Vivian on 9/8/2012 at 11:54
Zack Snyder is going to remake Aliens starring Sam Worthington and David Cross as Burke.
Al_B on 9/8/2012 at 12:00
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Maybe a Ferrris Bueller's Day Off remake?
No, they'd never do that. Unless it involved lots and lots of advertising dollars. Then they might do this:
[video=youtube;VhkDdayA4iA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhkDdayA4iA[/video]
Volitions Advocate on 9/8/2012 at 12:40
I didn't actually watch any of the trailers, I just saw the movie poster and read some discussions about it online. I didn't read any of the press for it.
SubJeff on 9/8/2012 at 13:43
Quote Posted by Vivian
Zack Snyder is going to remake Aliens starring Sam Worthington and David Cross as Burke.
This would be amazing.
demagogue on 9/8/2012 at 13:45
Quote Posted by Vivian
No one will be making a song about it in 20 years, that's for damn sure:
Songs like this are there just put a smile on your face.
Did you do it for moooney? Did you do it for greeeed?
I thought you were a family man, with four kiiids to feeeed.Pyrian on 9/8/2012 at 16:01
Thread title is all that needs to be said about this movie. :p
Doesn't mean I'm going to stop typing, of course. :cheeky:
Three-boob looked a lot better this time around. Yay, improved special effects, you have accomplished something worthwhile for a change! :sly:
The tunnel through the lower mantle was more fanciful than a colony on Mars, maybe even more fanciful than massive alien atmosphere machines. Also they seem to have gotten the gravity physics all wrong (really it should be mostly freefall). Furthermore, such a device would surely travel through a vacuum tube (not very difficult compared to the stable tunnel existing at all). As long as I'm bitching about physics, I might as well mention that while the mag-cars on their tracks are merely implausible, using the same magnets to repel ordinary metal in the landing is outright impossible, as I understand it.
In the original, it really seems like the likely canon interpretation is that it is "all a dream" as they say, albeit arguable, while in this one it seems like it's supposed to be "real".
Finally, the way they changed the resolution of the "talk down" scene doesn't make any sense.
catbarf on 10/8/2012 at 01:23
I saw the first half Saturday, then had a power outage at the theater, got refunded, and went and saw the whole thing last night. It seemed odd to me that some bits were lifted directly from the original, while others were completely different and changed radically. I guess it wasn't terrible, but campy/cheesy/bad as it was I still prefer the original.
One thing I didn't get was, why did the police show up at Rekall to begin with?
Shug on 10/8/2012 at 01:46
I have no idea why the trailer neatly laid out the twist with his wife. It's getting beyond ridiculous
catbarf on 10/8/2012 at 03:02
Quote Posted by Shug
I have no idea why the trailer neatly laid out the twist with his wife. It's getting beyond ridiculous
Probably because enough people are familiar with the original that it's not a shocking twist. And the basic premise of the movie is that the guy's life is a lie, so it seems kind of unavoidable that she's a plant.
SubJeff on 10/8/2012 at 07:57
No, it's because they're doing this in trailers now.
In fact they have for a long time with US trailers, and more recently "international" (read: we only made one trailer) trailers but thankfully not with UK trailers.
I first noticed it about 8 years ago when we watched some film then watched the extras including the original trailer, then the US trailer. We were all :eek: at the US one because it just told the entire film in short. It was at this time I started to realise there was a real problem with the nature of US entertainments take on commercialising everything.
