Also, Bruce was notably lacking the mask. I think there must be some special circumstances.
He was also ready and armored to take the shot in the back.
Whoever cut the trailer actually bothered to set this up. The victims have gold bars strapped to their backs (as you can see in the earlier part of the trailer), which is probably how the assassins get paid.
So he wasn't so much armored, as using the payment to avoid getting shot.
Yea, you couldn't pay with currency (because it would be dated from the future even if using the same style) so you have to pay them in some other asset.
0
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Also, Bruce was notably lacking the mask. I think there must be some special circumstances.
He was also ready and armored to take the shot in the back.
Whoever cut the trailer actually bothered to set this up. The victims have gold bars strapped to their backs (as you can see in the earlier part of the trailer), which is probably how the assassins get paid.
So he wasn't so much armored, as using the payment to avoid getting shot.
Something that presumably only a former looper would know to do, since he knew what the setup would be. I imagine most other targets would be too disoriented to react very quickly.
Yea, you couldn't pay with currency (because it would be dated from the future even if using the same style) so you have to pay them in some other asset.
I just came back from cabin in the woods, they played this trailer and I noticed it on my own this time. He also chucks one of the bars at him afterwards(its quick but I think thats what it is). the movie is going to be set up to the point of they set him up specifically without a hood so his past self would see him. I bet theres an 80 year old man somewhere in the begining of the film in the future that is him that was sent back as a 50 year old.
0
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
I guess the one problem I'd have with this whole Looper idea, is that I could totally buy the idea of a time-travelling hitman being okay with being the one to pull the trigger on himself, as that basically frees himself up for the rest of his life until that one day. In a world of being a contract killer for money, that's really about as good as it can get.
So I don't know if I buy this whole dilemma. I'd kinda be in favor of a movie that explored it the other way, where every Looper eventually kills himself, and that's when he's 'made his bones' in the underworld and really hit the big time.
Yea, you couldn't pay with currency (because it would be dated from the future even if using the same style) so you have to pay them in some other asset.
I just came back from cabin in the woods, they played this trailer and I noticed it on my own this time. He also chucks one of the bars at him afterwards(its quick but I think thats what it is). the movie is going to be set up to the point of they set him up specifically without a hood so his past self would see him. I bet theres an 80 year old man somewhere in the begining of the film in the future that is him that was sent back as a 50 year old.
It it too early to call it as a stable time loop?
The event that gets future looper sent back to be killed by his younger self was his failure to kill his older self when he was younger. He's just spent the interim 40+ years on the run from other loopers proving himself suitably badass to actually turn into Bruce Willis.
I'm hoping it's not that simple and straight forward, I've been wanting a mind bending time travel story for a while. One of those where you don't understand half of what's going on until the second time you watch it.
0
GreasyKidsStuffMOMMM!ROAST BEEF WANTS TO KISS GIRLS ON THE TITTIES!Registered Userregular
Have you watched 12 Monkeys,@see317? I just watched it earlier this week and thought it was fantastic.
Several time Greasy, it's a good flick.
I like seeing time travel when it's done well. But too often it just falls apart because Hollywood prefers to play to the lowest common denominator rather then ask the audience to think about what time travel might actually result in.
I guess the one problem I'd have with this whole Looper idea, is that I could totally buy the idea of a time-travelling hitman being okay with being the one to pull the trigger on himself, as that basically frees himself up for the rest of his life until that one day. In a world of being a contract killer for money, that's really about as good as it can get.
So I don't know if I buy this whole dilemma. I'd kinda be in favor of a movie that explored it the other way, where every Looper eventually kills himself, and that's when he's 'made his bones' in the underworld and really hit the big time.
It doesn't seem like Levitt has any qualms at all about killing his future self, in fact he seems quite driven to do so, he just fucked it up because his future self is smarter than he is.
EDIT:
Actually, now that I think about it why would Levitt even care? Nothing bad can happen to him even if he doesn't kill his future self, because his future self is there so Levitt will at least live until he's sent back to the past.
Unless it's a "multiple timelines" sort of thing rather than a "stable loop" sort of thing.
I guess the one problem I'd have with this whole Looper idea, is that I could totally buy the idea of a time-travelling hitman being okay with being the one to pull the trigger on himself, as that basically frees himself up for the rest of his life until that one day. In a world of being a contract killer for money, that's really about as good as it can get.
So I don't know if I buy this whole dilemma. I'd kinda be in favor of a movie that explored it the other way, where every Looper eventually kills himself, and that's when he's 'made his bones' in the underworld and really hit the big time.
It doesn't seem like Levitt has any qualms at all about killing his future self, in fact he seems quite driven to do so, he just fucked it up because his future self is smarter than he is.
Of course, his future self already knows what he's going to do.
I guess the one problem I'd have with this whole Looper idea, is that I could totally buy the idea of a time-travelling hitman being okay with being the one to pull the trigger on himself, as that basically frees himself up for the rest of his life until that one day. In a world of being a contract killer for money, that's really about as good as it can get.
So I don't know if I buy this whole dilemma. I'd kinda be in favor of a movie that explored it the other way, where every Looper eventually kills himself, and that's when he's 'made his bones' in the underworld and really hit the big time.
It doesn't seem like Levitt has any qualms at all about killing his future self, in fact he seems quite driven to do so, he just fucked it up because his future self is smarter than he is.
Of course, his future self already knows what he's going to do.
http://youtu.be/7ENUBUdFswM whoever made this trailer needs to be sacrificed to the elder gods. This is the most deceptive thing since Drag me to Hell.
I thought the Drag Me to Hell trailers did a good job selling the movie, then I watched the movie and it was boring.
That Cabin in the Woods trailer does a bad job selling the movie, I'm seeing it soon so hopefully it's good.
I got exactly what I expected out of drag me to hell, a terrible Raimi horror/comedy. You hear lines in the movie that sound like bruce campbell should be saying them, and lo and behold you find out that he was too busy to do it, so they hired the girl and adjusted the script. When BC turns down the work... I don't know you guys.
Woods was a typical whedon affair, if you enjoy his stuff you will like the movie. I wasn't a fan of the very end, but I am not sure what else I expected. I thought the thing would be a bit deeper I guess. edit: Just saw the trailer, and theres another complete side to that movie yes, but it doesnt missell the concept.
There just not up front that you see the side of the story from the controllers
but that is the entire concept of the damn movie, that's why it opens on the office of the control room. The control room is not the big twist. Heck the big twist isn't much of a twist since they hammer it in starting from the opening credits.
Selling it like just another horror movie and not telling you that it's actually a comedy is completely misleading.
I knew there was a "control room" based on the one trailer, but I didn't know where in the movie it would show up. Seems like something I would have liked to have been surprised with when I watched the movie. Maybe I'm being unreasonable.
Hibiki is just being a jerk because maybe he felt cheated by the trailer.
I think the less you know about Cabin in the Woods going in, the more you will get out of it.
We've done a phenomenal job at keeping 99% of CitW stuff in spoilers in the movies thread, so to have it be openly talked about in here in a little silly.
Also, arguing "It's not a spoiler because______" is dumb. It obviously bothers someone, so fucking spoiler it. It takes two seconds.
TehSpectre on
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Hibiki is just being a jerk because maybe he felt cheated by the trailer.
I think the less you know about Cabin in the Woods going in, the more you will get out of it.
We've done a phenomenal job at keeping 99% of CitW stuff in spoilers in the movies thread, so to have it be openly talked about in here in a little silly.
Also, arguing "It's not a spoiler because______" is dumb. It obviously bothers someone, so fucking spoiler it. It takes two seconds.
Compared to what is considered a spoiler in the Game of Thrones thread, that is a huge one. I mean, yeah maybe not that big a deal but it's easy to spoiler it so let's just do that.
I can get behind the idea of less movie footage/spoilers in general trailers and pre-release clips if they did things like this, Pearce's TED talk, etc.
Last pint: Turmoil CDA / Barley Brown's - Untappd: TheJudge_PDX
but that is the entire concept of the damn movie, that's why it opens on the office of the control room. The control room is not the big twist. Heck the big twist isn't much of a twist since they hammer it in starting from the opening credits.
Selling it like just another horror movie and not telling you that it's actually a comedy is completely misleading.
I wouldn't say this is a comedy. Especially from the last act. I think the only movie/thing whedon has done that wasn't exactly like this was aliens 4. Most of the jokes in the first half besides the spoiler stuff, is completely in line with how "college students fall into horror movie" movies go. And if the spoiler part of the movie was super serial, it would of made for a terrible movie.
How can you do that trailer as anything else? They show that there is obviously something going on in the background, they just dont show the tone of it.
They have the "new" security guard as a foil, to try and show the horrors of how the workers are reacting, and their response is pretty human, if they didnt do those things like betting as an outlet, they would probably go crazy from being in a business where they have to set 4-5 people up to get murdered every year
I can get behind the idea of less movie footage/spoilers in general trailers and pre-release clips if they did things like this, Pearce's TED talk, etc.
That is hawt. I love how commercially likeable he is designed to be and how unsettling he actually comes off. From the perspective of an Alien prequel, I would call that a swish.
I can get behind the idea of less movie footage/spoilers in general trailers and pre-release clips if they did things like this, Pearce's TED talk, etc.
Thing is, that "world building" stuff only works for a few genres. I can't expect Avengers to do a TED talk with Tony Stark (as awesome as that would be).
I can get behind the idea of less movie footage/spoilers in general trailers and pre-release clips if they did things like this, Pearce's TED talk, etc.
Thing is, that "world building" stuff only works for a few genres. I can't expect Avengers to do a TED talk with Tony Stark (as awesome as that would be).
Avengers has world building, they just don't do viral stuff.
0
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
Ok, I haven't seen every bit of Promethius but is all the secondary stuff focused on the tech and company?
Cause of so, that's a brilliant way to establish a character that is a force in the movie but isn't actually in it.
Cabin In The Woods is the best horror movie I have seen in the past ten years. It was refreshing, hilarious, terrifying, and just plain horrifying at times. Wonderful movie.
Posts
He was also ready and armored to take the shot in the back.
Whoever cut the trailer actually bothered to set this up. The victims have gold bars strapped to their backs (as you can see in the earlier part of the trailer), which is probably how the assassins get paid.
So he wasn't so much armored, as using the payment to avoid getting shot.
Something that presumably only a former looper would know to do, since he knew what the setup would be. I imagine most other targets would be too disoriented to react very quickly.
I just came back from cabin in the woods, they played this trailer and I noticed it on my own this time. He also chucks one of the bars at him afterwards(its quick but I think thats what it is). the movie is going to be set up to the point of they set him up specifically without a hood so his past self would see him. I bet theres an 80 year old man somewhere in the begining of the film in the future that is him that was sent back as a 50 year old.
So I don't know if I buy this whole dilemma. I'd kinda be in favor of a movie that explored it the other way, where every Looper eventually kills himself, and that's when he's 'made his bones' in the underworld and really hit the big time.
It it too early to call it as a stable time loop?
I like seeing time travel when it's done well. But too often it just falls apart because Hollywood prefers to play to the lowest common denominator rather then ask the audience to think about what time travel might actually result in.
It doesn't seem like Levitt has any qualms at all about killing his future self, in fact he seems quite driven to do so, he just fucked it up because his future self is smarter than he is.
EDIT:
Actually, now that I think about it why would Levitt even care? Nothing bad can happen to him even if he doesn't kill his future self, because his future self is there so Levitt will at least live until he's sent back to the past.
Unless it's a "multiple timelines" sort of thing rather than a "stable loop" sort of thing.
Of course, his future self already knows what he's going to do.
Damn. That's awesome! Time-travel is awesome.
Day One.
That Cabin in the Woods trailer does a bad job selling the movie, I'm seeing it soon so hopefully it's good.
I got exactly what I expected out of drag me to hell, a terrible Raimi horror/comedy. You hear lines in the movie that sound like bruce campbell should be saying them, and lo and behold you find out that he was too busy to do it, so they hired the girl and adjusted the script. When BC turns down the work... I don't know you guys.
Woods was a typical whedon affair, if you enjoy his stuff you will like the movie. I wasn't a fan of the very end, but I am not sure what else I expected. I thought the thing would be a bit deeper I guess. edit: Just saw the trailer, and theres another complete side to that movie yes, but it doesnt missell the concept.
Selling it like just another horror movie and not telling you that it's actually a comedy is completely misleading.
Thanks for that.....
I think the less you know about Cabin in the Woods going in, the more you will get out of it.
We've done a phenomenal job at keeping 99% of CitW stuff in spoilers in the movies thread, so to have it be openly talked about in here in a little silly.
Also, arguing "It's not a spoiler because______" is dumb. It obviously bothers someone, so fucking spoiler it. It takes two seconds.
Compared to what is considered a spoiler in the Game of Thrones thread, that is a huge one. I mean, yeah maybe not that big a deal but it's easy to spoiler it so let's just do that.
I can get behind the idea of less movie footage/spoilers in general trailers and pre-release clips if they did things like this, Pearce's TED talk, etc.
I wouldn't say this is a comedy. Especially from the last act. I think the only movie/thing whedon has done that wasn't exactly like this was aliens 4. Most of the jokes in the first half besides the spoiler stuff, is completely in line with how "college students fall into horror movie" movies go. And if the spoiler part of the movie was super serial, it would of made for a terrible movie.
How can you do that trailer as anything else? They show that there is obviously something going on in the background, they just dont show the tone of it.
New Jason Statham movie, who's excited?!
PSN: rlinkmanl
This would be, what, Transporter 12?
Thing is, that "world building" stuff only works for a few genres. I can't expect Avengers to do a TED talk with Tony Stark (as awesome as that would be).
Avengers has world building, they just don't do viral stuff.
Cause of so, that's a brilliant way to establish a character that is a force in the movie but isn't actually in it.