kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
"The man known as the world’s worst director is now retired and running a Vancouver restaurant. But he’s still not done waiting for the world to give him his due."

Via [livejournal.com profile] rabbitucker, over on Facebook (friends-only post, so no link).

I'll just copy/paste the comment I left over there:

Well, I hope he does a better job of running a restaurant than he did making video game movies, because if he does *worse,* people will probably literally die, somehow, through food poisoning or cutlery mishaps or like in that Canadian PSA where the woman spills the boiling oil on herself.

kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
If real life was a horror movie, we'd be just a day away from the scene in which the slasher villain is about to go on his first big killing spree.

For example, the cornfield scene in Freddy vs Jason:

In this scenario, if real life were a horror movie, Donald Trump would be Jason Voorhees. The ravers would be our civil rights, our foreign relations, our national ethics, and so on and so forth. The cornfield itself, being set ablaze, would be America. January 20, 2017 would be the day that Jason emerges and starts destroying everything. And, unseen in this clip, Vladimir Putin would be Freddy Krueger, calling the shots from behind the scenes.

Keep in mind, also, that the movie is called Freddy vs Jason, and that it ends with a fight to the death between Jason, who Freddy mistakenly thought he could control but who instead just turned out to be a big, dumb, mindless wrecking ball, and Freddy, the master of the dreamworld who had been steadily losing his power and who turned to Jason for assistance. In the end, you think Jason has won their battle, but then Freddy winks.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)

Yeah. Just... yeah.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)

Huh. Well, this gets a kind of tepid "not sure if want" from me.

It doesn't make me immediately dislike it and not want to see it at all, in the same way that the Star Trek Beyond and Ghostbusters 2016 trailers did for their respective movies, so it has at least that much going for it, I guess?

At the same time, though, it doesn't feel very "Power Rangers"-like, either. Seems like they're going for the banal "darker and edgier than the original source material" crap yet again, same as so many other awful remakes/reboots do these days.

In any case, given that I pretty much don't go to see any movies in theaters at all, ever, these days, I'll very likely not see this one in the theaters either, but I might rent the DVD at some point.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
My feelings on nuBusters are that I'm swinging like a pendulum back and forth between the urge to not ever see the movie, based on the overwrought overreaction to James Rolfe's video from a couple months ago, and the urge to rush out and see it right now, based on archetypal GamerGate horseshit.

And, to be clear, I fully recognize (and indeed have even said before) that both of those are asinine reasons to see or not see the movie. I'm not going to boycott the movie because "hurrrr feminazis sjws women r dumb durrrr." But at the same time, I'm also not going to go out and watch this movie just because a lot of people are saying that we "must" be more supportive of women in leading roles or whatever, either, apparently regardless of the actual quality (or, perhaps, lack thereof) of the movie in question.

Good reasons to not see the movie are 1) I thought the trailers sucked ass (and if one is no longer allowed to decide, yay or nay, about viewing a movie based on the trailers anymore, then fuck off... it's not my fault you released a horrendous trailer that doesn't properly reflect your movie), and 2) specific reviewers that I like and usually agree with said that the movie sucked or was merely okay at best.

Good reasons to see the movie are 1) other people that I know personally whose tastes I feel I share have seen it and said they enjoyed it (and not for social justice reasons or whatever, but because they actually and simply thought the movie was funny).

So... yeah... it's still up in the air as to whether or not I will see this movie. I think that, ultimately, I will see it, eventually. I think the deciding factor for me as to whether I'll go see nuBusters in theaters or not, however, is the fact that I didn't even go to see the new Star Wars in the theaters. As such, I think I'll be okay with just waiting for the DVD/Blu-ray of nuBusters to be released and see that then, too (and, no, I haven't even seen Star Wars in the comfort of my own home yet, either, even though the disc versions of that have been available for a while). Maybe I'll like nuBusters, maybe I won't, maybe I'll just shrug and wonder why there was such a big deal about it, either way. Probably I won't post about it again until after I've seen it myself, unless some other big stinky dumpster fire gets ignited by either side of the "goddamn imbecilic shit-encrusted coin" again, but even then, I'll try to just pass on posting about all of that shit anymore (at least as far as nuBusters is concerned).

In any case, regardless of all of that, the harassment and abuse and foul behavior from both sides of the shit-coin are beyond the pale, but that dross, in my opinion, is above and beyond considerations of whether or not the movie itself is actually worth seeing, on the whole.

kane_magus: (kanethumb1)

I've seen the Black Nerd in a Nostalgia Critic crossover, but I think I'ma finally subscribe to him outright. Maybe go back and watch some of his old stuff. If nothing else, he seems happier and less negative/pessimistic than most of the other reviewers I watch.

(Also, wait... Chris Hemsworth was in nuTrek? What? Who did he play? ...George Kirk? That was Thor? Holy shit, I had no idea.)
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
"Doug and Rob finally talk about the ghostly reboot and the 'controversy' around it."

Let's just go ahead and get all of these reviews (or, at least, the ones from people whose opinions I actually give two shits about, anyway) out of the way as they hit. Doug and Rob gave the movie an "ehhh... it was okay" verdict. "A C+, maybe a B-" score. They didn't hate it nearly as much as Angry Joe and his friends did, but they didn't gush about it or fawn over it overmuch either. They did, however, talk a lot more about all the stupid bullshit "controversy" that surrounds the movie, which Joe only briefly touched on. You know, the same sort of shit I ranted about back during the whole fiasco surrounding the James Rolfe thing. So, yeah. (I think James Rolfe made the smartest call in just passing this movie over altogether, though I have to admit that I'd still kind of be interested in hearing his thoughts on it, even if I can pretty much already predict what those thoughts would be.)

In any case, nothing Doug and Rob said made my interest in seeing it get any higher, though, I'll just say that. My interest is still circling down the toilet.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)

Yeah... yeah, that's about what I expected. Interest in ever seeing this movie myself: circling the toilet bowl, on its way down.

(EDIT) Joe's surprised that they're talking about turning nuBusters into a new franchise? Hell, they were already talking about that shit over a year ago. (/EDIT)
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
Embedded tweets behind cut )

Here's a dumb thing, though. One the one side, you got one half of the Internet claiming that the only reason this movie is getting good reviews is because Sony is astroturfing and paying for them. On the other side, you got the other half of the Internet mocking the everliving fuck out of the first half.

In this case, until and unless it is proven to be the case that Sony is indeed paying for good reviews, I'm going to have to side with the latter half. I said I was going to wait for user reviews, but I honestly don't think that those will be any more useful, and likely even less so. Here's what I think will happen: this movie will get a terrible user score based on a ton of Irredeemably Toxic Shithole-types leaving bad reviews, regardless of whether or not they actually see the movie. I don't think you have to watch a movie to decide if it's good or not, or at least decide if it's a movie that you, personally, want to go see, but I do think that you have to see a movie before you should be allowed to leave reviews for it. Unfortunately, there is no way to enforce that on the Internet. (But then, hell, if you go see the movie, and really, honestly, think it is as bad as you thought it would be, and then accordingly want to leave a review, then go ahead and knock yourself the fuck out. More power to you.)

But seriously, is it truly so incomprehensible that this movie might actually be as good (despite the trailers sucking complete ass) as most of the reviews seem to claim it to be, without Sony having to pay for such reviews? No, I don't think so. I'm not quite that jaded and cynical yet. As such, while my interest in it was admittedly never all that high to begin with and was further dampened by all the idiotic controversy surrounding it from all sides (and especially by the overwrought bullshit that came in the wake of the whole James Rolfe thing), I still might indeed just check it out, especially if I hear, via word of mouth from a few select people that I trust for such things, that it actually is as good as the reviews say it is. It most likely won't be in the theaters that I do this, but I may give the DVD a look or whatever whenever that gets released.

I will say, though, that the thing I don't like is how smug and holier-than-thou that latter half of the Internet is being with regards to the positive reviews.

Just gonna leave this here again...

On the whole, though, one way or another, I will just be glad when, for good or for ill, this goddamn movie finally comes out, has its run in theaters and then, finally, blessedly, dims from the public consciousness.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
I can kind of agree with both sides of the discussion, though I personally have no problem with John Cho's Sulu being gay.

George Takei's perspective is that it isn't true to Gene Roddenberry's original version of Star Trek, because his Sulu wasn't gay in that. While I can see where he's coming from... kind of... well... in response to that I have to say... has Mr. Takei even seen the first two movies? Neither of those, in many ways, were true to Roddenberry's vision, either. My way of dealing with this issue is simply to call nuTrek what it is: an entirely separate universe (outside of Nimoy cameos, which, sadly, can no longer happen) that merely has in-name-only versions of Kirk, Spock, Sulu, etc. Just like the Mirror Universe (even if the mirror characters were played by the same actors in the original shows). Sure, there are many similarities between the nuTrek characters and the Trek Prime characters, but there are just as many differences as well.

Sure, nuTrek and Trek Prime were supposedly exactly identical up until the point where Nero entered from the Prime universe, but I've already called that into question, anyway (and that's not even counting other instances of time travel into the pre-Nero timeline by later crews from Trek Prime, e.g. Star Trek: First Contact.) And there were already differences between the nuTrek and Prime characters, even before that, so who can say for sure that nuTrek Sulu is (and was always) gay whereas Prime Sulu wasn't? (Well, I guess Simon Pegg can, since he's the one who wrote Beyond. So there you go.)

But generally speaking, yeah, Pine-Kirk is not Shatner-Kirk. Quinto-Spock is not Nimoy-Spock. Saldana-Uhura is not Nichols-Uhura. Pegg-Scott is not Doohan-Scott. Yelchin-Chekov is not Koenig-Chekov. Urban-McCoy is not Kelley-McCoy (though out of all of them, I'd have to say Karl Urban's Leonard McCoy is probably the most similar to DeForest Kelley's Prime version). Cumberbatch-Khan is most definitely not Montalban-Khan. And, of course, Cho-Sulu is not Takei-Sulu, even above and beyond the issue of sexual orientation or whatever. And, on the whole, I suppose that is a good thing, because it would be rather boring if the characters were exactly the same as the originals.

To put it succinctly, with all due respect to George Takei, complaining that nuTrek Sulu is gay makes about as much sense as complaining that Terran Empire Sulu is evil. This is my stance from an in-universe standpoint. From a meta standpoint (which, really, is what the disagreement between Takei and Pegg concerns), I mostly agree with Pegg on this one. I think Takei is simply coming at it from the standpoint of "Sulu wasn't gay in the original, so he shouldn't be gay here, either" and I get that, but I just don't think it's relevant, from either a meta standpoint or an in-universe standpoint. (To be fair, to get back to the in-universe stuff for a bit, the whole "alternate dimension vs alternate timeline" thing threw me off for a while, too.)

(With all that said, even so, I still have little to no interest in going to see Star Trek Beyond, for the reasons I've already stated. Cho-Sulu being gay wouldn't have been a dealbreaker for me, though.)
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
...and it's not even out yet.

Embedded tweets behind cut )
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)

Well, if there can be a series of five (with more on the way) Resident Evil movies that have little to do with the games, I guess there is room for a Warcraft series that goes the opposite route and drowns viewers in the lore from the games. *shrug* Joe and his buddies seemed to like it well enough, for what it's worth.

As for me, I haven't been interested in Warcraft since it became a MMO game, so I have no real interest in this movie either. (Also, I'm still disappointed that Warcraft Adventures was cancelled almost two decades ago. ¬_¬)

But then, of course, I haven't been interested in anything Blizzard at all ever since Diablo III.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)

James and Mike say that the movie is "not great" and "mediocre" at best, but they seemed to like it a heck of a lot more than Angry Joe and his friends did. They claim that there are spoilers in this review, but the only real "spoilers" there are, as such, are the mere fact that Bebop, Rocksteady, Krang, and the Technodrome are in the movie at all.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)

Exactly. Hell, for some movies, I don't even need to see the trailers to know that I won't like a movie and to decide that I don't want to and won't see a movie (e.g. Saw or Hostel or any other such "torture-porn" movie).

It's kind of funny that they had nuBusters as the thumbnail and had the same image inset at the bottom for most of the video, but then never mentioned nuBusters and instead talked about Batman v Superman most of the time.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)

What the hell? You mean to tell me that another of these things has been released already? ಠ_ಠ

This went completely under my radar, somehow. Hell, I still haven't even seen the first one yet, either.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
Youtube embed behind cut )

I know people are probably tired of seeing me rant about James Rolfe's treatment lately over this stupid fucking nuBusters movie, but I just want to say that I completely agree with Pat and Ian there. Except for the part where Ian said that there didn't need to be a passing of the torch, and the part where Pat said Ghostbusters II wasn't good. In regards to the latter, I agree with James. GB2 is not as good as the first one, but it isn't nearly as bad as people try to make it out to be. And once again, it is pointed out that Ghostbusters: The Video Game is essentially the true Ghostbusters 3.

Also, as Pat pointed out, and which I can't believe I forgot, James Rolfe is the guy who did Follow That Marshmallow: A Ghostbusters Tour (also starring Brett Vanderbrook, probably best known for his role in The New Adventures of Captain S [which had a crossover with the AVGN, just to throw that out there]).

In addition to that, there was also an episode of Overanalyzers dedicated to Ghostbusters.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
According to this Kickstarter update (which I'm pretty sure is a public post and not backers-only, as far as I can tell), Paramount has dropped the lawsuit against Star Trek Axanar, and CBS is "working on guidelines for all fan films," so hopefully that means that Axanar will be able to go ahead as planned (or with hopefully only slight modifications, if need be). That's pretty cool. I have to admit that I'd thought that Axanar was pretty much dead forever.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
No, wait, excuse me, I meant to say that they're apparently making a Tetris trilogy.

The obvious question, which I am absolutely not the first person to ask, is... ... ...why aren't they making this a tetralogy? ¬_¬

But seriously, though, I just have to point out that April 1 was almost two months ago. This, apparently, is not actually a lame joke... somehow. Someway. And here I thought it was kind of dumb that there was a Minecraft movie in the works.

Well, it is now official: They will indeed make a movie about anything. Anything at all.



kane_magus: (Default)

September 2017

34567 89
10 11 1213 14 1516
17 181920 212223


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 04:30 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios