PlanBFromOuterSpace

Five Now Dog Five!

I'm just picturing studio execs going "We HAVE to get the guy that wrote 'Robocop 3'!", like Miller was really having to fight them away on a regular basis, and that it was for that alone, not because they were also interested in his significant comic work or anything.

I find it funny that Christopher Lambert was the star of "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan", but it was ANDIE MCDOWELL that had to have her dialog re-dubbed by someone else (Glenn Close, I think). Yes, Christopher Lambert, the least convincing Scotsman ever, who to this day is kind of difficult to understand sometimes. I think McDowell still sounded like a complete hick, and that was the reason for the dubbing.

I just remembered too that the second one came out in the wake of "Crouching Tiger", which had the crazy wire work, but used it in more of a fantasy setting, so they could get away with looking like they were flying and standing on treetops and stuff. When you apply the same technique to a "real world" setting, even one as stupid as the Charlie's Angels universe, it just looks terribly gimmicky.

It also sounds like many of his best films were adaptations of other works. If he's writing and directing stuff now that's confusing as shit, there's really only one person to blame.

I'd like to think that she was smart enough to collect an easy paycheck knowing that like only three people were ever going to see this.

After what I'd seen on the "Showgirls 2" thread, I was afraid. Very afraid...

There's already a thread here for it, though I've noticed that if you do a search with a really short word in it, sometimes it's screwy. "No Holds Barred" turned up nothing, but if you leave out "No", that other thread pops up.

Not to nitpick, but there's certainly a difference between "little known" and "little seen". For instance, not a lot of people intentionally watched "Battlefield Earth" or "Cutthroat Island", but EVERYONE knows what they are when you're discussing how you don't want your movie to perform. "Hudson Hawk", while a monumental dud, is certainly well known, but it wasn't a career killer for it's star, and it didn't sink a studio or anything, so maybe it just isn't talked about in the same league as more catastrophic flops.

The scene I was thinking of in particular, if I remember correctly, was where one of them is tied up in a chair, and they leap up with the chair and break out of it or kick someone's ass while tied up or something, but nothing seems to "move" if that makes any sense. I mean, things appear to move, but there doesn't look like there's motion behind the movements. It's just posing and it's fucking lazy. But yeah, Demi Moore seems to be in a cartoon.

It's the kind of movie where they're constantly running away from fireballs or exploding vehicles or something. I fully expected to see a 10-speed or a kayak go up in a mushroom cloud at some point. Also, there was some super lazy wire work, like sometimes the person would start to levitate BEFORE they made the jumping motion or whatever. I barely remember the first film, but that second one is dogshit.

There was an episode of the Film Junk podcast that I listened to a couple months back, where two of the hosts talked about the idea of this being a possible prequel to "Escape From New York". One of the hosts is a big John Carpenter buff, and the other is a fan of middle-of-the-road 90's comedies, and while it's been awhile since I've seen "Escape", they made a pretty convincing argument...or at least gave me a reason to want to re-watch this with their idea in mind.

Not that you're biased in any way at all. Nope, no sir. Heh!

That only makes sense if at any point they were ever off limits, right?

My favorite is when there are characters in movies or TV shows that say something in their own language and then repeat it in English, like even simple phrases that don't need it, particularly as it relates to the characters and their relationships.

Speaking of that, I manage a Regal Cinema, and Sony did something with us on July 4th where veterans got free admission to "White House Down". Seems like a good idea, right? Yeah, fuck that, because I guess it turned into quite the debacle. I didn't have to work that day, but I got to hear all about it. You see, when there are promotions like this or a BOGO or whatever, many of the people that come out for them are people that you'd never ordinarily see at the theater, and then when you throw veterans into the mix, at least in my town, you get a lot of OLD people that just don't watch a lot of movies anyway. Long story short, people were coming out during and after the movie complaining to the staff about the content, specifically because the bad guys were AMERICAN, as though we'd made the film ourselves and could control such a thing. How dare we lure them into coming to the movie theater on our nation's birthday to see a movie where we're attacked by our own, because it's totally the same thing as whipping it out and pissing on the flag, right? I'm pretty sure there were also accusations of it being pro-Obama propaganda, based solely on the President being black and NOT being portrayed by Morgan Freeman. Yeah, this was all after we'd let them in to see the movie for FREE, and then people complain that we don't do it nearly enough. This is the community I live in. I'm a veteran myself, and I've seen more than one modern action film in my lifetime. It doesn't take a thick skin to just roll with it, and whether or not something like that can happen in real life, THIS is just a work of fiction. It's no more offensive to me than when there's a movie about corrupt cops or any other occupation where people turn on their own, but you don't see black jack dealers getting all high and mighty when there's a movie about casino workers trying to pull off a heist.

Question: When movies, particularly mid-90's thrillers or action flicks written by people that don't know how computers work, have computers doing off-the-wall things, do you prefer to have no explanation, like they're just all-knowing omnipotent things or whatever, or do you like it more when characters try to walk us through it? I personally love made-up technobabble and exposition that reeks of screenwriters thinking they're clever, but I can understand how it would drive people that actually know a thing or two about HOW they work absolutely fucking crazy. Not that it drives ME crazy or that it's the same thing really, but I've spent a lot of time working on planes, and I find it funny whenever someone can just sneak into a hangar, steal a jet, and be up in the air five seconds later, not so much because of the technology involved, but because sometimes it would take an entire team of people to make it happen. Anyone else really, really want an episode on "The Net"?

Guys! Guys! They said that Stallone was offered this, right? If he would have done this movie, which people have said was based on the same book as "Cobra", would Stallone have demanded that the name on the book (his, after previously made demands?) be replaced by his name AGAIN? *headexplodingsound*

I don't think that Forrest Gump follow-up that was mentioned was scrapped at all. Nope, I don't think we got an alternate ending so much as an alternate MOVIE, and it was called "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close". I have absolutely no basis for that claim whatsoever except for there being Tom Hanks, 9/11, and a mentally handicapped kid, so I could be way off. I'll never know , because everything I've seen of that movie was cringe-worthy and fucking awful, so I have no desire to watch it all.

I'd like to think that the title discussion went on even longer, so long that it required that commercial break So, did both Stallone and Julianne Moore turn this down to do "Assassins"? They came out a month apart, so I imagine they would have been filming around the same time. Joel Silver was a producer on both, and they were both released by Warner Brothers. Hmmmm.

Oh yeah, and do I win a No-Prize? Can we get a ruling on that, please?

Sort of, but I was thinking of something more Black-American-sounding...

Posehn talking about the "Dungeons and Dragons" movie would have to be a million times more interesting than listening to him PLAY the actual "Dungeons and Dragons" game. It's not a knock on him at all, as I listen to a lot of podcasts about things I'm not particularly interested in because I like the personalities involved, but role-playing games may have proven to be my breakpoint. I lived with a gamer once, and when you have a living room full of those people in your own home, and you can't block out the sound no matter how many doors you put between you and them, it's truly maddening. I gave "Nerd Poker" a try for a few episodes, and I ordinarily love Posehn's stuff, but man, it's still a bunch of people taking an hour to describe how they're going to try to cross a room or go up some stairs in a manner that wasn't all that funny or entertaining for a bunch of comedians

I haven't seen the Blu-Ray to know if it's covered at all in any of the behind-the-scenes material, but here are some theories I have: - There was a horrible on-set accident, leading to the original actor in the picture being incapacitated in some way, resulting in the need to use "Crow"-like technology to digitally add the face to the stand-in at the end, but that technology wouldn't be available for like 7 more years. It's the only reasonable explanation for why the guy at the end was delivering his lines so blandly, so emotionless. He was just a PA or something! - The guy in the picture was holding Kim up for more money, and Kim refused, thinking he was calling the guy's bluff. No dice. - The scene at the end came first and there originally WAS no monologue! This would explain why it was SO heavy-handed, so on-the-nose, like how when you're watching it, you just know this dude's dad HAS to show up at the end. To paraphrase a comment I made earlier this week in another thread: "If you introduce the Black-American father in the first act...". Anyway, by the time it came time to film that extra scene, the original actor had moved on to his next gig and was unavailable, but it was a small price to pay, because we ended up with one of those classic scenes that was made up on the fly that we hear so much about on entertainment websites that run lists of such things!

How about Jim's dad?