A Thread About Movies

KalTorak · April 2012

I'd be very surprised if they didn't release some "movie edition" version of the boardgame, complete with alien ships.

Linespider5 · April 2012

Buddies wrote: »

Thomamelas wrote: »

Wait.

This is the video everyone's pissing and moaning, or just moaning, about?

I don't know, people. I was expecting something cheesy or gratuitous. I didn't really get either out of that. In fact, I don't even know why this was made available. It's not bad, it's just...we don't know why this scene is important, or what it leads to, or anything. It doesn't even have a cliffhanger ending. It's just a middle.

It's a middling middle, at that.

Now, I'm sure someone with sufficient snark is gonna say that because this is a Whedon joint it's entirely possible the scene ends with Scarlett Johannsen getting double-tapped by some pseudo-Russian and then she learns everything from him and gets it back to SHIELD, but,

This isn't bad, or good, or glorious. This is just a thing, that means utterly nothing by itself.

Now I'm off to watch Senna.

Kipling217 · April 2012

That's turned me off on the entire thing. It looked so generic. I have seen that fucking movie so many times. Independence Day, Battle:LA and the Bayformers trilogy. Big budget, Snappy one liners and huge explosions. At least Iron Sky had heart.

Harry Dresden · April 2012

Malkor wrote: »

Harry Dresden wrote: »

Xenogear_0001 wrote: »

The alien/robot/things from Battleship look like the most generic beings of that type imaginable. Also? I don't remember there being aliens in my version of Battleship, but maybe I was just doing it wrong.

There wasn't. The original games were battles between navy fleets (and submarines), that's why adding aliens to the film is so ridiculous. Okay, more ridiculous then it already is.

Right. Is there even some sort of tie-in anymore? Or is it just the name and a freed-up "IP" with Hasbro?

I'd bet on the latter. This is why Hasbro fails and Marvel succeeds.

Harry Dresden · April 2012

Kipling217 wrote: »

That's turned me off on the entire thing. It looked so generic. I have seen that fucking movie so many times. Independence Day, Battle:LA and the Bayformers trilogy. Big budget, Snappy one liners and huge explosions. At least Iron Sky had heart.

Whedon can make films with heart. Serenity was amazing.

shryke · April 2012

Linespider5 wrote: »

Buddies wrote: »

Thomamelas wrote: »

Wait.

This is the video everyone's pissing and moaning, or just moaning, about?

I don't know, people. I was expecting something cheesy or gratuitous. I didn't really get either out of that. In fact, I don't even know why this was made available. It's not bad, it's just...we don't know why this scene is important, or what it leads to, or anything. It doesn't even have a cliffhanger ending. It's just a middle.

It's a middling middle, at that.

Now, I'm sure someone with sufficient snark is gonna say that because this is a Whedon joint it's entirely possible the scene ends with Scarlett Johannsen getting double-tapped by some pseudo-Russian and then she learns everything from him and gets it back to SHIELD, but,

This isn't bad, or good, or glorious. This is just a thing, that means utterly nothing by itself.

Now I'm off to watch Senna.

My guess is it's one of the first scenes. The dialogue and such indicate it's the end of Black Widow's recruitment scene.

KalTorak · April 2012

I thought the Trailers thread was the "judging entire movies based on 30 seconds of footage" thread.

TexiKen · April 2012

Linespider5 wrote: »

Now I'm off to watch Senna.

If you don't come back saying how it's the best documentary ever, then.......then........something something Formula Done.

TychoCelchuuu · April 2012

Spoilered some Moon discussion from before:

Spoiler:

I think I read somewhere that the audio at the end was something Jones (the director) wanted to leave out but the studio made him put it in.

Deaderinred · April 2012

it was an indie film, there was no studio.

it had more to do with mute

Spoiler:

TubularLuggage · April 2012

Considering how the film played out before that, I don't think the audio at the end of Moon really changes a whole lot, and I don't think that playing it or not playing it really matters. The themes it could possibly evoke are already brought up by that point. At most, it slightly shifts focus from one theme to another, though I think the main theme of

Spoiler:

is still central.

Linespider5 · April 2012

TychoCelchuuu wrote: »

Spoilered some Moon discussion from before:

Spoiler:

Mad King George wrote: »

Thirith wrote: »

My only problem with Moon was the very end. The film's interesting when it's about the philosophical issue of "Who am I?" It's much less interesting when it's about the ethics about the corporation, which remains utterly vague to begin with. They should've left the audio chatter at the end away, as far as I'm concerned.

I think Jones felt it necessary to do that, though, because the film had become very much about that, even if by proxy. Like the robot quandary, it's another one of those things that, like "The Company" in Alien, is now ingrained in our scifi consciousness.

After so many films in which future companies are either incompetent or outright malevolent in nature, I think he felt it's an issue that needs to be addressed if you bring up the idea of a corporation with murky motives.

I think I read somewhere that the audio at the end was something Jones (the director) wanted to leave out but the studio made him put it in.

I don't know. It's kind of important.

Spoiler:

It's a good subject to address, I just don't see the fallout or outrage the ending suggests actually happening.

Harry Dresden · April 2012

Linespider5 wrote: »

TychoCelchuuu wrote: »

Spoilered some Moon discussion from before:

Spoiler:

Mad King George wrote: »

Thirith wrote: »

My only problem with Moon was the very end. The film's interesting when it's about the philosophical issue of "Who am I?" It's much less interesting when it's about the ethics about the corporation, which remains utterly vague to begin with. They should've left the audio chatter at the end away, as far as I'm concerned.

I think Jones felt it necessary to do that, though, because the film had become very much about that, even if by proxy. Like the robot quandary, it's another one of those things that, like "The Company" in Alien, is now ingrained in our scifi consciousness.

After so many films in which future companies are either incompetent or outright malevolent in nature, I think he felt it's an issue that needs to be addressed if you bring up the idea of a corporation with murky motives.

I think I read somewhere that the audio at the end was something Jones (the director) wanted to leave out but the studio made him put it in.

I don't know. It's kind of important.

Spoiler:

Imagine you've got to have one, functionally immortal guy on the moon who is harvesting all the necessary energy for the entire Earth. Now...in the real world, the one you and I live in, world population says Fuck That Guy. He's on the moon. He almost doesn't functionally exist. Oh, he's the reproduced clone of a dead guy? So much the better. Clones of the dead=no rights. He's not a person, he's a human franchise, a property bought and owned. Hell, they probably compensate his family for the right to reuse his genes like that. This is how we fuel the world.

It's a good subject to address, I just don't see the fallout or outrage the ending suggests actually happening.

Spoiler:

Linespider5 · April 2012

Harry Dresden wrote: »

Linespider5 wrote: »

TychoCelchuuu wrote: »

Spoilered some Moon discussion from before:

Spoiler:

Mad King George wrote: »

Thirith wrote: »

My only problem with Moon was the very end. The film's interesting when it's about the philosophical issue of "Who am I?" It's much less interesting when it's about the ethics about the corporation, which remains utterly vague to begin with. They should've left the audio chatter at the end away, as far as I'm concerned.

I think Jones felt it necessary to do that, though, because the film had become very much about that, even if by proxy. Like the robot quandary, it's another one of those things that, like "The Company" in Alien, is now ingrained in our scifi consciousness.

After so many films in which future companies are either incompetent or outright malevolent in nature, I think he felt it's an issue that needs to be addressed if you bring up the idea of a corporation with murky motives.

I think I read somewhere that the audio at the end was something Jones (the director) wanted to leave out but the studio made him put it in.

I don't know. It's kind of important.

Spoiler:

Imagine you've got to have one, functionally immortal guy on the moon who is harvesting all the necessary energy for the entire Earth. Now...in the real world, the one you and I live in, world population says Fuck That Guy. He's on the moon. He almost doesn't functionally exist. Oh, he's the reproduced clone of a dead guy? So much the better. Clones of the dead=no rights. He's not a person, he's a human franchise, a property bought and owned. Hell, they probably compensate his family for the right to reuse his genes like that. This is how we fuel the world.

It's a good subject to address, I just don't see the fallout or outrage the ending suggests actually happening.

Spoiler:

The laws and how society views clones are never confirmed, are they? All we have to go off that is brief signal broadcasts. I'd like to see a sequel to Moon revealing what happened when he got to Earth.

Spoiler:

Harry Dresden · April 2012

Linespider5 wrote: »

Harry Dresden wrote: »

Linespider5 wrote: »

TychoCelchuuu wrote: »

Spoilered some Moon discussion from before:

Spoiler:

Mad King George wrote: »

Thirith wrote: »

My only problem with Moon was the very end. The film's interesting when it's about the philosophical issue of "Who am I?" It's much less interesting when it's about the ethics about the corporation, which remains utterly vague to begin with. They should've left the audio chatter at the end away, as far as I'm concerned.

I think Jones felt it necessary to do that, though, because the film had become very much about that, even if by proxy. Like the robot quandary, it's another one of those things that, like "The Company" in Alien, is now ingrained in our scifi consciousness.

After so many films in which future companies are either incompetent or outright malevolent in nature, I think he felt it's an issue that needs to be addressed if you bring up the idea of a corporation with murky motives.

I think I read somewhere that the audio at the end was something Jones (the director) wanted to leave out but the studio made him put it in.

I don't know. It's kind of important.

Spoiler:

Imagine you've got to have one, functionally immortal guy on the moon who is harvesting all the necessary energy for the entire Earth. Now...in the real world, the one you and I live in, world population says Fuck That Guy. He's on the moon. He almost doesn't functionally exist. Oh, he's the reproduced clone of a dead guy? So much the better. Clones of the dead=no rights. He's not a person, he's a human franchise, a property bought and owned. Hell, they probably compensate his family for the right to reuse his genes like that. This is how we fuel the world.

It's a good subject to address, I just don't see the fallout or outrage the ending suggests actually happening.

Spoiler:

The laws and how society views clones are never confirmed, are they? All we have to go off that is brief signal broadcasts. I'd like to see a sequel to Moon revealing what happened when he got to Earth.

Spoiler:

Wouldn't he just, like, fall apart and die no matter what? The clone machinery was still working up there, right? He may not have even interrupted the harvesting by very much at all.

I guess I could imagine a congressional hearing where he turns into a red mess on live TV in the process of giving his statement.

A Moon sequel would just be bad. At best, you could have something where the computer mind starts sending a clone army to attack earth or something, since the lunar facility probably has a limitless supply of clones given that it is sitting on the mother lode of all resources. And that's just not very good, and not enough like the original to be worth linking to the original in that way.

Spoiler:

Ketar · April 2012

Linespider5 wrote: »

TychoCelchuuu wrote: »

Spoilered some Moon discussion from before:

Spoiler:

Mad King George wrote: »

Thirith wrote: »

My only problem with Moon was the very end. The film's interesting when it's about the philosophical issue of "Who am I?" It's much less interesting when it's about the ethics about the corporation, which remains utterly vague to begin with. They should've left the audio chatter at the end away, as far as I'm concerned.

I think Jones felt it necessary to do that, though, because the film had become very much about that, even if by proxy. Like the robot quandary, it's another one of those things that, like "The Company" in Alien, is now ingrained in our scifi consciousness.

After so many films in which future companies are either incompetent or outright malevolent in nature, I think he felt it's an issue that needs to be addressed if you bring up the idea of a corporation with murky motives.

I think I read somewhere that the audio at the end was something Jones (the director) wanted to leave out but the studio made him put it in.

I don't know. It's kind of important.

Spoiler:

Imagine you've got to have one, functionally immortal guy on the moon who is harvesting all the necessary energy for the entire Earth. Now...in the real world, the one you and I live in, world population says Fuck That Guy. He's on the moon. He almost doesn't functionally exist. Oh, he's the reproduced clone of a dead guy? So much the better. Clones of the dead=no rights. He's not a person, he's a human franchise, a property bought and owned. Hell, they probably compensate his family for the right to reuse his genes like that. This is how we fuel the world.

It's a good subject to address, I just don't see the fallout or outrage the ending suggests actually happening.

Uh,

Spoiler:

Linespider5 · April 2012

Harry Dresden wrote: »

Linespider5 wrote: »

Harry Dresden wrote: »

Linespider5 wrote: »

TychoCelchuuu wrote: »

Spoilered some Moon discussion from before:

Spoiler:

Mad King George wrote: »

Thirith wrote: »

My only problem with Moon was the very end. The film's interesting when it's about the philosophical issue of "Who am I?" It's much less interesting when it's about the ethics about the corporation, which remains utterly vague to begin with. They should've left the audio chatter at the end away, as far as I'm concerned.

I think Jones felt it necessary to do that, though, because the film had become very much about that, even if by proxy. Like the robot quandary, it's another one of those things that, like "The Company" in Alien, is now ingrained in our scifi consciousness.

After so many films in which future companies are either incompetent or outright malevolent in nature, I think he felt it's an issue that needs to be addressed if you bring up the idea of a corporation with murky motives.

I think I read somewhere that the audio at the end was something Jones (the director) wanted to leave out but the studio made him put it in.

I don't know. It's kind of important.

Spoiler:

Imagine you've got to have one, functionally immortal guy on the moon who is harvesting all the necessary energy for the entire Earth. Now...in the real world, the one you and I live in, world population says Fuck That Guy. He's on the moon. He almost doesn't functionally exist. Oh, he's the reproduced clone of a dead guy? So much the better. Clones of the dead=no rights. He's not a person, he's a human franchise, a property bought and owned. Hell, they probably compensate his family for the right to reuse his genes like that. This is how we fuel the world.

It's a good subject to address, I just don't see the fallout or outrage the ending suggests actually happening.

Spoiler:

The laws and how society views clones are never confirmed, are they? All we have to go off that is brief signal broadcasts. I'd like to see a sequel to Moon revealing what happened when he got to Earth.

Spoiler:

Wouldn't he just, like, fall apart and die no matter what? The clone machinery was still working up there, right? He may not have even interrupted the harvesting by very much at all.

I guess I could imagine a congressional hearing where he turns into a red mess on live TV in the process of giving his statement.

A Moon sequel would just be bad. At best, you could have something where the computer mind starts sending a clone army to attack earth or something, since the lunar facility probably has a limitless supply of clones given that it is sitting on the mother lode of all resources. And that's just not very good, and not enough like the original to be worth linking to the original in that way.

Spoiler:

Moon isn't a typical science fiction action movie. It's closer to a drama involving science fiction elements. A sequel would be a political thriller/drama. There may have assassins sent by the company to silence him but they shouldn't be the focus in the story. It's how Earth's culture deals with his arrival and revelations.

I know Moon isn't an action movie.

Spoiler:

-SPI- · April 2012

Malkor wrote: »

Harry Dresden wrote: »

Xenogear_0001 wrote: »

The alien/robot/things from Battleship look like the most generic beings of that type imaginable. Also? I don't remember there being aliens in my version of Battleship, but maybe I was just doing it wrong.

There wasn't. The original games were battles between navy fleets (and submarines), that's why adding aliens to the film is so ridiculous. Okay, more ridiculous then it already is.

Right. Is there even some sort of tie-in anymore? Or is it just the name and a freed-up "IP" with Hasbro?

I saw a scene from it on tv the other night where they had to figure out some fancy radar setup using tsunami warning detectors and technobabble because they couldn't get close enough to the aliens to see them visually or with traditional radar without getting killed. So they have to fight them without being able to see where they are except with this huge radar board screen.

It was the most stupid forced way to make the film relate to the boardgame, but they actually do attempt to tie it in.

Kipling217 · April 2012

Harry Dresden wrote: »

Kipling217 wrote: »

That's turned me off on the entire thing. It looked so generic. I have seen that fucking movie so many times. Independence Day, Battle:LA and the Bayformers trilogy. Big budget, Snappy one liners and huge explosions. At least Iron Sky had heart.

Whedon can make films with heart. Serenity was amazing.

Was referring to Battleship the generic alien invasion movie, only Linespider5 posted before me. But that was a fairly generic action sequence. Like something from Alias 10 years ago.

Houn · April 2012

Kipling217 wrote: »

Harry Dresden wrote: »

Kipling217 wrote: »

That's turned me off on the entire thing. It looked so generic. I have seen that fucking movie so many times. Independence Day, Battle:LA and the Bayformers trilogy. Big budget, Snappy one liners and huge explosions. At least Iron Sky had heart.

Whedon can make films with heart. Serenity was amazing.

Was referring to Battleship the generic alien invasion movie, only Linespider5 posted before me. But that was a fairly generic action sequence. Like something from Alias 10 years ago.

Specifically, the opening scene of Alias.

Buddies · April 2012

Houn wrote: »

Kipling217 wrote: »

Harry Dresden wrote: »

Kipling217 wrote: »

That's turned me off on the entire thing. It looked so generic. I have seen that fucking movie so many times. Independence Day, Battle:LA and the Bayformers trilogy. Big budget, Snappy one liners and huge explosions. At least Iron Sky had heart.

Whedon can make films with heart. Serenity was amazing.

Was referring to Battleship the generic alien invasion movie, only Linespider5 posted before me. But that was a fairly generic action sequence. Like something from Alias 10 years ago.

Specifically, the opening scene of Alias.

Whatever it is, it made me not want to watch the film at all. Even if it was on TV, I'd feel no inclination to sit down and watch it. I don't understand what is driving the direction of some of these Marvel/DC Movies. Like, why was X-Men 2 and Spiderman 2 so much better than 1 and 3 of their series? Why did Ironman turn out to be so much better than I thought it would be? Why did I think Thor was boring as shit and The Hulk was alright. Why couldn't X-Men First Class had just been "Magneto" instead, and been entirely his decent from a smart respected man to super villain? I haven't even seen Captain America because of how I felt Thor was a waste of my money. I love Comic Books, Super Heroes and all this stuff. I still watch the Cartoons, and rent the damn animated movies that come out. I'm trying really hard to just be a kid and enjoy seeing my favorite superheroes on the big screen. But then I watch that clip and I say "Nah, I think I'll pass."

I went to go see Hunger Games a couple weeks ago. I was really fiending to go see a movie in the theatres. I still am, because that did not satisfy. Looking forward to Prometheus. I want an adventure. I want to get lost in the movie, and come out feeling I spent an entire day on another planet somewhere. I want to be enthralled, and believe in the world they created.

Houn · April 2012

A. I had no idea that people thought X2 was better than X1. Agreed on Spiderman 2, though.
B. Iron Man is great because Robert Downey Jr.
C. Thor was pretty dull in many parts, and suffered pacing issues. Ed Norton's Hulk is a super fun movie, though, so why wouldn't you like it? Also, <3 Tim Roth.
D. You should see Cap. IMO, it was much better than Thor, minus the contrived but necessary plot advancements at the end.

Robos A Go Go · April 2012

An Alias style opening with disguises and subterfuge would actually have been better. At least then we'd be seeing her do something that the other characters couldn't, whereas it's hard to see busting up generic goons as impressive when everyone else is knocking dragons out of the sky.

gjaustin · April 2012

Robos A Go Go wrote: »

An Alias style opening with disguises and subterfuge would actually have been better. At least then we'd be seeing her do something that the other characters couldn't, whereas it's hard to see busting up generic goons as impressive when everyone else is knocking dragons out of the sky.

Every time I see the trailer, I go:

"So you have a group with a genius in a man-shaped flying tank, a super-soldier, a rage monster, and a Norse god. And then a dude with a bow and a lady with a gun?"

Buddies wrote: »

I went to go see Hunger Games a couple weeks ago. I was really fiending to go see a movie in the theatres. I still am, because that did not satisfy. Looking forward to Prometheus. I want an adventure. I want to get lost in the movie, and come out feeling I spent an entire day on another planet somewhere. I want to be enthralled, and believe in the world they created.

I am also really, really looking forward to Prometheus. After playing Dead Space, sci-fi horror became my favorite genre. I absolutely loved Pandorum.

Linespider5 · April 2012

The Third Movie in a franchise almost always tends to be a little bloated, and tends to coast on the past glories of parts 1 and 2 rather than justify itself.

The third part of a trilogy is usually turducken.

So It Goes · April 2012

Last Crusade is the best turducken

Atomika · April 2012

So It Goes wrote: »

Last Crusade is the best turducken

Yeah, it's funny how much shit that movie used to get.

Until Crystal Skull came out.

Now it's basically The Godfather pt II of awesome sequels. Last Crusade has it's flaws, but it never fails to entertain. It's a much better film than people (used to) give it credit for.

Houn · April 2012

...growing up, Last Crusade was always my favorite. :oops:

Thirith · April 2012

Last Crusade is fun, and miles better than Temple of Doom - but it does feel like a retread of Raiders... except for Henry Jones Sr., and that's a big "except".

valhalla130 · April 2012

Last Crusade was always the best IMO and in the opinion of my movie-lovin' best friend.

Euphoriac · April 2012

I was always a Temple of Doom fan, but watching it as an adult after a good 5 year gap really soured me on it. Now i'm all about 1 and 3. But not 4. nononononoooooo...

Atomika · April 2012

Thirith wrote: »

Last Crusade is fun, and miles better than Temple of Doom - but it does feel like a retread of Raiders... except for Henry Jones Sr., and that's a big "except".

I've never understood the disfavor for Temple of Doom.

It's a good movie. Solid script, nice chemistry, a welcome change of scenery for the franchise . . . .

Good stuff.

Thirith · April 2012

I love the sequence at Club Obi-Wan, but after that it goes downhill IMO. The India bits are painfully clichéd, without doing anything interesting or fun with the clichés; Willie is grating for the most part; the humour and the grisly bits all feel like a 16-year old's Indiana Jones fanfic.

Last Crusade is the funniest of the films, but I find some of its humour... smug, for want of a better world. It seemed to think it was funnier than it actually was, if that makes any sense.

ElJeffe · April 2012

gjaustin wrote: »

Robos A Go Go wrote: »

An Alias style opening with disguises and subterfuge would actually have been better. At least then we'd be seeing her do something that the other characters couldn't, whereas it's hard to see busting up generic goons as impressive when everyone else is knocking dragons out of the sky.

Every time I see the trailer, I go:

"So you have a group with a genius in a man-shaped flying tank, a super-soldier, a rage monster, and a Norse god. And then a dude with a bow and a lady with a gun?"

I know dick about the Avengers as a property, but off the top of my head, the dude with the bow and the chick with the gun could be useful as spies or assassins. None of the other guys are especially good at "covert". Anyway, this same complaint could be leveled at any superhero team. X-Men, Justice League, whatever - you have the heavy hitters and the also-rans.

That said, I am baffled by the degree to which a disembodied 40-second clip of a girl doing martial arts says much of anything about anything. People who were otherwise interested in the flick writing it off based on that strike me as exceptionally silly.

Shawnasee · April 2012

Atomic Ross wrote: »

Thirith wrote: »

Last Crusade is fun, and miles better than Temple of Doom - but it does feel like a retread of Raiders... except for Henry Jones Sr., and that's a big "except".

I've never understood the disfavor for Temple of Doom.

It's a good movie. Solid script, nice chemistry, a welcome change of scenery for the franchise . . . .

Good stuff.

So you like Temple of Doom but hate Hunger Games? I've never felt the need to insert this into any internet/text conversation but I really think "smh" fits well in this scenario...

Harry Dresden · April 2012

Buddies wrote: »

Why couldn't X-Men First Class had just been "Magneto" instead, and been entirely his decent from a smart respected man to super villain?

That was what the project was initially about. Only David Goyer was going to direct and write it. :shock:

KalTorak · April 2012

I thought the Trailers thread was the "judging entire movies based on 30 seconds of footage" thread.

Harry Dresden wrote: »

Buddies wrote: »

Why couldn't X-Men First Class had just been "Magneto" instead, and been entirely his decent from a smart respected man to super villain?

That was what the project was initially about. Only David Goyer was going to direct and write it. :shock:

Sigh... the Magneto/Xavier parts of First Class do make me a bit sad for what could have been.

gjaustin · April 2012

valhalla130 wrote: »

Last Crusade was always the best IMO and in the opinion of my movie-lovin' best friend.

It is the best, thanks to Sean Connery.

ElJeffe wrote: »

gjaustin wrote: »

Every time I see the trailer, I go:

"So you have a group with a genius in a man-shaped flying tank, a super-soldier, a rage monster, and a Norse god. And then a dude with a bow and a lady with a gun?"

I know dick about the Avengers as a property, but off the top of my head, the dude with the bow and the chick with the gun could be useful as spies or assassins. None of the other guys are especially good at "covert". Anyway, this same complaint could be leveled at any superhero team. X-Men, Justice League, whatever - you have the heavy hitters and the also-rans.

This explanation actually makes some sense, at least for Black Widow. Captain America could probably pull off stealthy, but doesn't have the training necessary to do it effectively.

I wonder if those four characters are the only "super heroes" in this version of Marvel continuity, so they're filling the team out with whatever they have left.

Robos A Go Go · April 2012

Assassination isn't really a superhero kind of thing.

And while spies are useful, there isn't really room for spies in these films.

Harry Dresden · April 2012

KalTorak wrote: »

Sigh... the Magneto/Xavier parts of First Class do make me a bit sad for what could have been.

You don't want an unrestrained Goyer. That way lies madness. It's how we ended up with ~~Nightstalkers~~ Blade: Trinity.

Penny Arcade

A Thread About Movies

Posts