Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

No idea what I just read, but it was entertaining.

Just say no to another planet of the apes, remake/reimagine.

trang wrote:Just say no to another planet of the apes, remake/reimagine.

It's a prequel to both the original and Conquest of the Apes, though it does seem to be a bit of a reimagining. I'm fine with the film and am looking forward to it, but I'm very annoyed that they're opting for motion-capture and CGI rather than the traditional makeup effects of the originals.

Redstar wrote:

trang wrote:Just say no to another planet of the apes, remake/reimagine.

It's a prequel to both the original and Conquest of the Apes, though it does seem to be a bit of a reimagining. I'm fine with the film and am looking forward to it, but I'm very annoyed that they're opting for motion-capture and CGI rather than the traditional makeup effects of the originals.

I'm looking forward to it

And I like the idea of CG apes. Men in ape suits is a compromise - even the ones in the crap 2001 film (which were created by Rick Baker and which are awesome) were a compromise, you can't get away from the physical differences between man and ape. Digital apes is a way around this problem and the digital apes are being created by Weta, so they won't be all bad

digital apes + evolution...

Weta should pull it off very well, and I have trust in them after seeing the limited ape animation release, but I guess I just have a soft spot for "practical" effects. I know a few people in film that do makeup and prosthetic effects, so it's a real shame that something can look so real is ignored in favor of a still growing art.

Dirty Dancing remake: http://movies.yahoo.com/news/dirty-danc ... 18181.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me, the previews of Rise of the Planet of the Apes looked really interesting...and what ever was the big deal about Dirty Dancing? It didn't really do anything for me.

Sandwurm88 wrote:...and what ever was the big deal about Dirty Dancing? It didn't really do anything for me.

That's because you're not a chick.

I just figured out, it's probably the same exact thing with Grease.

Sandwurm88 wrote:I just figured out, it's probably the same exact thing with Grease.

Nope ... Grease is a great movie. Haven't you seen the scene with Olivia Newton John in leather pants?

Serkanner wrote:

Sandwurm88 wrote:I just figured out, it's probably the same exact thing with Grease.

Nope ... Grease is a great movie. Haven't you seen the scene with Olivia Newton John in leather pants?

She was pretty hot in the cheerleader outfit, too.

Freakzilla wrote:

Serkanner wrote:

Sandwurm88 wrote:I just figured out, it's probably the same exact thing with Grease.

Nope ... Grease is a great movie. Haven't you seen the scene with Olivia Newton John in leather pants?

She was pretty hot in the cheerleader outfit, too.

Hell yes!

Haven't seen Grease in a long time, I think it was before girls in tight leather would have been important to me.

I do remember seeing a part of a show (one of those 50 Greatest something or other shows) where they mentioned that to get her into those pants they had to sew her in; they were so tight she couldn't just put them on normally.

In other news, I watched the Rocky Horror Picture Show last night/this morning (for the first time) and it is weird.

Let's do the Time Warp again!!!

SadisticCynic wrote:In other news, I watched the Rocky Horror Picture Show last night/this morning (for the first time) and it is weird.

OH, ROCKY!

(It's better with hallucinogens, narcotics and a very dirty partner.)

I think Rocky Horror Picture Show should be required viewing for High School students, and especially anyone involved in space operations that might include First Contact.

What about
Monkeys doing it dirty, dancing (and greased up) ?

http://screenrant.com/woody-woodpecker- ... dy-140202/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Illumination Entertainment (Despicable Me) is planning a new Woody Woodpecker movie. John Altschuler and Dave Krinsky (King of the Hill) are in talks to write the film.


Yet another famous old-school (animated) character is being prepared for a return to the big screen: Woody Woodpecker, the famous anthropomorphized cartoon fowl whose trademark cackle is a reminder of a bygone era in Hollywood animated entertainment (or the stuff of nightmares, depending on your personal view).

Illumination Entertainment is working on a new feature-length project that will star the Woodpecker character. It could be one of the company’s next completely CGI-animated efforts, following Despicable Me, next year’s adaptation of Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax, and the in-development Despicable Me 2.




Woody Woodpecker was concocted by storyboard artist Ben “Bugs” Hardaway and cartoonist Walter Lantz as being a screwball character, similar to early incarnations of Looney Tunes icons Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck - both of which were also partly Hardaway’s creations.

The Woodpecker character eventually transitioned from being a wild and hyperactive troublemaker during the 1940s, to a more mellow and refined cartoon character, like the Chuck Jones version of Bugs Bunny, in the ’50s. Universal Entertainment (which owns Illumination) purchased the rights to Woody Woodpecker back in 1985.

Heat Vision says that Illumination’s plan is to “create a story that modernizes [Woody Woodpecker], hopefully launching a franchise in the process.” Current in talks to create said story is writing duo John Altschuler and Dave Krinsky, who previously worked as executive producers/writers on King of the Hill and co-penned the Will Farrell sports comedy Blades of Glory.

It pretty much goes without saying that Illumination’s Woody Woodpecker movie will be more of an all-ages-friendly and madcap slapstick-filled computer-animated cartoon, with more in common with Despicable Me than Altschuler and Krinsky’s previous animated efforts (or their work on the new incarnation of Beavis and Butthead).

How exactly Illumination plans to “modernize” the Woody Woodpecker character is the question right now. It’s safe to say we won’t be seeing a “darker and grittier” version of the bird; he will probably be more prone to making pop culture references and humorous nods to adult viewers, though. Exactly how much the character will spend his time cracking “trendy” jokes now, though, is the question…

Are you excited, horrified, or unmoved by the prospect of a modernized Woody Woodpecker?

Horrified

Gods I fucking hate Hollywood.

This is the culture that allows no-talent hacks like Anderson thrive...

At least it won't be a live-action/CGI blend like Yogi Bear, The Smurfs and every other classic revival.

Twilight Graphs

http://www.happyplace.com/12313/smart-a ... ght-series" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who you gonna call? For "Ghostbusters 3," not Bill Murray.

The Ghostbusters retired a long time ago, after a 1984 hit film, 1989 sequel, and two animated TV shows. But their spirit is still haunting the entertainment world.


In a webcast with Empire magazine, former Ghostbuster Dan Aykroyd implied he and co-star Rick Moranis were actively working to bring "Ghostbusters 3" to theaters sometime in the next few years.

"If we can get the script to 'Ghostbusters 3' right, then it would definitely have Moranis as a major component. None of us would want to do the movie without having him as a participant,” said Aykroyd.

He also responded to questions that another star, Bill Murray, wasn’t into the idea, denying reports that Murray actually shredded a potential script and included the note note, “No one wants to pay money to see fat, old men chasing ghosts.”

Replied Aykroyd, “Bill Murray is not capable of such behavior. This is simply something that would not be in his nature. We have a deep, private personal relationship that transcends business. We communicate frequently and his position on the involvement in 'Ghostbusters 3' has been made clear and I respect that.”

Nevertheless, Aykroyd continues on his quest, hinting he will be pursuing alternative actors to fill the shoes.

Tough to say what a Ghostbusters movie would be like without Murray. Not all fans are thrilled.

“Leave Ghostbusters in the past where it belongs, with its reputation maintained by affectionate nostalgia,” writes Belfast Boy on Empire's comment page. “The legacy can only be tarnished by a much belated continuation.”

Others see the humor in the situation or wouldn’t mind a return of the plot, if the right pieces were in place.

“If they can't get the original cast back together, OK, reboot it completely,” says a fan who goes by larstrygve. “Start over with some new guys.”


http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_new ... tbusters-3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Freakzilla wrote:“If they can't get the original cast back together, OK, reboot it completely,” says a fan who goes by larstrygve. “Start over with some new guys.”

This is the kind of asshat fan that keeps the shit floating...

GODS I HATE HOLLYWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!

SandChigger wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:“If they can't get the original cast back together, OK, reboot it completely,” says a fan who goes by larstrygve. “Start over with some new guys.”

This is the kind of asshat fan that keeps the shit floating...

I love the depth of your comment, he's more dense than shit!
I find it hard to believe Danny A is behind this, I always thought he was cool.