Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Forum Thread A note about the site and any replies from other users.
Porn Users Forum » Upcoming Movie Thread
901-950 of 1202 Posts < Previous Page 1 2 5 8 11 18 Page 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next Page >
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home

10-30-12  05:23pm - 688 days #921
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Disney to the rescue. Disney splurges billions to buy Stars Wars, vowing to produce even better movies in the future. Go, Disney!


==================================
==================================

Disney to make new 'Star Wars' films, buy Lucas co
By RYAN NAKASHIMA | Associated Press – 1 hr 29 mins ago




LOS ANGELES (AP) — A decade since George Lucas said "Star Wars" was finished on the big screen, a new trilogy under new ownership is destined for theaters after The Walt Disney Co. announced Tuesday that it was buying Lucasfilm Ltd. from him for $4.05 billion.

The seventh movie, with a working title of "Episode 7," is set for release in 2015. Episodes 8 and 9 will follow. The trilogy will continue the story of Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia beyond "Return of the Jedi," the third film released and the sixth in the saga. After that, Disney plans a new "Star Wars" movie every two or three years. Lucas will serve as creative consultant in the new movies.

"I'm doing this so that the films will have a longer life," Lucas, the 68-year-old creator of the series and sole owner of Lucasfilm, said in an interview posted on YouTube. "I get to be a fan now ... I sort of look forward to it. It's a lot more fun actually, than actually having to go out into the mud and snow."

Disney CEO Bob Iger said Lucasfilm had already developed an extensive story line on the next trilogy, and Episode 7 was now in early-stage development. He said he talked with Lucas about buying the company from him a year and a half ago, but they didn't decide on a deal until very recently as Lucas set in motion his retirement.

"The last 'Star Wars' movie release was 2005's 'Revenge of the Sith' — and we believe there's substantial pent-up demand," Iger said.

The blockbuster deal announced Tuesday will see Disney pay half the acquisition price in cash and half in newly issued stock. The company expects it to add to earnings in 2015. Along with the cash, Lucas will end up owning about 40 million Disney shares, which is about a 2.2 percent stake of the 1.83 billion shares that will be in circulation when the transaction closes.

The deal includes Lucasfilm's prized high-tech production companies, Industrial Light & Magic and Skywalker Sound, as well as rights to the "Indiana Jones" franchise.

Lucas was hailed as a cinematic visionary when the original "Star Wars" came out in 1977. But he had become an object of often-vicious ridicule by the time he released 3-D versions of all six films in the Star Wars franchise earlier this year.

Die-hard Star War fans had been vilifying Lucas for years, convinced that he had become a commercial sell-out and had compounded his sins by desecrating the heroic tale that he originally sought to tell.

They railed against him for adding grating characters such as Jar Jar Binks in the second trilogy and attacked him for tinkering with the original trilogy, too. Any revision in special edition or home video releases — such as making the Ewoks blink or having a green-skinned alien named Greedo take the first shot at Han Solo in a famous bar scene — were treated as blasphemy.

The criticism grated on Lucas, who vowed never to make another Star Wars movie.

"Why would I make any more when everybody yells at you all the time and says what a terrible person you are?" Lucas told The New York Times earlier this year.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," the fourth film in another lucrative franchise, subjected Lucas to even more barbs when it came to the big screen in 2008. Fans of those films were especially outraged about an opening scene that featured Indiana Jones crawling into a lead-lined refrigerator to survive a nuclear bomb blasting.

Lucas was fed up by the time he released "Red Tails," a movie depicting the valor of African-American pilots during World War II, earlier this year. He told the Times he was ready to retire from the business of making blockbusters and return to his roots as a student at USC's film school, where he once made a movie about clouds moving in a desert.

Kathleen Kennedy, the current co-chairman of Lucasfilm, will become the division's president and report to Walt Disney Studios Chairman Alan Horn. She will serve as executive producer for the new movies. Directors for the new movies have not yet been announced.

In the YouTube video, Lucas said the decision to continue with the saga wasn't inconsistent with past statements.

"I always said I wasn't going to do any more and that's true, because I'm not going to do any more, but that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to turn it over to Kathy to do more," Lucas said.

He said he has given Kennedy his story lines and other ideas, "and I have complete confidence that she's going to take them and make great movies."

Kennedy added that she and Lucas had discussed ideas with a couple of writers about the future movies and said Lucas would continue to have a key advisory role. "My Yoda has to be there," she said.

The deal brings Lucasfilm under the Disney banner with other brands including Pixar, Marvel, ESPN and ABC, all companies that Disney has acquired over the years.

A former weatherman who rose through the ranks of ABC, Iger has orchestrated some of the company's biggest acquisitions, including the $7.4 billion purchase of animated movie studio Pixar in 2006 and the $4.2 billion acquisition of comic book giant Marvel in 2009.

Coincidentally, Lucas owned the startup that later became Pixar, before he sold it to Apple's Steve Jobs in 1986 for about $5 million. When Jobs sold Pixar to Disney, he became Disney's largest single shareholder with a 7.7 percent stake. Those shares are now held in a trust.

Disney shares were not trading with stock markets closed due to the impact of Superstorm Sandy in New York. They closed on Friday at $50.08.

___

AP Technology Writer Michael Liedtke in San Francisco contributed to this story.

10-30-12  06:43pm - 688 days #922
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I was shocked when I read this. I never expected Lucas to sell the rights to any of his movies. I know that 4 billions is a large sum but Star Wars iss till a huge cash cow with the potential to make so much more money. Now I wonder how long it will take Disney to have their Star Wars theme park? They already have the ride but to have a full theme paerk dedicated to Star Wars is sure to mke sci/fi fans water at the mouth.

It was nice of Disney to put the part about Lucas being a creative consultant because the general consensus is that the success of Star Wars have truly very little to do with Lucas. Most of his great ideas were rejected in the first movie and other people directed the other 2 movies so his input was mostly as a producer. Still an important role but definetely not why these movies were so great. Long live the Brown Coats.

10-31-12  08:46am - 687 days #923
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
When two businesses combine, it's like a wedding or honeymoon. Everyone is expected to say wonderful things about their future partner. Lucas is getting a nice chunk of Disney stock. So as an individual shareholder, he is one of their biggest (Apple's Steve Jobs had an even bigger chunk of Disney). Even if Lucas gets little say in how Disney, or the movie division, or the Star Wars and Raiders franchises are exploited, Disney executives will be saying nice things about one of their biggest shareholders for the forsee-able future.

10-31-12  10:51am - 687 days #924
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
I hope the new Star Wars movies don't try to be so damned epic and instead focus on smaller characters with smaller stories. Not every Star Wars movie needs to be about saving the universe.

I'm also glad to see Lucas passing the reins to someone else - I think the awesomeness of "A New Hope" was good writing, not directing. Hopefully Disney keeps the movies a bit edgy (I'm thinking of the Han Solo character here) and doesn't, well, Disney-fy them too much. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" ¡ Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo

10-31-12  11:30am - 687 days #925
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,040
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by Toadsith:


Not every Star Wars movie needs to be about saving the universe.



Yea we can leave that duty to our politicians

10-31-12  09:21pm - 687 days #926
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by Cybertoad:


Yea we can leave that duty to our politicians


And they'll be happy to tell you how they did, in elaborately vague language, punctuating each exciting scene with their opponent's failings! I'm so glad that November 7th is less than a week away... "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" ¡ Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo

11-08-12  04:41pm - 679 days #928
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Finally, the movie we've all been waiting for:
Jurassic Park (1993) 3D is coming April 2013.

Maybe 20 years from 2013 they will issue a newer version with 20-track sound, and interactive video/touch/smell/all senses zoom-fields.

Let the cash registers ring!

11-08-12  06:50pm - 679 days #929
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^All so true. I hope it bombs and whoever paid for the conversion loses his shirt. Can there really be all that many people who want to see a non-3D movie converted to 3D? I saw in theater and I own the dvd so why would I waste 13$ fu..ing dollars to see a 22 year old movie in theater simply because they added 3D.

You would think that after what has been a pretty poor year for studios at the box office that they would be coming up with better ideas if not smarter ones. Long live the Brown Coats.

11-08-12  09:16pm - 679 days #930
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by pat362:


I hope it bombs and whoever paid for the conversion loses his shirt. Can there really be all that many people who want to see a non-3D movie converted to 3D?


Apparently the conversion costs are low enough that studios are glad to take the risk for the payouts they've seen with previous conversions. Specifically, Titanic was converted for $18 million and as a result made an additional $342 million. A 19:1 profit margin is going to turn any studio's head.

I think we are going to be seeing a lot more of these for a while unless the bottom falls out of the 3D thing... again. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" ¡ Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo

11-08-12  09:57pm - 679 days #931
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 976
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
Originally Posted by pat362:


Can there really be all that many people who want to see a non-3D movie converted to 3D? I saw in theater and I own the dvd so why would I waste 13$ fu..ing dollars to see a 22 year old movie in theater simply because they added 3D.

You would think that after what has been a pretty poor year for studios at the box office that they would be coming up with better ideas if not smarter ones.


1st paragraph - Some movies are meant to be seen on a big screen. That said, I'm not defending the issuance of the movie being discussed here, other than to say it is a big screen movie.

As an aside, I'd be more interested in a theater in the round holographic production of said movie. I cannot attest to the ability of movies to use the 3-D technique and not over do it.

2nd paragraph - I can't agree with you more. I've had mild interest this year and have seen maybe one movie in the past 12 months. Interesting because I read reviews all the time, think I'd have an interest in seeing a film in the theater but then never make it there. Just like Friday's release of the new Bond movie - don't know that I will make it - but I'd like to. Maybe this is just my general apathy toward most things these days. If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

11-09-12  09:51am - 678 days #932
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
This is surprising news. Mark Wahlberg will star in the next Transformers movie. What happened to Shia LaBeouf?

When you have a franchise that's doing so well financially, making ba-zillions of dollars, you don't expect the main star to be replaced. Main stars do get replaced, but it only happens rarely (except for James Bond, because that series has lasted so many years).

So what happened to Shia LaBeouf? Did he walk away because he was tired of the role? And give up all that money?

>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<


Mark Wahlberg to star in next 'Transformers' movie

Associated Press – 13 hrs ago


LOS ANGELES (AP) — Mark Wahlberg, roll out.

"Transformers" director Michael Bay says the 41-year-old actor will star in the franchise's fourth film.

Bay called Wahlberg the "perfect guy to re-invigorate the franchise and carry on the Transformers' legacy" in a post on his blog Thursday. He previously squashed rumors that Wahlberg was joining the film franchise about warring robots.

Bay worked with Wahlberg on his upcoming film, "Pain and Gain."

"Transformers 4" is scheduled to be released by Paramount Pictures on June 27, 2014.

Bay has said the next film will take a new direction in the series. The first three movies starred Shia LaBeouf and featured Peter Cullen as the voice of Autobot general Optimus Prime.

The third "Transformers" film, "Dark of the Moon," was the second highest-grossing film of 2011.
===========


Nov 8 2012 08:37 PM ET

'Transformers 4' gets a new logo -- and Mark Wahlberg
by Anthony Breznican


Hey, Optimus Prime — say hello to your motherboard for me.

Michael Bay has officially confirmed that the star of Transformers 4 will be Mark Wahlberg, who worked with the director on his upcoming crime tale Pain and Gain.

The Transformers sequel, planned to debut June 27, 2014, also has a sleek new logo based on the Decepticon insignia.


“Mark is awesome. We had a blast working on Pain and Gain and I’m so fired up to be back working with him. An actor of his caliber is the perfect guy to re-invigorate the franchise and carry on the Transformers’ legacy,” said Bay.

Last week, the director denied rumors that he was looking to have Wahlberg take over the blockbuster robot franchise from Shia Labeouf, and said he was considering him for another film — not in the Transformers franchise.

Then he followed up on his website, saying … maybe that wasn’t such a bad idea after all: “Let’s say some ideas are gaining traction with me and my writer – so I’m here to say thanks internet chatter.”

11-09-12  03:30pm - 678 days #933
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^The last Transformer movie made huge box office profits but that's only because of Overseas money and not the domestic ones. If that movie had been released only in North America then Michael Bay would have been fired for making a huge bomb. The first two movies made less money than number 3 but proficts in NA were about the same as they were Overseas but when you lose money here then it makes the studios really nervous.

I ejoyed the first two Transformers but I really dislike the third one. If Bay thinks that chnaging the actors is going to save this franchise than he is an idiot because that won't do it. Unless you do a complete reboot which is a bad idea with the first movie in the franchise not even 5 years old then you have to write in new characters and write out the old ones. Like her or not. Megan Fox had presence on screen that Rosie didn't have in the third one. They have already killed Megatron twice now so are they going to resurect him a third time? Long live the Brown Coats.

11-09-12  06:53pm - 678 days #934
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
'Firefly' marks milestone in Science TV special
By LYNN ELBER | Associated Press – 6 hrs ago



LOS ANGELES (AP) — The "Firefly" saga consists of 14 TV episodes, one big-screen movie and the undiminished passion of the space Western's fans, stars and producers.

To mark the 10th anniversary of the Fox show's abbreviated 2002-03 run, the Science Channel is airing the hourlong "Firefly 10th Anniversary: Browncoats Unite" at 10 p.m. EST Sunday.

The special will be preceded by a marathon showing of all the "Firefly" episodes starting at 7 a.m. EST.

For "Firefly" devotees, only one word can describe the prospect of seeing star Nathan Fillion, other cast members and creator Joss Whedon talk about making and missing their baby: "shiny," which is "Firefly"-speak for cool or good.

Fillion, who came down to Earth successfully in ABC's detective series "Castle," is happy to wallow in nostalgia and fan fervor. This summer, he took part in a packed San Diego Comic-Con tribute to "Firefly."

"The sheer volume of people is just the first part of it," Fillion said recently of the event. "Then you have to get down to how excited these people are. It's incredible energy. It's a very visceral feeling."

"The way I see it is there are people who love 'Firefly' as much as I do. 'Firefly' has a very special meaning to me, so I share in that excitement. It's easy for me to understand it," the 41-year-old actor said.

The series, a 26th-century adventure leavened with droll humor, followed the misfit crew of the Firefly-class spaceship Serenity. (The 2005 movie that rose, improbably, from the ashes of the low-rated "Firefly" was titled "Serenity." Comic books are among the other spinoffs.)

The ship's captain, Fillion's dashing but discontented Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds, fought with the losing, good-guy Browncoats in a civil war and now lives and works on the fringes of a repressive society.

For Fillion, the drama was the start of a leading-man career that he makes plain he owes to Whedon, whose cult-inducing credits range from online sensation "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog" to TV's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel" to blockbuster "The Avengers."

Fillion savored the experience.

"I remember the first time I put on my costume, walked onto the ship for the first day of work ... and the director of photography, David Boyd, saw me and hollered out, 'Captain on deck!' and everyone stopped and clapped."

"That's a moment I'll never forget," the Canadian-born actor said. Add the chance to be a classic Western hero and he was in heaven.

"Nothing makes you feel tougher than putting a gun on your hip in the desert and getting on the back of an animal and riding. There's something very manly about that," he said.

Fillion shares this tidbit: No matter what planet he ended up on while in the saddle, he always rode the same horse, Fred.

The special includes clips from the drama, a round-table conversation with cast members including Fillion, Jewel Staite (who played Kaylee), Sean Maher (Simon) and Summer Glau (River), along with snippets from the Comic-Con panel headed by Whedon.

"I just wanted to make something that felt real, like a piece of history," Whedon told the convention. "I wanted to tell an American immigrant story. I wanted to tell a Western story. But I need spaceships or I get cranky."

The writer-director-producer grew emotional, telling the crowd at one point that "the story is alive" because of them.

The enduring popularity of a show that couldn't get ratings traction in its first time around is something Fillion has pondered.

"There's certainly more fans now than there's ever been. It's interesting that the show, being this brief moment in time, it didn't have an opportunity to suck, to get bad," he said. "So it's this wonderful contained unit of what I like to think of as quality storytelling."

The show has left its mark on a new and unsuspecting generation.

"'Firefly' fans are out there and they're breeding," Fillion said. "I'll be scanning Twitter and someone will show a baby and say, 'This is Kaylee.'

"So I'm going to be out one day and someone will walk up and say, 'I am Kaylee.'"

Shiny!

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Lynn Elber is a national television columnist for The Associated Press. She can be reached at lelber(at)ap.org.

11-10-12  06:50am - 677 days #935
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I would love to see another Firefly movie or even a small mini-series but that will probably never happen. It would be fun to see them a decade later and see where all the characters are now. Did Mel and Inara stay together and start a family on Firefly? Did Kaylee and Simon do the same thing? What happened to Zoey, Jane and of course River? Is she still being pursued by the Alliance? Ae the Reevers still a threat or were they all destroyed in the movie? Long live the Brown Coats.

11-10-12  07:37am - 677 days #936
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
As River got older, she became more conservative, which happens to many of us.

So she not only joins the Alliance, but she actually becomes its leader. With the reluctant help of the Serenity crew, as well as help from the Operative, played by Chiwetel Ejiofor.

After all, who could in the universe could stand against River and the Operative? They are like super Jedi (without the lightsabers).

11-10-12  06:46pm - 677 days #937
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Old vs. new Bond movies. I think the latest Bond movie is a huge hit with the public. They expect a take of $ 80.000.000 over the weekend.

Trouble is, even though the later Bond movies (except for QOS) have received rave reviews and Daniel Craig is being praised as coming closest to Ian Flemming's 007 I don't like their "darkness."

To me, a good Bond movie had lots of implausible stunts, double entendres, willing women and a tongue-in-cheek sense of humor. I don't want something more realistic I want escape therefore, gasp, I vote for Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, as the best 007s, while Daniel Craig (and I love him as an actor) and Timothy Dalton made the worst. Actually Woody Allen and George Lazenby were the worst, but we won't talk about them.

So are you enjoying the new, more gritty and dark 007 movies or do you prefer the lighter ones of the early period?

11-10-12  06:57pm - 677 days #938
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I completely agree with you and I hope we get a return to a Bond from the early days. One of the joys of watching a Bond movie was him making moves on the women in one scene and then killing a couple of the bad guys henchmen in the next. All the cool gadgets and rather unbelievable stunts.
I like Daniel Craig as an actor and I've enjoyed him as Bond but men were his two first movies dark and depressing.
Casino Royale is the only second time that the Bond girl dies. I don't know what to say about QoS because it was not really a stand alone movie so much as a continuation of Casino Royale. The story pretty much starts where the last one ended and all we do is cleanup some parts of the story. He doesn't even get to sleep with the main Bond girl.

I plan on going to see Skyfall tomorrow so I'll have a better idea of just how far it is from older Bonds but if it's going to be as dark as the previous two Daniel Craig movies then they will lose me as a customer. Long live the Brown Coats.

11-11-12  12:16am - 676 days #939
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
I personally thing George Lazenby was the best Bond, followed very closely by Sean Connery and then trailing a ways in the back is Pierce Brosnan (he really learned what it is to be Bond in his final film). Moore was fun, but was a bit too goofy and not really enough Bond. He really kept playing "The Saint" instead of adopting a Bond persona.

When first introduced to his version in Casino Royale, I absolutely loathed Daniel Craig's Bond - way too Jason Bourne. He improved in the Quantum of Solace, but is still very, very far from that suave, detached and amused Bond that Sean Connery laid the groundwork for. That said, Skyfall is supposed to be much more Bond-ified. For example, he adjusts his cuffs mid chase sequence. That's a good bit of class there.

I agree that Dalton was far too serious as well - and he must have been directed as such, for example: See his performance in Hot Fuzz. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" ¡ Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo

11-11-12  09:17am - 676 days #940
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Reading these posts, it's easy to see how far personal tastes vary.

One person says George Lazenby was the best Bond, another person says Lazenby was the worst Bond.

I personally thought Lazenby was probably the worst Bond.

My vote for best Bond goes to Sean Connery. He had it all: suave, sophisticated, amusing (with his double entendres), virile - all he had to do was look at the best-looking women and they jumped into his bed). Connery was like a sophisticated cave-man, who would be politically incorrect in the modern world. He didn't hesitate to kill evil men, he didn't hesitate to bed gorgeous women, and he enjoyed drinking.

11-11-12  10:08am - 676 days #941
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


I personally thought Lazenby was probably the worst Bond.


Originally Posted by messmer:


Actually Woody Allen and George Lazenby were the worst, but we won't talk about them.


Ok, I'm curious - why would you both say Lazenby was the worst Bond?

My personal theory is that people dislike the movie (On Her Majesty's Secret Service) largely because it has a very depressing finale, and then they just push that dislike onto Lazenby as well. I would argue that the movie, despite its downer ending, featured some of the best acting and the best balance between humor and drama of all of the films. Lazenby himself captured the same amused detachment that Sean Connery introduced, but added to Sean Connery's performance with more range as an actor as well as more range as an athlete as he was a martial arts instructor. I love Connery, but he is a living caricature - Craig Ferguson famously describes Connery's acting ability as wearing different hats (There, now I'm a Russian submarine commander - should be happy I'm in your damn movie!). Connery is a character actor that was perfectly cast for 007, but he frankly has less acting ability than the majority of my favorite character actors.

Lazenby gave us the first emotional Bond until Daniel Craig, and I thought he handled it better. He gave us the most athletic Bond until the movies started going insanely action-y starting with Dalton. He was one of the most suave and whoreish of the Bonds, I think he beds like 10 women in that one movie. He manages to make a kilt sexy. I'll admit the Bond car is a bit boring in that movie - but it does have a few fun gadgets, just not the cars. That said, it has a pretty good chase scene in the snow. Not to mention the classic skiing style chase scene that every Bond must tryout at some point.

If you haven't seen the movie in a long time, re-watch it. I think you will find it is far better than you remember - he may not be your favorite Bond, but I doubt you'll come away saying he was the worst Bond. (That obviously goes to Woody Allen, but then I'm not a massive Woody Allen fan. David Niven though is a contender for the best too...) Hell, the movie also starred the great Diana Rigg - who breathed life into The Avengers all those years ago. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" ¡ Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo

11-11-12  10:18am - 676 days #942
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Originally Posted by Toadsith:


Ok, I'm curious - why would you both say Lazenby was the worst Bond?

My personal theory is that people dislike the movie (On Her Majesty's Secret Service) largely because it has a very depressing finale, and then they just push that dislike onto Lazenby as well.


There is a dichotomy here in my case, I consider "On Her Majesty"s Secret Service" to be one of the best Bond movies made. I liked the story, except for the ending, I liked the locations because they reminded me of home, I've watched it over and over, however when it comes to George Lazenby he simply didn't LOOK Bond, he looked like someone's favorite uncle rather than 007. That's the only thing that put poor George in my worst Bond category.

11-11-12  01:11pm - 676 days #943
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
My favorite Bond has always been Connery because he had it all. It also didn't hurt that he was the first and set the bar pretty high for all the others. I really enjoyed the first couple Moore movies but the little jokes became more like farces and that made the character appear more like a comedian than a super spy. Number three is Pierce Brossnan. The guy really wanted to play Bond and he did not diapoint when he finally got his chance.

Timothy Dalton wasn't too bad but only his first movie is really a Bond one. I'm sorry but Bond going after a drug cartel is pretty far fetch even for Bond. Not to mention that killing Felix was a bad idea.

Lazenby never had a chance because he took over the role when Connery had made it his own and he had a certain resemblance to Connery. Moore looked a lot different so fans couldn't make a physical comparaison. It also didn't help that Lazenby was tied down with a wife as opposed to a generic Bond girl and that it's his father-in-law that helps him rather than the British Government.

Now we get to Daniel Craig. A very good actor but in my opinion the least appealing Bond of them all. When did Bond become Jason Bourke? I neevr read any of the books so maybe this is what he is suppose to be but if that's the case then they are many decades to late to write him like that. My idea of Bond is suave guy who will gladly sweat to get a job done but will do so without showing it and he certainly won't bleed left and right from gun shots or knives. It also doesn't help his case too much that every single woman who has slept with him has wound up dead
and usually not in a pretty way. It was always understood that one Bond Girl died and one didn't but Vespa died, STrawberry Field died, Camille didn't die but she also didn't sleep with him so can she really be a Bond girl. not to mention that QoS wasn't a stand alone Bond movie anyway. Now we get to the latest Bond and guess what? Yes the latest girl to sleep with Bond also dies. I'll make a review later on with huge spoilers so be warned to avoid does if you ant to go in as spoiler free as possible. Long live the Brown Coats.

11-11-12  03:34pm - 676 days #944
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Originally Posted by Toadsith:


Ok, I'm curious - why would you both say Lazenby was the worst Bond?


I thought Sean Connery was the best Bond because he defined masculine cool for his time period. Like I already wrote: "He had it all: suave, sophisticated, amusing (with his double entendres), virile - all he had to do was look at the best-looking women and they jumped into his bed). Connery was like a sophisticated cave-man, who would be politically incorrect in the modern world. He didn't hesitate to kill evil men, he didn't hesitate to bed gorgeous women, and he enjoyed drinking."

Lazenby's problem was that he replaced Sean Connery. So he was constantly compared to Connery, and Lazenby was found wanting. Maybe, if he had continued in the role in future movies, he might have gained some respect or a following. But he did only one Bond film, and then was in a bunch of low-budget movies for the rest of his career.

11-11-12  05:32pm - 676 days #945
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
I saw Skyfall this afternoon and I really didn't enjoy the movie at all. It's at least 30 minutes too long and makes very little sense. Of course I must be in the minority based on box office profits and other reviews. The plot is rather weak but there are plenty of shots of beautiful places we'd all like to visit. We are introduced to some new people playing old characters and we find out a little more about Bond's early life.

****Warning do not read this if you don't want to know too much about the movie***

The movie starts with Bond hunting for a list containing the names of secret agents currently working undercover in terrorist orgnisations. His partner Eve shoots him by mistake trying to hit the bad guy, he falls off a bridge(you saw this in the previews) and is believed dead. This is before the opening credits and we never find out how he got rescued or treated for gun shot. Barely 10 minutes in and we already have a problem. Why did Bond have to get shot and thought dead? It actually brings nothing to the plot except that it sort of introduces a new character to the franchise. The scene served no purpose othar than showcase a long stunt sequel that most of us already saw if we watched some of the previews. He comesback to MI6 after someone bombs the MI6 building and he has to take some test to see if he is fit for duty. He fails the test but is still sent out on a mission to find the list and the person responsible for killing a "OO" agent. At least I assume he was a "OO" by the way they talk about him. We are introduced to Bond's new quartermaster(ie the guy in charge of "Q" branch). Bond his given his new Walter PPK with hand print identification which he will never really get to use because loses it in a Komodo Dragon cage in a scene not long after getting the gun.

Bond goes to Shanghai because the guy he was fighting in the beginning of the movie and who stole the list is there to kill a Chinese man. We are never told why he has to kill him but I think it had something to do with the main bad guy and maybe "M" as well but that is pure speculation on my part. After the guy shoots and kills the Chinese man then he and Bond fight and he falls to his death. I'm not sure why they did this scene except that there was a woman with the Chinese man who is Bond girl number one or two depending on how you look at things.

She's another superflous character that brings very little to the story and who dies a meaningless death not too long after meeting, talking and sleeping with Bond. Her death is glossed over so fast that she might as well have never being part of the film. She does know the main bad guy and is willing to take Bond to him so that Bond can kill him but except for giving Bond a bed partner then her part could have been replaced with some other method that would have served the same purpose. Bond finally meets the bad guy which I will call Baddy. Baddy has serious mental issues and is also really pissed at "M" because he was a "O" agent that "M" allowed to be tortured. There is a small homo-erotic scene between him and Bond which left me scratching my head as to why it was there. Baddy kills the Bond girl. Not sure why and that's why I said her death was superflous. Bond manages to kill all of baddy's heanchmen and captures him. He is brought to London where we discover his past as an agent under "M" and why is insane. We discover that this was always part of his plan because he wanted to be captured so that he could escape in a very convoluted way and make his way underground to where "M" was appearing in front of a bunch of Ministers to explain why some of their undercover agents were found and killed(Are you follwing me?). Bond follows him and at one point is about to capture him but being the mastermind that he is then he had some charges placed on the ceiling so that the ceiling would cave in and the metro which was passing at that exact time could crash near Bond allowing Baddy to escape and meet with some of his henchmen that knew eaxactly wheer and when he would appear and they make it to where "M" is and start to kill people left and right without much explanation. Bond arrives just in the nick of time to save the Ministers and he and "M" escape to got to Bond family home in Scitland. Of course they stop at a garage and take Bond's Old Aston Martin with some of the well known gadgets already installed which will be sued later on.

We find out that Skyfall is the name of the Bond estate where Bond grew up. There is an old caretaker there who I guess raised Bond after his parents died. That's never explained so I'm guessing on the relationship. Bond, "M" and the caretaker booby trap the house so that they can kill as many bad guys as possible. The first wave of bad guys get there and they are all dispatched in various cool ways. "M" is wounded during the fight but doesn't say anything. Baddy gets there with his helicopter and shoots the placed up. M and the caretaker escape in a secret tunnel while Bond dispatches most of the other bad guys. Leaving only baddy and two other henchmen. Both heanchmen meet a terrible end and then it's just baddy. He gets to where M was and he's about to to a double suicide with him and M when Bond kills him. Bond notices that M is badly wounded after killing Baddy and they have a less than meaningfull conversation before she dies. We cut to Bond on the roof of the new MI6 building where he is having a conversation with Eve. He follows her down to meet his new boss and she introduces herself as Eve Moneypenny and then we see the new M.

It's never mentioned what happened to the list of agents that was supposedly the main plot of the movie. If the bad guy only wanted t kill M then why go through all the subterfuge. It's established that he is a genius computer hacker that could have killed her in so many ways.

I had high hopes that they were going to go back to what made the Bond movies so fun to watch but it doesn't look like it. Tis is Craig's third time at bat and he's not getting any younger. He will be near 50 by the time the next one comes out so that might be his last one. Long live the Brown Coats.

11-11-12  06:47pm - 676 days #946
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Thanks for the report on Skyfall, Pat. Doesn't look like anything I would enjoy. Rotten Tomatoes reports that 91% of the viewers liked it but this review describes my feelings best, when the reviewer writes:

http://eclipsemagazine.com/movie-reviews/35790/

I'm with her all the way!

11-11-12  07:20pm - 676 days #947
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Originally Posted by pat362:


I had high hopes that they were going to go back to what made the Bond movies so fun to watch but it doesn't look like it. Tis is Craig's third time at bat and he's not getting any younger. He will be near 50 by the time the next one comes out so that might be his last one.


I saw Daniel Craig on a late night talk show, promoting the new James Bond movie. He said that he's already signed a contract to do 2 more James Bond movies.

Sometimes actors sign contracts to do movies, and then don't appear in a movie, for many different reasons.

But as things stand now, with the massive financial success of this latest Bond movie, it seems like a sure bet Daniel Crag will be in the next two James Bond movies.

11-11-12  08:43pm - 676 days #948
Toadsith (48)
Active User



Posts: 811
Registered: Dec 07, '07
Location: Ogdensburg, NY USA
Originally Posted by messmer:


[...] however when it comes to George Lazenby he simply didn't LOOK Bond, he looked like someone's favorite uncle rather than 007. That's the only thing that put poor George in my worst Bond category.


Yeah, if you are distracted by the actor's looks, it is very hard to take their character seriously. I had trouble getting over Daniel Craig's looks as he presents as a thug to me. Sort of like those low-level gangsters who've got the money for the Armani suit, but never look comfortable in it.

Originally Posted by pat362:


Lazenby never had a chance because he took over the role when Connery had made it his own and he had a certain resemblance to Connery. Moore looked a lot different so fans couldn't make a physical comparaison. It also didn't help that Lazenby was tied down with a wife as opposed to a generic Bond girl and that it's his father-in-law that helps him rather than the British Government.


It is tough accepting a new actor in an old role sometimes, and I do forget that Bond hadn't had that history yet when Lazenby took the helm. I did want to point out that Lazenby's Bond was only married at the very end of the film. [SPOILER WARNING] Bond is removing the wedding decorations from the Aston Martin when Blofeld drives up and shoots the car to pieces. So he had plenty of time to fool around with the ladies prior to the wedding.

Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


Lazenby's problem was that he replaced Sean Connery. So he was constantly compared to Connery, and Lazenby was found wanting. Maybe, if he had continued in the role in future movies, he might have gained some respect or a following. But he did only one Bond film, and then was in a bunch of low-budget movies for the rest of his career.


Perhaps his Bond would have gained traction with the audiences after more than one movie - and I damn Lazenby for fearing type-casting and not accepting the studio's contract. They were eager as the movie did quite well, though not as amazingly well as some of the other Bonds; it's $7 million budget it earned a gross of $82 million. It certainly took me a few movies to warm to Brosnan and I only really loved his performance in his fourth and final film. I'm only now slightly warming to Craig's Bond. Maybe the fourth and fifth films will recapture Bond's suave humor to the fullest. I liked him in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, he was quite good in that, so sometimes he can act well...

Anyway, thanks for indulging my curiosity about the animosity toward Lazenby's Bond. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" ¡ Updated Link with Live Video filmed in Copenhagen in 1967 !

Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo

11-12-12  12:21am - 675 days #949
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,943
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by messmer:


Trouble is, even though the later Bond movies (except for QOS) have received rave reviews and Daniel Craig is being praised as coming closest to Ian Flemming's 007 I don't like their "darkness."

To me, a good Bond movie had lots of implausible stunts, double entendres, willing women and a tongue-in-cheek sense of humor. I don't want something more realistic I want escape therefore, gasp, I vote for Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, as the best 007s, while Daniel Craig (and I love him as an actor) and Timothy Dalton made the worst. Actually Woody Allen and George Lazenby were the worst, but we won't talk about them.

So are you enjoying the new, more gritty and dark 007 movies or do you prefer the lighter ones of the early period?


Me personally I've preferred the darker ones (which I don't think started with Craig, look at what Dalton did with the character). 007 really was supposed to be a serious, all-business spy; not a playboy-cum-secret agent that somehow convinced a powerful government agency to grant him a license to kill.

Yes, Craig's films are obviously a 007 take on Jason Bourne, albeit with far less memory loss, but they are also a more accurate take on what Fleming created. Dalton had a veritable bloodbath on his hands in "License to Kill," though that was more of a crime film than a Bond spy film (his enemy is a South American drug lord, not a billionaire with ICBMs hiding under a mountain).

But really, when I was watching "Casino Royale," it was the first time I thought "Shaken, not stirred." Ha, that's still funny--holy fuck this guy has a license to kill and he just used it to murder a guy who happened to step in his way!

I was reminded that a guy who goes around killing people for a living might eventually come off as a psychopath to at least one of the many women he lures into bed every night. Apparently in Roger Moore's day you just said a couple of cheesy lines and the body count was a silly afterthought. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

11-12-12  12:28am - 675 days #950
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,943
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


I saw Daniel Craig on a late night talk show, promoting the new James Bond movie. He said that he's already signed a contract to do 2 more James Bond movies.

Sometimes actors sign contracts to do movies, and then don't appear in a movie, for many different reasons.


Bond is a giant franchise and it's a big deal when they hire a new actor to take over the role, so I don't think Craig would have an easy out if he tried to renege on his contract. Not to mention that there's a lot riding on the production of those films; I remember Bronsan saying in an interview that principal photography would take close to six months on each film. That amount of time would not be chump change for any major studio. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

11-12-12  04:47pm - 675 days #951
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


I saw Daniel Craig on a late night talk show, promoting the new James Bond movie. He said that he's already signed a contract to do 2 more James Bond movies.


It doesn't surpise me and he won't be the oldest actor to play the part. That honnor goes to Roger Moore who was 58 when he did "A View to a Kill" and it showed. There are very few Bond films that I find hard to watch but that one is on my list. It's a littla hard to take Moore's Bond serious when he looks old and this is compounded when you pair him with a woman nearly half his age.

At least the studio now has money to spend on futur Bond Films and and there's no fear of never seing another Bond film because of bankruptcy. Long live the Brown Coats.

11-12-12  06:38pm - 675 days #952
graymane (31)
Active User



Posts: 1,347
Registered: Feb 20, '10
Location: Virginia
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


Finally, the movie we've all been waiting for:
Jurassic Park (1993) 3D is coming April 2013.

Maybe 20 years from 2013 they will issue a newer version with 20-track sound, and interactive video/touch/smell/all senses zoom-fields.

Let the cash registers ring!


Just what we need, 'ol Puff-the-dragon sending viewers gusts of his halotosis along with each closeup roar.

11-12-12  07:07pm - 675 days #953
graymane (31)
Active User



Posts: 1,347
Registered: Feb 20, '10
Location: Virginia
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


I thought Sean Connery was the best Bond because he defined masculine cool for his time period. Like I already wrote: "He had it all: suave, sophisticated, amusing (with his double entendres), virile - all he had to do was look at the best-looking women and they jumped into his bed). Connery was like a sophisticated cave-man, who would be politically incorrect in the modern world. He didn't hesitate to kill evil men, he didn't hesitate to bed gorgeous women, and he enjoyed drinking."
.

Ya'know, lk2fireone .... The popular line and accompaning expression that helped seal permanence for Connery's Bond character was his signature introduction ... "The name's Bond, james Bond."
I don't see hopeful Bond characters steppin' up to the plate against that of pitch anywhere. Edited on Nov 12, 2012, 07:18pm

11-13-12  09:41pm - 674 days #954
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Where is pat when we need him? According to the news article below, Robert Downey recently wrapped Iron Man 3. So why should we have to wait until the movie is released for its theatrical run? Let's send pat in to steal a copy and have a private screening for PU members only. Otherwise, we will have to wait until May 3, 2013.

>>>>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<<<<


Jack Nicholson Courted to Play Robert Downey Jr.'s Father
4:03 PM PST 11/13/2012 by Borys


David Dobkin is attached to direct "The Judge" for Warner Bros., which is hoping the picky 75-year-old star will sign on.

Warner Bros. is hoping that Jack Nicholson steps into the courtroom for The Judge, a dramedy that will star and is being developed by Robert Downey Jr.

Warners is actively courting the notoriously picky Nicholson with an unofficial offer to play Downey’s father. The script, originally penned by Nick Schenk with a rewrite by Bill Dubuque, is also now in his hands.

Downey is on board to star as a successful attorney who returns to his hometown for his mother's funeral only to discover that his estranged and Alzheimer's-stricken father, the town's judge, is the murder suspect. The man sets out to discover the truth and along the way reconnects with the family he walked away from years before.

The Iron Man star is producing The Judge with his Team Downey cohorts Susan Downey and David Gambino. Also producing is David Dobkin, who is attached to direct Judge, and his producing partner Jeff Kleeman.

Downey recently wrapped Iron Man 3 and has an open schedule up into next year. Insiders say he is intent on making Judge his next movie.

The question is whether Nicholson will commit. The actor has made only three movies since 2003 -- two of them, 2006’s The Departed and 2007’s The Bucket List -- for Warner Bros.

With Departed, Nicholson first turned down the part of mobster Frank Costello several times. It took meetings with star Leonardo DiCaprio and director Martin Scorsese to convince him to sign on.

But meetings are not always successful. Nicholson, 75, this summer passed on a project that would have reunited him with his Something's Gotta Give writer-director Nancy Meyers after meeting with her.

Sources say that Downey is to meet Nicholson later this week.

Email: Borys.Kit@thr.com
Twitter: @Borys_Kit

11-14-12  04:03pm - 673 days #955
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^Don't forget that stealing an early copy now would be of no interest to anyone since there is still so much CGI to be added that all we would be looking at is him and the other actors wearing weird outfits with reflectors.

The below information is to be taken with a grain of salt. This may all come to pass or this was a great plant to promote the movie.

Simon Philips, president of Marvel's International and Consumer Products division, reportedly gave a presentation in São Paulo. And he mentioned some major spoilers.

First of all, the scene in the trailer where Tony is lying in a hospital bed? Totally about to be injected with the Extremis virus. And the Extremis virus will allow Tony to put parts of multiple Iron Man suits together. Also, Tony will have a "Hall of Armors" with at least 16 new suits of armor, including some classic armors from the comics. And Pepper Potts will get her own set of armor, and take part in some fight scenes. Whether or not she becomes her alter-ego Rescue, is unclear.

And at least one rumored plot development — Tony creating multiple mix-and-match suits of armor — is apparently true. Screen Rant looked at the descriptions of the upcoming toys — which include the "Iron Man 3 Iron Assemblers Action Figure Assortment: 14 "Connectable" figures with multiple interchangeable pieces to deliver maximum customization." They also point out that rumors regarding the Rescue armor for Pepper have been around for a while. and that actress Gwyneth Paltrow said that "she's getting old for this shit
Long live the Brown Coats.

11-15-12  12:35am - 672 days #956
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Originally Posted by pat362:


They also point out that rumors regarding the Rescue armor for Pepper have been around for a while. and that actress Gwyneth Paltrow said that "she's getting old for this shit[/medium][/large]


Many actors are age-inapproriate for the roles they play, but that hasn't stopped Hollywood from casting them.

A lot of teenage roles are filled by actors/actresses in their twenties. Sissy Spacek was around 22 when she played a 15-year old teen in Badlands. She was around 25 when she played the starring role in Carrie (the Brian De Palma horror movie).

Almost all the "teenagers" in Grease were in their twenties, Stockard Channing was 33.

But maybe Gwyneth Paltrow is just saying she wants roles that are more significant or meaningful or rewarding than playing Tony Stark's love interest. After all, why take a role that is probably only paying a million dollars or more?

11-15-12  04:01pm - 672 days #957
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^Maybe she is saying that because she wants to renegotiate her contract or maybe she's in her 40's and the role she is being asked to play is one where she is expected to do more action oriented stuff rather than just be the damsel in distress and she just doesn't want to do that.

My Iron Man knowledge is rather old but I believe that her character did a lot more action oriented in the comics. If what has been said is true then it doesn appear that the next movie will be more physically challenging for her than previous ones.

On a slightly different note. I just read that Bay is looking to cast an all new bnch of young actresses for his next Transformers. These would be abive the already runmored Marky mark. Now maybe it's the perv in me but the first thoiught that popped in my head when I read that was that Bay was only looking to add a few notches in his bed. The guy ozzes sleazy from every pores of his body. Long live the Brown Coats.

11-15-12  04:40pm - 672 days #958
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Originally Posted by pat362:


On a slightly different note. I just read that Bay is looking to cast an all new bnch of young actresses for his next Transformers. These would be abive the already runmored Marky mark. Now maybe it's the perv in me but the first thoiught that popped in my head when I read that was that Bay was only looking to add a few notches in his bed. The guy ozzes sleazy from every pores of his body.


I don't remember ever seeing a photo or interview of Bay. But if he truly ozzes sleazy from every pore of his body, he could cast himself as a villain in one of his Transformers movies. I always thought that the Transformers movies needed a human villain you could hiss at, or feel satisfaction when he gets killed or hurt by the hero. I mean, you had a human hero in Shia LaBeouf, to root for, but no human on the evil side.

And I always found it hard to root for the robot heroes, or to feel a lot of satisfaction when the evil robots were smashed.

The truth is, when you have a lot of robots fighting each other, I have a hard time figuring out who the different robots are.

11-15-12  06:12pm - 672 days #959
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^Part of the reason for that is that the action sequences are filmed at such an accelerated rate that it does become quite hard to figure out who's hitting who. It's not any better in most action movies made today. They are filmed is such a way that your eyes can't keep up with the action and even if you could then they edit the film that you can't.

The rumor is that Bay almost always sleeps with his female leads. Not that other directors do any different but I find that Bay exudes a little more dickiness than most of his peers. He can do what he wants with Transformer because he lost me with number 3. I'm not wasting another 12$ on sequeles. Especially when he's doing a reboot. Long live the Brown Coats.

11-16-12  09:43am - 671 days #960
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
I think I saw Transformers 1 in a theater. After that, I watched the others on DVD. Much cheaper.

I do see movies at theaters. But since it costs so much just to get in, and then the price of a drink or popcorn is almost the price of a cheap meal at a fast food restaurant, I try to pick movies that I hope to really enjoy. Doesn't always work out. The last movie I saw was Resident Evil part ?. That cost me around $15.50 with a senior discount to get in. That was a couple of months ago. I thought it was a waste of money. The 3D effects were interesting, but the story was just too much of a repeat of prior episodes. I should have stopped watching them with the first episode, which I did enjoy. I mean, I should have stopped paying theater prices, and waited until they came out at Redbox or on TV.

11-16-12  04:05pm - 671 days #961
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
I wasn't exacly out of work per say but the kind of work I did in the last year wasn't earning me a lot of money so that meant that I had to be very picky about the movies I would pay 12$ (without snacks) to see. The good news is that Hollywood put out such crappy movies in the last year that I didn't have to make hard decisions.

Case in point your Resident Evil movie. This was number four or five that came out this year. Was there anything in that movie that anyone was really looking forward to? I think they pretty much killed the franchise after they made number 3. Once you have killed the world then it's kind of hard to care what happens about a woman fighting an evil corporation bent on world domination. I mean the world is dead and so are most of the humans. The only living ones are those hidden and those who are zombies.

I recently started a new job so i have more free cash and Skyfall was one of those movies that I was really looking forward to. As you have read. It was a disapoinment on every level. Long live the Brown Coats.

11-24-12  05:28am - 663 days #962
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
'Dallas' star Larry Hagman dies in Texas
By LYNN ELBER | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago


Who shot J.R. Ewing?

It was J.R.'s sister-in-law, Kristin (Mary Crosby) who plugged him — he had made her pregnant, then threatened to frame her as a prostitute unless she left town — but others had equal motivation.

J.R. Ewing was a business cheat, faithless husband and bottomless well of corruption.

R.I.P., Larry Hagman.

11-24-12  10:19am - 663 days #963
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^Sad news. I was never a fan of dallas but I was of "I dream of Genie". I didn't watch the remake of Dallas so I don't know how big a role he played on the show so I don't know what they will do for season 2. Long live the Brown Coats.

11-27-12  11:48pm - 659 days #964
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
The photo I saw of Henry Cavill as Superman, without the red briefs, makes him look very different from previous versions of Superman that I saw.
The Henry Cavill Superman has a large bulge in his groin. That bulge was never so obvious with either Christopher Reeve or Brandon Routh.
Does that mean that Henry Cavill is more endowed than previous versions of Superman? Or did he stuff something down there to appear more manly?
Or maybe the prop department fitted an appliance down there to complete the look of the costume?

Enquiring minds want to know.

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk...steel-222100414.html

==============
==============

Zack Snyder takes off Superman’s underwear in ‘Man of Steel’
By Bryan Enk | Movie Talk – Mon, Nov 26, 2012 5:21 PM EST

Henry Cavill as Superman in 'Man of Steel' (Photo: Warner Bros)

It's strange how a world obsessed with comic book movies can no longer accept a man in tights... or at least red briefs.

What Warner Bros. (and millions of fans) hope will be a Superman for the 21st century (following the lukewarm reception of Bryan Singer's well-intentioned but perhaps ultimately misguided 2006 would-be reboot, "Superman Returns") will be unveiled next summer, and with him a somewhat dramatic tweaking of that most dubious aesthetic challenge in bringing a superhero to the live-action screen: his costume.

Don't worry -- the "Man of Steel," played by Australian actor Henry Cavill, will still have the red cape and that awe-inspiring big capital "S" on his formidable chest. He'll even have a blue bodysuit and red boots. But what he won't have is the red briefs of previous big-screen Supermen played by Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh.

"The costume was a big deal for me, and we played around for a long time," director Zack Snyder said in an interview with the New York Post. "I tried like crazy to keep the red briefs on him. Everyone else said, 'You can't have the briefs on him.' I looked at probably 1,500 versions of the costumes with the briefs on."

[Related: Daniel Craig beat Superman & Perseus to win 'Casino Royale' Bond role]

Snyder said the brief-less look was chosen to update Superman's outfit without completely throwing away what makes him iconic. He said, "If you look at the costume, it's very modern, but the relationship to the original costume is strong."

It's a radical variation on what's been the traditional Superman wardrobe, as the removal of the "red briefs" makes way for an all-blue unitard with a somewhat metallic, more armored look... which sets the stage for a superhero who's more of a brooding warrior than perhaps, say, a melancholy stalker of ex-lovers (an element that made for one of the many criticisms of "Superman Returns").

This approach is certainly in line with Warner Bros.' desire to turn the Last Son of Krypton into a more serious, introspective kind of hero -- and with producer Christopher Nolan's insistence on bringing a sense of realism (or, as original "Superman" director Richard Donner put it, "verisimilitude") to even the most outrageous concepts.

"There's a logic and concreteness that has to exist with Chris," Snyder said. "You can't just do stuff because it's cool. He demands that there be story and character behind all of it, which I'm a big fan of."

[Related: Indie Roundup: 'Silver Linings Playbook']

Indeed, if the impressive teaser trailer released this past summer is any indication, Snyder will be giving us a more introspective Superman, an alien coming to terms with his remarkable abilities and the responsibilities that come with them -- and how they ultimately might make him even more isolated from the very world he's sworn to defend.

"Man of Steel" opens June 14, 2013.

11-28-12  03:04am - 659 days #965
Ed2009 (7)
Active Webmaster




Posts: 493
Registered: Sep 12, '09
Location: Wales, UK
Looks like Batman has influenced Superman's fashion sense Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity.

11-28-12  05:16am - 659 days #966
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
You're right. That might be because Christopher Nolan is a writer and producer of the upcoming Superman movie.

11-30-12  05:59am - 657 days #967
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Gerard Depardieu needs to start attending AA or some other program to stop drinking. Or he could end up in serious trouble or dead.

.............
.............

Report: Depardieu briefly held for drunk driving
Associated Press � 16 hrs ago

PARIS (AP) � French actor Gerard Depardieu was briefly detained by police for allegedly driving drunk on his motorcycle, according to a news report.

Sipa news agency quoted police as saying the 63-year-old actor was brought in Thursday afternoon by Paris police after falling off his motorcycle.

The burly actor, who has appeared in more than 150 films, allegedly failed a sobriety test and was taken to a police station, Sipa said. Police then escorted him home, but he'll have to appear in court, the news agency reported.

It was one of several encounters with the law for Depardieu. He grabbed headlines when he urinated in the aisle of a plane before takeoff on a Paris to Dublin flight. He was removed from the aircraft.

Depardieu was nominated for an Academy Award for his role in 1990 film "Cyrano de Bergerac."

12-05-12  01:43am - 652 days #968
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
Hope springs eternal. Or there's always something good coming down the road.

Hugh Hefner is 86.
His bride to be is 26.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hugh Hefner, fiancee obtain marriage license
Associated Press � 10 hrs ago


LOS ANGELES (AP) � Hugh Hefner and Crystal Harris are again taking steps toward the altar, more than a year after the centerfold canceled their previous engagement and was branded a "runaway bride" in Playboy.

The couple obtained a marriage license Tuesday at a courthouse in Beverly Hills.

Harris called off the couple's previous engagement in June 2011, prompting Playboy to affix "runaway bride" stickers to an issue introducing her as Mrs. Hefner.

Celebrity website TMZ first reported the couple's license. It says they reunited earlier this year and plan to wed on New Year's Eve.

LA County Recorder Public Information Officer Elizabeth Knox says the license is valid for 90 days.

The Playboy founder has been married twice before. His spokeswoman Teri Thomerson didn't immediately return a message Tuesday. Edited on Dec 05, 2012, 02:28am

12-05-12  06:07pm - 652 days #969
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^What's not to love for a 26 years old woman when the man she is about to marry is only 60 years older than she is and likely a couple of years older than her grandfather.

I stopped caring about what hugh does years ago. It's a lot more sad than creepy. Long live the Brown Coats.

12-06-12  12:09pm - 651 days #970
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,544
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
After passing laws that put the control of the Internet under US control in times of emergency, the US is now fighting against the control of the Internet by the U.N.

Shouldn't the US bow down to world control of the Internet? What right does the US have to fight the will of the people?

The EU (European something-or-other) is also fighting against control of the Internet by the U.N.

We are a nation of law-abiding citizens. Shouldn't we be helping everyone to obey the laws?

Shame on the US and the EU.

I am posting this under movies, because the Internet is how most of us get our porn movies delivered to us. As well as our photosets.

God bless the Internet. Home of the free and the brave!

---------------------------------
---------------------------------


U.S. now 'totally unified' in opposition of U.N. Internet governance

Summary: The U.S. House of Representatives has unanimously approved a resolution to oppose U.N. intent to govern and regulate the Internet at its WCIT-12 conference in Dubai, currently underway.
Violet Blue

By Violet Blue for Pulp Tech | December 6, 2012 -- 00:52 GMT (16:52 PST)

In a historical moment of unanimous agreement -- an eye-opening 397-0 vote -- the U.S. House of Representatives voted today to approve a resolution pushing the U.S. government to fight the United Nations in its bid to control and change the Internet at the WCIT-12 summit, currently under way in Dubai.

The unanimous vote is meant to send a signal -- as a show of strength -- to other countries meeting at the telecommunications summit that both the White House and its lawmakers oppose any role the U.N. might take in Internet governance or regulation.

The WCIT-12 summit is where the U.N.'s little-known ITU is facilitating updates and changes to global telecommunications regulations that would place the Internet under the control of nation states.

This week, ITU member states are at the Dubai summit arguing over proposals from countries, most notably oppressive regimes such as Russia and China, that would impose levies on Internet traffic and adopt standards that would make it easy to track Internet users' activities.

It would give governments more effective control over citizens' access and use, as well as establish standards for telephone-style fee collection for Internet use.

According to The Hill, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said:

We need to send a strong message to the world that the Internet has thrived under a decentralized, bottom-up, multi-stakeholder governance model.

The ITU denies that the U.N. is making a play for control of the Internet, or the International Telecommunicaitons Union (ITU) grabbing a larger role in Internet governance.

In a recent email exchange ITU's Senior Communications Officer Toby Johnson told ZDNet:

ITU's Secretary General has repeatedly said that this is not the case. In fact there are no proposals to the conference to this effect.

ITU's mandate with regards to the Internet is very clearly laid down in various Resolutions that cannot be overridden by anything that happens in Dubai. So this is just a myth.

However, Johnson did not respond to ZDNet's request for evidence to support this claim.

Prior to the summit's Monday opening ceremonies, the EU's upper house, the European Parliament, voted to oppose the U.N.'s plans to regulate the Internet.

The 27 EU member states also voted unanimously, joining the U.S. to fight the ITU's WCIT-12 plans as a unified bloc. The E.U. is backed in its stance by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, and other countries who are also members of the ITU.

"The EU believes that there is no justification for such proposals," said the European Commission, on Friday. The opinion given by Europe's lower house was the view of all 27 member states, it said.

According to the Reuters news agency, EU Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes, who is in charge of Europe's Internet policy, said the ITU proposals "risk damaging the Internet's evolution as a critical piece of global commercial infrastructure and a network for the free flow of information and data."

"The European Union's firm view is that the Internet works," she said earlier this week. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

The ITU responded, claiming the EU resolution was flawed:

...it is unfortunate and disappointing to see that the European Parliament appears to base its Resolution on misleading and erroneous conjecture put forth by certain companies who are defending their commercial interests, in particular when those companies are not even European companies.

Opposition to ITU's WCIT-12 summit, fueled by details on the proposed changes leaking onto the Internet, are mounting.
Read more

U.N. WCIT-12 makes Syrian Internet blackout 'trivial' everywhere
U.N. readies for protests on eve of secret Internet regulation treaty

ITU member states continue to argue over proposals from a range of countries, most notably oppressive regimes -- including as Russia and China -- which could impose levies on Internet traffic and adopt standards, making it easier to track Internet users' activities.

The proposals would give governments more effective control over citizens' access and use, as well as establish standards for telephone-style fee collection for Internet use.

Changes under consideration at WCIT-12 would pit citizens' rights to communicate against rules that will allow the member states to cut off and potentially intercept communications under vague wordings for cases that, "appear dangerous to the security of the State [...] or to public order or decency."

Proposed changes at WCIT-12 would also legitimize the pay-per-model of the Internet and would in all likelihood threaten 'net neutrality'.

The ITU has carried out years of studies and engaged in persistent maneuvering to figure out how to charge for, and measure, Internet traffic -- but has never come up with a firm, mutually-agreed proposal on how to do it.

Many will be surprised to see the United States unified in such a way -- for anything.

One thing shouldn't be overlooked. Standing against the ITU's endless wrangling over Internet controls sends a message toward governments that are excited at the prospects of getting tighter control of the internet by way of their telecoms (and the attractive lure of billions in increased revenue):

Again, from The Hill, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) told the House:

The 193 member countries of the United Nations are gathered to consider whether to apply to the Internet a regulatory regime that the International Telecommunications Union created in the 1980s for old-fashioned telephone service.

He said member states will also consider whether to, "swallow the Internet's non-governmental organizational structure whole and make it part of the United Nations."

"Neither of these are acceptable outcomes and must be strongly opposed by our delegation," he added.

We have reached out to ITU for comment and response to the U.S. resolution and will update this article accordingly.

12-06-12  03:58pm - 651 days #971
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
EU stands for European Union.

Now I don't think I'll be revealing any secret when I say that the US has often been a Country that believes in the old adage. Do as I say and not as I do when it comes to any and all things to do Foreign Policies or interferance.

There are many wonderful things to love about the US but this has never been one of them. Of course they would be agaisnt this because it means that they can't control something that they didn't actually have any right to control in the first place. I also don't think the Eu should nor should the UN but it's a little hypocritical to tell a Governing board that they can't do something they were considering doing themselves. Long live the Brown Coats.

901-950 of 1202 Posts < Previous Page 1 2 5 8 11 18 Page 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next Page >
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home


Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 0.15 seconds.