Post: #26

I'm not movie expert in any sense, but I do have a question for discussion:

Why only 8 instead of 11?

At first I thought that perhaps it was because they couldn't find 11 big enough female stars, but that's definitely not the case, there's plenty out there.

One reason may be because the nature of female stars is such that they all need to have more screen time to develop a character, where as in Oceans 11 you had guys like the kungfu man who were more or less purely utilitarian (and of course that's fine and in line with being a male). With women there's no such thing as quiet kungfu woman since there needs to be a kind of special attention paid to each character to really show that they are a woman and special in some way. Hence less time to be spread out towards the characters.

This is just a theory though. I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts on it.

Post: #27

Probably because of the wage gap.

Post: #28

It's just that women are so much more efficient - they can do with 8 sets of hands what men would need 11 or 12 sets for.

Multitasking, innit?

Post: #29

(04-22-2017 08:49 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  Here we go again. An all "strong woman" remake of a successful movie franchise. Instead of in-your-face feminism or angry anti-male rhetoric, this one just looks sad.

The picture they released shows the women trying to act cool (I guess), but makes them look so joyless and empty.

Quote:Warner Bros. Pictures and Village Roadshow Pictures have released the first image from their movie “Ocean’s 8,” which will hit theaters across the U.S. on June 8, 2018.

“In summer 2018, the tide will turn as (left to right) Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) attempts to pull off the heist of the century at New York City’s star-studded annual Met Gala,” a statement explains. “Her first stop is to assemble the perfect crew: Lou (Cate Blanchett); Nine Ball (Rihanna); Amita (Mindy Kaling); Constance (Awkwafina); Rose (Helena Bonham Carter); Daphne Kluger (Anne Hathaway); and Tammy (Sarah Paulson).”

Gary Ross, whose credits include “Seabiscuit,” “The Hunger Games” and “Free State of Jones,” is directing from a screenplay he wrote with Olivia Milch, with Steven Soderbergh and Jon Kilik producing, Michael Tadross, Susan Ekins, Bullock, Diana Alvarez and Bruce Berman executive producing, and Milch co-producing.

So Hollyweirdland is making an alternative reality "reboot" of a played out trilogy that itself is a remake of a 60+ year old movie? Got it.

The brilliance and originality just shine through...

Post: #30

Sigh. Hollywood might as well be dead.

Post: #31

(04-22-2017 05:28 PM)Robert High Hawk Wrote:  they all need to have more screen time to develop a character,

No.

Non-serious answer:

Extra time due to characters being distracted by Puppies, Boutique stores and time in the bathroom.

Serious answer:

There will be filler scenes/dialogue to cater to the inherently female dominated demographic. Ladies don't do succinct.

Post: #32

Heads up. I hear the movie is only going to be 70 minutes long.

They're about to start the heist but three of the eight call in sick with period pain and a fourth refuses to turn up because she's found out one of the others is wearing the same outfit as her. Then the fifth finds out the sixth is fucking her boyfriend and the seventh knew but didn't say anything. She guilt trips the eighth into leaving with her and then only two are left, but they quickly get caught up in the social media backlash from the cheating and spend the last ten minutes of the movie in a facebook war with the 6th girl.

Post: #33

(04-23-2017 08:12 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Heads up. I hear the movie is only going to be 70 minutes long.

They're about to start the heist but three of the eight call in sick with period pain and a fourth refuses to turn up because she's found out one of the others is wearing the same outfit as her. Then the fifth finds out the sixth is fucking her boyfriend and the seventh knew but didn't say anything. She guilt trips the eighth into leaving with her and then only two are left, but they quickly get caught up in the social media backlash from the cheating and spend the last ten minutes of the movie in a facebook war with the 6th girl.

I nominate this as "post of \"current year \"". No seriously I would watch this in cinema while being drunk and eating overpriced popcorn.

Post: #34

(04-23-2017 08:12 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Heads up. I hear the movie is only going to be 70 minutes long.

They're about to start the heist but three of the eight call in sick with period pain and a fourth refuses to turn up because she's found out one of the others is wearing the same outfit as her. Then the fifth finds out the sixth is fucking her boyfriend and the seventh knew but didn't say anything. She guilt trips the eighth into leaving with her and then only two are left, but they quickly get caught up in the social media backlash from the cheating and spend the last ten minutes of the movie in a facebook war with the 6th girl.

You're quickly becoming my man crush

Post: #35

This movie idea has been in the slow cooker for a while. From what I remember Sandra Bullock was always going to be a part of it, just funny to see the cast (de)evolve into this.

Rhianna is dressed down as bummy Jamacian phone card sales person to not outclass the other women with looks on the screen.

Post: #36

"Constance (Awkwafina);"

Awkwafina was actually the third choice to play Constance. They approached Parriay first but couldn't make her schedule work, and EvyAnne bailed out on the first day of filming due to "creative differences".

Post: #37

Speaking a person of Indian descent, how does this ugly bitch get work in Hollywood? Somebody with her looks would get nowhere in Bollywood.

What Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr think of this shit?!

I believe that the only all female versions of Hollywood movies which should be made would belong in the adult section of a video store.

Post: #38

(04-23-2017 11:10 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

Speaking a person of Indian descent, how does this ugly bitch get work in Hollywood? Somebody with her looks would get nowhere in Bollywood.

What Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr think of this shit?!

I believe that the only all female versions of Hollywood movies which should be made would belong in the adult section of a video store.

Well - Hollywood is anti young women, anti beauty in feminist depictions, so it makes sense to them to pick a pretty actress in her prime (or closer to it).

It is not as if there are no Indian hotties around:




I noted that they even uglified Rihanna for the role.

Post: #39

It won't be too long until we start seeing tranny reboots at this rate.

Post: #40

(04-22-2017 08:49 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  Here we go again. An all "strong woman" remake of a successful movie franchise. Instead of in-your-face feminism or angry anti-male rhetoric, this one just looks sad.

The picture they released shows the women trying to act cool (I guess), but makes them look so joyless and empty.

Quote:Warner Bros. Pictures and Village Roadshow Pictures have released the first image from their movie “Ocean’s 8,” which will hit theaters across the U.S. on June 8, 2018.

“In summer 2018, the tide will turn as (left to right) Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) attempts to pull off the heist of the century at New York City’s star-studded annual Met Gala,” a statement explains. “Her first stop is to assemble the perfect crew: Lou (Cate Blanchett); Nine Ball (Rihanna); Amita (Mindy Kaling); Constance (Awkwafina); Rose (Helena Bonham Carter); Daphne Kluger (Anne Hathaway); and Tammy (Sarah Paulson).”

Gary Ross, whose credits include “Seabiscuit,” “The Hunger Games” and “Free State of Jones,” is directing from a screenplay he wrote with Olivia Milch, with Steven Soderbergh and Jon Kilik producing, Michael Tadross, Susan Ekins, Bullock, Diana Alvarez and Bruce Berman executive producing, and Milch co-producing.

I think the joyless and empty look comes with the very limited facial movement available when this much Botox is in use. I hear they actually set aside part of the budget specifically for Dermal fillers and botox

Post: #41

Hollyweird has wasted so much time pushing away the very people who pay them money to see their movies. Having a reboot/remake/ahwhogivesashit of another movie really is par on course for the 2010's and continues that trend.

There was an article recently on the "top movies to watch for 2017". All of them.....i mean all of them are either sequels, remakes, or reboots of another idea.

When we stop going to see movies is when it will change.

Post: #42

(04-22-2017 11:30 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(04-22-2017 08:58 AM)Steve McQueen Wrote:  I watched the first Robocop the other day, that movie and most movies back then are frickin awesome

Cant someone start a new Hollywood, bring the good times back and let this shit die on the vine like it should

Until then, if you just keep to watching stuff made pre-1993 you will be ok.

I thought about drafting a post/article about this, the rot can be pinpointed more or less exactly to 1993.

(04-22-2017 11:51 AM)Steve McQueen Wrote:  Disagree, I think they were churning out good movies until the early 00's at which point it all took a nose dive because it became less about art and more about money. That said you make a good point, hence the phrase love thy enemy I guess.

I think that we might have a tendency to think that it started at a certain time that relates to our age. Just as we tend to think our sports heroes from our youth were the greatest, and the bands we liked as teens were the greatest, we also see movies that way, so we think it went bad somewhere in our lifetime. I think the truth is, we just didn't see it when we were kids.

I think it started at least in the late 1960's, if not earlier. It's just that it's been a frog boiling process and it was more subtle at first, and continues to pick up over time, and lately it has accelerated so much and become so over the top that anyone can see it unless they are so brainwashed they will rationalize anything. But if you watch old movies and tv shows and keep in mind the cultural norms of the times when they were made, you will see how the propaganda was embedded to pull people in a certain direction. Something older might seem marvelously free of feminist LBQGTXYZ etc propaganda compared to newer shows, but if you watch it critically and keep in mind the correct frame of reference of the times (and you can have a realistic view of, say, 70's culture vs. 70's culture as portrayed in 2017 television) you see it. Even something like "The Andy Griffith Show", which can be seen as a paragon of better times, if you watch for it you will see it ... the feminist stuff, the anti-gun stuff, the "trust the feds" and "small town people are nice but pretty dumb" stuff. In context of the time it was pulling more in our current direction. I'm not necessarily saying that all older movies/tv were like that, or that the current globalist cabal was fully in control of media or even existed in the current form back that far, but there was always a significant amount of propaganda, it just wasn't always so freaking over the top.