Upcoming Movies

[Brandon]

 

While looking somewhat funny...  this movie definitely did not need a sequel....

[Noeller]

First one wasn't that funny and this trailer looks awful... 

[Logan007]

10 hours ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

Alot different feel to this trailer then what I was expecting tbh

 

**edit** maybe it was the accompanying music *shrugs*

I think you're right.  Felt a lot more comedic with the music.  I wonder who they're up against.  Looks like some sort of creature.

[The Unknown Poster]

Regarding Suicide Squad - Im looking forward to it.  Good for DC to take chances on that property.  Little risk, potentially high reward.  Perhaps going for the more dastardly comedic Deadpool crowd.  I liked the trailer with the Queen music.  I think the only thing that bothers me a bit is Harley's voice.  Im used to the great voice from the video game.  I like the actress though. 

Regarding Neighbors 2, I agree the first one wasnt as funny as I had hoped it would be but I still enjoyed it.  Mostly due to the actors involved were all likeable.  This trailer looks funnier than the first film.

Also I agree about enjoying a Blu Ray on the big screen at home.  What does everyone have at home?  I feel like Im near the lower end of home theatres now...with my "small" 52" TV.  And it's an older HD (2008) so it doesnt have that remarkable clarity (Soap Opera Effect) that the newer ones have.  I do have a 7.1 Surround Sound though.  Im moving sometimes this year and Im hoping to create a nice home theatre at the new place.  Have my eye on a 75" Sony 4K.  Interested to hear what others have here...and if you have dedicated "theatres" (Im torn on what kind of seating to get etc).

[Logan007]

I have a 58" Toshiba, no frills.  But we also sit 14 feet away from the TV.  I'm not into the giant tv 5 feet away from my face viewing.  The "bigger is better" thing never did it for me.  I prefer quality over quantity.  As long as it feels right for my room, I don't need some oversized jumbotron.  I would, however, like to hook up a better sound system to it.  The audio quality isn't the greatest.  Not sure if I really want to set up surround sound right now, but something a bit more then just listening to the TV speakers.

That "soap opera", or what I like to call "documentary style", look is from refresh rate being set to high on people's TV's.  I hate that look and prefer setting it back to 60Hz rather then 120 or 240.

[Taynted_Fayth]

I'd go projector if i was gonna do the home theater experience but I have my concerns more or less with a ton of pets, theres likely a lot hair and stuff floating around the ait that would turn my experience into a retro feel where the film would have all sorts of crap &^$%^%#$%$'ing across the screen

[Taynted_Fayth]

I was not aware that people are petitioning FOX to make a PG-13 version of Deadpool.  I suppose as long as they make and really push the rated R version for my own self enjoyment, I have no issue with them making a Deadpool-lite that I don't/won't have to watch but my 11 year old can enjoy. A lot of people are against this apparently

[Taynted_Fayth]

this was kinda funny to watch while reading on the pg-13 issue;

 

 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

My understanding of Deadpool from a story I read about it being banned in China, is that to make it PG-13 would change the plot too much. 

Regarding TV, I wasnt sold on the "Soap Opera Effect" but I do like it for some things.  It's like a hyper clarity.  The way I understand it, its the TV adding extra images in an non-perceptible manner, which you can turn off.  I like the 4K experience from viewing TV's at the store but I wonder how good it is in practical terms.  But as a bit of a film junkie, Im always interested in getting a better picture/sound experience.  My TV is 7-8 years old now.

I like that prices are dropping.  If I create a new home theatre, I'd be open to spending money simply because Im not the type that buys the latest and greatest every year.  If I buy a new TV, it will be the last one for a long time.  My current 52" has lasted me well.

I have an eye on a 75" Sony which I think is $5000 and an 84" LG which is $9000.  Which seems like a lot.  I just pulled out the tape measure in my office and 84" is friggen enormous.  Maybe too big.  Bit for the money, do I want to err on the side of bigger...?

Regarding sound, Ive never had my system "optmized" so Im sure it could sound better.  I bought a "in the box" system, an Onkyo.  I went with 7.1 though Im not sure I get much more than a 5.1 would.  Its also more difficult to set up especially if you room isnt nicely rectangle shaped.  But it's light years ahead of the TV sound system.

[Logan007]

Why don't you wait a while for those 4K's to come down?  It's not like anything is displaying at that resolution right now anyway.  Wait 2 years and the price will drop by half I bet.

[17to85]

2 minutes ago, Logan007 said:

Why don't you wait a while for those 4K's to come down?  It's not like anything is displaying at that resolution right now anyway.  Wait 2 years and the price will drop by half I bet.

plus with the dollar being in the shitter things are going to be pricey anyway. 

[The Unknown Poster]

Yeah but I want it now.  lol  Truthfully, I've been watching for awhile and prices are coming down.  Already way down fro under 60".  it's the over 60" that are still expensive.  But I mean, you can buy one for $30,000.  Im not sure what more it does over the $9000 one. 

It comes down to when I move.  It could be two months.  It could be a year.  When I do, the plan is to renovate the basement and create a home theatre.  At that time, I will want the new TV.  Hopefully prices are even better then.  My 52" cost me $2000 and that was "cost" as I had a friend buying 50 TV's for his hotel so his sales guy gave me one at cost.  That was 2008.  Now, you probably get a 52" for $400 and it has more bells & whistles than mine.

I know SONY leads the industry in upscaling to 4K which intrigues me.  I have a vast blu-ray collection and would love to see them, even upscaled, to 4K on a 75+ screen.

[The Unknown Poster]

Die Hard news:

 

"Die Hard" is a franchise that has certainly seen better days. The most recent installment, "A Good Day to Die Hard," did a great job of crushing whatever viability the series had in staying relevant. Of course, that never stops studios for thinking of ways to inject a known entity some extra juice, and it was only a matter of time before "Die Hard" fell victim to prequel or reboot-itis.

 

Luckily for us, the man in charge of this "reboot" of sorts isn't the man responsible for "A Good Day to Die Hard," but rather, Len Wiseman, the man who gave us what I thought was a pretty solid action picture, "Live Free or Die Hard." Sure, by that point in the franchise, Bruce Willis' character was less the "Why me?" character we've learned to love, and more of an unstoppable force that the villain ran from like a scared dog... but the movie was fun all the same.

 

It's with that in mind that I'll move forward with cautious optimism. But if this film is set to be a prequel of sorts, then what would that entail, and what would Bruce Willis' role be, if any?

 

In a recent interview with Collider, Wiseman went into the origins of the project, and what it may mean for this upcoming film.

 

“After doing the fourth one ("Live Free or Die Hard"), there were so many conversations that Bruce [Willis] and I were having about what he put into the character for "Die Hard 1." That character comes in with so much baggage, emotionally, and experience. He’s already divorced, he’s bitter, his Captain hates him, and doesn’t want him back. So, what created that guy?" “We’ve never seen the actual love story. We know its demise, but we’ve never seen what it was like when he met Holly, or when he was a beat cop in ‘78 in New York when there was no chance of him making detective. It’s always been something I’ve been thinking about, and now we’re doing it. And it ties in.”

 

It's very interesting that Wiseman wants to go back to the very beginning. Upon first hearing news of this prequel, a lot of fans were frustrated by the idea of going back to before "Die Hard," as many felt that that film was all the prequel we needed to buy John McClane as John McClane. Thinking back, it isn't unreasonable to assume that McClane had some badass adventures before the incident with Hand Gruber. After all, he was a New York cop, and he did manage to take down and entire group of terrorists, so that had to come from somewhere, right? Read more at: https://tr.im/qua4E

Edited January 20, 2016 by The Unknown Poster

[Logan007]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yeah but I want it now.  lol  Truthfully, I've been watching for awhile and prices are coming down.  Already way down fro under 60".  it's the over 60" that are still expensive.  But I mean, you can buy one for $30,000.  Im not sure what more it does over the $9000 one. 

It comes down to when I move.  It could be two months.  It could be a year.  When I do, the plan is to renovate the basement and create a home theatre.  At that time, I will want the new TV.  Hopefully prices are even better then.  My 52" cost me $2000 and that was "cost" as I had a friend buying 50 TV's for his hotel so his sales guy gave me one at cost.  That was 2008.  Now, you probably get a 52" for $400 and it has more bells & whistles than mine.

I know SONY leads the industry in upscaling to 4K which intrigues me.  I have a vast blu-ray collection and would love to see them, even upscaled, to 4K on a 75+ screen.

Dude, you could go on a seriously good vacation for $9000.  AND for that price, you could even take ME with you.

Sweet deal I know.  Tell me when we're leaving.

[Taynted_Fayth]

RE: Die Hard;

 

It was harder to watch the last few cuz Bruce willis is getting to old IMO and while the original Die Hard, and Die Hard 2 he was young enough to pull it off (he even had hair!). Couple that with I think Jason Statham has all but replaced him as that style of look action guy. I cant see a reboot being viable.

If a Good Day to Die Hard had been a little better passing the torch to the McClane son as a spy would have been the way to go for future films, but I know I personally am a little bored of these spy movies right now. I just watched Extracted with Willis, as a cia operative captured by terrorist and his son, a CIA pencil pusher wanting to be a field agent goes rogue to save him.  if that doesnt nearly sum up soooo many movies in the last 10 years i must just be watching the same movie again and again lol

[FrostyWinnipeg]

18 hours ago, Brandon said:

 

While looking somewhat funny...  this movie definitely did not need a sequel....

Not looking good. In the words of John McClain "How can the same **** happen to the same guy twice?"

[FrostyWinnipeg]

11 hours ago, Logan007 said:

I think you're right.  Felt a lot more comedic with the music.  I wonder who they're up against.  Looks like some sort of creature.

Cara D plays some sort of thousand years old Egyptian priestess I think.

6 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Die Hard news:

Luckily for us, the man in charge of this "reboot" of sorts isn't the man responsible for "A Good Day to Die Hard," but rather, Len Wiseman, the man who gave us what I thought was a pretty solid action picture, "Live Free or Die Hard." Sure, by that point in the franchise, Bruce Willis' character was less the "Why me?" character we've learned to love, and more of an unstoppable force that the villain ran from like a scared dog... but the movie was fun all the same.
 

Its Wiseman who gave us PG13 Die Hard so screw that.

The DH franchise has gone downhill along with Bruce's career.

[Logan007]

14 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Not looking good. In the words of John McClain "How can the same **** happen to the same guy twice?"

I can't stand Seth Rogen movies.  I didn't even think Neighbors was very funny the first time I watched it.

[The Unknown Poster]

Let me tell you the problem with Die Hard.  They sucked after the second one.  Third one, not that bad.  But Die Hard had a formula and they decided to stick John McClane in a different formula and it sucked.  John was a cop but he was an "everyman" cop thrust into a situation made for Stallone.  Thats what made it interested.  When McClane became Stallone, it ruined it.

[Logan007]

I liked 1-3.  4 was meh and 5 was absolute crap.

[The Unknown Poster]

Terminator & Baywatch News:

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Paramount Pictures have removed the sequel to "Terminator: Genysis" off their release schedule and replaced it with director Seth Gordon's comedy-revamp of "Baywatch", starring Dwayne Johnson, Zac Efron, Ilfenesh Hadera, Alexandra Daddario and Kelly Rohrbach.

 

"Terminator 2" was set to open on May 19th, 2017; but with poor box-office performance in the U.S. market and the negative reception from "Terminator: Genysis", it looks as though Paramount Pictures and Skydance Entertainment, who produced the film, will have to rethink their strategy for releasing the next entry in the "Terminator" franchise. "Terminator: Genysis" was directed by Alan Taylor and starred Arnold Schwarzenegger, Emilia Clarke, Jai Courtney, J.K. Simmons, Jason Clarke, Byung-hun Lee and Matt Smith. Director Seth Gordon's

 

"Baywatch" stars Dwayne Johnson as a tough as nails lifeguard who recruits a young-reckless former olympian swimmer (Efron) as the two team-up to take down an oil tycoon who has set his sights on their beloved beach that they patrol. Read more at: https://tr.im/kBJYo

Edited January 21, 2016 by The Unknown Poster

[The Unknown Poster]

According to THR, "Star Wars Episode VIII," which was originally slated for release on May 26, 2017, has been pushed back to December 15 of the same year. In its place, Disney has pushed up "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales," which is about a month and a half earlier than its original July 7 release date. Read more at: https://tr.im/o2QLx

Edited January 21, 2016 by The Unknown Poster

[Brandon]

I didn't think the last terminator was that bad... My only complaint was it was too pg ish

[The Unknown Poster]

2 minutes ago, Brandon said:

I didn't think the last terminator was that bad... My only complaint was it was too pg ish

It was the right idea but the wrong execution.  It sort of fell victim to what hurt the Star Trek "reboot" in that new creative directors got too focused on the re-boot aspect and ignored the heart of the story/franchise.  The best parts of the last Terminator film were seeing them revisit old scenes/ideas.  But it was glazed over so much and so quickly.  Call it the Back to the Future II effect, but seeing a familar story told from a different perspective was really interesting.  TG just used it as a quick hook and moved on.

Casting was poor too.  Sarah was ok.  She should have been more fit though, more akin to Sarah from T2.  Kyle Reese was terribly mis-cast.  And the idea of making the machines a single bad guy (the Borg Queen'ing of the machines) was a bad idea.  It also cut the heart out of the John Connor character to the detriment of the story.

[Taynted_Fayth]

the storyline to genysis wasn't overly complicated if you've watched the other movies or are an avid fan of the previous movies, but I can see how someone who isn't or misses a little of the beginning could sit there with a big ? written across their face, and nothing is worse then watching something you don't understand.

 

RE: Baywatch a big ol MEH from me,  thought the show was dumb (not to say i didnt watch the slow motion running scenes as a kid  )

 

RE: Star Wars, i weould have thought the December release date was the original target date, xmas around the corner can only mean merchandise $$ in a frenzy