Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Now We're Even Closer To A Ratner Directed CONAN...

First! by groorgman	Nov 10th, 2008 08:02:11 AM
Yesssss!
THROMMMMMMMM!!!! by henrydalton	Nov 10th, 2008 08:02:41 AM
second.
fuck by cr1ms0n	Nov 10th, 2008 08:05:26 AM
ratner cant make hard core movies... all his movies have a feminine light hearted lame feel
Crom, I have never called on you before... by onusbone	Nov 10th, 2008 08:10:08 AM
But I call on you now. Don't let Ratner put the final nail in the coffin of the Fantasy Film Genre. Since LoTR, it has been rough going, but hope still lives. And if you won't help me, to hell with you!
So its coming out the 12th of Never then? by ilander66	Nov 10th, 2008 08:12:16 AM
Beverly Hills Cop 4 whens that going to happen? that would take what a year to fuck up properly and then Conan? the Corpse would be cold by then and the buzz from Red Sonja (good or bad) would also have dissapated. Theres a monkey with one eye at my local zoo give the job to him it would turn out better or at the very least throwing shit at a movie screen would have the same effect as watching a Ratner Conan.
Ix-Nay on the Amel-Cay It-Spay by EriamJH	Nov 10th, 2008 08:24:27 AM
No origin story, please. Let's just have Conan riding in from the mist or running away from some magic.
Millennium and Lionsgate, please don't let Ratner direct Conan. by Stereotypical Evil Archer	Nov 10th, 2008 08:34:35 AM

Avi Lerner, don't finalize Ratner as the director of Conan. by Stereotypical Evil Archer	Nov 10th, 2008 08:35:34 AM

HELL NO! by StarUnlit	Nov 10th, 2008 08:53:05 AM
Crom and Mitra.. I haven't 'talked back' in years - can't believe my fingers remember the password - but this atrocity cannot be allowed to come to light. Ratner is a fuckin' hack and can't direct his way out of a paper bag. Ratner cannot possibly understand the importance of the Conan property and mustn't be allowed to sully it. Ratner is the wrong choice... I would rather have NO Conan film than a Ratner hackjob.
Cool,,,how bad could it be? by j2talk	Nov 10th, 2008 08:57:54 AM
at least somebody is willing to make a Conan film
fuck this pos by palewook	Nov 10th, 2008 09:10:19 AM
i'll pass on a ratt conan.
j2talk = Brett Ratner? by brodiebruce_405	Nov 10th, 2008 09:18:10 AM
Who else would support this shit? If you liked the Conan stories by Robert E Howard, or the film by John Milius, you'd see how terrible a Conan film "from the director of the Rush Hour 'trilogy'" would be.
Conan.What is best in life? by abn3r p3pp3r72	Nov 10th, 2008 09:25:35 AM
To keep Crapner away from this film would be a start.
After all this time waiting for a new Conan, by eggart	Nov 10th, 2008 09:27:53 AM

oops by eggart	Nov 10th, 2008 09:29:25 AM
I was going to type something derogatory about Ratner and about misspent opportunities. \
It's freaking Conan... by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 09:34:35 AM
Guy with a big sword kills lots of bad guys, screws wenches. This would be a hard movie to screw up and an even harder movie to turn into a masterpiece, and since no cinematic geniuses are stepping forward, the best we can hope for is mediocre anyway, and Ratner excels at "Meh, it was OK..." Let Ratner have his movie. Who else makes adult-oriented fantasy movies anyway? Jackson and DelToro are both busy with bigger things. would you rather see Uwe Bolle get his hands on this? (Though, I would love to see a Verhoven Conan).
So this Conan will be hard R just like Indy 4 was by Spandau Belly	Nov 10th, 2008 09:34:40 AM
going to be all oldschool practical effects and old fashioned filmmaking right?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaah... by TheBigLebowsky	Nov 10th, 2008 09:35:46 AM
Love the dramatic chipmunk!... Gets me everytime!...
Let's put Conan in a '60s-Corvette & drive it off a cliff by gruntybear	Nov 10th, 2008 09:36:42 AM
Since anachronisms seem to be all in vogue due to the "Dawson's Trek" fiasco that's shaping up, why the fuck not put Conan in a '60s-Corvette and have him outrun the local sheriff? Have him jump a pile of sod with his 'vette and yell, "Yeee-haw!!" while some rap shit plays over the soundtrack. Hey, it's just a genre film. Who cares, right? If a '60s Corvette says "Star Trek," to me it says "Conan" as well.
M-O-O-N. That spells "Ratner - beloved franchise fucker uperer" by TomCullen	Nov 10th, 2008 09:43:17 AM
For all you optomistic motherfuckers out there I give you Brett Ratner and his one two punch of Beverly Hills Cop 4 and Conan. Yep, tell me the glass if half fucking full now, I dare ya. This news is proof that not only is God dead, but his corpse is being ass-fucked by Satan on the desk of his Hollywood office while big red laughs at us all. Or something equally offensive.
What ever happened to the "Crown of Iron" script? by TakeItEasyMon	Nov 10th, 2008 09:49:21 AM
Does anyone have a link? I remember that getting pretty favorable reviews, and it sounded great...
oh gawd damnit by Judge Briggs	Nov 10th, 2008 09:57:48 AM
really, gawd damnit, why haven't the re-re execs figured out that Ratner is LOATHED in our community and it's we who are the best indicator if whether a movie will do well!
I doubt REH Conan fans will like this more than Milius by Drath	Nov 10th, 2008 09:58:01 AM
Unless they're just so desperate to slam Milius for being unfaithful to REH that they'll take anything else. But seriously, no, Rattner is an incredibly bad choice and frankly I don't think we're going to get a MOVIE that satisfies REH fans. I enjoy the original stories a lot, but I just do not think you can get movies out of them without adding a lot of meat to them and I doubt very much in Hollywood's ability to do that well (much less Rattner's ability). I think hoping for a faithful Conan movie franchise is like hoping for a faithful Bond franchise. Just no way in hell!
I don't care anymore by kwisatzhaderach	Nov 10th, 2008 10:12:23 AM
I've got the Milius Conan. That'll do me.
will obama repeal bush's law that has destroyed the by emeraldboy	Nov 10th, 2008 10:15:09 AM
film business so far. ie the family film act. that compelled by law all studios to take out violence, nudity, and profanity? hmmm.
Oh, joy.... more Ratner-bashing. by Playkins	Nov 10th, 2008 10:29:45 AM
I get it, AICN. You all hate him... and you're actively trying to sabotage his career.
R-rated is good. And a modest budget hopefully means less CG an by Mr Nicholas	Nov 10th, 2008 10:37:37 AM

Okay, hang me on the cross. by lochkray	Nov 10th, 2008 10:40:53 AM
Ilike Ratner. I like the first two Rush Hours. Perfect tone for a Bev.Hills Cop IV (Its Eddie Murphy for Chrissake. How much worse could it be than B.H.C.3, or Pluto Nash/Norbit/Meet Dave) I liked Red Dragon. I actually thought he did a very competant job. It was never going to be Silence of the Lambs - So called "Meh" factor is due to the character relationships in the story, not the directiors fault. Yes X3 was disappointing - but that was also not Ratner's problem. He was picking up for Singer (who Fox should have driven a dump truck full of money up to in order to get him to do a proper trilogy). You can't get another artist to finish off a masterpiece, and then bitch that he didn't get the colours right. Now, before I get baraged with comments of felatio on Ratner, he wouldn't be my first pick for Conan. But jesusfuckingspellunkingchrist, give the guy a break. Its not like they got McG to direct a Terminator movie or anything.
I can hear "da Lamentation of Women" by KillaKane	Nov 10th, 2008 10:52:13 AM
I would have liked to have seen the Washowski's take on this (could've been a step closer from Milius's vision to Robert E Howard's works). This is going to pander to the lowest denominator, another shill-out.
Not a freakin' origin story, please!!! by Royston Lodge	Nov 10th, 2008 10:52:39 AM
There's nothing wrong with the origin story as it's told in Conan the Barbarian. Why reinvent the wheel. Mr. Ratner, if you feel its necessary to pretend Conan the Destroyer never happened, so be it. But there's no need to reimagine the origin story. Just give us some fabulous Conan stories that we can sink our teeth into. PLEASE!!!!
Die-hard Conan Fan here by cmsof	Nov 10th, 2008 10:57:16 AM
I won't be watching this if Ratner is directing. Ever. Not in the theater, not on dvd, not on tv. I don't want to watch Conan spray down with Axe Body Spray before going into battle.
Better choices for director. by Royston Lodge	Nov 10th, 2008 11:01:00 AM
If y'all were King of the World, who would you choose to direct Conan? Me, I'd love to see Sergei Bodrov or Timur Bekmambetov given the opportunity to show Conan becoming king as foretold by prophecy.
like lochkray by tempurasan	Nov 10th, 2008 11:06:22 AM
I share a lot of the same sentiments. I like Ratner. I think he's a pretty competent old school director. There was a time when story, pacing, and characters comes before style. Raimi shook up everything and now every director has to inject every trick he learned in film school onto the screen. Ratner is more of an old school 80's director, who's more interested in getting the pacing spot on, getting the right shot coverage and composition, and just deliver the thing on time an on budget. He's the type of director who lets the script and characters speak for themselves, and just does his best not to fuck up everything. Listening to his commentaries, he sounds like the guy who is actually respectful of the colaborative format of film making, letting the screen writers, the DP, the editor etc. do their job, than to just walk on a set and splooge all over the camera. I do think X3 was a good movie though. I felt that X2, while good, was crushed by Singer's unbearable style. He focused way too much on the smaller moments, the character "touches" that he missed the big picture. So pacing was horrible, and the story arch got lost in the characters' moments. X3 just got right down to it and "cut to the chase" so to speak. Sure it's not perfect, but a lot of its flaws comes down to the pre production process, which Ratner had all but a couple weeks. If you know anything about film, is that the pre production process is the most important and longest process in the film making uhh... process. Ratner is the next best thing you can hope for in a Conan flick. You don't need a character study, you need a man who can tell a decent story, who cover shots well and not get up close and shake the fucking camera, and who just gets the pacing right and just leaves the rest to the other talented people that actually work on the film as well. I think that's why I like him, he actually understands the role of the director, and that there are other talented people that work on the film, and he lets them do their job.
re: Royston Lodge - Origin Story "reinventing the wheel" by onusbone	Nov 10th, 2008 11:06:30 AM
hahaha...ahhh Good One.
Playkins.... by ilander66	Nov 10th, 2008 11:07:23 AM
Ratner doesnt need AICN or us talkbackers to sabotage his career, he does that all by himself by making boring, safe, lowest common denominator, studio friendly crap that real film lovers hate and will simply not stand the test of time. most people here love the source material and love Conan the Barbarian why? because they are quality pieces of art that decades later still stand up. 25th anniversary release of Rush Hour on memory bubble or whatever we will have then? who will care!
brodiebruce_405- i wish.... by j2talk	Nov 10th, 2008 11:11:18 AM
I wouldn't mind having Ratners $$ or his career- what have you got??? sorry but Conan isn't exactly a masterpiece the film or novels....now if they were Fucking up ERB John Cater that would be a different story..
Im afraid of Ratner being successful by D.Vader	Nov 10th, 2008 11:11:56 AM
I really dislike the guy and his work, and hearing stories about him potentially ruining more franchises is aboslutely scary. What I fear more is that those movies may be successful. The guy comes across as such an arrogant douchebag in interviews and he really does not deserve it.
Ratner isn't bad by any stretch. by NinjaRap	Nov 10th, 2008 11:13:06 AM
He's mere competent. He doesn't stand out or do anything that jumps in your face as great or terrible in any of his movies. Spielberg once said that you know a director's succeeded if you never think about him, and never notice how he's manipulating things. I guess maybe Ratner succeeds, then. But the fact remains that I understand why people hate Uwe Boll; I can't possibly understand hating Ratner. It's like hating... bread.
I think Ratner... by ledbetter51	Nov 10th, 2008 11:17:31 AM
is a competent director, and yes, that's meant to sound a little backhanded. I enjoyed Rush Hour (I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say I liked it), didn't see the sequels, liked Red Dragon. I hated X3, but as much for what it wasn't as for what it was, which may not be fair to him. That being said, I'm not really dying for a Conan movie as-is, and if it's going to be directed by Ratner I'll take a pass.
Oh, and... by ledbetter51	Nov 10th, 2008 11:20:22 AM
if we're talking cameos by recurring characters, my vote's for the Coked-Up Werewolf.
Talkbackers: Opposite of what you say! by JumpinJehosaphat	Nov 10th, 2008 11:26:45 AM
AICN: Ratner=terrible TBers: WFT?! OMG HE PWNS! AICN: New Star Trek = GREAT TBers: JJ SUX! AICN: Upcoming (whatevermovie) sound great. TBers: FAILBOAT! AICN: White TBERS: GTFO it's Black... and you're all RACISTS!
Contemplate this on the Tree of Woe! by The Reluctant Austinite	Nov 10th, 2008 11:32:23 AM
Oh Lord, there is no justice. I'm an old school fan of Robert E. Howard and I read all the original Conan stories when I was 15 years old. I collected Frazetta artwork, subscribed to the monthly comics and Savage Sword of Conan and watched the original film dozens of times. Yes, "Conan the Destroyer" sucked. Every time I see an interview with Bret Ratner (usually hanging out at the Playboy Mansion) he comes across as a ridiculous Hollywood douchebag who doesn't give a shit about film, but only got into the business to hang out at the Playboy Mansion and hang out with other Hollywood douchebags. Handing him the Conan franchise is just like handing it over to Steven Sommers. His film will end up lookinmg like a huge budget version of "The Scorpion king." It'll be a "Mummy" movie with Conan in it. The fans know this, and have been railing against it for months, but the studio apparently wants a douchebag to hang out with at the after premeire party at the Playboy Mansion.
Mr. Jehosaphat by ledbetter51	Nov 10th, 2008 11:37:13 AM
Isn't what you're describing the opposite (see what I did there?) of what's going on here? The article was fairly anti-Ratner, and the prevailing sentiment in the TB seems to be at least mildly anti-Ratner. I also think that dissenters tend to be more vocal, or at least more impassioned, than... what's the opposite of dissenters? Consenters?
BRETT RATNER? MORE LIKE BRETT HACKNER! by Err	Nov 10th, 2008 11:46:12 AM
Hah!
So this is what Holywood has came to.. by brock landers baby	Nov 10th, 2008 11:47:46 AM
Roll a dice.McG,Ratner,Bay. It's still all shit.
Ratner is Vanilla by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 11:51:17 AM
(I can't believe I am about to rant in defense of Bret Ratner, but here we go...) Ratner is a vanilla director. Chocolate is better, and there are certainly some great creative and exotic flavors out there, but that doesn't make Vanilla bad. You Haters just hate him because he isn't a geek, so he doesn't fully understand you. When the Juggernaut speaks with an Aussie accent, you just can't take it and start wetting yourselves in fury. But 90% of the theater going public just don't give a shit about that kind of nonsense. X3 was a perfectly enjoyable film, unless you just can't get over that Juggernaut has a different accent from Prof X, because you obsess over comics, and can't stand change. So, an enjoyable movie becomes instead a series of sacred "facts" that the director got wrong. You Ratner haters are just like bible thumpers, but instead of bibles you thump on 16 color kiddie books. It's pathetic. Since Ratner cared more about delivering an enjoyable film on time and on budget than paying homage to X-cannon, he is an apostate, and must be punished. So suddenly vanilla turns into dogshit in your mouths, and we get this rampant hating on an otherwise unremarkable director. Get over yourselves. I could probably count the really groundbreaking directors working today who would come within a country mile of Conan-the-fucking-Barbarian on 1 hand, and they are all busy on better and more important projects. So sit back, try to enjoy the vanilla, run of the mill movie that will result for what it's worth, and stop yer bitching. Unless you want to go make the movie yourselves, and prove that you are more talented then Ratner. End Rant.
This is truly cool news in Bizarro World. by JackPumpkinhead	Nov 10th, 2008 12:00:12 PM
I can't wait for him to steal Milius's story, scenography and lighting, copy them badly and randomly as half of his "movie" and then fill the other half with ratt ddroppingss. "Red Dragon", here we go again.
Yomomma by ledbetter51	Nov 10th, 2008 12:01:07 PM
See, that's the problem though: with X3 he didn't deliver an enjoyable film. The problems with that movie went a lot deeper than what character had what accent. It's debatable how much of it was his fault, but it sounds like you're giving him a pass because his intentions were good. As for bible/comic thumping, you do make some valid points, but you also came across as kind of a dick. Or maybe I'm just reading it wrong.
Enjoyable: Able to be enjoyed. by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 12:06:25 PM
I enjoyed X3, and I don't think I'm alone. It got a 56% in rotten tomatoes, so the majority of critics enjoyed it. And since when is being a dick in the Talkbacks wrong or strange? It's the only way to be heard above all you haters jacking each other off over how terrible this unremarkable director is.
Yomomma - PS by ledbetter51	Nov 10th, 2008 12:08:25 PM
Are you saying it's a bad thing that people want the movie based on the thing they love to be better than vanilla? Embrace the mediocrity? Also, the "do it better than he does or STFU" argument is total bullshit. If everyone did that there would be no such thing as literary/music/film criticism, Roger Ebert wouldn't have a career, and you and I wouldn't have this website to rant on.
The Rat's the WRONG GUY by odysseus	Nov 10th, 2008 12:10:35 PM
How the hell did this bullshit happen?! Did the producers not learn ANYTHING from the recent wave of auteur-directed superhero flicks -- that you don't need hacks for these types of movies, anymore?!
56%... by D.Vader	Nov 10th, 2008 12:13:15 PM
Is not good at all.
All my excitement for this project just went out the window. by a goonie	Nov 10th, 2008 12:15:01 PM
I knew it was probably going to happen, but Ratner being confirmed as director sounds a lot like the death knell for this project. At least, as far as fans and movie geeks are concerned. I don't hate Ratner the way some geeks do, but he pisses me off because he's so damn mediocre. His direction is so uninspired and his visual style is, well, non-existent. As movie geeks, we are blessed to get such perfect pairings of director and material with examples like Favreau and Iron Man and Nolan and Batman. But at the same time, we have to deal with McG and Terminator and Ratner and Conan. So it's a toss-up, I guess. I just wish I could get excited about a new Conan movie. Instead, I'm just frustrated and disappointed.
It's CONAN THE BARBARIAN fer chrissakes... by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 12:15:42 PM
I LOVE Conan the Barbarian, and read the comics when I was a kid, and read all the Robert E Howard novels, so I would love to see a good movie made of this as well. It's not wrong to want the best possible movie for a particular story. We got that with the original film. Take a step back and think about this: Conan is a movie about a loin-clothed pre-historic body builder who goes about ravaging wenches and fighting the supernatural. That movie has been done 700 times (all with different names for the oiled-up strongman), and sucked 699 of them.
I didn't say by ledbetter51	Nov 10th, 2008 12:17:20 PM
that being a dick on a TB was unusual, but it's still not cool. And I suppose I should have prefaced my comments on X3 with "in my opinion," but I think that's generally understood on a site like this one. To be clear, like I said above, I don't hate Ratner, I just hate one movie he did. I even admitted that the reasons for my hate are maybe unfair, and that I'm not sure how much of it was really his fault. I don't really care whether he makes this movie, I'm just not really interested in seeing it if he does.
What? Origin story? by hallmitchell	Nov 10th, 2008 12:20:52 PM
We've had a Great Conan Origin story. You know the one with some guy called Schwarzenegger. Brett Ratner doesn't kill movies. The action in X men 3 is fantastic. He can direct a film.
Yomomma IS right by tempurasan	Nov 10th, 2008 12:23:38 PM
And X3 was a perfectly enjoyable film. It was the Xmen film that was truest in spirit to the Xmen comics, and has way more of the comic book storyline than the previous Xmen films. It has better pacing, better action scenes, and the scene in the house with Jean IS the best scene in the entire trilogy. No other scenes in the trilogy is as emotional and thrilling. And Ratner is a director more interested in the story than style. He's a director's director, and he doesn't believe in the "arteur" theory, which I also don't subscribe to. And you know what, go watch Milius's "Conan" again. It doesn't stand up to the test of time. And while I'm sure a lot of you care about Conan, you gotta step out of your little world and see that the rest of us doesn't give a flying fuck. Sure it's a great character, but as great as a huge barbarian hacking everything in sight. As for Rush Hour not being remembered. You gotta remember that it was as much a Jackie Chan film as it was Ratner, and while people won't remember Ratner, they'll remember Jackie Chan. It WAS the film that broke him into the American market. He tried for years without success, but I guess it took a "hack" to get him in. Guess what, there are more people out there that knows about Rush Hour than Conan... all over the world I mean. Get a little perspective why don't you.
Ratner by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 12:29:21 PM
X3 was not Batman Begins, but it wasn't Batman Forever either. Go to IMDB and look at Ratner's list as a director. Almost all of his movies are ok - good (the original Rush Hour). There are no utter abominations on his list. He is not Uwe Boll. Hell, I like X3 better than Spiderman 3, does the fact that the studio forced Sam Raimi to make a clunker make Raimi a bad director? And Spiderman 3 was still much more fun and enjoyable to watch than 75% of the movies made in the 90's. Not every movie is a classic. Now, if Joel Shumacher was making the new Conan movie...
This is kind of weird by ledbetter51	Nov 10th, 2008 12:30:14 PM
I've never done the almost real time TB discussion before. It's a little disorienting to post something then respond to someone else's post, then realize they've already responded to another post you made, then respond to that one knowing that they may post while you're still typing. Anyway, Yomomma, I feel like maybe we got off on the wrong foot. Something about your first post kind of irked me, but you seem like an okay guy. Want to get some coffee some time? Maybe make out a little? If not, that's cool. Text me. I guess I should go try to actually do some work now.
Milius' Conan doesn't stand the test of time?! by Royston Lodge	Nov 10th, 2008 12:33:09 PM
Horsefeathers. By an amazing coincidence, I just watched Conan the Barbarian this weekend FOR THE FIRST TIME. I'd never seen it before and it was in the discount bin at the local drugstore so I picked it up. I thoroughly enjoyed it! You gotta love the utter lack of dialogue. "He's Conan. He doesn't cry. So I cry for him." Brilliant!
No kissing by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 12:35:20 PM
But I'm working the Glory hole at an I-5 rest stop, if you want to stop by. I tend to the hyperbolic, sorry.
I don't get the contradiction of AICN by tempurasan	Nov 10th, 2008 12:36:58 PM
Joe Johnston is heralded but Ratner is hated. Joe Johnston made one memorable flick, the Rocketeer, and even that was pretty vanilla. He has no distinctive style as a director, but because he has worked on some geek films he's immediately okay? Every film he has made has been forgettable. But AICN loves him for the same reasons they hate Ratner? Face the facts, all this hate for Ratner started when Ratner refused to fly Harry onto the set and shower him with gifts and food. Ever since then Harry has hold a personal vandetta against Ratner, and has rallied the entire website against him. All because of one fat man's (soon to be skinnier) vandetta. Never underestimate the power of the written word, even one as biased and hypocritical as AICN's.
Conan the Destroyer by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 12:36:59 PM
Now THAT is a movie that doesn't stand up to the test of time...
Robert E. Howard by landocolt45	Nov 10th, 2008 12:43:50 PM
Howard AND Robert Jordan are both rolling in their graves right now.....Fucking Ratner, the USA's Uwe Boll.
Joe Johnston by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 12:52:01 PM
Rocketeer was the most vanilla super hero movie ever made, yet he is hailed as a conquering hero when he is named to direct Captain America (the most vanilla of super heroes). Yet Ratner, who delivers some very decent action scenes is condemned for getting the job of directing a movie that will have to be almost entirely action scenes. Though Johnston will have a lot more to work with, material wise.
landocolt by ledbetter51	Nov 10th, 2008 12:52:26 PM
WOAH, WOAH, WOAH! I'm no big Ratner fan, but he is in no way even close to the great Uwe. Have you seen BloodRayne? How 'bout BloodRayne 2? Uwe makes Ratner look like fucking Kubrick/Hitchcock/[insert great director]. If Rat is the closest thing the USA has to Boll, we're really in pretty good shape.
Ratner is not Uwe Boll by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 01:00:52 PM
Again, you're falsely conflating mediocrity with true Hackdom. Boll's best reviewed movie (at Rotten Tomatoes) is Backwoods (11%). Ratner's worst is money talks(18%). Honestly, if you were kidnapped and given the Clockwork Orange treatment, would you rather be forced to watch Rush Hour or In the Name of the King?
tempurasan by DocPazuzu	Nov 10th, 2008 01:01:48 PM
You are either the worst plant ever to trundle out of Hollywood on your little rootlets or simply a hack yourself, trying to justify your own lack of vision and talent by bringing up a talentless moneymaking machine like Ratner. Pathetic posts, tempurasan, just pathetic.
X3 enjoyable? by D.Vader	Nov 10th, 2008 01:09:24 PM
Yeeaah, that Iceman/Pyro fight was real exciting.
I don't hate Ratner, it's like hating ...bread by skimn	Nov 10th, 2008 01:13:27 PM
Ninja Rap, you've possibly come up with the most succinct definition. Yes, bread. Big soft fluffy white Wonder bread. Slathered with I Can't Believe It's Not Butter. I prefer a little more fiber in my cinematic diet.
Attacking the average by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 01:16:52 PM
That's my point. Ratner is just an average studio director. It's kind of childish to hate on anyone who doesn't happen to be a first order genius. Sure, I'd love to see Del Toro make a Conan movie, but apparently, he wasn't interested. Allow me to list the directors who would make a Conan inferior to Brett Ratner: Uwe Boll, Joel Schumacher, Michael Bay (though, he too is underrated at this site), George Lucas, Paul Verhoeven (though I'd love to see that movie), McG, Steve Sommers, Paul WS Anderson, and so on and on. Get a little perspective here, folks.
DocPazuzu by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 01:21:28 PM
Maybe you're a plant for Joe Johnston?
yomomma by DocPazuzu	Nov 10th, 2008 01:22:39 PM
You know who you sound like? Those Fox tools who came in here during the AvP:Rectum snafu (and were never seen again), saying things like "Hey, just be glad they're even MAKING a sci-fi horror action movie" and "C'mon guys, just give it a chance -- it's a great little sci-fi-action romp." Fuck settling for a cinematic cipher like Ratner just because there happen to be directors who are worse out there. What the hell kind of reasoning is that? People with opinions like yours are the reason so many studio flicks suck gibbon balls these days.
Does the studio hate us THIS much? by Kirbymanly	Nov 10th, 2008 01:22:58 PM
Seriously.
Dammit Skimn, I like bread by MattmanReturns	Nov 10th, 2008 01:23:18 PM
Especally sourdough. Ratner's more like a water cracker without salt. No taste.
tempurasan by skimn	Nov 10th, 2008 01:23:42 PM
Since you brought up Joe Johnston, I'll put up Honey, I Shrunk The Kids as an enjoyable kids fantasy/adventure that adults can enjoy, without insulting their intelligence. October Sky and Hidalgo are both well made films. Yea, neither are Speilberg, but look at his resume of films, and look at Ratners.
yomomma by DocPazuzu	Nov 10th, 2008 01:23:52 PM
I'd hate the idea of a Joe Johnston Conan movie too. What's your point?
Its CROM, not THROM...jeez by Mr. Wayne	Nov 10th, 2008 01:24:31 PM
The second poster has THROMMMM! in the subject title. Apparently he mis-understood Arnold the Cimmerian's unique vocal stylings and/or doesn't read anything by Robert E. Howard because its not Throm, its Crom. Crom is the diety worshipped by Cimmerian's dating back to ancient Hyboria. Thought I would set the record straight before Bret Ratner reads these talk backs and decides to use the name Throm instead of Crom as some sort of fanboy shout out, just like he did with Juggernaut in X3.
DocPazuzu by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 01:30:01 PM
You sound like a retarded twelve year old girl who has to resort to ad moniem attacks because logical argument is beyond your abilities. Tempurasan makes a perfectly valid point, and you respond with the most tiresome of "arguments" on this site, PLANT! I know you think you shit ice cream, and your opinion is God's blessing showering down upon us poor muddy mortals. Go huff your own farts, I don't care for the stink, myself.
Yeah, origin stories are lame. by DarthCorleone	Nov 10th, 2008 01:34:35 PM
Just throw us in the story. If you have to tell the background, at least do it in media res so that the story has a little life to it. You don't need an origin story to serialize it. Everyone "gets" Conan. The primary reason I didn't enjoy Iron Man is that it had the same old origin story beats that we've seen time and time again.
My Point by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 01:35:42 PM
My point is that an average director making an action movie from, let's face it, some seriously average material shouldn't be cause for such heated hating. If Ratner was making a movie that deserves better handling, like The Hobbit, I could see the outrage. But gnashing your teeth and rending your clothes every time Ratner's name comes up just shows that you put entirely too much value on comic book cannon for your own good. Such geek rage is not the product of Rush Hour 2.
yomomma by DocPazuzu	Nov 10th, 2008 01:38:27 PM
Tempurasan's "point" is predicated on the notion that a Conan film doesn't need any style and can and should be made by a studio committee. He posted similar shit the last time there was a Ratner Conan talkback. Tempurasan is either a hack director too afraid to take chances, a lesser talent on set wanting to be an equal part of said committee, or simply a plant of feeble skills. Furthermore, I stand by every word of my "ad moniem" attacks. Your elevating of Ratner by simply pointing out directors who are worse is part of a larger problem afflicting studio genre films today.
DocPazulu and Zeddemore by tempurasan	Nov 10th, 2008 01:45:26 PM
I respect your difference of opinion but I stand by mine. But I appreciate the efforts in flaming me. I like that people are passionate enough about film to go out of their ways to insult others. I know perfectly well that my opinion isn't a popular one, but it's one that I've thought about a lot and not just word vomit of the moment. I do understand that I'm at AICN, the most wretched hive of scum and villainy, so a little insult here and there comes with the territory. But I gotta stand by what I believe in, and that is Brett Ratner will make a perfectly fine Conan film. If anything, Conan needs a director like Ratner, who understands his role and doesn't overplay it. Just as Milius did in the original Conan. TO "Shnazz" it up with slow motion/quick motion ala 300, or to focus on sensitive moments like Singer, or to use a lot of crazy editing and shaky camera is wrong for this type of film. Shoot and cover matter of factly, light it well, and let the composer and editor do their job is the way to go here. Let the script and the actors do their work, and let the story tell itself. The most important job a director can do on a Conan film, or a Beverly Hills Cop film for that matter, is make sure the pacing is good, and the action is shot well. To try to inject "style" like geeks define it, is simply wrong. Ratner is good at what I just described, and he's very good at getting the most out of the talented people he works with. And No, I'm not a PLANT. Though in this economy, I'd take a PLANT job anyday. one needs to feed himself, and if I'm trolling, I have to get paid for it.
A shirtless barbarian movie... by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 01:45:32 PM
...based on 70's comics, is cause for a studio to pay for the most stylistic and talented of directors? Get serious. They're making a popcorn movie, well within Ratner's range. Again, calling someone a plant for daring to express an opinion different from yours just makes you look like an asshole. And what's wrong with studio fare nowadays? 300, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Wall-E, LOTR, Hellboy 2, the relaunched Bond - all the product of money-grubbing studios. Honestly, I don't want every movie to look like 300 or Speed Racer, I don't want every movie to have a brooding hero like the Dark Knight. Style is only recognizeable when contrasted against the normal.
DocPazulu by tempurasan	Nov 10th, 2008 01:49:27 PM
I never said that the film should be made in a committee. I said I don't subscribe to the "arteur" theory, and believe film is very much a colaborative format. And this "Style" you speak off is often nothing more than cinematic "gimmicks". It all comes down to rhythm, shot coverage, and pacing. It also comes down to understanding the story, and knowing what is the best way to approach that story. You don't have to be a fan of the materials to do it justice. Everything else is just icing and an idiot who watches enough genre films can imitate. Get a little perspective and step outside your own little world for once.
"comic book cannon " by DocPazuzu	Nov 10th, 2008 01:50:47 PM
Would that be the Conan "comic book cannon" you think I'm concerned about? It couldn't possibly be the truly great short stories by Robert E. Howard, could it? You know, the stories that almost single-handedly invented modern sword & sorcery?
Zeddmore, re: Magneto and Mystique by D.Vader	Nov 10th, 2008 01:50:52 PM
Im glad you brought that up bc it's an example I was going to mention for why X3 stunk. It was a completely contradictory moment for the characters based on how they'd been set up and was done only for the sake of plot and to make Magneto, who might be seen as a sympathetic villain with shares of gray, a truly evil bastard. It was effin' ridiculous, not to mention stupid. Glad we can agree on this if we disagree on Heroes :).
Now Singer is overrated. by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 01:53:03 PM
X-Men 1 was boring, and so was Superman returns. He would make one SHITTY Conan movie. It would also be hard to inject the whole "it sucks to be the gay outsider" theme into a barbarian movie. I keep bringin up bad directors, because I think discussing who would do a worse job would be a more fun topic than just rehashing the Ratner-Hate-circle-jerk we get everytime his name comes up on this site.
Why dont they just... by BigCZee	Nov 10th, 2008 01:54:03 PM
Go and dig up Robert E Howards reamins and let Brett Ratner piss all over it. I mean thats what they are going to do in a way anyhow. Why be subtle about it?
Tempurasan by DocPazuzu	Nov 10th, 2008 01:58:32 PM
So you're a hack then. Seriously, is that all you can think of when someone uses the word "style"? Your shallow understanding of the medium is evident in every sentence you write. The probable reason you don't believe in AUTEUR theory is that you simply are incapable of leaving any sort of imprint on the films you work on. Not everyone can be an auteur, obviously, but to say they don't exist because you can't be one is pretty damn sad.
Yomomma: Yo Momma's so fat-- by The Reluctant Austinite	Nov 10th, 2008 02:01:45 PM
Just kidding. I'm sure yo momma is a wonderful lady. I don't want to get in a spitting contest. I hear everyone's opinion, and the general consensus is that, yes, Bret Ratner is a vanilla, run of the mill director. He's not inept; he just has no soul. Well, there's nothing wrong with Howard fans not wanting a vanilla Conan movie. I want a Conan movie with blood & thunder and passion, or I'd rather not even get a Conan movie at all. You're right, the mainstream doesn't give a shit. If it promises action and a bunch of CGI monsters, they'll see it either at the theater or through Netflix. They'll watch it and forget it by the time the credits roll. "That was coo, man. I like 'at." BUT WE'RE NOT THOSE PEOPLE, DAMN IT! We're AICN people! I'm not here to try and get more vanilla films made for my fucking ipod! BTW, I do like Joe Johnston better than Bret Ratner (Joe's not in it to hang out at the Playboy Mansion), but he isn't a "stylish" director either. Having said that, he's perfect for Captain America; our most vanilla superhero.
Mr. Zeddemore by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 02:02:58 PM
Look, it's a fucking barbarian movie. There have been dozens of barbarian movies, and quite a few TV series as well. Maybe you read a different set of Robert E. Howard stories than I did, but as I recall, they all boil down to killing, fucking, more killing. It was a set of short stories from the 30's published in the pulp magazines of the day, that has been aped and copied over and over until it was cliche. There was no great story arc, no subtle themes. The 70's comics took the character a lot further, so because you were so concerned about the material, I figured it was the comics you were talking about.
A point on directors by D.Vader	Nov 10th, 2008 02:03:54 PM
In many eyes, PW Anderson, McG, and Sommers are all on the same level as Ratner-they all stink. Don't you dare think for a moment that Ratner would make a better movie than those 3 bc so far he hasn't. And though Verhoeven and Schumacher have had bad missteps, they are much better than the Rat. They can and actually have made better films than Ratner has attempted.
No Soul by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 02:08:35 PM
Point there. But if you're making a based on a character who has become a cliche, with no difficult themes or complex plots to untangle, based on stories that were just a bunch of action, that sounds like a description of Ratner to me...
Whats funny is that Ratner by skimn	Nov 10th, 2008 02:10:46 PM
explained his view on "style" and possibly the auteur theory on an episode of AMC's Shootout last year, just before Rush Hour 3 came out. I'm at work, so I can't find the clip. But, maybe someone else can search it out, and get the answer straight from the horses mouth.
X3 was a huge piece of shit. by xsi kal	Nov 10th, 2008 02:11:11 PM
That is all.
All this anger by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 02:20:47 PM
towards Ratner is because of X3, which the majority of critics enjoyed. This is geek rage for the clumsy handling of beloved characters. There were some kick-ass scenes in X3, and I enjoyed it more than X2 (let the hate flow) simply because there was more action on a grander scale. We got Jean dissassembling Dr. X, we got the Golden Gate torn from it's mooring, cars as projectiles, a chase scene through the walls of a government installation, and Wolvie going berserk on government troops in X3. X3 was more on the huge scale of the powers in the comics. In X2, we had far less action, and a whole lot more of characters feeling sorry for themselves for having super powers, we even had the whole team nearly killed by a conventional air-air missile. I'm tired of that mopey bullshit, actually. So if ratner is going to make a big, flashy and fun conan movie without pulling punches (again, let the hatred flow), I'll watch it. He probably will make amediocre movie, but he is not deserving of your hate.
If you don't care, why post? by The Reluctant Austinite	Nov 10th, 2008 02:24:21 PM
If you're fine with an average film, and you think Howard's Conan stories are just killin' and fuckin' and the the same old shit, why bother even post in Talkbacks. You'll be well served by every run of the mill film that comes out. You have no stake in anything better than average coming out of the Hollywood mill. Great. Aren't there websites for that?
Yomomma No No No... by TroutMaskReplicant	Nov 10th, 2008 02:25:11 PM
How sad that you'd feel the need to stand up for Ratner. As I've said in the past, Ratner may be just a mediocre director and it's the guys that hire him that are the real monsters. But no need to stand up for the guy. If he wanted to get blown off I'm sure he could pay for it.
Uhhhh, yomomma? by D.Vader	Nov 10th, 2008 02:27:06 PM
Where does Logan go bugnuts crazy on government soldiers in X3? That happened on X2, the superior film. You're a tad confused. It was mutants in X3.
Xmen 3 was flashy by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 02:27:12 PM
Lots of action, cool effects. He's done it before. Conan is NOT about characters, he's a pulp hero that is about action. So in this, Ratner's a better choice than say, Singer. Look, I don't think Ratner was the best choice, but I just find all this geek bellyaching and comic-thumping sad, and so I decided to rant for a while.
do re mi fa so... by BuckminsterOhare	Nov 10th, 2008 02:28:44 PM
"And if you can't be with the cheese you love, honey, love the cheese you're with."
Tempura by LordVoldemoo	Nov 10th, 2008 02:28:44 PM
I could care less about Conan, honestly, but X3 sucked balls. Now I don't know if Ratner is 100% to blame for that, the interference from the studio, as I understand it, was constant. Also...they took two movies and tried to shoehorn them into one film, which never works well. The Cure, or Dark Phoenix. Pick one. Anyway, that's neither here nor there, but X3 is not perfectly enjoyable. It's shit. Also, i'd argue that Chan was reasonably well-established in the US prior to Rush Hour, thanks to Rumble in the Bronx and other films...though I'll admit I don't really get your point there at all...
ALSO by LordVoldemoo	Nov 10th, 2008 02:29:29 PM
I really enjoy gouda.
Zeddmore, re: Sommers by D.Vader	Nov 10th, 2008 02:30:24 PM
Ill give you The Mummy, though I remember being disappointed the first time I saw it. All those epic looking shots from the trailer seemed to lose all grandeur when I saw it in the theater. Still, he's got a style, which is more than I can say about Ratner.
I never said story over style by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 02:33:00 PM
I think that was Tempura. I just want solid action in my barbarian movies. Based on X3, I think Ratner can deliver a fun Barbarian movie. We're talking the simplest form of genre fare, after all. If this movie sucks balls, consider me chastised and converted.
I blame the studio for Red Dragon by skimn	Nov 10th, 2008 02:34:36 PM
They were remaking it with the original title because of the common knowledge of the Hannibal Lector character. I seem to recall Manhunter was named that, because the studio (again in their infinite wisdom) thought audiences would think Red Dragon would be a sword & sorcery movie. So they gather an excellent cast, a screenplay by Ted Tally, excellent production value and hand it to Ratner, who they know would bring it in on budget and have no arguments in regards to artistic interpretation. It was the Classics Illustrated version of the novel, and it served the intended audience well. The producers were looking for a good looking moneymaker, and thats what they got. Nothing more, nothing less.
Just admit it by D.Vader	Nov 10th, 2008 02:35:26 PM
Ratner is not the best choice, and he's not even a good choice, therefore our irritation is justified. We want someone that fucking cares and isn't in it only for the paycheck. How you can defend someone like that is beyond me.
Mr. Zedd by skimn	Nov 10th, 2008 02:35:38 PM
Sommers is CGI over substance. Don't confuse that with style.
What is Ratner? by BuckminsterOhare	Nov 10th, 2008 02:36:42 PM
A music video director who gets to bang chicks that are way to hot for him.
Maybe I just don't fully understand this site. by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 02:37:19 PM
I normally agree with all of you, but between the insitence that Ratner can't make a simple barbarian movie, and that relaunhing conquest of the planet of the apes is in anyway a good idea, makes me think I should get my geek credentials checked. Maybe I've developed a life or something.
Youre still talking in circles Yomamma by D.Vader	Nov 10th, 2008 02:46:44 PM
We don't want a "simple barbarian movie", and that is all Ratner will deliver. We want more, we deserve better.
Want all you want by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 02:53:08 PM
It's still a barbarian movie made in PC times. It's not going to be a masterpiece no matter what. I think Ratner can deliver a popcorn barbarian movie. "We" may want more, but we deserve nothing. Did you stop the genocide in Rawanda, and only ask for a good Conan movie or something?
LordVoldemoo by tempurasan	Nov 10th, 2008 03:01:16 PM
Jackie Chan was known only to most Asians with Rumble in the Bronx, and there were still a lot of skepticism of Jackie Chan. He was well known to those who actually enjoy his type of films, but it was Rush Hour that broke him to the American at large. Ratner understood what it took to get Jackie Chan in, and he went out and did it. To DocPazulu, I just want to be clear that I don't champion Ratner as the be all and end all of Hollywood, but I do think he's a very competent director. I like genre styles as much as you do, and I do think the last few years we've been spoiled in terms of comic book movies. But I think he is a good choice for a Conan flick simply of the way he makes movies. Also let me be clear, I don't think he's Absent of style. Read my other posts again. I think he's not "stylish" in the way it is "stylish" to shoot a genre pic. I think he has very good comic timing, and he understands rhythm and pacing very well. To say he has "no style" is an ignorant statement. I just think he has a very no nonsense approach to film, and that his rhythm and sensibilities for action will serve Conan very well. Also, I'm not a huge Conan fan. I've read a few books, and understand the draw of the lore, but it isn't for me, so maybe I don't have a huge emotional investment in the property. I know that I don't want to see slow mo, or quick editing, or exotic vocals, or shakey cam. I want to see good choreography, well lit scenes, and someone who will cover the shots well enough and let the editor do his/her job. That's not to say I want this approach for every film, I just think it's right for Conan. I don't consider myself a geek as most of you would describe it, as my knowledge of American comic books are pretty piss poor. But I did grow up with Mangas, and I understand the nature of pulp fiction. I just don't think because you have such an emotional investment, that a "vanilla" approach simply isn't good enough. I rather have that than a director who's style for style sake (see Max Payne). I want it hard hitting, not beautiful. I want it raw, not comtemplated, and most importantly of all, I want a Conan film with a lot of humor and action. P.S. Sorry for fucking up "aUteur". I might as well flush my film degree down the toilet, I mean, it's already a floating turd that's just stinking up the place. I've gotten a few good jobs in this town, and not one person has asked me for my film degree.
Tempura by skimn	Nov 10th, 2008 03:03:58 PM
I'm assuming you meant Americans not Asians right?
Sylvester Stallone by tempurasan	Nov 10th, 2008 03:04:26 PM
Perhaps he's the only man that can satisfy everyone. He's got good relations with Millenium Films, directing one of their more successful releases. He can do hardcore balls to the walls action really well. He understands characters, and humor, and he certainly can direct the fuck out of an action scene. He seems pretty chummy with Avi when I worked at Millenium Films, and he's a very nice guy (for those that don't like Ratner because he's "arrogant").
Zeddemore by DocPazuzu	Nov 10th, 2008 03:05:28 PM
My pleasure.
Yomomma by D.Vader	Nov 10th, 2008 03:06:21 PM
I did. Can I have my good Conan flick now?
skimn by tempurasan	Nov 10th, 2008 03:07:35 PM
I meant Asian Americans. I remember Rumble in the Bronx came out, and I was so excited that maybe finally Americans can understand my love for Jackie Chan. But when I started to blabber about Jackie Chan to my peers and teachers, they just give me a blank look, or say "it's just special effects". They just didn't care. Then when Rush Hour came out, I couldn't get my friends, who previously didn't give a fuck about Chan, suddenly claimed they were his biggest fan and couldn't stop saying "wat sup my nig gah!!" SO yes, it was Rush Hour that did it finally for Chan, after trying for so many years.
tempurasan by DocPazuzu	Nov 10th, 2008 03:14:22 PM
Feel free to show me where I said style equates slo mo, quick editing or "exotic vocals" (whatever the hell that is). And yes, if you think that Ratner's sense of "rhythm" and "comic timing" and his "no nonsense" approach to filmmaking is high enough a bar to set in terms of making a film which does Howard's visceral work justice, then feel free to flush that degree down a toilet. Preferably after ingesting it first. I must say that I'm not surprised about you, seeing as Millennium Films isn't exactly a stamp of quality.
Comic thumping by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 03:14:58 PM
Why does every movie have to be a stylistic masterpiece? Everyone says "we deserve" a good Conan movie, or a good Planet of the Apes movie. Not every subject is deserving of a quality film. Conan was a series of pulp short stories about a barbarian, then a cult comic book, then a marvel comic. Is it merely because it was a comic, therefore any movie made from it has to be made by a genius director? YOU'RE ALL SPOILED. Conan is a shitty, pulpy subject (I happen to love), that if it deserves a good movie, would only do so because the original was AWESOME. So go watch the original, if the idea of an action-packed popcorn movie offends your spoiled, comic-thumping sensibilities. If they remade Krull, or The Beastmaster, would they only be worthy of a Del Toro or a Jackson as well? Again, how many directos would even want to make a Conan movie? Maybe Ratner isn't the best, but maybe he's the best the studio could get to make a barbarian movie (espescially since the last one, 10,000 BC, bombed).
Hopefully they'll find someone like that kid by johnnyangel	Nov 10th, 2008 03:15:50 PM
from Star Wars I to play the young Conan.
Tempura, and yes you are right by skimn	Nov 10th, 2008 03:22:02 PM
prior to Rush Hour, Jackie's biggest role in a US film was Cannonball 2. So credit to Ratner for that. But any director could have seen the artistry in Jackie's dubbed Asian films, that were widely available on video, and brought him to "our shores". And you'd have to be a real ackjass to misdirect Jackie Chan, who did a lot of direction and second unit work himself.
DocPazulu by tempurasan	Nov 10th, 2008 03:25:30 PM
Come on, I knew that Millenium crack was coming from a mile away. I just thought you had more originality not to resort to it. If you're gonna insult someone, do it well. Don't go for the obvious cracks. And I mean that sincerely. But yes, I did work at Millenium for a stint, but I got out of there. It was a good place to work, but it was hardly a place that put out quality flicks. They try though, I just think they need to diversify a bit more. I'm not talking about their NU Image brand either, Nu Image only put out crappy direct to DVD movies. You should have seen our catalog of Lungren and Van Damm movies. I have a lot of good stories about the place, ones that could get me sued. Avi is quite a character.
And tempura, you earlier by skimn	Nov 10th, 2008 03:28:54 PM
equated Ratner and John Milius? Pistol packin' sumbitch Milius and Ratner? Yes, Milius was a standard filmmaker, but he did bring a lot of machismo to Conan, especially in the casting.
yomomma by TheHumanBeingAndFish	Nov 10th, 2008 03:29:17 PM
Wow, you think Verhoeven would make a bad Conan movie? have you seen his "Flesh + Blood"? Verhoeven would me one of my first picks for a Conan movie. Anyway, I'm really into the X-men movies, but I thought the finale of X3 was quite exciting.
So basically by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 03:29:56 PM
Ratner is "Bad" because you say so? You didn't like a couple of his movies, so he's terrible, and our opinions are outright incorrect? Rush Hour was good (but not because of Ratner, only because of Jackie Chan), X3 was terrible (but not only because of Ratner, but also the studio, per your own posts) in spite of featuring some cool action and effects? Any movie he makes will automatically be terrible because he has no talent, in spite of the fact he has directed some movies that were very successfull, enjoyable, and that the majority of critics gave favorable reviews? Did I get that correct? Because if so, you should start trying to suck your own dick, because obviously, no one else will be able to do it right.
yomamma by DocPazuzu	Nov 10th, 2008 03:30:00 PM
You're basically telling us we're morons for wanting a good Conan movie. If you think the original Howard stories are "shitty" then discussing this with you truly is like punching sand as Zeddemore pointed out. Keep on championing the mediocre, slick.
tempurasan by DocPazuzu	Nov 10th, 2008 03:32:56 PM
What you call an insult, I merely call an observation in that case. Your association with Millennium goes a long way in explaining your pedestrian view of movies.
Boy I would prefer Stallone by D.Vader	Nov 10th, 2008 03:33:05 PM
Please give it to Stallone over Ratner.
As for Jackie Chan by tempurasan	Nov 10th, 2008 03:33:11 PM
In terms of action, I thought Rush Hour stifled Jackie Chan. But ironically enough, it was precisely that needed to be done to break Jackie Chan into the American market. You have to understand that most Americans at the time view Chan's style as too "chop socky" and it didn't have quite the impact. Most of us has the advantage of knowing Jackie Chan since his early hey days of Young Master and Drunken Master, so we understand that he has to continually top himself. But his style has gotten too wild for most Americans to accept, who likes their fight scenes with a lot of realism. It took Ratner too ground Jackie, to give American a taste of Jackie. If Rush Hour was about Jackie Chan running around and doing crazy stunts, it wouldn't nearly have the same impact it did. Most Americans would have overlooked it, saying it was just another HK action flick. It needed realism to get people to pay attention. Ratner provided just that. He is as much responsible for Jackie Chan's American career as Jackie is, and deserves as much credit. Granted, Rush Hour 3 wasn't needed, and even Jackie was phoning it in by then, but can't fault a guy for trying to go for the magic number 3.
Verhoeven by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 03:33:12 PM
I LOVE Verhoeven. He would probably be my first choice too. But I'll bet it would be a box office and critical catastrophe (like Flesh + Blood). His movie would be awesome, yet terrible. It would be true Conan, and 3/4 of the people here would hate it.
DocPazulu by tempurasan	Nov 10th, 2008 03:37:56 PM
It's hard to get work in Hollywood, and one takes work where he can. One thing you have to understand is that the company does not dictate your ability, but it's your ability that makes a great company. Most of the time... There are a lot of talented people working at Millenium, and I will forever respect the people I worked with. But we just weren't in the same league as most studios in terms of budget and diversity. That I stuck around long enough to see Rambo. You should see the cut of Rambo before the MPAA got through with it. I wanted to tell people about it for months, but couldn't because the film hasn't come out yet.
DocPazuzu by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 03:38:24 PM
I'm saying it's sad to continue to insist that every movie made has to be a masterpiece. Conan is pulp. The Howard stories were not shitty, but they were pulp. Conan is not LOTR, or some other mosterwork of literature. Jeez, you'd think with the masturbation fests that Tarantino inspires around here, there'd be more appreciation for pulp, "b" movies. I think Conan, in this day and age, would be adequately, and perhaps best served with a huge, popcorn summer movie, which Ratner is qualified to direct.
Hard R yes, Ratner no by Chuck_Chuckwalla	Nov 10th, 2008 03:38:51 PM
But whoever said Stallone should direct it, I agree. The carnage in Rambo 4 was proof enough. And I've said this before here, Javier Bardem would make an awesome Conan.
And you still haven't told us... by D.Vader	Nov 10th, 2008 03:39:31 PM
Why you're defending a filmmaker without any passion for any material , one who is only in it for the paycheck.
Yommama, turn in your geek badge and love gun. by The Reluctant Austinite	Nov 10th, 2008 03:44:53 PM
How can you say we don't "deserve" a good movie? Come on! I don't download free movies, I pay to see them and I buy dvds. I deserve someone who gives a shit about the film they're making. WE ARE THE BOSS. WE ARE RATNER'S BOSS. He gets to play film director if we, the audience, continue to support him financially. Ask Gene Simmons who his boss is; he'll tell you that the fans are. Of course we deserve to expect films based on subjects we care about are as good as they have a chance to be. What if someone said, "They're just Star Wars movies. They're just for kids." (oh wait---)
I say 'I' to Verhoeven too! by FILMFUNK	Nov 10th, 2008 03:46:47 PM
That guy would knock it out the park! Although I watched Ratnests Hannibal Lecter effort on TV shortly after I heard the news last time and although it's obviousl nowt like a Conan movie he did OK with it I think! I've seen him spouting shite and hanging off big titted wenches pretending they would touch him with a barge pole and it is frustrating as hell when you hear he's up for directing anything that sounds remotely half decent but im of the opinion again that even if he's a total fame hungry TOOL of the highest order his actual body of work aint all that bad!? until that is I see another bit of footage of him making a tool of himself then i'll go back to wishing for Verhoeven! lol!
I'm not trying to defend Ratner, so much... by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 03:50:12 PM
...As to point out the tiresome hating his name inspires for no good reason, and to point out that Conan isn't some masterpiece of literature. Conan is a just a barbarian movie. There's no deeper storyline to enrichen the character, he's just the most famous barbarian. He isn't even the first, since he was based on Kull. He's a copy of a character made by the same artist, published in pulp mags, and in comics. Ratner is a cheesy, flashy director whose films lack substance or deeper meaning. Conan is a cheesy, flashy subject with no deeper meaning or story. So saying it deserves more, or that Ratner couldn't make a good barbarian movie, after having watched and enjoyed several of his movied personally, I just wanted to point out how spoiled and shallow you were all being, and to point out that this is all the result of your feeling betrayed by X3, which many non-comic thumping geeks enjoyed for what it was, a stupid, shallow but fun and action packed summer movie. Also, because I'm sick of the mutal masterbation fests you haters always get rolling so predictably on certain subjects, so I wanted to speak up for once.
D.Vader by tempurasan	Nov 10th, 2008 03:52:32 PM
Allow me. Working in Hollywood taught me one thing, and that any director working here never does it for the paycheck. Most of the time, it's too much work for the money you mostly likely get, and the amount of hours you put in requires more than the incentives of getting paid. I've been on sets where people are trudging around in cold mud at 3 o'clock in the morning, working straight for 12 hours, with still more hours to come, and no one complains. That is more than just good work ethics, that's passion. So saying that Ratner has no passion is the one insult that Ratner will take offense to. It's just that the way he approaches a subject may not agree with your take on it. It doesn't mean he has no passion. I'll tell you why I like his work. He doesn't use shaky camera, he always covers an action scene well, and he never use slow motion in an action scene. His films don't have characters standing around staring (it's lazy writing). His films don't have emo brooding characters, which I hate. His fight scenes are hard hitting and packs a punch. I like his sense of humor (which is arbitrary, since everyone is different). To cover his inexperience (since he's a relatively new director), he surrounds himself with a lot of talented people, and actually utilize their talents. And he uses Lalo Schifin better than any one.
by TheHumanBeingAndFish	Nov 10th, 2008 03:52:50 PM
yomomma, I see your point about Verhoeven. My own top pick for a Conan movie would be Mel Gibson (just look at Braveheart and Apocalypto), though I doubt he'll do it, plus the audience might shun it altogether. Anyway, back to Ratner; I agree that he's an average director, not a hack and not a genius. But I think we can't really judge how good or bad Ratner will be here because we haven't really seen how Ratner would work with hard-R fantasy stuff. He's done lots of self-aware, tongue-in-cheek stuff (which we most definitely do NOT want to see in a Conan movie). The closest thing we've seen him do is the comic book PG fantasy of X3 (which also had a fair amount of the self-aware tongue-in-cheek stuff), but we don't know that that's the route Ratner will take. Assuming he'll want to play it straight, I'd say the closest thing we've seen him do is the X3 finale, which was pretty great IMO, so I think his attachment could be promising. Then again, I don't know shit about filmmaking.
The Reluctant Austinite by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 03:56:48 PM
Do you personally pay the budget to make this movie? We buy tickets, the studios get returns. Maybe THEY deserve a good movie, because they paid for it and are taking the risk, but then they hired Ratner, which means they either want a Ratner Conan, or he was the best they could get to cash in on the franchise. Either way, you have yet to pay ANYTHING. The studios have been cranking out a remarkable list of great genre fare as of late, we're in a genre golden age. If the movie sucks, don't go see it. If it is bad, no one will go see it, and Ratner will stop getting work. If he makes an enjoyable but shallow barbarian movie that succeds at the box office, then he'll continue to get genre work. YOU don't deserve a good conan movie, there have only been 2, and 1 was already a classic. We might deserve a good Superman movie, but only from the perspective of having had to sit and watch part 3,4 and Superman Returns. We've paid in pain for that.
It doesn't matter anyway by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 03:59:46 PM
It could be better than the original, but I bet you folks would still be hating on a Ratner Conan, even if it was a master work.
Yomomma, one last time by skimn	Nov 10th, 2008 04:00:30 PM
Let's take your quote "Any movie he makes will automatically be terrible because he has no talent, in spite of the fact he has directed some movies that were very successfull, enjoyable, and that the majority of critics gave favorable reviews?" A) Very successful. Just because a movie makes money at the box office, doesn't mean its any good. As in Beverly Hills Chihuahua, Norbit, etc. B) Enjoyable. A matter of personal taste. I enjoy sushi, you may hate it. C)Favorable reviews. Okay this is where you hang yourself. Based on Rotten Tomatoes, his critical average is pretty, pretty low. Rush Hour's 1 through 3 rate 62% (just passing RT's grade), 51% and 20%. Talk about diminishing returns. Family Man 53%. After The Sunset 19%...
Skimm by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 04:08:00 PM
This is an argument against comparing him to Uwe Boll, who rates far lower. Ratner is right around 50%, vanilla. He is a perfect example of a basic, average director. He's done several genres, gotten good box office and average reviews. Not worthy of being LOATHED (from posts above) or being called a hack, or automatic assumption that any movie he makes, with the basest of subjects (barbarian movies) will be terrible, or to assume that a better director would want to make a barbarian movie. How bout I put my point in hater: "I don't need or want a remake of Conan the Barbarian".
Yomomma by skimn	Nov 10th, 2008 04:15:00 PM
You know it is funny, because the only reason to remake Conan, would be to spruce it up digital effects and giant epic set pieces, the very things that most fans of originals hate remakes for in the first place.
I mean, think about it. by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 04:15:40 PM
Who is going to star in the movie? The subject is a big muscle bound barbarian in a loin cloth. Would you really get excited about a 'serious' take on this? Can you really see Peter Jackson, or Del Toro, or Gibson, or Spielberg directing a movie about a shirtless Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (at best) running around bronze age Eurasia, screwing wenches and killing monsters and demons with a(somehow) steel broadsword?
I give up. by The Reluctant Austinite	Nov 10th, 2008 04:16:51 PM
Nobody is going to change anybody's opinion. It's just the way things are right now. There is a certain type of director that I lump all into one category that includes Ratner, Stephen Sommers, McG and Michael Bay. I hate the films made in that school of film making and no one will ever change my mind. Others enjoy those type of "leave your brain at the door and get a big bag of popcorn" movies, and we'll never change their minds either. Those are Joe-WalMart movies and Joe-WalMart does spend a lot of money on entertainment. That's why wrestling has done so well.
Mr. Zeddemore by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 04:18:56 PM
Read the first third of the posts. "geeks LOATHE" Ratner, he's a hack, etc. "Fucking Ratner, the USA's Uwe Boll."
horrible... just horrible by El Borak	Nov 10th, 2008 04:19:16 PM
let's tell the origin story that's original!
Here's a real change-up..give it to Carpenter by skimn	Nov 10th, 2008 04:19:38 PM
He could take a good script, and his best work has been about men under pressure and morality tales. His first love has always been the western, and what is a Conan tale but a Western with swords?
BTW I loath average/medicore more than ineptitude. by The Reluctant Austinite	Nov 10th, 2008 04:20:16 PM
Give me Ed Wood over "meh" anyday.
Reluctant Austinite by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 04:21:52 PM
Well said. I like popcorn flicks (for the most part), and I sometimes like to leave my brain at the door. I think Conan would be best served in this kind of movie in this day and age, because a serious Conan would be rediculous, and a great serious Conan movie is already available on DVD.
skimn by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 04:23:37 PM
Too bad Carpenter hasn't made a good movie in 20 years.
Well, plenty of terrible Conan is also out there. by The Reluctant Austinite	Nov 10th, 2008 04:30:11 PM
The cartoon series from the 90s: terrible. The TV series with Ralf Moeller and his midget sidekick: beyond terrible. The first sequel: terrible. Red Sonja: terrible. Kull: not very good. These "dumb barbarian" stories have not been well served in the visual media. People like you limit their potential to be good because of the attitude about them. I bet Ratner is thinking EXACTLY like you. "It's just a dumb thing, so I'll punch it up and make it slick and funny like those Mummy movies."
Down with mediocrity! by The Reluctant Austinite	Nov 10th, 2008 04:39:01 PM
Mediocrity sells. It's safe. "Madagascar 2" made $63 million last weekend by playing it safe. It isn't challenging anybody, and isn't supposed to be very good. It just services the kids for 90 minutes. They won't remember it when their older (or 15 minutes later). Is that what we want? And if it is, why the HELL are we arguing on AICN? Why isn't Freddie Prinze Jr. putting out more couples movies? Don't we need more medicore filler to relax our brains like good liquor when we get off work?
The Reluctant Austinite by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 05:05:43 PM
OR - It's possible that some subjects just make crappy movies. Look, I'm all for good movies. But mediocre subjects do exist. If you made a hard R movie that was faithfull to the stories from the 30's, it would get terrible box office, but would probably be great. Verhoeven would be perfect for this. Aside from LOTR, can you think of a single example of an adult-oriented fantasy movie that was both totally serious and a box-office success (besides the original Conan)? The original was a fluke - it was a serious movie that kicked ass, but also came out at a time when Muscle bound mutants were respectable action stars, and it starred the greatest and most popular action star of the eighties. Now, you'd either have another scorpion king, or you'd have Matt Damon as Conan.
the mind boggles by El Borak	Nov 10th, 2008 05:07:15 PM
for those of you saying that the conan franchise doesn't deserve a good film/director/etc because its just pulp action stuff... if that's what you got from it fine. but it seems others (including myself) got something much grander, beautiful and savage from the source material than you did. so your opinion is balls. thank you
Yeah by Cobbio	Nov 10th, 2008 05:18:03 PM
Great, another fucking origin story. Wonderful. The problem is: Conan isn't interesting enough to warrant an origin story. He's a towering, musclebound, head-smashing, neck-cleaving barbarian Fabio who occasionally wears a helmet, what more do we need to know? Robert Jordan's "Conan" novels earned great reviews from franchise fans, I heard, but I'm sure they won't be used as a basis for the screenplay. So now we're back to giant, sword-swinging barbarian warrior. Who, y'know, sometimes wears a helmet. Sounds good to me. Leave the fucking origin story out of it.
So many missed opportunities... by ebonic_plague	Nov 10th, 2008 05:20:48 PM
...but at least I'll have money to spend on other things, as I apparently won't be buying many movie tickets next year.
yomomma by chaplinatemyshoe	Nov 10th, 2008 05:29:15 PM
Arnold wasn't really an action star when the first movie came out. He became an action star largely BECAUSE the first Conan came out.
Re: Carpenter by skimn	Nov 10th, 2008 05:34:47 PM
I know. He needs to get away from the Masters Of Horror cheapies and stop picking up easy paychecks for remakes and make a good goddamn movie. Everyone says that Conan is "pulp", and what better example of a "pulp" director than Carpenter.
ebonic_plague by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 05:35:18 PM
Yeah! Fuck Avatar, the Half Blood Prince and all other movies! Ratner's directing Conan!
How about this... by yomomma	Nov 10th, 2008 05:39:24 PM
If I concede it is remotely possible to make a cool Barbarian movie in today's culture, will you concede it is possible that Ratner could make a decent movie?
Quick! by Roketopunch	Nov 10th, 2008 06:05:13 PM
It's not finalized yet. We have to band together before Raturd fucks up the Conan franchise... We have to do something, any ideas?
Origin Story? by TOGSolid	Nov 10th, 2008 06:12:05 PM
They already made that. It was the first god damn Conan movie. Torch and pitchfork brigade assemble! We march on Hollywood in two weeks time to end this bullshit!
Conan and the City of Screaming Metal by 'Cholera's Ghost	Nov 10th, 2008 07:21:27 PM
If I made a Conan movie, that's what it would be called. And it would blow your face off with awesomeness.
We're in a genre golden age? How the fuck do you figure by IndustryKiller!	Nov 10th, 2008 08:01:03 PM
Look Iron Man was great and Dark Knight was probably a masterpiece but other than that there is very little to warrant calling this a golden age. Before this year comic films were crap. Even the so called "good ones" like SPider Man 2 were mere impersonations of the greatness of the comics fooling the public into thinking otherwise with faux emotion and overly CG action. And last year we had both Spider Man 3 and Transformers, two films that were not only crap, but boring despite a 10 zillion dollar budget each. The Harry Potter films apparently please fans fo the books (I've never read 'em) but don't stand well on their own as films. Not terrible, but blase at best. And then you have the action genre, which, with the exception of Bourne and Bond, are terrible overly edited Bay inspired dreck. Hell there are no real action stars left, only prestige actors like Craig and Damon who will come down from on high every 3 or four years to bestow us with something we just will not get anywhere else. As for fantasy, maybe you loved The Spiderwick Chronicles or Eragon, but it aint for me and The Hobbit is a looooooong way off. And don't forget about the success of Twighlight already, ensuring all those studios are gonna take their genre budgets and dump them into tween crap for the next 3 years or so until the genre eats itself.
And don't forget about the wretched Indy 4 by IndustryKiller!	Nov 10th, 2008 08:03:27 PM
the loss of SPielberg to hacksville (And Oldboy remake...REALLY??) is almost proof on its own this is no golden age. And don't forget the horror genre, where a film like Trick or Treat gets buried while Saw 19 already has the green light.
Just fuckin' great. by Devil'sOwn	Nov 10th, 2008 08:15:27 PM
Of all the directors... Like just about everyone else, I've been hoping this would fade away. C'mon! This just ain't right. Even if the Rat directed something good, it would be a complete fucking accident. Only the people who don't know fuckall about Conan would deny that.
"Very R-Rated" by arizonahotrock	Nov 10th, 2008 08:29:38 PM
They better, at least, stay true to this. It's bad enough we get the Rat, they just better not take the R rating away.
What was wrong with Indy4 again? by Guy Who Got A Headache And Accidentally Saves The World	Nov 10th, 2008 08:32:34 PM
I forget. The spaceship at the end, completely unlike the ark of the covenent melting nazis? Or was it the awesome nuclear explosion, that was totally unrealistic unlike pulling dudes hearts from their chests or holy grails and shit.
The Milius one really holds up well. by Stuntcock Mike	Nov 10th, 2008 08:54:11 PM
Timeless.
Ratner's Conan, Kirk drives a Vette, Dogs and Cats living togeth by Stuntcock Mike	Nov 10th, 2008 08:55:18 PM
MASS HYSTERIA!
Cage. Carpenter. RIOT. Now! by Stuntcock Mike	Nov 10th, 2008 08:56:41 PM

OH GREAT ANOTHER ORIGIN STORY. by alice 13	Nov 10th, 2008 08:57:25 PM
UGH.
What's up with AICN these days? by JIMBOCOP	Nov 10th, 2008 09:07:34 PM
"Indications are the Ratner-directed BEVERLY HILLS COP 4 (if that's what it ends up being called) will go into production first." Um. "Lethal Weapon 4" (and it WAS called that) came out in 1998. What with this and the "scoop" on Universal Soldier 3 (also 1998), I am starting to worry here. That is all (except to say I KNOW there is a new Unisol 3 coming out. I know it. I just don't understand it)
Shit by JIMBOCOP	Nov 10th, 2008 09:09:17 PM
I read that as "Lethal Weapon 4". F**k me, it's early in the morning here in Yorkshire. Soz. That is all.
Time for bed by JIMBOCOP	Nov 10th, 2008 09:09:54 PM
SERIOUSLY
Crom, strong on his mountain... by grandadmiralsnackbar	Nov 10th, 2008 09:12:05 PM
I may have asked this question before on other talkbacks, but why is Milius not involved with this? It seems that many wars and feuds did Milius fight. Honor and fear were heaped upon his name and in time, he became a king by his own hand...but that is another story. Milius should finish the story, didn't Rome's partial success give him any street cred.?
Spielburg remaking Oldboy? Really? by 'Cholera's Ghost	Nov 10th, 2008 09:21:16 PM
Weirdish.
Conan ride a motorcycle in this? by kabong	Nov 10th, 2008 09:29:59 PM
Corvette off a cliff? Well, is there any shark jumping?
Damn You, Bret Ratner by Prof_Ender	Nov 10th, 2008 09:30:00 PM
Damn You, Bret Ratner
AT LEAST UWE BOLL KNOWS HIS FILMS ARE BAD by eoneon	Nov 10th, 2008 11:49:21 PM
RATNER IDOLIZES HIMSELF IN HIS COMMENTARIES.... I KNOW, I PUT ON RED DRAGONS AT NIGHT T PUT ME TO SLEEP. WORKS EVERY TIME. HE THINKS HIS FILMS BELONG NEXT TO KUROSAWA,SPEILBERG,SCORCESE,AN D THE LIKE. WHY REMAKE CONAN? IT WAS A GOOD MOVIE. EDWARD NORTON AS CONAN? SIR ANTHONY HOPKINS AS THULSA DOOM? WHO KNOWS. HE'LL GET BIG NAME ACTORS THOUGH,THAT'S FOR SURE. ONE TB'ER WAS SAYING AT LEAST IT'S NOT BOLL DIRECTING. WELL SIR,THAT'S LIKE COMPARING DIARRHEA TO VOMIT. PLEASE,PLEASE,GO FUCK UP SOME OTHER FRANCHISE. OH AND X MEN 3 LICKED SACK!
This better be the film by deanbarry	Nov 10th, 2008 11:51:08 PM
that makes us all wrong about Ratner. I pray to god!
Mediocrity by Grand Moff Toht	Nov 11th, 2008 12:04:11 AM
I believe it was the Greek philosopher, Mediocrities, who once asked, "Why do more than the minimum to get by?" Bland, vanilla, mediocre, safe, journeyman, professional, passionless, bland. This guy managed to make "Red Dragon" a snoozer. So I have no doubt the action-packed gore fests that are most Conan stories (REH's Conan) will suffer a similar fate if brought to the screen by BR.
this news make me long for someone to damn Michael Bay... by darwinmayflower	Nov 11th, 2008 12:16:53 AM
very dissapointing.
Tempurasan, I totally agree... by Paul T. Ryan	Nov 11th, 2008 12:21:29 AM
I don't get the Ratner hatred at all. Sure, he's no auteur, but neither is Joe Johnston, and neither is Jon Favreau at this stage, yet AICN slobber all over them. If Ratner ever gives Harry a set tour/junket, all will be forgiven. I haven't seen this site condemn say, Peter Hyams or Richard Donner for being workmanlike directors. Besides, as others have said here, its a muscleman movie, not high art. I'm sure Ratner will do just fine with this one.
yomomma by DocPazuzu	Nov 11th, 2008 01:49:22 AM
Perhaps when you're finished running around in argumentative circles you can explain to us why "summer popcorn movie" and "good movie" somehow are mutually exclusive.
oh goody by Lost Jarv	Nov 11th, 2008 03:56:03 AM
The plants are out already. Tempurasan, you are withuot a shadow of a doubt the stupidest fucker I've seen in a long time. How on earth can you revel in the mediocrity of a soulless hack like Ratner? And as for your ridiculous assertion that people without passion don't work hard: what a load of shit, if I was being paid what Ratner gets, damned right I'd carry sacks of mud or whatever it is he was allegedly doing. Passion and working for money are not always mutually exclusive, but when you have a body of work that has as little soul as Twatners, then it suggests that he was not passionate about anything he's done. I'll give you that he isn't as bad as PWSAnderwank, but nothing is, however, please give us that fans have a right to ask for more than a bland, soulless, Conan. PS Milius' Conan, while wildly inaccurate, does still stand up.
Richard Donnor by Lost Jarv	Nov 11th, 2008 04:18:34 AM
what a stupid comparison. When Ratner has something like The Omen or Superman on his Resume then make that comparison.
I'll wait for the RE-REBOOT in 2020 by The Goon	Nov 11th, 2008 04:56:18 AM

if you haven't seen manhunter by palewook	Nov 11th, 2008 06:26:20 AM
stfu about red dragon.
Sad truth about CONAN source material is... by JIMBOCOP	Nov 11th, 2008 07:26:27 AM
Okay - I've slept now and hopefully won't jam my whole leg in my mouth. Whilst I love the first Conan movie and would dearly have loved John Milius to have made his trilogy, the sad fact is that it was a world apart from the Robert E Howard short stories. In fact "...The Destroyer" is actually a lot closer to the pulp originals and is worse off for it. And don't get me started on the racist c**p that Howard slipped into nearly every tale. That stuff may (and I mean MAY) have been got away with back in the early 20th, but not now. "...Barbarian" has already been re-made, it was called "Chronicles of Riddick"! Only three people could have done Conan justice - Verhoeven, Ridley Scott and John Milius himself and I can't see any of them getting or wanting a go at this now. That is all.
Anybody who thinks Conan is just pulp by jae683	Nov 11th, 2008 07:54:18 AM
should go back and read the damn stories, and not just the Conan stories, but everything set in the Hyborian world. Those stories may have been published in pulp magazines, but as a whole they're much more than that. And Conan wasn't just a 'muscle bound,' monosyllabic character. Read Howard's description of him and then look at Schwarzenegger; two completely different characters. Howard had a huge influence on modern fantasy.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND... by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 08:44:26 AM
...THE LAMENTATIONS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF MY MOUF?!?!? Fucking unbelievably bad idea. Though Conan needs to be more vocal and act a little smarter. Y'know, like he does in the books.
Tempurasan by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 08:51:37 AM
I've worked many long hours on hard sets before too, and trust me, everyone just wants to go home. The director I'm sure has passion for the project, but I don't believe for a second that Ratner has had any projects he's nurtured and developed. Everything he's been attached to sounds like something he was hired to take on as opposed to something he was pushing to get made.
IndustryKiller, RE: Harry Potter by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 08:54:02 AM
They do NOT satisfy all the fans of the books. They only satisfy the teenage die-hards that are happy to see ANYTHING onscreen and blindy accept whatever the production tells them in regards to why changes were made to the story. Just check out the IMDB page for "Half-Blood Prince". Those kids there are die-hards in thinking WB can do no wrong with regards to adapting HP.
About a remake... by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 09:00:08 AM
David Twohy could do this justice. Granted, he's not the dream director (mine would be Paul Verhoeven - how fucking AWESOME would a Verhoeven CONAN be?!?) but as a workaday director with a solid resume behind him... hey, there are waaaay worse movies to have on your resume to have than PITHC BLACK and CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK, both of which rocked hard. Give it Twohy. Damn, I'd even buy Diesel as CONAN, if (a) I absolutely had to and (b) he had a decent Cimmerian mane of hair on him. Although, if you're bringing Diesel into it (him being Twohy's brah and all) really he should be a Pictish warrior, though he'd pass as Hyrkanian or Turanian. Fuck it - make ROGUES IN THE HOUSE, end it with some coda where Conan is heading for his Kingship in Aquilonia, and cast Diesel as Murilo. You know it makes sense. Oh and Ratner - RUSH HOUR 3 fucking sucked, and I want my fiver back ,you sonofabitch...
jae683 - preach on, my brother! by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 09:06:36 AM
Comparisons between Milius and REH's CONANs don't really make sense - Milius and Schwarzenegger got it bang on physically, but then lost Conan's vocality and cunning, his instincts. He's a lot more than just a barbarian in the books - and often capitalises on how the so-called "civilised" folk think he's just a thick, musclebound barbarian, when in fact he's quite wise to ways of civilisation. He's like an animal, instinctive and reactive, but with the learning abilities to assimilate into a situation much more quickly than many of his kinsmen. He's a part-civilised barbarian, and this is brought to the fore when he takes the throne of Aquilonia, which an entirely uncivilised Cimmerian could never do. If you haven't read the REH CONAN stories, please do. You'll never understand the passion we real CONAN fans have to see this character truly done justice on the big screen until you understand how interesting, complicated and exhilarating the character of Conan actually is. This movie could be on a par WITH LOTR, if it were taken seriously enough - which, obviously, it really fucking isn't so far. Don't half-ass this. If you don't get it, Ratner, get it fucking buried. Go have another whore party and leave our beloved franchises the fuck alone.
JIMBOCOP by yomomma	Nov 11th, 2008 09:10:28 AM
Thank you. Fucking comic thumping hating asshats are treating this franchise like some golden calf. Conan is just pulp barbarian fare that managed to get made into a good movie, almost miraculously, and largely thanks to Arnold. I know all you hating fucks squirt your pants every time you see a muscular man with his shirt off, so you "deserve" a good movie, while hating all over an (admittedly mediocre) artists work, while accomplishing nothing but sitting in their mother's basement and feeling good about themselves by smugly calling anyone who does not share their spolied brat opinions a plant. It would be nice to see some serious film discussion, instead of a huge stroke-fest where you cretins fall all over yoursleves masturbating each other over your "shared opinions" that you only have because some authority dictated that opinion to you. And, yes, I know you haters who only thrill in shitting on the work of others feel that every movie that comes out is crap, but just look at this summer: Dark Knight, Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Hellboy 2, Wall-E - all solid to phenominal genre fare. Compare this to the shit we used to get like the Lundgren Punisher, or Dragon Heart, Batman Forever, Superman 4 - when was the last time we saw a genre movie as bad as Superman 4? So screw all of you pubescent yesmen, I'm going to give films a chance, not pre-judge, and enjoy the movies I see. You can all dwell on the negative and hatred so you don't have to think about your own shortcommings, until it gives you cancer of the ass and mouth and you die toothless in a pool of your own bloody waste. Anyway, I agree Ridley Scott would have been an excellent choice BUT HE PROBABLY DIDN'T WANT TO COME WITHIN A MILE OF A BARBARIAN MOVIE. Be thankfull for what you get, it easily could have been Uwe Boll. And I'm sorry, but there's nothing wrong with an entertaining but forgettable popcorn movie.
JIMBOCOP by DocPazuzu	Nov 11th, 2008 09:12:26 AM
Conan the Destroyer is closer to REH than Barbarian only because there is more magic, opulent palaces and monsters than the Milius film. That is NOT close enough to REH to make a case for an REH-faithful film to be made. You could argue that the Conan TV series (Fuck you, Sam Raimi!) is even closer to REH than Destroyer because there are even more monsters and more magic and more babes, but you would be even more mistaken. The racist stuff? It would very easy to omit that shit and still retain the REH flavor.
yomamma by DocPazuzu	Nov 11th, 2008 09:13:38 AM
Who's the 12-year-old girl now, bitch?
re Jimbo by DocPazuzu	Nov 11th, 2008 09:15:32 AM
That should read: "...close enough to REH to make a case for an REH-faithful film NOT to be made."
spud mcspud by yomomma	Nov 11th, 2008 09:16:18 AM
Bullshit. I've read all the Howard stories. They're entertaining, but not even in the same league as LOTR. They're not even in the same league as John Carter of Mars. They did give rise to barbarian fiction, but so what? The original Conan movie was THE ONLY DECENT BARBARIAN MOVIE EVER.
"not even in the same league... by DocPazuzu	Nov 11th, 2008 09:18:13 AM
...as John Carter of Mars." You know, yomamma, nobody loves John Carter of Mars more than I do, but to say that Howard's Conan tales aren't even in the same league as Edgar Rice Burroughs is simply ignorant.
DocPazuzu by yomomma	Nov 11th, 2008 09:22:24 AM
Hey, I'm not the one sobbing about a mediocre director getting mediocre source material. I just like calling people names on the internets. Remember, arguing online is like competing in the special olympics: Win or lose, you're still retarded.
Hey Doc. by Mr. Nice Gaius	Nov 11th, 2008 09:23:05 AM
Curious - were you able to determine if these two yahoos have ever posted on AICN before this TB? I gotta say, they're mighty suspicious.
John Carter by yomomma	Nov 11th, 2008 09:25:49 AM
I've read both. One is a fully developed fantasy world with alien beings, airships, and high adventure. The other one is a bunch of largely unrelated stories about a barbarian screwing and fighting. I'd rather see a Grey Mouser and Fafhrd movie, actually.
here it comes... by yomomma	Nov 11th, 2008 09:28:18 AM
Mr. Nice Gaius, you're a plant for Harry Knowles aren't you. I've mainly posted in the Heroes and politics threads, because I usually don't have time for this bullshit, but if calling me and everyone else who disagrees with you a plant is the best argument you can make, then I'll just claim victory. Thank You!
"Conan is just pulp barbarian fare that " by palewook	Nov 11th, 2008 09:29:09 AM
"..managed to get made into a good movie" lol. you've never read one REH story and it shows from your comments. commenting on something with no knowledge of it, makes you either ignorant or a troll. or possibly both.
yomomma by Mr. Nice Gaius	Nov 11th, 2008 09:30:06 AM
Welcome to AICN!
And yomomma... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Nov 11th, 2008 09:31:58 AM
...I haven't exactly called you a plant or disagreed with you on anything. Yet.
Mr. Nice Gaius by yomomma	Nov 11th, 2008 09:37:29 AM
Thank you. I tend to the hyperbolic, so sorry.
Hey MNG by DocPazuzu	Nov 11th, 2008 09:39:53 AM
I'll get back to you on that.
yomamma, yomamma, yomamma... by DocPazuzu	Nov 11th, 2008 09:43:23 AM
...Howard's Hyboria a less developed fantasy world than Barsoom? really? You just outed yourself as someone who's never read REH. Nice going, chief.
MNG by DocPazuzu	Nov 11th, 2008 09:49:10 AM
Well, there is this little gem by tempurasan I found in one of his rare TB appearances: "And Yes, none of these "critics" will make half a decent movie that Uwe Makes. Making a movie is hard, and I know that first hand. So don't go around thinking that you can do better. He has as much an opportunity as you do. So instead of typing trash on message board, go to school and learn how to make a damn movie. You ass are losers. And Uwe is a winner."
Fucking hell by Lost Jarv	Nov 11th, 2008 10:02:13 AM
He's not a plant. He's a cretin. Marketing whores don't put up things as stupid as that. the sentence "Uwe is a winner" will give me nightmares forever
Right on, Doc. by Mr. Nice Gaius	Nov 11th, 2008 10:07:18 AM
And tempurasan's quote is classic jackassery.
honestly its not a bad idea by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 10:08:02 AM
What the fuck are you pansies screaming about? Come on-- The Family Man showed us that Ratner has the chops to direct drama, serious drama with a heart. And The Rush Hour films shows us he has the chops to direct action, very fun action that is well shot. So what the fuck? You would rather get some talentless prick like Zach Snyder? Give Ratner a fucking chance for once. He seems he wants to excel with this material. He cares about this project. Unlike cunts like Spielberg who now accepts work just for the payola. Indy IV anyone? Yeah. Ratner could take a dump and call it Conan and it would be a more competent film than that turd.
Some truth on the two feature films-- by The Reluctant Austinite	Nov 11th, 2008 10:18:51 AM
You guys are correct. Even though the film is great, Arnold's Conan is really nothing like the charcter in the stories. There's still room for a unique actor to really reinterpret the role, like Craig has done with James Bond. "Conan the Destroyer," as much as I think it dropped the ball, is extactly like an issue of the monthly comics at the time and was in fact written by the writers of the monthlies and Savage Sword at the time. Howard's tales cover the entire life and changing career of the character, and also create an entire world (not unlike the idea of Middle Earth) for the charcter to play in. I agree with someone above about "Rogues in the House" (pieces of which were used to poor effect in "Conan the Destroyer"). I've always loved the stories when Conan was about 15 years old and was just a thief. I'm done, and I think this Talkback has just about run its course.
Thanks everyone by tempurasan	Nov 11th, 2008 10:31:46 AM
for your support. lol. Anyway, I just don't take an extreme position when I talk. I defend the guy is because most people here deems him as Satan's spawn, and that he's basically raping everyone's favorite heroes. I say he makes pretty entertaining films, and I like the guy's movies. I think he's a very competent director, and has a good sense of what will attract a wide audience. He makes genre films for the masses, and I see nothing wrong with that. He surrounds himself with a lot of talented people, and usually brings movies in on time and on budget. When is that ever bad? I thought his work on X3 was the best version of that movie that could have been made after the way Fox handled the production. I'm just looking to provide a little perspective here. I watch more movies than probably most of you here (maybe not Harry), and on a grand scheme of things he's a pretty good director, one that Conan can do a lot worse with. I appreciate very stylish directions in films when it calls for it. I just don't think that's what Conan needs. What he needs is a good script, and a director that can handle a large production. A director that won't fuck up the action scenes, and can rally a lot of great talents together. That's Ratner. Sure there can be better directors, but that's not the case is it? At the level it is now, at the particular budget and for this particular production of Conan, Ratner is the best we can do. If it is possible for better directors to take the project, they would have already. But "better" directors aren't exactly beating down Millenium's doors. However, Millenium's address is on their website, and they're about half a block away from the corner of Wilshire and La Ciennega. So you can try to stage a protest to see if it makes a difference. Avi is always there, unless he's in Bulgaria. So try, he's a really nice guy. A little warning though, if you talk like you do here in real life, and you want to work in this town, you can pretty much forget it. I just find it funny that people take such an extreme position, and calls everyone names when it absolutely makes no difference. I just find it easier to be civil, even when I say "douchery" things. So what? discuss and move on. But if calling me names makes you feel better, then I aim to please. I live in the OC, so if anyone wants to meet up for lunch and discuss movies, I'm always open for a good conversation.
The only thing that made Conan great was Basil Poledouris by _Maltheus_	Nov 11th, 2008 10:35:51 AM
People underestimate the power of music in a film. I think that even Star Wars and Raiders owe their success to the soundtrack. A good soundtrack can turn a cheesy movie into a great one and that is certainly the case here. The only other great thing about Conan was the classic response to what is good in life, "To crush the enemy, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." Surely one of the best lines in movie history.
The Reluctant Austinite by tempurasan	Nov 11th, 2008 10:43:57 AM
You're right in saying that Arnold is nothing like the Conan in Howard's books. The closest to Conan I've found in modern pulp films is Riddick in Chronicles of Riddick. Conan is not out to change the world. If he's chasing down a guy and kills him, it's most likely because he owes him money, or did some wrong for Conan and he just wants revenge. But he does have a heart of gold, and has a innate sense of right and wrong. But that's not to say he's a gentleman. If he sees a woman he likes, he'll chase her down to fuck her (case in point: Frost Giant's daughter). That's why I like the guy. There's a lot more to Conan than what Milius put on screen, so I just don't understand why people hold that film as the standard of Conan films. Ratner has shown that he can really expand on a universe and make it accessible to a lot of people. X3 may not be the movie that you all wanted, but it opened a lot of new fans to the Xmen universe, just as the first 2 Xmen films were. It certainly reached the women I know, and I remember they couldn't stop talking about how Awesome Jean was, and they were telling me how they love the Phoenix storyline. It brought them to the comic books. Perhaps Ratner can bring Conan to a new audience as well. There are a lot of great Conan materials out there. But that doesn't mean the film has to suck. It has to be good to resonate with an audience.
"competent" by Mr. Nice Gaius	Nov 11th, 2008 10:45:55 AM
That seems to be the only compliment I've ever heard thrown Ratner's way.
Sure, Danny... by DocPazuzu	Nov 11th, 2008 10:48:37 AM
...I'm sure a lot of people will agree with you -- at least the ones who, like you, prefer TPM to ANH, think You've Got Mail is a great movie, consider ALIENS to be the worst of the series, and consider Big Trouble in Little China to be the only good movie John Carpenter ever made. Feel free to now tell me to gargle your piss or something equally urine-fixated as usual.
I'm wondering how you managed to see a Ratner movie by Lost Jarv	Nov 11th, 2008 10:54:02 AM
with his balls resting on your eyes. Maybe that's why you think they're good. They really aren't.
The facts were these: by Devil'sOwn	Nov 11th, 2008 10:56:41 AM
Brett Ratner, better known to his critics as "the Rat", was a former music-video director who built the foundation of his movie career on a buddy cop film pairing a Hong Kong action star and a loud African-American comedian. After a series of competent-yet-flacid productions, the Rat set his eyes on the beloved sword & sorcery hero, Conan. Devoted fans went into a frenzy, and the Rat's days of sports cars and supermodels came to an abrupt end.
I say we wait until a writer is announced by tempurasan	Nov 11th, 2008 11:03:40 AM
Before we can really rejoice or despair. Great directors can be attached to excellent projects and the films still can end up sucking. Singer seems like he could do no wrong with a Superman movie, but Superman Returns was a disappointment. Spielberg making an Indy movie was like a dream, but that film disappointed a lot of people, just as he did with War of the Worlds. Hell, Godfather 3 was a sure thing until it wasn't. A film like Conan rely as much on a writer as a director. If a good writer writes a good script, Ratner won't fuck it up, and will make soemthing good of it.
tempurasan by Mr. Nice Gaius	Nov 11th, 2008 11:08:23 AM
Sure, waiting for a writer and script (on any project) is a given. But when you mention Spielberg, Coppola, and Singer you're talking about 3 directors who have set a precedent. And it's because of these precedents that film fans have expected great things from them despite their failures. What precedent has Ratner set? Do you think CONAN will be the film that allows him to step forward?
Well put MNG by Lost Jarv	Nov 11th, 2008 11:14:44 AM
and even with a cracking cast and script Ratner still directed the woefully mediocre and totally pathetic Red Dragon. Well, pathetic in comparison to Manhunter, anyway.
DocPazuzu by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 11:19:55 AM
Holy shit you're another Coughlins Laws!! You sit silently in the back of the TB and read every post I've ever published. THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT!
and YOU'VE GOT MAIL.... by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 11:20:34 AM
....is a damn fine romantic comedy.
I change my mind.... by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 11:22:21 AM
Fuck Ratner and fuck this project. Let it die like 99% of the shit Ratner has been attached to. Jesus Christ, he's had more canned projects than Joe Carnahan.
Lost Jarv by Mr. Nice Gaius	Nov 11th, 2008 11:22:32 AM
Exactly. I agree.
Well, Danny. by DocPazuzu	Nov 11th, 2008 11:24:39 AM
Since you see fit to post in virtually every talkback on this site, it's sort of hard to not be subjected to your tastes.
DocPazuzu by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 11:31:37 AM
That is total bullshit and you know it. I'm on 3 TB's at a time max. And only actually conversing on oneI may post 1 or 2 random rants on others, but its not like I'm actually there on the TB all fucking day. I have an office job that affords me the ability to post all day in between menial and degrading office duties. So sue me.
You work in my office, don't you? by Lost Jarv	Nov 11th, 2008 11:35:56 AM
because that sounds very similar to my job.
Danny by DocPazuzu	Nov 11th, 2008 11:36:50 AM
Your implication is that if I'm reading a TB you're participating in and don't respond to you immediately in that very talkback that I'm somehow either stalking you or being Coughlin's Law. It was only in this TB, after you made your opinion heard, that I had any reason to bring up any of those things since I think they put your comment in perspective. You know, you're big on telling other people what shit is (Indy 4, for example), but when you get called on your own tastes you cry like the biggest bitch I've ever seen.
DocPazuzu by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 11:45:24 AM
"Cry like the biggest bitch I've ever seen." What the fuck are you talking about you cranky twat? How the fuck did I cry? I stand by all of my opinions. I've said time and time again I can give a fuck what others think of my views on films. What-- I'm supposed to back down and say well gee....everyone else puts ANH before TPM, so I better do it too if I wanna keep my friends!! You think I give a fuck what grouchy ass DocP thinks of me when I say Aliens is the worst film of the series. Oooooooh noooooooooo.....I might lose some fans if I don't lap up Cameron's balls like the rest of AICN!! Its a fear that is constantly eating at me. Its actually hard for me to sleep sometimes because of it. Grow the fuck up. This is a movie discussion board. These aren't fucking life changing conversations taking place here. I never once cried about your opinion of my opinions. I defended the claim that I'm on "Every TB" which is fucking bullshit. 75% of the shit posted on this site, I either know nothing about or don't give a fuck enough to comment on. Fuck off.
Sorry, Danny... by DocPazuzu	Nov 11th, 2008 11:50:03 AM
...but telling people to "fuck off" and "gargle your piss" when they question your taste in films IS being a huge, blubbering bitch, albeit in tubthumping, faux-bravado terms.
Can't we all just agree by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 11:50:39 AM
That Ratner is not the BEST choice possible, and isn't even in the upper tiers for choices?
cracks open a beer by Lost Jarv	Nov 11th, 2008 11:53:48 AM
I loves me a good flame war.
"Won't someone please think of the children?!" by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 11:54:43 AM
Well?
I have never once.... by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 11:57:15 AM
....told someone to fuck off or gargle my piss when they disagreed with my tastes. I say shit like that to complete cunts that waste my time, I don't say it to people who disagree with me. Thats the difference between you and I. I may talk a lot of shit about my opinions on films, which differ from the general consesus most of the time-- but I don't think my opinions matter or are anymore potent than the next guy's. They are after all just my opinions. I'm not gonna act like someone is a fucking idiot because they don't agree Aliens is the worst film in the series. You on the other hand, believe you are always right, and that you have some sort of authority around here. As I said before when we got into it, you act like you are above the rest of the TB'ers. There is just something nasty in your tone with those that disagree with you. And I'm not saying just with me, I'm saying with everyone. Remember you are Memories of Murder #2, an elitist prick that thinks your opinion is the right opinion. I'm not like that. I understand my opinion is different then most. Thats where I have fun on here....in the discussion and debate. Remember that word Doc....FUN? Even you were guilty of having it once in awhile I'm sure, but that was a long time ago. Jesus Christ you must be a fucking drag at a kid's birthday party.
I don't know, Danny... by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 12:01:26 PM
I seem to remember you treating everyone that liked Indy 4 as if they were complete idiots. But then there was a lot of that this summer.
D.Vader -- Indy IV doesn't count.... by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 12:02:47 PM
...hehehehe.
Oh well, that's okay then by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 12:05:11 PM
Carry on!
Where the hell is Fred? by toadkillerdog	Nov 11th, 2008 12:09:16 PM
Maybe he is buying more popcorn, for the Danny vs DocP smackdown. And you know Fred loves eating popcorn watching a smackdown!
smackdown is over... by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 12:12:34 PM
We have decided to seek relationship counseling at the local church. Neither of us will be around for awhile guys. This will be a difficult journey....but its worth it. Praise Jesus.
Giant pissing contest by skimn	Nov 11th, 2008 12:18:58 PM
I've posted a while back that one of the backers of Ratner's final student film was Mr. Spielberg. And that in one of the Skulls extras, Spielberg praises Independence Day as a wonderfully directed alien invasion film. Does that mean that Spielberg is a dolt? That he doesn't recognize talent? I guess what I'm saying, is that everyone has their opinion on what they like. Do I think Ratner's resume indicates he would be a good choice for a Conan film? No, not particularly. I've already posted above my view of Ratner's "talent". I'm just saying one man's Baby Ruth may be another man's turd.
Aww, dang. This touchy feely stuff is the bunk! by toadkillerdog	Nov 11th, 2008 12:20:36 PM
No smackdown.
WTF is Spielberg going on the extras for "The Skulls"? by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 12:20:50 PM
And talking about ID4 no less? Those 3 things do not mix in any way I can conceive.
BARBARIC. by Devil'sOwn	Nov 11th, 2008 12:23:02 PM
A person perusing this talkback may well wonder: Why does it matter? A quick glance at the fantasy movie genre will tell you... Lots of endearingly quirky curiousities (most directed by Terry Gilliam and Tim Burton), some exemplary family films, a smattering of earnestley cheesey superhero flicks, a few opulent gems, some valiant attempts, and a whole lotta epic fails. In these uncertain times, when old pure paladin heroic stereotypes raise our suspicions, some of us cry out for a blue collar fantasy hero. Fans are clamoring for good sword-and-sorcery movie. We have the fever for the flavor of Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian. We want to be taken to a time of adventure before the dawn of history when a hard-working guy plowed his way through decadent empires reminiscent of Europe, Asia, and Africa. I'm painfully aware that pop culture at large's main awareness of this legendary character are a couple pseudo-gladiator movies from the '80s. But in the pantheon of fantasy dominated by The Lord of the Rings, Conan's rugged American individualism (cash worshipping, routine destruction of ancient gods, going through wenches like Kleenex)was far from Professor Tolkien's grand Anglican fantasy. To a person in a world where old structures are collapsing and exotic new forces both threaten and seduce him, the Barbarian is a gratifying fantasy indeed. I know Conan comes from humble roots. And it's not what many would consider high literature. This is a genre studios have neglected because they blind themselves to the magic, sex, and brutality that made the original stories so potent and FUN, mainly I'd guess because past attempts have fallen short of being wild successes. Writers and the director must commit to getting it right. They must work to preserve the style and content of REH'S original stories while making the narrative seem relevant, and excising that pesky offensive racial content. It's not just about a burly fella in a loincloth, it's about a man rising above his circumstances.
DGDB by Mr. Nice Gaius	Nov 11th, 2008 12:26:43 PM
Whoa, hold up! There is no way DocPazuzu is a M-O-M #2. Way over the top there, man. DocPaz is good people; one of the best this site has to offer. I don't know how you guys got off on such a wrong foot. And in the interest of fairness, there is nothing in your post that can't be applied directly to yourself (or any other TBer on this site for that matter). I say this in full confidence despite your efforts to say otherwise.
Ratner and Palin sure do stir up the emotions by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Nov 11th, 2008 12:28:47 PM
Ratner's one and only good film is The Family Man. Period. It didn't involve guns, explosions, car chases, serial killers or wise cracking cops. So near as I can tell, Ratner should be directing nothing but dramas. It appears to be his one area of competency. Sadly, that's not what Hollywood continues to offer him. And for everyone here bitching about Ratner directing a Conan film, keep in mind, the script is going to suck and the worst possible choice for a lead will be cast making Ratner NOT the worst thing attached to the project.
Oh jeebus, please don't mention that woman again by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 12:33:17 PM
I'm hoping against hope that I never have to hear about or see Sarah Palin again in regards to national politics. Let her have a tv show, I don't fucking care. Just stay away from governing my life.
Sorry for the mushy post by skimn	Nov 11th, 2008 12:34:20 PM
Just think of it as a sorbet to cleanse the palate. Hey, whats up with Pyun's The Sword & The Sorcerer sequel? There's some cheese we can all get behind.
Devil'sOwn by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 12:35:46 PM
EXACTLY. CONAN is all about the man who rises above his beginnings, casts off his past and goes on to whatever the fuck he wants to do with his life. Conan is unbound in the novels, which is what makes him such a fascinating character - he's just the guy we'd all like to be: does what he wantas, when he wants, where he wants. And if The Man tries to keep him down, Conan gives him a good kicking. Great stuff.
Devil'sOwn by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 12:35:50 PM
EXACTLY. CONAN is all about the man who rises above his beginnings, casts off his past and goes on to whatever the fuck he wants to do with his life. Conan is unbound in the novels, which is what makes him such a fascinating character - he's just the guy we'd all like to be: does what he wants, when he wants, where he wants. And if The Man tries to keep him down, Conan gives him a good kicking. Great stuff.
Devil'sOwn by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 12:35:52 PM
EXACTLY. CONAN is all about the man who rises above his beginnings, casts off his past and goes on to whatever the fuck he wants to do with his life. Conan is unbound in the novels, which is what makes him such a fascinating character - he's just the guy we'd all like to be: does what he wants, when he wants, where he wants. And if The Man tries to keep him down, Conan gives him a good kicking. Great stuff.
Oh and DocP by skimn	Nov 11th, 2008 12:36:17 PM
spells much too well to be accused of being MoM 2.
"one man's Baby Ruth may be another man's turd' by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Nov 11th, 2008 12:37:14 PM
Is that a Caddyshack reference? This isn't going to turn into an ID4 smackdown is it? The characters are cardboard cutouts, the dialogue is woeful and the plot devices (uploading a virus???) are dire, I still enjoy the hell out of that stupid nonsense.
Thanks for the 3X post spud by skimn	Nov 11th, 2008 12:38:05 PM
!
Nice catch HOD by skimn	Nov 11th, 2008 12:41:00 PM
No, I was just saying that even Spielberg recognizes the entertainment value in ID4. The much reviled (on this site by many) ID4.
Hey at least they were referencing by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 12:41:05 PM
The best Alien Invasion story ever, even if the virus was somehow uploaded through Alien Wi-Fi...
At the end of the day Ratner gets $7M per film by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Nov 11th, 2008 12:41:57 PM
And snorts cocaine off a starlet's ass aboard his private jet so I'm guessing he could really give two craps that guys on AICN are calling him a travesty.
for anyone who has ever snorted coke.... by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 12:44:10 PM
....off a female's ass check. It is truly amazing. God Bless Atlantic City.
yomomma by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 12:45:38 PM
Have you even fucking READ LOTR? As much as I acknowledge its place as the finest fantasy saga of all time - its creation and backstory of an entire mythical world is unparalleled, even by REH - but the prose is fucking dense stuff to get through. Tolkein was a professor, a cartographer and linguist, and so his writing style ain't exactly easy to get into. He spends God knows how long describing what the trees and meadows look like, then skates over major battles in a couple of paragraphs. Riveting page-turner LOTR is NOT. The genius of REH is that he's the opposite of that - the stories tend to be "Conan came from HERE, he wandered over to HERE, then - SHIT HAPPENS!" And the description of what happens next gives us Conan fans exactly what we wants - fights that feel like we're there, hints at politics and situations that are interesting, but given just enough to be interesting background and NOTHING MORE. Reading CONAN is all about the action scenes - these are what REH wrote best and are what give the stories their flavour. The entire Hyborian Age has been mapped in the novels, there's a timeline, the adventures Conan travels on follow a path (the stories follow everything up to Conan's last adventure, CONAN OF THE ISLES) and everything fits into the finely detailed, well researched (based on the Earth 12,000 before recorded history, placing Cimmeria around Northern Scotland) and beautifully crafted, fantastically created. So. Yomomma. You are full of shit. Not only does CONAN hold up to LOTR, it's actually better written - unless you actually enjoy reading for fifteen pages about how a fucking yew tree looks up close and then want to skip over a battle between 5,000 combatants in 3 paragraphs. LOTR may have been a great fantasist, but his writing style didn't hold a candle to REH's fast-paced action style.
Sadly, ID4 is better than Spielberg's WotW by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Nov 11th, 2008 12:46:51 PM
My fingers are actually cramping up while typing that. It was not supposed to be this way. But son surviving after running into maelstrom trumps Apple OS compatibility with alien mothership server any day.
skimn by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 12:47:37 PM
Go tell Harry, This fucking TB needs fixing up so we can't accidentally triple-post, and actually edit our own shitty typos. I respect your movie knowledge up there, Headgeek - you're the Man in that regard - but these TBs sure need some updating! Just sayin'...
Only decent barbarian movie EVER? by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 12:48:05 PM

ID4 better than WOTW? by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 12:49:27 PM
What the fuck? No fucking way. WOTW is 92% greatness. ID4 is absolute shit. The story sucks, the characters, suck, the action scenes suck, the alien design sucks, the music really sucks, the casting blows, the characters are totally unlikeable, the miniatures look like fucking miniatures. I caught it recently on cable and that movie is fucking horrid. Its cheesy, but not in a good way. Its cheesy in a "Holy fuck its depressing how much money this movie made" sort of way. I would watch every Uwe Boll movie for 48 hours straight before ever sitting through that piece of shit again.
Well I'm not gonna kill a movie for one mistake by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 12:50:09 PM
Besides, it fit with the idea that Tom needed to let his son be his own man and find his own way in the world (or something). I prefer WotW to ID4 (though I won't bash ID4 for being awful).
I snorted Crystal Pepsi off a hobo's crotch in Key West once by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Nov 11th, 2008 12:51:26 PM
No so amazing. Long story.
Only decent barbarian movie EVER? by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 12:54:47 PM
Nope - there's also THE SWORD AND THE SORCEROR. Arguably every bit as good as CONAN THE BARBARIAN. You could also argue BEASTMASTER, but what the hell. I also nominate CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK, because although it's set in a dirty, medieval-ish tech future, Riddick is a fucking Cimmerian and we all know it. Forget that Furyan shit. RIDDICK is the CONAN movie we'd all like to have seen. The terrible thing is, although I don't like the idea of the Rat AT ALL for CONAN, I actually enjoyed RUSH HOUR 1 and 2 (don't tell me Rosalyn Sanchez didn't make RH2 A LOT easier to get through - mamacita!) and thought X-MEN 3 was the best of the lot. None of that boring-old-men-in-a-room shite, no "the waaaaaaaaaaar has begaaaaaaaarn" shit, just an honest-to-God smackdown between hundreds of mutants ALL USING THEIR FUCKING POWERS AT ONCE (forget that pathetic attempt at the end of X1, and X2 was so boring I actually fell asleep at that shitty ending first time round) that showed what X-MEN could be - a great big badass summer movie, instead of some boring treatise of minorities where every piece of subtext is so fucking obvious they may have well just called it MINORITY MEN and have done with it. Long story short: Ratner ain't the Antichrist, but I loves me some CONAN stories, and they deserve more care and attention than the Rat can give them. So we need Paul Verhoeven or David Twohy. All else is a big bag of bollocks, and we all know it.
Danny by skimn	Nov 11th, 2008 12:57:22 PM
The only saving grace I find in ID4 is President Pullman's pre-flight speech. It's corny as hell, but damn, it's like I get poked in the eye with a flagpole when I hear it.
WotW was headed for greatness by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Nov 11th, 2008 12:58:25 PM
I was even willing to look past the total insanity of machines being buried in the ground for tens of thousands of years waiting to attack us when we had technology to fight back rather than when we were still looking for a way to improve the sword. But as soon as the son ran over the hill it became a seminar in sewage mismanagement. And ironically they ripped off the aliens in WotW from the ones in ID4.
Bah, that X3 finale fight was godawful by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 12:58:43 PM
Pyro vs Iceman= weak as hell and completely unimaginative. Also, why the hell were there like 50 mutants with extreme jumping powers? I would have liked a little more variety there. Only saving grace of that last battle in my opinion, was finally seeing Beast in action. But the whole thing was a letdown in my eyes.
Danny by DocPazuzu	Nov 11th, 2008 01:00:07 PM
I had nothing but a friendly disposition toward you to begin with. It was when I started poking fun at your take on the Alien series that you got pissy. You accused me of running away from debating you on the merits of ALIENS ("cunt-like behavior" I believe you called it), and being an "elitist". Despite the fact that I assured you that I wasn't attacking you, you persisted in being a complete shithead about it. The fact is, when someone loves a film you hate, you treat them exactly the way you're accusing me of doing. You know, there are literally dozens of people in TB I can disagree with about movies and poke fun at (and vice versa), but none of them are as obnoxious, vulgar and thin-skinned as you are.
DGDB = ID4>WOTW by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 01:00:39 PM
Sorry, but I don't know where to begin with that. Maybe that even annoying Will Smith is waaaay more charismatic in ID4 than painfully earnest, look-at-me-I'm-really-NORMAL Tom Cruise trying (and miserably failing) to play a shitty Dad. Rather than come of as overwhelmed and undercoping, he just came across as a TWAT. Jeff Goldblum > ANYONE in WOTW. In anything he makes. Harvey Fierstein got killed in ID4. Just to stop him with that fucking voice, I enjoyed that bit. I wanted Cruise to die in WOTW, and he DIDN'T! The aliens were shit in WOTW. Adam Baldwin was in ID4. They had Jayne from FIREFLY. No FIREFLY veterans in WOTW = big fat shit on that movie. ID4 was fast, totally non-serious, goofy, stupid, and aware of its own ridiculousness. Pure spectacle - but very well presented. WOTW had only one great spectacle scene - the initial invasion, Tripods coming out of the ground etc - the rest of it was boring as fuck. Sorry - for me, ID4>WOTW any day. The INDY IV rot set in on WOTW, because the most unforgiveable thing about any summer blockbuster movie - and IDY IV suffered big time from this - is being BORING. Holy fuck, was WOTW BORING! Back me up, guys, It's not often I disagree with the DGDB, but on this one... can't let it pass.
Spud - very well said by toadkillerdog	Nov 11th, 2008 01:00:44 PM
Tolkein was a lot of things, but a great writer is not one of them. Now, before people start jumping off bridges, I consider Tolkein to be one of the finest creators of fantasy and adventure of all time. But when considered simply as a writer, a composer of words to create literature, he was fairly mediocre. Now, that being said REH was not Norman Mailer either. He was firmly in the pulp eschelon - perhaps higher up the pulp talent pool than most, but still a pulp writer.
I echo D.Vader on that by just pillow talk	Nov 11th, 2008 01:03:27 PM
Besides daytime suddenly become night, that last fight sucked. From what I could tell, there wasn't mutants using all of their powers at once. Unless, like D.Vader said, you count jumping powers. I guess they all had the power of lameness. I would argue that Wolverine in the woods was better than that last fight scene. Plus, lest we forget, it gave us the immortal words "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch." And Hawaiian is right, once the son went over the hill and then we spent way too much time with Mr. Robbins, it was over.
Meh by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 01:04:35 PM
WotW had that great sequence where the army attempted to fight back, but all of it was seen from the ground, the POV of the refugees, which for once gave American a tiny bit of insight into what it must be like to call your home, your own backyard, a wartorn country with invaders that can't be beat. Love that shot where the choppers go straight into certain death, and I find that to be a quite exciting sequence.
I'm THE JUGGERNAUT, BITCH! by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 01:07:49 PM
I humbly submit that the dubbed version of the X-MEN cartoon that started that whole "I'm The Juggernaut, Bitch!" is actually 100% better than all 3 X-MEN movies put together. I guess I just never really got into the whole X-MEN thing. If I were a one-eyed, disabled Muslim black lesbian, it may have appealed to me all over, but as a working-class white Caucasian... didn't relate to me AT ALL ;P
Oh pillow, don't get me started on that awful transition by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 01:08:11 PM
Geez that's the most glaring mistake in any big budget movie I've seen in a long time, going from day to misty night within the span of a few seconds. And if all the muties were using their powers as once, as they should have done, I think we would have seen more 'splosions and effects. Instead it was just ugly-looking Morlocks and a guy who regenerates his arms. And why was Psylocke a shape-shifter? Why even bother calling her Psylocke if her power is completely different than the real character? Is it too much to ask to see her use her psychic knife on someone? That woulda been a unique power to see on film.
And might I offer up Angel by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 01:10:54 PM
As a completely unneeded and nonexistent character. What did he do or offer the film other than another character that didn't want his power and to fly in and save his dad at the end of the day? It was a fucking ploy to get fanboys into the theaters. "Look! Look! We've got all your favorites! Even Angel!"
Harvey Fierstein is indeed awesome... by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 01:10:57 PM
...loved him in Mrs. Doubtfire.
spud mcspud by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 01:11:49 PM
Disagree with me?!! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAT?!!!
please ignore my mentioning of it D.Vader then... by just pillow talk	Nov 11th, 2008 01:12:44 PM
I think the first encounter of Wolvie/Rogue vs. Sabertooth, with Storm and Cyclops there, was better than that 'final' battle in X3. Even the Beast in action wasn't that good.
President Bill Pullman by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 01:14:41 PM
Was the worst idea in Roland's long sad history of bad ideas.
shit...I forgot about Angel being plopped in by just pillow talk	Nov 11th, 2008 01:14:53 PM
At least we got to see his pretty wings, cause that's all we need to see is him flying.
you know whats funny? by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 01:16:41 PM
I had a screenwriting class years ago in college and for some reason it was filled with 40-60 year old dudes. The first day the Professor comes in and goes around the class asking everyone their favorite film. I shit you not probably 50% of the class said Independence Day. And this was probably in 2000.
Hey stop stealing my lines DGDB by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 01:17:21 PM
Even if I stole them first. Honor among thieves and whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat not.
Okay..Danny.. by skimn	Nov 11th, 2008 01:18:40 PM
thats not funny. Thats fucking scary.
D.Vader by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 01:18:47 PM
You got it right with X3. Worthless plastic bag full of diarrhea. I can see the story meetings on that one, "What are we gonna do here?!" "Fuck. I dunno....lets fucking blow up Professor X, he's old anyway." "What about here? We need some sort of emotional moment." "I know!! Lets make Rogue go get her powers taken away, betraying the only family she's ever had!! That makes sense!!"
Thanks for the kind words, spud. by Devil'sOwn	Nov 11th, 2008 01:21:47 PM
Like many others, I discovered Conan when I was a kid reading comics. I happened across this Marvel title that didn't look like anything else out at the time. It's difficult to describe, but the illustration it featured of a big muscular, long-haired man brandishing a sword looked quite unlike the other big muscular guys on display. I took my first step into the Hyborean Age. It was detailed and expressive, and on a whole different level from the superhero stuff I had been reading. Despite being an unknown quantity, it was very new reader-friendly, I was instantly comfortable with the series' mythos. Conan was not a generic good guy with unstoppable powers, or a soul tortured by moral dilemmas. He wasn't anybody's universally-loved world saver. He was just a dude. Well, a big strong, cunning BARBARIAN dude who would sock a fool with anything he got his hands on. He was grouchy, and horny, and always looking for the payoff. To a kid like me growing up in that particular time and place, he was easy to identify with. My fondness for the character would only grow over the years as I discovered and started collecting the black-and-white magazine that had even more sex and violence. Best of all, I read the reprint books and any other Howard material I could get my hands on. I became addicted to his stormy, visceral prose. It was just good, rewarding entertainment. And that's all it should be.
Part of X3's problem by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 01:22:16 PM
Is the absolutely ridiculous mandate that this be the LAST X3, despite the fact that the franchise has MORE story possibilities than any other comic-book film. Then they can get more people into the theaters by saying "Its the last one! The end of the series!" knowing they'll betray that promise. So its the last movie, let's go "balls-to-the-wall" and kill off characters for emotional resonance, only to take all of it away at the end by hinting that Magneto will get his powers back and that Xavier is alive in someone else's body for the inevitable sequel.
Well at least Beast by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 01:23:43 PM
Was true to his character and had just about perfect casting with Kelsey Grammar. I thought his fight scenes at the end were how I imagined them as a kid. Angel, on the other hand, had some pretty bad flying effects when he caught his father.
DGDB by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 01:23:47 PM
Actually, your story about 50% of a screenwriting class saying ID4 is their FAVOURITE film... wow. That's just SAD. I enjoy the movie, in a guilty pleasures kind of way, but an important piece of cinema? A great example of scriptwriting? I can think of many, many better movies offhand. About that day-to-night thing in X-3... I thought it was just a weather modification that happened due to Dark Phoenix's change in mood - that the sky reflected her state of mind. Though technically, DGDB's scriptwriting class would tell us that if this were the case, there should have been a throwaway line earlier explaining about the weather reflecting Jean's mood... In other words, it was a dumb mistake, and I rationalised it away to enjoy the movie. I also agree that Angel was criminally underused in X3. However... Danny - did you say you thought ALIENS was the WEAKEST Alien movie? SERIOUSLY? You HAVE seen Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection, right? And do you count the AVP movies as Alien movies? Nah, we disagreeing, brah...
I think that the mental kid from X2 by just pillow talk	Nov 11th, 2008 01:25:06 PM
made everyone think the events of X3 happened, and that the X-Men failed at the end of the second movie to take him out and save all the humans.
*I meant last XMovie, not last X3 by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 01:25:32 PM
Carry on.
just pillow talk - GOOD RETCON! by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 01:28:34 PM
I'd have X4 begin as an intro to the House of M - that everything that happened in X3 was in the head of the mega-powerful mutant that put everything in another reality in House of M. Basically, your idea, but the way HOUSE OF M used it. Or write off the X-MEN franchise. I can't wait to see AVENGELYNE on the big screen... ;P
Devil'sOwn - cheers for that! by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 01:35:11 PM
You've nailed the very essence of what makes the CONAN mythos so great to lose yourself in - CONAN is basically an id, unbound, able to do everything we - in our constrictive, civilised, stifling lives - wish we COULD do. He has just enough morality to be a decent guy, but pity the fool who messes with him or gets in his way! It's even more interesting how the Hyborian Age mythos grew out of REH's own background - he was weak, sickly for most of his life, very attached (unhealthily so) to his bedridden mother, and bullied at school- It was perhaps inevitable he'd end up a writer. He was also a close pen friend to (amongst others) H P Lovecraft, and even alluded to the Cthulhu mythos in the Conan mythos every now and again. Vincent D'Onofrio plays a young REH in the movie THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD (1996), based on a memoir by REH's close friend Novalyne Price (played by Renee Zellweger). It's one of those slow-burning character dramas, and goes a long way to explaining why REH's stories were such a reflection on the way his life was. Well worth a watch.
or have Sam Raimi do X4 together with Spidey 4 by just pillow talk	Nov 11th, 2008 01:35:47 PM
After both franchises have been shoved to the ground and kicked in the nuts, might as well take a dump on them as well with #4 for both.
spud mcspud by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 01:38:22 PM
Fuck no, I am absolutely not counting AVP movies. My favorite of the bunch is Alien 3. In my opinion it is the most emotionally hard hitting. The alien design is better than ever. I love the setting, and supporting characters, and the macabre tone. One of my favorite endings, not just of an Alien film, but any film in general. Its an amazing film in my eyes. Alien is a close second. Of course its groundbreaking and scary and all that good stuff everyone knows. Resurrection I like for totally different reasons....its more an action/thriller piece. Just a fun monster chase movie really, nothing too heavy. Aliens is overrated as fuck. I watched all 4 again recently and this was clearly the weakest. Its one of those films I just don't understand the love for. The marines everyone adores are cliché, corny, and annoying. I want all of them to explode 5 minutes in. The sets are atrocious, the worst of the series. They look like they are made out of plastic and legos. The alien design is garbage. Big bulky stuntmen and ugly design. The whole Ripley/Newt relationship feels cliché and forced to me. I never once give a shit about Newt. She is a horrible unlikable character and I really don't care when the aliens take her. The photography is fucking horrible, Cameron's typical ugly blue hue. Bishop is cool, one of the only things I like in this film, and the last 15 minutes are indeed great. It is everything that comes before that I can't stand.
I wouldn't call WotW boring by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Nov 11th, 2008 01:40:24 PM
The ferry sequence was beautifully done and the military fighting back was thrilling, especially since Spielberg decided not to show the battle which shows a restraint most directors don't have. But Tim Robbins did grind it to a halt. The probe scene wasn't thrilling, the prisoners in the tripod cage wasn't particularly exciting and then seeing the son standing at momma's front door was gag worthy.
Raimi and X4 by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 01:40:39 PM
Fuck no, I am absolutely not counting AVP movies. My favorite of the bunch is Alien 3. In my opinion it is the most emotionally hard hitting. The alien design is better than ever. I love the setting, and supporting characters, and the macabre tone. One of my favorite endings, not just of an Alien film, but any film in general. Its an amazing film in my eyes. Alien is a close second. Of course its groundbreaking and scary and all that good stuff everyone knows. Resurrection I like for totally different reasons....its more an action/thriller piece. Just a fun monster chase movie really, nothing too heavy. Aliens is overrated as fuck. I watched all 4 again recently and this was clearly the weakest. Its one of those films I just don't understand the love for. The marines everyone adores are cliché, corny, and annoying. I want all of them to explode 5 minutes in. The sets are atrocious, the worst of the series. They look like they are made out of plastic and legos. The alien design is garbage. Big bulky stuntmen and ugly design. The whole Ripley/Newt relationship feels cliché and forced to me. I never once give a shit about Newt. She is a horrible unlikable character and I really don't care when the aliens take her. The photography is fucking horrible, Cameron's typical ugly blue hue. Bishop is cool, one of the only things I like in this film, and the last 15 minutes are indeed great. It is everything that comes before that I can't stand.
HOD by skimn	Nov 11th, 2008 01:45:13 PM
You beat me to the punch. I echo the same exact things you posted about WotW. The ferry scene is another Spielberg scene that is a marvel in of itself.
Tim Robbins scenes did go on too long.... by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 01:45:27 PM
...it should have happened much quicker than it did. And I don't think any film has made military defense more exciting in recent years, than Cloverfield. My jaw fucking dropped in the theater during those scenes.
On WotW by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 01:47:18 PM
I liked the probe scene and thought it was effectively tense. Also, the last third with Robbins didn't bother me like it bothered others. I'm not quite sure why that is exactly, as it gave Cruise's character another chance to demonstrate that he could be a good father, trying to protect his children from the horrors of war. As for the end, when Cruise shows up at his ex-wife's parents house and everyone's happy to see the children at the doorstep, I thought FOR SURE that Spiels was going to do an homage to his favorite film, The Searchers, and have the family completely ignore Cruise and go back inside, leaving him standing alone out in the street. That would have been a really interesting and kinda bleak ending, even with the son surviving. All that work and no thanks, he's still seen as kind of a schmuck.
The Robbins scene SHOULD NOT have happened by just pillow talk	Nov 11th, 2008 01:48:00 PM
to begin with. You have them on the run after witnessing the military get wiped out...continue with that.
DGDB: Raimi and X4= Alien discussion? by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 01:48:07 PM
What kind of glitch is this?
DGDB - Ah damn, we agree on sump'n... by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 01:48:32 PM
I hated ALIEN 3 when I first saw it. Couldn't see the point at all. All those slapheads, so I couldn't tell who was who in the action scenes... AWFUL!! Then I watched it AGAIN. Now I like it. it's much more meotional, true, but also has an almost medieval feel to it - so that when the xenomorph does start going after them, it's almost the Devil in their midst - and they react accordingly. It's much more pure horror that ALIENS. Bit overdone with the Christ-allegorical ending (the way Ripley falls etc) - too much obvious subtext AGAIN! - but overall, the more I watch it, the more I like it. Even better when you've read all the other iterations of the ALIEN III script that are going around the net. Couldn't get on with RESURRECTION at all - except for the alien underwater scene, which was weirdly elegant and lookwed awesome - and I normally loves me some Wincott (he was such a rock god in THE CROW - coolest villain EVER!) but couldn't warm to that. I'd admit to not hating AVP2 completely, but I'd be run out of here by feral fanboyas with plastic lightsabres. So I'm staying schtum.
On Cloverfield's military scene by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 01:49:36 PM
I got shivers when that scene occured, and it is my absolutely most favorite scene in the whole film. Also loved that quick tease/reveal of the monster through the smoke before the gang fell into the subway. Good call DGDB. That sequence is excellence.
D.Vader by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 01:50:16 PM
Uhhhhh. Fuck. Must be my mistake. I mixed the heading of one with the body of another post. Damn. I said something about Raimi wiping his wad on the lens of a camera after he jerks off and making a more fulfilling film than X3. Something along those lines.....but its sounded better.
Never read Wells original by skimn	Nov 11th, 2008 01:51:19 PM
but I understand that the farmer character was in the original.
SPIDER-MAN by spud mcspud	Nov 11th, 2008 01:52:39 PM
But only the second movie was worth a damn. 1 and 3 - absolutely godawful movies.
Psssh, AvP2 was wholly enjoyable by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 01:52:53 PM
My friend and I had a great time in the theater watching that. Kids got killed. The Predator was a badass again. We had an R rated Alien/Predator film again. T'was great.
Danny by just pillow talk	Nov 11th, 2008 01:53:05 PM
Aliens is a completely different movie, as it is basically a pure action flick. I do like Aliens 3, but what bothers me to no end is when Chuckie stands up to the Alien and lives way too long. If the Alien wasn't such a pussy, he would have ripped in to shreds in 3 seconds flat.
spud mcspud by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 01:53:49 PM
Thats interesting you said that about the medieval feel. Because originally, that was the entire intention with Vincent Ward's draft of Alien 3. The monks saw the beast as a manifestation of Satan. A lot of the script was rewritten to be the prison planet we saw. Check this out. ------------------------------ ---------- The screenplay by Ward and co-writer John Fasano had Ripley's escape pod crash landing on a monastery-like, wooden planet. The Alien³ special features disc also explains how they would come about creating the story for a wooden planet. However, the inhabitants of this planet would view the arrival of Ripley as that of a religious trial from their "god." By having a woman on their monastery planetoid, their trial would be one of sexual temptation. To avoid this, the Monks of the wooden planet would later lock Ripley into a dungeon-like sewer. The early draft, which featured the Alien creature coming with Ripley, had the wooden planet Monks believing that the Alien was in fact the Devil. There are scenes and illustrations featured on this disc that show the "Wooden Planet." Aspects of the monastery/Monks of the early draft were later utilized in the final production of the film by having the male inmates participating in the religion shown. The screenplay featured a vast number of scenes set in different locations on the wooden planetoid, ranging from an internal 5 mile wide sea to wheatfields on its surface. Ward's intended version of the film proved hugely problematic, opposed by the studio who hired Greg Pruss and later Larry Ferguson for further rewrites, and eventually Ward left the film in frustration
Ogilvy was an astronomer in the original WotW I think by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 01:54:22 PM
They must have given his name to a farmer character. I dunno. Always meant to read the thing. Along with hundreds of other "classics"...
just pillow talk -- I find that detail to be realistic. by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 01:55:55 PM
They should have changed the tagline of the film to "THE BADDEST CREATURE IN THE GALAXY HAS JUST MET HIS MATCH.....CHUCK DUTTON!"
On Alien 3 by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 01:56:10 PM
I read recently that the idea was for Alien 3 to be completely different than the previous 2 and was to take place in overly bright settings, hence an alien chase through the wheatfields. That certainly would have been an interesting visual sequence, and one I wouldn't mind seeing be revisited at some point in the future.
Day Night Transition in X3 by tempurasan	Nov 11th, 2008 01:59:50 PM
There was actually a shot showing the transition between dusk and night, with the sunlight setting on Magneto's face. But Ratner cut it out for pacing. He actually cut a lot of action sequences out of the film. The scene in the house actually had more action, and a bit where Wolverine stabs Jugganaut through the biceps, and in another instance stabbing Jugganaut in the head and have storm shocked him and basically tries to lobotomize Juggy. He basically said he wanted the film to have a forward movement momentum, building up to the final sequence.
skimn by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Nov 11th, 2008 02:01:28 PM
The farm house scene was handled beautifully in the 50s version. It didn't drag on as long as there wasn't an idiot tinfoil hat douchebag that required killing with a shovel. I guess we killed the Conan talk.
Brettnuts the Ratnerian. by Devil'sOwn	Nov 11th, 2008 02:01:38 PM
Ratner seems like an amiable-enough guy. Iiiii dunno. I don't claim to have any special knowledge of him as a person. Some folk say, to borrow a phrase from the Monarch, he thinks he's hot shit in a champaign glass, but he's really just cold diarrhea in a Dixie cup.;[ As I've stated in previous Talkbacks on this topic, absolutely nothing on his resume inspires enough confidence in me to say,"Yeah. He could make this work." To me, the prospect of this cheesemaker getting his hands on something he thinks is cool makes him the fucking Antichrist! Perhaps he's not, and neither are McG, Michael Bay, or any of the other mainstreamers who get blessed out in these Talkbacks. X-Men: Last Stand was the only Ratner movie I ever paid to see in the theater. I plan on keeping it that way. I'm willing to concede that movie's flaws weren't entirely his fault- THAT was probably the unfortunate result of the studio being so hellbent to push it into production. IF, by some miraculous alignment of the stars, a Ratner-directed Conan movie recieves a fair amont of critical praise, I'd reconsider.
On Ratner by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 02:02:02 PM
"He basically said he wanted the film to have a forward movement momentum, building up to the final sequence." That's pretty much something EVERY director should do anyway as part of the job description, not just something he wants to do.
WotW Vs. ID4 by tempurasan	Nov 11th, 2008 02:04:35 PM
I agree with Spud here. Last thing I wanted in my ALIEN INVASION movie was another allusion to the flight of the Jews, or a metaphor of 9/11. He got the imageries right, but the metaphors don't fit, so it didn't resonate the particular emotions he wanted to express. The film went downhill way before they met with Tim Robbins. The military needed to be more involved in the film. ID4 did all this much better with a smaller budget (not by much) and inferior technology (CGI). I didn't even mind the virus part, it was basically a modernization of the plot device in the original WotW. Plus Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum > Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning. Though that psuedo one take shot when they took to the freeway and was the only car running was worth the admission price. I still don't know how they did that.
Flight of the Jews? 9/11? by D.Vader	Nov 11th, 2008 02:06:42 PM
I saw it more as, for once, making AMERICANS the refugees, displaced from their homes during a time of war. Something we'd been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It put Americans in a place they'd NEVER been before.
D. Vader by tempurasan	Nov 11th, 2008 02:07:45 PM
I'm not saying Ratner is the only person who does that. I'm just saying that's what he was trying to accomplish in X3. I think it worked for the most part, as the film has better pacing than both X1 and X2, despite being the exact same length as X1. BTW, X1 is a superior film to X2. Much more complete and self contained story, and much more compelling to watch.
D. Vader Jews flight 9/11 by tempurasan	Nov 11th, 2008 02:08:53 PM
I'm just taking Spielberg's word here. I saw it in the special features that was what he was trying to show.
D.Vader by skimn	Nov 11th, 2008 02:11:32 PM
You are absolutely correct. Spielberg himself said he was influenced by war footage of refuges trudging across landscapes with their belongings.
Other 9/11 imagery by skimn	Nov 11th, 2008 02:16:08 PM
The posterboards plastered with "Have you seen?" signs, Cruise's character covered in ash (actually his friends and neighbors..yeesh), etc.
It's the end of the world, and I feel fine by skimn	Nov 11th, 2008 02:24:21 PM
ID4 is the apocolypse of "if we look past our differences to fight a common enemy, we can win". Our ingenuity defeats the invasion. WotW is the apocolypse of "We're fucked". We're on our own, and its a dog-eat-dog world as society breaks down. Our salvation is coincidence.
skimn by tempurasan	Nov 11th, 2008 02:48:03 PM
I understood perfectly the dog eat dog apocalyptic world that Spielberg was going for. But he undermines that in the very next scene with Cruise entering a sieged city where we fought back and won so easily. I think Spielberg was too much of an optimistic film maker to really pull off something as dark as he set out to be when the film started. Spielberg always does that, tug at the heart string, wrenched out your guts, sucker punch you in the balls, but then immediately apologize and hand you a big chocolate cake with a cherry on top. That's why the film didn't work for me. I was perfectly open for him to give me something new, but he just didn't deliver. ID4 did.
I didn't have a problem with Spielberg lifting... by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Nov 11th, 2008 02:57:40 PM
...the Wells ending of aliens being defeated by our atmosphere. Yes, of course you have the people screaming "Nice way to travel millions of miles to kick our ass and not test the air, alien jerkwads!" but he stayed true to the original. The only problem is he didn't give us a scene as bleak as the 50s version where you have refugees assembling in the church to spend their final moments before Dirk the Amoeba puts the smackdown on E.T. Spielberg pulled his punch at the worst possible time.
I shit on this movie now. by Darth Macchio	Nov 11th, 2008 03:30:41 PM
Ratner has his time and his place. It is not near anything that isn't 'tongue & check' and if it is, he is severely out of his scope. Not completely perhaps, maybe 90% (see X-men 3) but enough that he is not ready to direct films of this nature. For those of you whom are happy with half-empty, gimick-filled Conan...good for you. For the rest of us, we want more than jingoistic bullshit, idiosyncratic references, and some 'super-hip' fast-talkin character that never shuts up. Maybe Rat will surprise us all but he got where he is not by innovation but by saying "sure, we can cut that" or "sure, we can do that without that character", "sure we can make it in this much time for that amount of money" ad infinitum (only time the guy says "No" is when the Burger King dude asks if he wants 'diet' soda). It's possible for someone like Rat to make a good film; hell, it's looking like I'm going to be eating a certain amount of crow with McG and T4:Salvation (I actually hope I do have to eat lots of crow) and I would want even a Boll-directed Conan to do well but if Rat's history shows...we're in for mediocrity at the best or pure shit at the worst. I'm with the posters above who'd prefer no Conan movie at all instead of mediocrity or diluted shit.
Why isn't Verhoeven expressing interest in this? by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Nov 11th, 2008 03:46:59 PM
He was born to make a Conan movie.
Why do they let Ratner around movie sets by JoeSixPack	Nov 11th, 2008 03:58:05 PM
Has the guy ever made a good movie?
HOD....no you're wrong. Verhoeven was born to fuck. by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD	Nov 11th, 2008 04:22:41 PM
Thats all.
Maybe by blackwood	Nov 11th, 2008 06:21:12 PM
This will be the one film where the Rat brings together all the styles he's aped over his many films into something uniquely his; and the script will be rock solid; and we'll get a lead that can really connect to the character; and the Rat can prove himself to be better than a competent workhorse who brings things in on time and budget, but also someone with a tiny bit of vision and a modicum of balls. Maybe.
Someone please drop a giant, one-eyed vagina squid by finky089	Nov 11th, 2008 10:51:45 PM
on this project. Ratner must be stopped!
You know who can solve this? by Vern	Nov 12th, 2008 02:25:38 AM
Barack Obama. This is not a lie, I read that he collects Spider-man and Conan comics. He should just call up Ratner and say that he will have trouble focusing on solving the economic crisis unless Ratner steps down from Conan. Or to be nice he could appoint him to some made up task force that would conflict with the Conan schedule and he'd have to drop out. Verhoeven, not being American, would not feel any patriotic duty to do it for Barack, so I haven't figured out that part of the plan yet, but we'll think of something. As for the WOTW vs. ID4 thing, you gotta be fuckin kidding me, I'm with Dickblood on this one. I know some people enjoy INDEPENDENCE DAY in kind of a SHOWGIRLS type of way because it's so aggressive about insulting you in every way. And the part where the dog jumps away from the explosion in slow motion. But my money's on WAR OF THE WORLDS. I still don't understand why the son not dying is so loathsome to everybody. So what? And did you really believe he was dead? Have you watched movies before? I do agree that once Tim Robbins shows up it goes a little downhill, but for the most part it's a brilliantly made version of the story and the most intense PG-13 movie until DARK KNIGHT. I prefer Spielberg's approach of showing everything from the POV of the family to the more literal version of that in movies like CLOVERFIELD. It feels very real since you mostly see the aliens from across fields, but without sacrificing the advantages of artful cinematography in order to make it looks like camcorder footage.
Right, Spud by Lost Jarv	Nov 12th, 2008 03:20:17 AM
I'm going to have to peel you, boil you and mash you for that comment. AvP:Rectum is a fucking disgrace to celluloid. It's shittily lit garbage, populated by wankers that craps all over mythology and was clearly written by a couple of semi-retarded fanboys (Predalian= ZOMG KEWL LOL!!!!). Since when could Aliens or Predators reproduce by vomiting down a pregnant womans throat? Since when is the incubation period 3.5 seconds? (actually I know the answer to this one, thanks PWSA), Why on earth do they think that if you had a Predator Alien Hybrid it would have fucking dreadlocks? And the worst crime of all, by far the worst, is that it has effectively put a bullet in us ever getting Alien 5. Fucking atrocity, and everyone involved in it needs forcing into the hard core corprophagia fetish market.
and, I'm sorry by Lost Jarv	Nov 12th, 2008 03:22:28 AM
but as much as I don't like WOTW, it's miles better than ID4. Which I hate.
Ah, Jarv... by spud mcspud	Nov 12th, 2008 05:56:45 AM
I literally have no comeback as to why I enjoyed AVP2 on the big screen, other than (a) it was a rainy, overcast, piss-boring day, I had nothing to do, and some free tickets, I'd seen everything else on - so I watched it, and was surprised to find I didn't hate it. I must have been channelling the same fanboy I was at 14 when I was watching shite like BASKET CASE and actually enjoying it. I can't defend AVP2, nor will I try to - and yes, the maternity ward scene was more than a little confusing to me. They upended and threw out every vestige of sense regarding the reproduction cycle. But it made for a pleasingly sick and gory scene. As for AVP1 - of I wanted to see a movie where a whole section was pre-occupied with FUCKING WALLS THAT MOVE then I'll go watch Uwe Boll's upcoming TETRIS - THE MOVIE. Otherwise, Paul What Shite Anderson, stick to the fucking subject matter at hand or fuck off and impregnate the Jovovich again. WHY THE FUCK can't Anderson direct a movie that at least resmebles what the title says? At least EVENT HORIZON was good, and MORTAL KOMBAT was cheesily watchable. In fact, SOLDIER was okay. Oh shit. That's a list of okay PWSA movies, isn't it?!? anguished scream, leaps into a potato masher
As for ID4 vs WOTW by spud mcspud	Nov 12th, 2008 06:04:40 AM
I think your enjoyment level of ID4 depends on how many AW HEEEEEEELLLLLL NAAAAAAWW!!!!s you can take in a single movie. I actually really LOVE BAD BOYS II, so my threshold is pretty high. But I think Spiegelberger and AW HEEEELLLL NAAAAAWW! redoing OLDBOY is such a fucking concept I wouldn't know where to begin explaining why. That could be the most neutered, bollockless, pointless, watered down vanilla piece of shit remake ever put on film - and I've seen the remake THE FOG, so I know true horror when I see that shit. As for an ALIEN 5... as much as I'd love to be blown out of my seat by an amazing ALIEN 5, who do you think could make it happen in this day and age? Setting aside the disastrous few years FOX has had in this genre, ANYONE could end up making it nowadays. Michael "Bayhem!" Bay. Brett "Meh" Ratner. Rob "Redneck Assholes" Zombie. M Night "WTF?!?" Shyamalalalala. Rob "Gave up after DRAGON" Cohen. Stephen "Wannabe Bayhem!" Sommers. Stephen "Toothless These Days" Spielberg or George "Seriously, WTF?!?!?" Lucas. There's no end to how bad it could get. and if you can't cram either Russell Crowe or Leonardo Di Caprio in there, along with a healthy dollop of current affairs from a liberal point of view, you ain't getting Sir Ridley Scott back on this series any time soon. And after ALIEN RESURRECTION, Sigourney weaver is fast losing credibility on this series too. So, basically, Jarv... I feel your pain, but I don't think a decent ALIEN 5 movie could be made these days without a major miracle. Like Fox realising how viable the ALIEN and PREDATOR franchises could be if handled FUCKING PROPERLY! But you're shouting into the abyss on that one...
Vern by spud mcspud	Nov 12th, 2008 06:15:08 AM
I see what you're saying about Spielberg using the family POV in WOTW, and that lending it realism - but it also leant it something else. TOTAL FUCKING BOREDOM!!! (with apologies to TFD). When we saw Cruise's son trying to go over the top, and the battle going on JUST OVER THE HILL, I can't have been the only person wanting to see what was going on over there! And the Tim Robbins bit... boring as hell, not to mention stupid. Why exactly did the Tripod not just level Robbins' house - basement included - when Cruise severs the eye-limb? Would the Tripod not notice a little thing like losing an appendage? Someone earlier said this movie would have been much better with a The Searchers homage ending, with the family turning their backs as if Cruise is still considered an asshole. Wouldn't this have been more justified after the oldest son gets home BY HIMSELF - meaning that Cruise has fucked up as a father yet again? Bah. I don't want to see serious alien invasion movies - they take themselves far too seriously, and eventually end up in a meta-mish-mash of their own smugness. This is what happened to WOTW, and also to CLOVERFIELD - which was a fantastic movie, but boy was it impressed with itself! By the end, it was too enamoured with the idea of showing off that it sacrificed realism for "Bayhem" and we end up watching characters we care for very much, who have gone through a monster attack in the real world and come through it, climbing two buildings knocked together that look for all the world like a soundstage. Suspended disbelief suddenly drops, the movie loses us, and by that Muppet shot at the end, we're out of the movie. Great film, overstepped the boundaries by trying to be too smartass. But hey, at least it tried. this is why I like ID4 - just overwrought enopugh to drag you into the drama, but with enough moments to laugh and catch your breath before it becomes too much. Characters you root for. One fantastic flag-waving polemic of a speech. Spectacular scale battles. Randy Quaid! You can't deny ID4 was a rollicking good time, Vern. And WOTW was boring at times...
Basket Case and Basket Case 2> AvP:R by Lost Jarv	Nov 12th, 2008 06:37:39 AM
I will not have you badmouthing the b-movie gourgesness of Basket case. Not when you've said you like AvP. The difference is one of standards. Basket Case is, and always was, a low rent piece of schlock and can therefore be enjoyed on these terms. AvP is the continuation of 2 Gold standard horror/ sci-fi franchises and is therefore an abombination that is not to be tolerated. Don't make me fetch the chip pan.
Vern and WOTW by just pillow talk	Nov 12th, 2008 07:00:41 AM
It went more than downhill with Timmy. It screeched to a halt. Clearly the best parts of that movie were when Tommy boy and the familia were on the run, with the tripods creating mayhem and destruction. Awakening of tripods - gold (who cares why the aliens chose now to attack) Crash landing of plane - gold Ferry scene - gold And the son was annoying as all hell to begin with, and even you must admit the son showing up alive at the end was complete shit. If you must have that little fucker survive, then the ending should have been the daughter running to the front door and then hug/rejoice, and then shut the door on Tom leaving him standing there on the street alone (I'm stealing this from someone else who mentioned this in either this thread or another).
The best critique I heard of ID4... by Darth Macchio	Nov 12th, 2008 09:46:22 AM
...was something along the lines of "This movie seems to have been written by a 13 year old kid". I actually use that notion as a base-line for a lot of material. Some are quite predictable. Pretty much anything Bay has done fits firmly into this category along with the bulk of Bruckheimer's work.
I watched Meet Dave last night by tempurasan	Nov 12th, 2008 10:30:32 AM
And suddenly Ratner seems too good for Beverly Hills Cop 4. EDDIE!!! EDDIE!! FUCK YOU EDDIEE!!! FUCK YOU MAN EDDIE!!! sorry... just trying to relive the good old days.
Now We're Even Closer To Ratner fucking up CONAN... by Leafar the Lost	Nov 12th, 2008 11:07:21 AM
...like he fucked up X-Men 3. If Nolan decides not to direct Batmen Begins 3, then let Ratner direct that one too. Why not? Hell, let him direct the next Superman movie too, after Singer boored us to death with Superman Returns. After all, Brett Ratner = box office gold under budget!
Tempura by skimn	Nov 12th, 2008 11:17:26 AM
You actually watched Meet Dave last night and were not held at gunpoint? Or at least involved in some sort of comedy-deprivation study?
skimn by tempurasan	Nov 12th, 2008 11:22:17 AM
I watched too many movies, and was running out. It was either Meet Dave or watch Street Fighter again. I needed a laugh, either with or at a movie, and I should have chosen Street Figther. I could have done both with that movie. "QUICK! CHANGE THE CHANNEL!!" - Gold, just gold
Tempura by skimn	Nov 12th, 2008 11:37:59 AM
I suggest having a copy of Kung Pow:Enter The Fist on hand in case of such emergencies. It is a truly silly movie, that never fails to give good laughs.
TomCullen by pumaman	Nov 12th, 2008 12:36:40 PM
How fucking lame are your posts dude that you still have to resort back to your pathetic re-enactment of a character from The Stand. Yawn !
Eloquent as always, Jarv by spud mcspud	Nov 12th, 2008 04:08:18 PM
And you're right - AVP IS a continuation of two franchises that, handled even half-heartedly, should have been carrying on into many interesting sequels, either with visionary new directors at the helm (give Darren Aronofsky an ALIEN sequel to do, give Robert Rodriquez - not new, but certainly visionary - PREDATOR 3) or with a very safe pair of hands on each (give Twohy PREDATOR 3, give Del Toro an ALIEN movie). Unfortunately, they're franchises owned by Fox, who are currently the laughing stock of the fantasy/sci-fi genres, and have created such gems this year as THE HAPPENING, MEET DAVE, and AVP2 (I know I need help for actually half-enjoying it - Doctor Jarv will beperforming a lobotomy with a sharp spud peeler very soon). THAT is why those franchises are deader than disco - they are owned by FUCKS FILMS, the rat bastards who backed Lucas and distributed when he made those fucking childhood-raping prequels. THAT was the fucking nadir of awful film-making - watching Lucas kill his own babies, to prove a point. My ass STILL hurts...

Talkbacks

Now We're Even Closer To A Ratner Directed CONAN...

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks