01-12-2010, 02:33 PM | #11 |
Keeper of the new
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: A place without judgment
Posts: 4,506
|
Do time in Hollywood actually move differently than in the real world? I've long been complaining about the need for movies to always use the shortest time scale imaginable - The Day After Tomorrow where a three hundred year plot is reduced to two days, Stardust that adapted a six month story to one week, every secret agent movie ever where they run in and shoot stuff without months of planning beforehand - but now I realize they actually don't understand how time works in the real world.
I'm not talking about axing the people who made 90% of the movie series just because they can't meet an arbitrary release date, either. I'm talking about how they're now planning to start Ultimate Spider-Man: The Movie Series a mere eight years after the first movie. The comic took thirty-eight years to get to that point. Hypothesis: Hollywood suffers from permanent premature ejaculation. It demonstrates a complete inability to restrain itself from blowing its load before it can even get its pants off. Everything has to achieve its climax instantly, preferably the day before yesterday. I understand Spider-man 3 went badly because the investors demanded to put at least one villain too many in it. Why can't these people let things take their time? Oh yeah, time moves differently there, I already said.
__________________
Hope insistent, trust implicit, love inherent, life immersed |
01-12-2010, 02:45 PM | #12 |
Would you deign to supply me food?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Tampa Bay Area, Florida
Posts: 2,004
|
Time moves at the speed of money for them.
|
01-12-2010, 03:18 PM | #13 |
synk-ism
|
I really didn't like him. Maybe I just really don't like Parker.
No more Tobey Maguire? Yaaaaaay!
__________________
Find love.
|
01-12-2010, 06:00 PM | #14 |
Kawaii-ju
|
I'd hate to see the size of the pill you need to treat that...
__________________
Godzilla vs. Gamera (1994) |
01-12-2010, 06:27 PM | #15 |
We are Geth.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 14,032
|
After they licensed a Risk movie I become convinced they had erectile dysfunction.
__________________
|
01-12-2010, 06:50 PM | #16 |
Sent to the cornfield
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 870
|
of course they have. As proved by Avatar, the viewing mob is by and large too fucking stupid to realize when they're being milked like a money cow, so Hollywood has essentially progressed to a stage where they can shit out anything and be fairly sure they'll make back the profit if they advertise well and the product looks pretty.
|
01-12-2010, 08:33 PM | #17 | |
Hmmmmmmm
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 518
|
The worst part of all this news? Right before they announced the cancellation, literally just a few hours before, John Malkovitch said he had been cast as the Vulture.
John fucking Malkovitch
__________________
It's like spring. Only better Cause it's winter. Quote:
|
|
01-12-2010, 10:37 PM | #18 |
of Northwest Arizona
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California, USA
Posts: 1,492
|
I was a little late to the game but I was lucky enough to catch Spectacular Spider-Man. All they have to do is tweek the scripts and they have a live-action television series. Quite a few actors would suit the roles just fine.
|
01-12-2010, 10:51 PM | #19 |
Stop the hate
|
or, you know, just keep it as an awesome animated series and keep doing that.
__________________
Drank |
01-12-2010, 11:59 PM | #20 |
Archer and Armstrong vs. the World
|
Yeah, I just heard the John Malkovich as the Vulture thing yesterday, so I assumed that this meant Sam Raimi would actually be all for it since that's apparently the villain he wanted. But now we're left without knowledge of the director, who's going to play Spider-Man, and the question of why the hell anyone would want to watch a movie with the Vulture in it.
I actually liked all three Spider-Man movies, sure the third was easily the worst but it was still a pretty good movie, and hilarious to boot. Why a reboot, though, I have no idea. If you throw enough money at Maguire, he'll stay. The only thing they have to replace is the director at that point.
__________________
The Valiant Review |
|
|