesus Christ, Shadowdouche.
I'm just trying to say that you don't know if Will Ferrell is being unfaithful to the show. You're coming from a position of hatred for Will Ferrell, and you're ASSUMING the film is going to be a slapstick comedy. I'm looking at pictures that seem to point to more of a fantasy adventure aspect, which is a territory that Will Ferrell has never set foot in. I'm seeing cool set pieces, a realistic take on the source material, and a giant budget and it looks like it may be a funny, exciting summer blockbuster. I'm waiting for the trailer to tell me different.
Ha ha, yeah, like you have so many more important places to be. I'm sure you have to sponge-bathe your mother or something. |
| Profile | E-mail | WWW | Buddy |
|
theshadowalker
on Aug 28 2008, 1:52:14 AM writes:
RE: MR DREW (AGAIN)
Again with the name-calling? How old are you, I wonder? 18? 19?
Anyway (again):
A.
Yes, it was a cheap, kids' show. Yes, I've always acknowledged that...so why do you keep reiterating that point?
Yes, it was written by the likes of Larry Niven. Yes, you continue to ignore that.
(And, for whatever it's worth, besides the thinly veiled religious satire, I also liked the circular nature of the series: the river flows back into itself; the Marshalls couldn't leave until they agreed to trap their past selves there in the first place; et cetera.)
B.
Did the Kroffts write the movie? No. Did they direct the movie? No.
And even if they had, so what? Neil Gaiman oversaw the production of 'Stardust' but the movie's still a dumbed-down, tarted-up version (that completely Hollywoodizes the finale) of his original story.
And a 'shitty director or a near-sighted studio or a terrible cast' will always wreck ANY movie.
C.
Your opinion is based on evidence? And mine's based on assumption? But your evidence is a few photos and the opinions of people with a vested interest in the movie; and my assumption is based on a few photos and a cast of, IMHO, desperately unfunny comedians. So your evidence is really no more solid than my assumptions. The difference is that I don't disparage an opinion (that is, yours) that does not agree with mine.
* * *
Anyway, I'm now tired of your desperate attempts to reenact Monty Python's 'Argument Clinic', but feel free to flame away in my absence... |
| Profile | Buddy |
|
justinpdrew
on Aug 28 2008, 12:38:07 AM writes:
SHADOWFOCKER
I'm not a badass because I write in online forums about future films, I'm a total badass because I created this webcomic:
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h8/bub
blegumguy/youropinion.jpg
See? I'm awesome.
A, Still, that was one freaking aspect of the show. Yeah, that's a cool idea. But most of the show consisted of them running from a T-Rex that was too slow and retarded to actually try to eat them. It just basically stared and roared at them. And slowly hovered in their general direction when they started running. And don't get me started on the dialogue; PAINFUL! It's really not sacred.
B, Yes, there have been a few creators who have sold out, but who better to do an original TV show or movie justice than the person who initially conceived the concept? And you can't cite creators who simply sold the rights to their books, shows or movies as an example... I'm talking about when the creator takes the reins like when Frank Miller helped with Sin City. Your mention of creators selling their film rights actually PROVES my point. In all of the cases where the movie version flopped, it's always because there was a shitty director or a near-sighted studio or a terrible cast behind it--or all three. The Krofft brothers really haven't ever set out to do a big-budget remake of one of their shows so you really don't know whether or not they just want the money.
C, And I'm not disallowing your opinion, but yours is mostly based on assumption (that Will Ferrell is making this a "Will Ferrell" film with dinosaurs instead of John C. Reilly) while I'm going on the evidence I've seen (large budget, well-built set pieces, realistic look for the Sleestaks, the testimony of the Krofft brothers). Your citing the picture above as evidence is moot because for all you know that could be Will Ferrell's serious face. He really just is a funny-looking guy. I'm going on evidence; you're going on assumption.
I'm not even ruling out that it won't be a galactic suck-fest, but I wanna see a trailer before I make my decision. I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Shadowsucker. |
| Profile | E-mail | WWW | Buddy |
|
theshadowalker
on Aug 27 2008, 11:49:03 PM writes:
RE: MR JUSTIN P DREW (AGAIN)
Oi. 'Shadowcocker'? Wow, real mature. I mean, name-calling? Seriously? That kind of middle school behaviour doesn't really support your claim of being a 'Total Badass'.
Anyway:
A. As I'd mentioned in my original post, there was more to the series than you're suggesting. The idea of a technologically advanced race devolving into primitivism due to their superstitious beliefs, for example. (Yet again, for a kids' series, it actually attracted some very impressive writers.)
B. Creators are ALWAYS selling out...the list of creators who've willingly sold the rights to their creations is seemingly endless. How many good books have been turned into crap movies, for example? Even when the original author's given some 'Executive Co-Producer' title or such? Or even allowed a hand in the scripting? (Bill Waterson, of 'Calvin and Hobbes' fame, is one of the few creators who hasn't sold out for a quick buck.)
I will agree, however, that people like Ratner and Bay just need to stop.
And don't even get me started on failed UK-to-US translations. I can think of two that've worked ('Sanford and Son' and 'The Office') and dozens that haven't (how many failed US versions of 'Fawlty Towers' are there? Three, I think). This, too, needs to stop...preferably before the 'Life on Mars' and 'Spaced' remakes hit the air.
But these are tangential topics, at best.
C. So, semantics aside, you're allowed an opinion and I'm not? To you, it looks like it has a big budget. And the costume, above, supports that. Fine. But to me, it looks like Will Farrell's doing his usual shtick. And his stupid expression, above, supports that. |
| Profile | Buddy |
|
justinpdrew
on Aug 27 2008, 10:14:58 PM writes:
THESHADOWCOCKER
Thanks for agreeing that I'm a total bad-ass. I am.
A, I never agreed with your suggestion that it was really intelligent. It seemed like the Krofft brothers just got really high in the seventies and came up with ideas. "What if this family got stuck in a dinosaur land? Woooaaaaah!" "Dude, dreambake! Pass the Doritos!"
B, That said, and George Lucas aside, the people who conceived an idea into a piece of entertainment are usually the most passionate and devoted to the idea. There's a reason that countless British TV shows flop when Americanized, but The Office didn't. The Office retained the creator of the original series in its transformation to the US and some of the writing staff. There's also a reason that many big screen remakes suck. When the Ratners and the Bays of the world get their money-grubbing hands on a decent concept and rape it from both sides. I never saw Transformers, and never will until it debuts on FX, and will only then watch it in between waiting for the good parts in "Dancing At The Blue Iguana" on IFC.
C, And I wasn't commenting on the TONE of the movie when I say it "looks" like it will be getting the big budget treatment, I was commenting on the look of the movie. From the pictures I've seen, it LOOKS like it has a good budget behind it. Like it's going for epic. Giant set pieces, realistic-looking Sleestaks.
Now, when the trailer comes out, and it looks like "Step Brothers" set in a prehistoric world, I'd agree with you. But the tone may be more like Jurassic Park with some funny moments thrown in, which is what I'm hoping for. You see, it's the TRAILER'S job to set the TONE of the film, what people should expect when they fork out nine bucks to see it. It's the artwork and photos released beforehand that show how a film will LOOK. Get me, Shadowstalker? |
| Profile | E-mail | WWW | Buddy |
|
ZombieFlanders
on Aug 27 2008, 4:06:47 PM writes:
I hadn't seen Mcbride until I saw Pineapple. I thought he was awesome. Definitely stole the scenes he was in. |
| Profile | Buddy |
|
 missphitts
on Aug 27 2008, 1:13:21 PM writes:
MCBRIDE RULES!
Gotta jump in here and profess my love for Danny Mcbride. Since I fist saw him in Hot Rod I've hoped for more movies with his comic stylings and so far he has not disapointed me in the least!
Let's not forget as well that Jorma Chicon Hot Rods little brother is playing Chakka as well in this remake.
Sounds good to me!
Also that's Ennik there in the pic. |
| Profile | WWW | Buddy |
|
ZombieFlanders
on Aug 27 2008, 12:27:17 PM writes:
I loved the show as a kid, and I'm really looking forward to the movie. Will Ferrell's movies are hit and miss with me, but I think this just might work. |
| Profile | Buddy |
|
|
Viewing
1-10 of 19 User Comments
1
-
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The cool peeps at Collider have got ahold of what appears to be a magazine scan of Will Ferrell as park ranger Rick Marshall alongside a buff looking Sleestak, a native of the world of 
