Jump to content

Jumble Jumble

Members
  • Posts

    14,253
  • Joined

Everything posted by Jumble Jumble

  1. Nope. Superman looks the way he does because that's how men would like to look. Wonder Woman looks the way she does because that's how men would like women to look. Keep saving for that surgery, buddy.
  2. Everyone understands his point, but it's not right. Superman and Batman aren't ripped so they look hot, they're ripped so they look strong. Wonder Woman is hot so she looks hot, and the "but she's magically strong" argument is a red herring.
  3. Imagine the reaction if Christopher Reeve was unveiled today. It's literally just a lycra suit. And he was definitely the best one ever. Probably including the next 30 years at least.
  4. I don't think people are saying she should look like the comics, so much as just saying she should look strong. Not like a weird body builder, just strong.
  5. What I don't get is, is there ANYONE looking at all this stuff, or reading about it what's happening with the DC movie universes, and saying "this is going to be awesome"? As far as I can see the internet is exclusively down on it all. Do the movie guys just think they definitely know better than absolutely everybody?
  6. Great to see Wonder Woman in her classic livery of brown, brown and brownish blue.
  7. Of course. It's just a bit inconsiderate.
  8. I think it'll be good because I'm a fan of the various people involved. Pretty simple. I'm not policing discussion, but I think if people are droning on about how bad it's going to be, I'm allowed to tell them I don't give a shit.
  9. You seem to be suggesting that they should make a film in the style of an 80s mainstream comedy. There are hundreds of 80s mainstream comedies if you want them. It is 2015, and it makes much more sense to make a film in the style of a 2015 mainstream comedy. This appears to be what they are doing. In the 80s, that type of comedy was completely middle-of-the road in the same way that Bridesmaids is now. The original Ghostbusters had two SNL alumni along with some of their comedy-world friends. All had proven to be successful at the box office by this point in the field of comedy. Oh look, that describes the new one as well. I'm not saying you're sexist. I'm just pointing out (not for the first time in this thread) that they're making a modern, mainstream American comedy, like they did in the 80s, and if you hate current mainstream American comedy then firstly you will hate this film, and secondly it's not relevant to point that out, any more than it would be worth going into a thread about Burton's Sweeney Todd and hating on it because you don't like musicals. As for it being "solely" a gender swap: if that were the case, then presumably if the cast were male, it would be a direct remake. I mean, maybe it is, but I'm pretty sure it's not. This is one of the worst arguments: that making the lead roles female is some kind of gimmick. Was it a gimmick that they were all men in the first one? No, it was like that because Ray Stantz was a man, and his friends were men, and then they went into business together. Imagine Ray Stantz was a woman, and so were his friends. Would that have been a gimmick? The director has said that when the idea of having the leads as women came up it inspired loads of creativity. Good, right? I mean obviously if you're determined not to like it. If you hated Bridesmaids, and The Heat, and you don't like SNL, or Modern Family, or whatever. If you consider the original to be some kind of holy text. If you seriously think that measuring other comedy against one of the most legendarily talented comic actors in history is the only barometer that matters. Then don't see this film. And also, please, stop going on about how shit it's going to be. The thing is, I bet you do all watch it, just to prove to yourselves how bad it is. Complete unbiased, going in, of course.
  10. If you'd shown me those two pictures with no context, I'd have never been able to guess which was old and which was new.
  11. Is that where they're putting all the copies of the old film so nobody can watch it again?
  12. Not really - we have lots of threads in here about rumoured projects and so on. If there's something to discuss, it can go in a thread. If it comes to nothing, the thread dies. Where's the downside?
  13. Hang on, this is the Top Gear 2016 thread, not the Cars On TV thread. Please split that off, because surely we'll want a thread about the new Clarkson show.
  14. Is that what you think is happening in those photos?
  15. Kate McKinnon looks amazing it that second picture.
  16. I was talking about Evans's comment, not James's.
  17. That comment really doesn't make much sense, does it? They needed two co-hosts, and they decided that they'd get them by that audition process, so of course that audition process produced the two co-hosts.
  18. Amazing photo, well worth becoming a headline on Star Wars websites across the internet.
  19. There is no way a brand-new film that you've never seen before can possibly compete in terms of emotional connection with a classic film from your childhood that you've seen a hundred times or more. If while watching this film you don't feel the same as while you watch the original, that will be in no way an indication of the new film's success or failure.
  20. I like this idea of making something up, deciding it's true, and then slagging it off. Give me a few hours and I'll come up with mine.
  21. I would say keep a separate one, but maybe merge some of the very recent posts from the old one into this one? And perhaps then lock the old thread?
  22. Ah bugger, could a mod please move this to the TV folder?
  23. Top Gear website link I'm not particularly keen on Chris Evans, but at least he does have his own distinct personality, and it's different to Clarkson's. And he does know about cars and stuff and he is a talented presenter, I think. It'll be interesting to see what they do about other presenters - Evans has dropped a slight hint that James May might be involved somehow. I think that would be weird, and that it'd be better just to get some other presenters. Now they've got a face to head it up, they can be unknowns. I do think it'd be good to have a woman, just to get a bit further away from the tedious laddiness the old show was suffering from. I just hope they focus more on cars, really.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.