DARK SHADOWS movie 2012 reviews: *rotten*

[anim8rFSK]

DARK SHADOWS debuts on rotten tomatoes at 20% - less than half as fresh
as predicted - completely, firmly "ROTTEN"
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dark-shadows-2010/

--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?

[EGK]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 08:08:20 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>DARK SHADOWS debuts on rotten tomatoes at 20% - less than half as fresh
>as predicted - completely, firmly "ROTTEN"
>http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dark-shadows-2010/

What?! No "I told you so"? lol Most of us who weren't totally
delusional saw this coming a mile away. The comment, "Dark Shadows as The
Munsters" was the best one-line description for this.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <phfiq71onsc90tog5...@4ax.com>,

EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 May 2012 08:08:20 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >DARK SHADOWS debuts on rotten tomatoes at 20% - less than half as fresh
> >as predicted - completely, firmly "ROTTEN"
> >http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dark-shadows-2010/
>
> What?! No "I told you so"?

LOL, nope

lol Most of us who weren't totally
> delusional saw this coming a mile away. The comment, "Dark Shadows as The
> Munsters" was the best one-line description for this.

People on facebook are insisting it will still make Avengers level
money. Granted, in 3700 theaters opening weekend, it's gonna gross some
moola, but *anything* would.

[Obveeus]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> People on facebook are insisting it will still make Avengers level
> money. Granted, in 3700 theaters opening weekend, it's gonna gross some
> moola, but *anything* would.

Sometimes people show up for a film (AVENGERS), find it sold out, and settle
for whatever is playing. These people are the key demographic for DARK
SHADOWS this weekend.

[Mason Barge]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 08:08:20 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>DARK SHADOWS debuts on rotten tomatoes at 20% - less than half as fresh
>as predicted - completely, firmly "ROTTEN"
>http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dark-shadows-2010/

A bit premature to declare victory. Now at 38% (5 of 8 rotten) although
the only major review, Variety, was negative.

And a lot of people are going to go watch this POS. Can't let it bother
you.

[shawn]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 11:16:09 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:

I can't see why anyone would be suggesting that. Even if the movie is
good I don't see it having the wide appeal that the Avengers has so I
can't see it making that kind of money. It might make enough money to
break even (although not with Hollywood accounting.)

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jobo3o$r1h$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

Oh, yes.

3700 screens means either somebody incorrectly surmised DS was going to
be a great movie, or correctly realized they were looking at crossing
the streams bad, failure of real old testament proportions, and are
pulling the scam Dino DeLaurentis invented for King Kong - release on
thousands of screens and make your money before word of mouth gets out.

If I were a theater owner with DS booked, I'd be looking for a way to
switch.

No midnight shows here, which is odd; you'd think DS would be ripe for a
Friday at 12:01am showing.

BTW, yesterday they were running "IN 4 DAYS" ads for DS, and today
they're running ... "IN 4 DAYS" ads for DS. Idiots.

[Obveeus]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <jobo3o$r1h$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> Sometimes people show up for a film (AVENGERS), find it sold out, and
>> settle
>> for whatever is playing. These people are the key demographic for DARK
>> SHADOWS this weekend.
>
> Oh, yes.
>
> 3700 screens means either somebody incorrectly surmised DS was going to
> be a great movie, or correctly realized they were looking at crossing
> the streams bad, failure of real old testament proportions, and are
> pulling the scam Dino DeLaurentis invented for King Kong - release on
> thousands of screens and make your money before word of mouth gets out.
>
> If I were a theater owner with DS booked, I'd be looking for a way to
> switch.

Things are just as bleak the following weekend when THE DICTATOR is the only
new wide release.

> BTW, yesterday they were running "IN 4 DAYS" ads for DS, and today
> they're running ... "IN 4 DAYS" ads for DS. Idiots.

Like those car lot ads that advertise 'this weekend only'...but the ads
never seem to air until Sunday evening.

[David]

On May 8, 2:37 pm, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 May 2012 08:08:20 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> >DARK SHADOWS debuts on rotten tomatoes at 20% - less than half as fresh
> >as predicted - completely, firmly "ROTTEN"
> >http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dark-shadows-2010/
>
> A bit premature to declare victory.  Now at 38% (5 of 8 rotten) although
> the only major review, Variety, was negative.

Hollywood Reporter says it's "fun enough"
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/dark-shadows-film-review-johnny-depp-tim-burton-321675

> And a lot of people are going to go watch this POS.  Can't let it bother
> you.

It's going to make good money, especially in other countries. Not
"major blockbuster" but mid-level. There's no point in rooting against
it.

[Tony Calguire]

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fef29630-fba6-4eac...@21g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:

>
> It's going to make good money, especially in other countries. Not
> "major blockbuster" but mid-level. There's no point in rooting against
> it.
>

You just pulled the chair out from under Anim8r's entire existence! :-)

[Artis]

On May 8, 5:36 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 2:37 pm, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 08 May 2012 08:08:20 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >DARK SHADOWS debuts on rotten tomatoes at 20% - less than half as fresh
> > >as predicted - completely, firmly "ROTTEN"
> > >http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dark-shadows-2010/
>
> > A bit premature to declare victory.  Now at 38% (5 of 8 rotten) although
> > the only major review, Variety, was negative.
>

> Hollywood Reporter says it's "fun enough"http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/dark-shadows-film-review-john...

>
> > And a lot of people are going to go watch this POS.  Can't let it bother
> > you.
>
> It's going to make good money, especially in other countries. Not
> "major blockbuster" but mid-level. There's no point in rooting against
> it.

Hmm. The review gives one just enough hope to go see it. Never will
compare to the series, though.

[EGK]

I think the rooting against it comes from people who are disappointed it's
not a more faithful adaptation and updating. I was never in to Dark
Shadows but my mom loved it when it was on. When she saw the trailers for
this version she was horribly disappointed.

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<fef29630-fba6-4eac...@21g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,

There's lots of point in rooting against it.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <5cbjq7lgp3u99spta...@4ax.com>,

Right. I'd have loved if they'd made a GOOD version, but this is so
horrid that many people need to never work again.

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<378cee34-a8e3-4a0a...@18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

Other reviews are overwhelmingly negative.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <joc1cv$b2p$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

LOL, yeah, I've often wondered if it's like that all over the country or
just in AZ.

[suzeeq]

I saw the original series too, or at least what I could watch during the
summer, and I thought the trailers were a bit different, but I wouldn't
mind seeing it....

[anim8rFSK]

In article <joc1cv$b2p$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

>

> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <jobo3o$r1h$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Sometimes people show up for a film (AVENGERS), find it sold out, and
> >> settle
> >> for whatever is playing. These people are the key demographic for DARK
> >> SHADOWS this weekend.
> >
> > Oh, yes.
> >
> > 3700 screens means either somebody incorrectly surmised DS was going to
> > be a great movie, or correctly realized they were looking at crossing
> > the streams bad, failure of real old testament proportions, and are
> > pulling the scam Dino DeLaurentis invented for King Kong - release on
> > thousands of screens and make your money before word of mouth gets out.
> >
> > If I were a theater owner with DS booked, I'd be looking for a way to
> > switch.
>
> Things are just as bleak the following weekend when THE DICTATOR is the only
> new wide release.

Hmm. Well, 2 days after THE DICTATOR is BATTLESHIP and we *know* that's
going to be a huge hit (snicker)

The next week we get MEN IN BLACK III. I would *love* it if that was
great.

June 1 we get
FOR GREATER GLORY (huh?)
PIRANHA 3DD (oh dear god)
SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN

Finally on June 8 we get
PROMETHEUS

a month later SPIDER-MAN 3 hits

July 20
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

August 3
BOURNE LEGACY
TOTAL RECALL

http://www.movieinsider.com/movies/summer/2012/

Prometheus is the only other thing on the list than THE AVENGERS that I
intend to see in the theater. I think that one would be a good DBox
rocking seat flick, although I've yet to see DBox that wasn't also 3D.

[EGK]

I remember seeing some of it too. I just wasn't into it at all even back
then. When I read one of the reviews it said Depp's Barnabas rips the back
off a TV to try and see how little people are inside it. I could
understand why those who liked the original might not be amused.

[David]

Well he is from the 18th century. They only got like two channels back
then.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>The next week we get MEN IN BLACK III. I would *love* it if that was
>great.

Some of it sounds like a rehash of II already.

>June 1 we get
>FOR GREATER GLORY (huh?)
>PIRANHA 3DD (oh dear god)

Somebody outbid Syfy channel?

>SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN

I think it's hysterical that there are two Snow White movies.

>Finally on June 8 we get
>PROMETHEUS

>a month later SPIDER-MAN 3 hits

>July 20
>THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

If they tried harder, could they have picked another title to make it
sound even more like '70's pr0n?

>August 3
>BOURNE LEGACY

I was just about to crack wise that Robert Ludlum is still turning these
out posthumously, but someone named Eric Van Lustbader was hired to
write this.

>TOTAL RECALL

Philip K. Dick has hundreds of stories. Why is it time for remakes?
Maybe as a variation, they could use actual themes from Dick.

[suzeeq]

Oh I thought it was pretty cool, I was in HS then. But not being able to
see it all year round had some drawbacks to it.

[Obveeus]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <joc1cv$b2p$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> Things are just as bleak the following weekend when THE DICTATOR is the
>> only
>> new wide release.
>
> Hmm. Well, 2 days after THE DICTATOR is BATTLESHIP and we *know* that's
> going to be a huge hit (snicker)

Ah yes, I quick scanned boxofficemojo's release schedule to quickly and
didn't notice that THE DICTATOR was a mid-week release. BATTLESHIP probably
will win that weekend, though ti definitely looks like a film that needs
everyone to see it before word of mouth gets out. I'm not a fan of the
TRANSFORMERS movies, so it is hard to see BATTLESHIP as anything more than
leftover effects from those films piled into a new release.

> The next week we get MEN IN BLACK III. I would *love* it if that was
> great.

I'm hoping it is good...otherwise I will have wasted money seeing a bad film
in the theater.

> June 1 we get
> FOR GREATER GLORY (huh?)
> PIRANHA 3DD (oh dear god)

I would think that one would be right up your Syfy alley. Plus, lots of
nudity.

> SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN

The possibly good one of the two versions this summer, but it still looks
like a CGI film of the moment rather than anything memorable.

> Finally on June 8 we get
> PROMETHEUS

Definitely one I will see in the theater.

You left out BRAVE...the most worthy looking animated film of the summer.

> a month later SPIDER-MAN 3 hits

I've seen all of these films and every one has been mediocre.

> July 20
> THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

I'll pass on this one as every one of these that I have seen has been bad.

> August 3
> BOURNE LEGACY
> TOTAL RECALL

I'm looking forward to TOTAL RECAL

> http://www.movieinsider.com/movies/summer/2012/
>
> Prometheus is the only other thing on the list than THE AVENGERS that I
> intend to see in the theater. I think that one would be a good DBox
> rocking seat flick, although I've yet to see DBox that wasn't also 3D.

It was filmed in 3D, so it is at least more worthy of being seen in 3D than
any of the other recent '3D' stuff showing up in theaters.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<378cee34-a8e3-4a0a...@18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Artis <Forward...@Inbox.com> wrote:

Since 99% of the people in the target audience have never seen the
original, that's probably not a big worry.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jodn15$cal$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <joc1cv$b2p$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Things are just as bleak the following weekend when THE DICTATOR is the
> >> only
> >> new wide release.
> >
> > Hmm. Well, 2 days after THE DICTATOR is BATTLESHIP and we *know* that's
> > going to be a huge hit (snicker)
>
> Ah yes, I quick scanned boxofficemojo's release schedule to quickly and
> didn't notice that THE DICTATOR was a mid-week release. BATTLESHIP probably
> will win that weekend, though ti definitely looks like a film that needs
> everyone to see it before word of mouth gets out. I'm not a fan of the
> TRANSFORMERS movies, so it is hard to see BATTLESHIP as anything more than
> leftover effects from those films piled into a new release.
>
> > The next week we get MEN IN BLACK III. I would *love* it if that was
> > great.
>
> I'm hoping it is good...otherwise I will have wasted money seeing a bad film
> in the theater.
>
> > June 1 we get
> > FOR GREATER GLORY (huh?)
> > PIRANHA 3DD (oh dear god)
>
> I would think that one would be right up your Syfy alley. Plus, lots of
> nudity.

Maybe that's the one to see in 3D ...

>
> > SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN
>
> The possibly good one of the two versions this summer, but it still looks
> like a CGI film of the moment rather than anything memorable.
>
> > Finally on June 8 we get
> > PROMETHEUS
>
> Definitely one I will see in the theater.
>
> You left out BRAVE...the most worthy looking animated film of the summer.

For whatever reason BRAVE is completely off my radar.

>
> > a month later SPIDER-MAN 3 hits
>
> I've seen all of these films and every one has been mediocre.

They're following the Superman movie pattern, where each one is only
half as good as the one before. This being the fourth, it's probably
equivalent to SUPERGIRL. Unless it follows the 'reboot' pattern and
drops 3 notches to only be as good as SUPERGAYMAN RETURNS. Either way,
not a film to bother with.

>
> > July 20
> > THE DARK KNIGHT RISES
>
> I'll pass on this one as every one of these that I have seen has been bad.

I liked the first one, and didn't like the second one at all. I
seriously think that all the praise for the second one just came as a
reaction to the Joker actor dying in real life with convenient timing.

>
> > August 3
> > BOURNE LEGACY
> > TOTAL RECALL
>
> I'm looking forward to TOTAL RECAL

I'd like it better if it had some Mars.

>
> > http://www.movieinsider.com/movies/summer/2012/
> >
> > Prometheus is the only other thing on the list than THE AVENGERS that I
> > intend to see in the theater. I think that one would be a good DBox
> > rocking seat flick, although I've yet to see DBox that wasn't also 3D.
>
> It was filmed in 3D, so it is at least more worthy of being seen in 3D than
> any of the other recent '3D' stuff showing up in theaters.

Good point.

[Obveeus]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <jodn15$cal$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>> > June 1 we get

>> > PIRANHA 3DD (oh dear god)
>>
>> I would think that one would be right up your Syfy alley. Plus, lots of
>> nudity.
>
> Maybe that's the one to see in 3D ...

That severed penis jumps right out of the water at you.

>> You left out BRAVE...the most worthy looking animated film of the summer.
>
> For whatever reason BRAVE is completely off my radar.

I think it will get a boost from the HUNGER GAMES phenomena.

[LGi...@gmail.com]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 11:16:09 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:

>People on facebook are insisting it will still make Avengers level
>money. Granted, in 3700 theaters opening weekend, it's gonna gross some
>moola, but *anything* would.

Dark Shadows will take in $55 million the first weekend. (Friday
through Sunday. Not Avengers level money.)

[A1...@gmail.com]

>SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN

Snow white meets John Huntsman after
he ended his campaign?

[Mason Barge]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:53:41 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>In article <joc1cv$b2p$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <jobo3o$r1h$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Sometimes people show up for a film (AVENGERS), find it sold out, and
>> >> settle
>> >> for whatever is playing. These people are the key demographic for DARK
>> >> SHADOWS this weekend.
>> >
>> > Oh, yes.
>> >
>> > 3700 screens means either somebody incorrectly surmised DS was going to
>> > be a great movie, or correctly realized they were looking at crossing
>> > the streams bad, failure of real old testament proportions, and are
>> > pulling the scam Dino DeLaurentis invented for King Kong - release on
>> > thousands of screens and make your money before word of mouth gets out.
>> >
>> > If I were a theater owner with DS booked, I'd be looking for a way to
>> > switch.
>>
>> Things are just as bleak the following weekend when THE DICTATOR is the only
>> new wide release.
>
>Hmm. Well, 2 days after THE DICTATOR is BATTLESHIP and we *know* that's
>going to be a huge hit (snicker)

Outlook not so good

>The next week we get MEN IN BLACK III. I would *love* it if that was
>great.

You may rely on it

>June 1 we get
>FOR GREATER GLORY (huh?)
>PIRANHA 3DD (oh dear god)
>SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN

Cannot predict now

>Finally on June 8 we get
>PROMETHEUS

Concentrate and ask again

>a month later SPIDER-MAN 3 hits

Yes – definitely

>Prometheus is the only other thing on the list than THE AVENGERS that I
>intend to see in the theater. I think that one would be a good DBox
>rocking seat flick, although I've yet to see DBox that wasn't also 3D.

Signs point to yes

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 02:12:11 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
wrote:

>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>The next week we get MEN IN BLACK III. I would *love* it if that was
>>great.
>
>Some of it sounds like a rehash of II already.
>
>>June 1 we get
>>FOR GREATER GLORY (huh?)
>>PIRANHA 3DD (oh dear god)
>
>Somebody outbid Syfy channel?
>
>>SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN
>
>I think it's hysterical that there are two Snow White movies.

I did too, until the details came out. They couldn't be more different
and there's plenty of room for both. (Or, not enough room for either!)

. . .

>>August 3
>>BOURNE LEGACY
>
>I was just about to crack wise that Robert Ludlum is still turning these
>out posthumously, but someone named Eric Van Lustbader was hired to
>write this.

Is that some kind of joke?

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 08:13:22 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

[...]

>
>> SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN
>
>The possibly good one of the two versions this summer, but it still looks
>like a CGI film of the moment rather than anything memorable.

I wouldn't be too hasty. Charlize Theron looks fantastic as the Evil
Queen.

We'll have to see how Kristin Stewart and Chris Hemsworth do. They both
have something riding on this, Hemsworth more than Stewart.

I've see KS do great, but she doesn't seem to have much range.

[Mason Barge]

We just don't want to put up with him sulking.


There are a lot of people who want to see it.

[Mason Barge]

Haha, Owen Glieberman liked it. I *told* you he's a moron.

[Obveeus]

"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:53:41 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>a month later SPIDER-MAN 3 hits
>

> Yes - definitely

This month's issue of Playboy has a story by Joseph Wambaugh that features a
smackdown between Spiderman and Iron Man. His take read as more than just a
bit biased, though.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <joeqvf$j0l$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

Geez. Barring shenanigans, like Peter having a remote control for the
armor, Iron Man wins. Peter would be *so* out of his weight class.

[Obveeus]

As it turns out, Iron Man was dropped by a single kick to the groin.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jog61m$2na$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

Like that wouldn't result in a broken foot to the opponent.

[Obveeus]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <jog61m$2na$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > In article <joeqvf$j0l$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:53:41 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>a month later SPIDER-MAN 3 hits
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes - definitely
>> >>
>> >> This month's issue of Playboy has a story by Joseph Wambaugh that
>> >> features a
>> >> smackdown between Spiderman and Iron Man. His take read as more than
>> >> just a
>> >> bit biased, though.
>> >
>> > Geez. Barring shenanigans, like Peter having a remote control for the
>> > armor, Iron Man wins. Peter would be *so* out of his weight class.
>>
>> As it turns out, Iron Man was dropped by a single kick to the groin.
>
> Like that wouldn't result in a broken foot to the opponent.

Well, it is a police procedural, so what do you expect?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jogf1b$mkg$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>

heh

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:53:41 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>>a month later SPIDER-MAN 3 hits

>>>Yes - definitely

>>This month's issue of Playboy has a story by Joseph Wambaugh that features a
>>smackdown between Spiderman and Iron Man. His take read as more than just a
>>bit biased, though.

>Geez. Barring shenanigans, like Peter having a remote control for the
>armor, Iron Man wins. Peter would be *so* out of his weight class.

Webbing around the legs wouldn't trip him?

Maybe it was a drinking contest. I don't think Peter could hold his liquor.

[CC2...@gmail.clom]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 10:41:40 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:

>So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?

Who ist this Clod you speak of?

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/9/2012 7:32 PM:

Yep. Especially when he's working with one of the Avengers teams, Spidey
is often gonna defer to one of the many others who could kick his ass in
a heartbeat. And he defers because even he knows it. Me, I've always
liked Pete for his banter, not because he's the toughest guy in the
room. In fact, I've often suspected that Nelson DeMille writers a lot of
his dialogue. :)

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
"I find it's best if you just ... go with it." -- Lincoln Lee, providing
us with FRINGE's "Every question just leads to more questions" moment

[Jim G.]

David sent the following on 5/8/2012 5:36 PM:

> On May 8, 2:37 pm, Mason Barge<masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 08:08:20 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> DARK SHADOWS debuts on rotten tomatoes at 20% - less than half as fresh
>>> as predicted - completely, firmly "ROTTEN"
>>> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dark-shadows-2010/
>>
>> A bit premature to declare victory. Now at 38% (5 of 8 rotten) although
>> the only major review, Variety, was negative.
>
> Hollywood Reporter says it's "fun enough"

> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/dark-shadows-film-review-johnny-depp-tim-burton-321675

>
>> And a lot of people are going to go watch this POS. Can't let it bother
>> you.
>
> It's going to make good money, especially in other countries. Not
> "major blockbuster" but mid-level. There's no point in rooting against
> it.

If it ends up being as bad as it looks, then there's *every* reason to
root against it--unless you're into seeing people get rewarded for
producing more dreck.

[David]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 12:36:43 -0500, "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>David sent the following on 5/8/2012 5:36 PM:
>> On May 8, 2:37 pm, Mason Barge<masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 08:08:20 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> DARK SHADOWS debuts on rotten tomatoes at 20% - less than half as fresh
>>>> as predicted - completely, firmly "ROTTEN"
>>>> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dark-shadows-2010/
>>>
>>> A bit premature to declare victory. Now at 38% (5 of 8 rotten) although
>>> the only major review, Variety, was negative.
>>
>> Hollywood Reporter says it's "fun enough"
>> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/dark-shadows-film-review-johnny-depp-tim-burton-321675
>>
>>> And a lot of people are going to go watch this POS. Can't let it bother
>>> you.
>>
>> It's going to make good money, especially in other countries. Not
>> "major blockbuster" but mid-level. There's no point in rooting against
>> it.
>
>If it ends up being as bad as it looks, then there's *every* reason to
>root against it--unless you're into seeing people get rewarded for
>producing more dreck.

It's wasting breath on something guaranteed to at least be mildly
successful. And going by reviews it's at worst mediocre.

Its Rotten Tomatoes rating is nearing 50% by the way, and it has a
5.6/10 score.

[Obveeus]

"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Its Rotten Tomatoes rating is nearing 50% by the way, and it has a
> 5.6/10 score.

I refuse to consume anything that is more than 40% rotten.

[David]

And yet you won't use a killfile.

[Obveeus]

If a Usenet group exceeds the 40% rotten level, I find a new place to hang
out. That is why alt.tv.survivor got dumped.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jogvti$nus$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:53:41 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>a month later SPIDER-MAN 3 hits
>
> >>>Yes - definitely
>
> >>This month's issue of Playboy has a story by Joseph Wambaugh that features
> >>a
> >>smackdown between Spiderman and Iron Man. His take read as more than just
> >>a
> >>bit biased, though.
>
> >Geez. Barring shenanigans, like Peter having a remote control for the
> >armor, Iron Man wins. Peter would be *so* out of his weight class.
>
> Webbing around the legs wouldn't trip him?

Nah. And even if it did, it wouldn't matter. Stark's easily strong
enough to break Parker's webbing.

>
> Maybe it was a drinking contest. I don't think Peter could hold his liquor.

Stark wins again!

[anim8rFSK]

In article <dl3oq79aj6msm75ub...@4ax.com>,

It crested at 54% and fell below 50 again, at all times being 'rotten'

[anim8rFSK]

In article <joh2cr$2et$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:

> David sent the following on 5/8/2012 5:36 PM:
> > On May 8, 2:37 pm, Mason Barge<masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 08 May 2012 08:08:20 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> DARK SHADOWS debuts on rotten tomatoes at 20% - less than half as fresh
> >>> as predicted - completely, firmly "ROTTEN"
> >>> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dark-shadows-2010/
> >>
> >> A bit premature to declare victory. Now at 38% (5 of 8 rotten) although
> >> the only major review, Variety, was negative.
> >
> > Hollywood Reporter says it's "fun enough"
> > http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/dark-shadows-film-review-johnny-depp
> > -tim-burton-321675
> >
> >> And a lot of people are going to go watch this POS. Can't let it bother
> >> you.
> >
> > It's going to make good money, especially in other countries. Not
> > "major blockbuster" but mid-level. There's no point in rooting against
> > it.
>
> If it ends up being as bad as it looks, then there's *every* reason to
> root against it--unless you're into seeing people get rewarded for
> producing more dreck.

What he said.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <joh2co$2et$6...@news.albasani.net>,

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:

> anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/9/2012 7:32 PM:
> > In article<joeqvf$j0l$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus"<Obv...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Mason Barge"<mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:53:41 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> a month later SPIDER-MAN 3 hits
> >>>
> >>> Yes - definitely
> >>
> >> This month's issue of Playboy has a story by Joseph Wambaugh that features
> >> a
> >> smackdown between Spiderman and Iron Man. His take read as more than just
> >> a
> >> bit biased, though.
> >
> > Geez. Barring shenanigans, like Peter having a remote control for the
> > armor, Iron Man wins. Peter would be *so* out of his weight class.
>
> Yep. Especially when he's working with one of the Avengers teams, Spidey
> is often gonna defer to one of the many others who could kick his ass in
> a heartbeat. And he defers because even he knows it. Me, I've always

Even given that The Avengers have a history of hiring useless weaklings
(Hawkeye? Really? The only reason Hawkeye doesn't die first in every
confrontation is that he's just not worth killing), Peter is still
better suited to the Legion of Substitute heroes. And don't even get me
started on sticking him in the Fantastic Four!

> liked Pete for his banter, not because he's the toughest guy in the

yes. And his heart. He wouldn't back down from the Juggernaut! But he
*really* needs to start killing Osborn and/or Warren every time they
show up, as soon as they show up - given that they're both immortal,
it's no harm done anyway.

> room. In fact, I've often suspected that Nelson DeMille writers a lot of
> his dialogue. :)

heh

[Mason Barge]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 14:58:29 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>

You'd miss kinds of great stuff. Species, Road House, I dunno'

[David]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 18:11:32 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Come to think of it, a 50% "rotten" rating on RottenTomatoes means
there's a 50% you might enjoy it, no?

[David]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 15:54:43 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 14:58:29 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Its Rotten Tomatoes rating is nearing 50% by the way, and it has a
>>>> 5.6/10 score.
>>>
>>>I refuse to consume anything that is more than 40% rotten.
>>
>> And yet you won't use a killfile.
>
>If a Usenet group exceeds the 40% rotten level, I find a new place to hang
>out. That is why alt.tv.survivor got dumped.

Really, you find that rec.arts.tv isn't there yet? When I visit it on
Google it looks like a cesspool.

[Adam H. Kerman]

David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 May 2012 15:54:43 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 14:58:29 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Its Rotten Tomatoes rating is nearing 50% by the way, and it has a
>>>>> 5.6/10 score.
>>>>
>>>>I refuse to consume anything that is more than 40% rotten.
>>>
>>> And yet you won't use a killfile.
>>
>>If a Usenet group exceeds the 40% rotten level, I find a new place to hang
>>out. That is why alt.tv.survivor got dumped.
>
>Really, you find that rec.arts.tv isn't there yet? When I visit it on
>Google it looks like a cesspool.

Don't do that.

[Obveeus]

"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 May 2012 15:54:43 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>If a Usenet group exceeds the 40% rotten level, I find a new place to hang
>>out. That is why alt.tv.survivor got dumped.
>
> Really, you find that rec.arts.tv isn't there yet? When I visit it on
> Google it looks like a cesspool.

Why would you use Google to read Usenet?

[Obveeus]

The 'I won't consume stuff that is more than 40% rotten' was supposed to be
taken a bit more as a joke about eating rotten food than to be taken only
literally as some sort of cutoff for watching films. I wouldn't let
Rottentomatoes (or any other forum) decide my viewing ability completely for
me.

[Obveeus]

"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Come to think of it, a 50% "rotten" rating on RottenTomatoes means
> there's a 50% you might enjoy it, no?

No. Lots of people with really poor taste skew the data. I do have a
better than 50/50 ability to tell what I will like just from the cast and a
genre/plot description, though.

[David]

It has its uses. What's the difference between Google Groups and not
using a killfile?

[David]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:11:51 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Come to think of it, a 50% "rotten" rating on RottenTomatoes means
>> there's a 50% you might enjoy it, no?
>
>No. Lots of people with really poor taste skew the data.

Unless the rating leans heavily one way or the other there's no use to
it.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <johlg9$d9v$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

Most of the thumbs up posts seem to be gay reviewers from Australia.
Seriously.

[Mason Barge]

Well, the critics are coming down on it pretty hard. It's under 40% for
major critics on Rotten Tomatoes, and even the one counted as "fresh" are
mostly damning it with faint praise, e.g. Christian Science Monitor:

"Burton's offbeat montages are amusing, but the story's slow start and
overblown conclusion make Dark Shadows half a good movie."

[Mason Barge]

Well, you can always go sample the actual reviews.

[Mason Barge]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:11:51 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>

The terminology here is getting confused. The % number on RT is the % of
"fresh" reviews. Like, Dark Shadows is actually 40% "fresh", so you'd
have to say it's 60% "rotten".

I just want to make sure we are all using the same terminology.

[EGK]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:16:36 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The ones who like it seem more accepting of the fact it's an off-beat
comedy. It may do ok with people looking for that sort of thing. It's
obviously not faithful to the original material.

[David]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:17:18 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:32:35 -0400, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:11:51 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Come to think of it, a 50% "rotten" rating on RottenTomatoes means
>>>> there's a 50% you might enjoy it, no?
>>>
>>>No. Lots of people with really poor taste skew the data.
>>
>>Unless the rating leans heavily one way or the other there's no use to
>>it.
>
>Well, you can always go sample the actual reviews.

Yes. But if you're going to point to one RT rating it should be
"average rating." At least then they're using a 100-point scale
instead of a simple pass/fail.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <1r7qq7l24pb9e3vsv...@4ax.com>,

You mean like:

Dark Shadows has some sporadic moments of fun but on the whole it's an
inferior recycled mash-up of Burton's style and Depp's quirky characters
from their eight collaborations.

"Dark Shadows has to be the most perfunctory, most self- parodic entry
to the [Burton] canon thus far."

It's a million dollar soap opera and screenwriter Seth Grahame-Smith
wrote the turd, and Tim Burton rolled it in glitter.

The film is lifeless, which would be a funny thing to say about a
vampire movie if it weren't so true.

A half-baked auto-update of the classic series, and a suggestion that
Burton's persistent style has finally worn thin.

There were only a handful of genuine laughs... and that puts it on a par
with Scary Movie 3.

Dark Shadows is a mess, and it's unclear whether its bizarre recipe of
comedy, campy horror, and gothic melodrama will satisfy anyone,
regardless of their familiarity with the source material.

All fangs and no bite, Dark Shadows is another bland Tim Burton
rebranding of a classic product

Can't decide whether it's a parody, a horror comedy, an atmospheric
melodrama, or a tedious bucket of crap. Eventually it chooses the last
one.

[Burton] fails on levels I wouldn't have imagined possible.

Less a resurrection than a clumsy desecration.

If it wasn't for Twilight, I might be blaming Tim Burton and Johnny Depp
for ruining vampires.

[S]hockingly, appallingly inept, and it keeps getting worse and worse,
as if it were descending into its very own bespoke circle of cinematic
hell... Depp [is] parodying himself, which is hugely unpleasant to
watch...

How bad is "Dark Shadows"? It makes you long for a "Twilight" movie.
That's bad.

When Burton is going through the motions, his films are as involving as
a school play. He directs this film on autopilot. Ed Wood would have
done it better.

Tim Burton is like a billionaire fanboy who buys Bela Lugosi's Dracula
cape: he has a perfect right to it, but that doesn't mean it looks good
on him.

...a disappointingly underwhelming endeavor that stands as the latest
misfire from a once rock-solid filmmaker...

It's clunky, to say the least ...

The script is an unholy mess, stumbling between comedy, action, horror
and romance, without any clue how to navigate these shifts in tone.

[Mason Barge]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:20:51 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>In article <1r7qq7l24pb9e3vsv...@4ax.com>,
> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:32:35 -0400, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:11:51 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Come to think of it, a 50% "rotten" rating on RottenTomatoes means
>> >>> there's a 50% you might enjoy it, no?
>> >>
>> >>No. Lots of people with really poor taste skew the data.
>> >
>> >Unless the rating leans heavily one way or the other there's no use to
>> >it.
>>
>> Well, you can always go sample the actual reviews.
>
>You mean like:

[...]

>[S]hockingly, appallingly inept, and it keeps getting worse and worse,
>as if it were descending into its very own bespoke circle of cinematic
>hell... Depp [is] parodying himself, which is hugely unpleasant to
>watch...

That looks like the winner to me.

[Jim G.]

David sent the following on 5/10/2012 1:55 PM:

I haven't paid particular attention to the trailers or reviews or any
such thing, as I don't plan to see the movie. If it's good, I'll be
happy if it does well at the box office; but if it's as bad as the
scuttlebutt would tend to indicate, I want it to fail miserably. And as
for its rating, it's always hard to tell from the earliest reviews, as
those often come from the diehards who more or less killed someone in
order to get a ticket to an early screening.

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
"I find it's best if you just ... go with it." -- Lincoln Lee, providing
us with FRINGE's "Every question just leads to more questions" moment

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/10/2012 4:41 PM:

> In article<joh2co$2et$6...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/9/2012 7:32 PM:
>>> In article<joeqvf$j0l$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus"<Obv...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mason Barge"<mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:53:41 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> a month later SPIDER-MAN 3 hits
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes - definitely
>>>>
>>>> This month's issue of Playboy has a story by Joseph Wambaugh that features
>>>> a
>>>> smackdown between Spiderman and Iron Man. His take read as more than just
>>>> a
>>>> bit biased, though.
>>>
>>> Geez. Barring shenanigans, like Peter having a remote control for the
>>> armor, Iron Man wins. Peter would be *so* out of his weight class.
>>
>> Yep. Especially when he's working with one of the Avengers teams, Spidey
>> is often gonna defer to one of the many others who could kick his ass in
>> a heartbeat. And he defers because even he knows it. Me, I've always
>
> Even given that The Avengers have a history of hiring useless weaklings
> (Hawkeye? Really? The only reason Hawkeye doesn't die first in every
> confrontation is that he's just not worth killing),

Heh. Just send out Thor and Iron Man (and maybe Red Hulk or Vision) and
have everyone else stay at home and help Jarvis prepare a Welcome Home
party for later.

As for the gals, if they look good in spandex, Cap'll hire 'em without
even checking references. And Tony approves.

> Peter is still
> better suited to the Legion of Substitute heroes. And don't even get me
> started on sticking him in the Fantastic Four!

There's no bigger fan of the eternal Pete/Johnny bromance than me, but
having Spidey on two Avengers teams *and* working with FF *and* flying
solo was more than a bit silly.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jok7of$8hs$1...@news.albasani.net>,

See how much he can accomplish without having to bother with that pesky
old Mary Jane?

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/11/2012 6:58 PM:

Yeah, but he's gonna get cranky sooner or later if he's not ... um,
"bothering" (and being "bothered" by) a cute gal on a regular basis. Or
do he and Danvers have one of those Friends With Benefits things going
on? :)

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jooqm2$pd5$2...@news.albasani.net>,

I'd be scared of Danvers unless I was at least at Simon Williams power
levels.

[CC2...@gmail.clom]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 11:10:24 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:

>one of those Friends With Benefits things going
>> on? :)

i'm probably older than every one here, what is this
Friends with Benefits thing?

[David Johnston]

That's "having sex without being in love".

[anim8rFSK]

In article <qi30r71tu8nqe471t...@4ax.com>,

Sex buddies? You pick a friend you get to have sex (benefits) with,
with the intention of no romantic entanglements. So you can, for
instance, both concentrate on your careers without worrying about if
you're going to have to have breakfast with someone the next day.

[CC2...@gmail.clom]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:46:13 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

As somoene who has been married for 25 years I have to ask
why would you want to do this?

[suzeeq]

CC2...@gmail.clom wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:46:13 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2012 1:42 PM, CC2...@gmail.clom wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 11:10:24 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim...@cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> one of those Friends With Benefits things going
>>>>> on? :)
>>> i'm probably older than every one here, what is this
>>> Friends with Benefits thing?
>> That's "having sex without being in love".
> As somoene who has been married for 25 years I have to ask
> why would you want to do this?

Sex is fun.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on 5/13/2012 1:10 PM:

Pete's spidey sense would warn him if he was about to sustain an injury. :)

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jorfvo$ic7$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:

And I suspect the 'friends with benefits' crowd would probably ask 'why
would you want to be married for 25 years?'

Nothing inherently wrong with either model, just different strokes.

[David Johnston]

Sorry, "sex without being in love or being married".

[Adam H. Kerman]

It's alt.gv.dark_shadows, not alt.tv.dark.shadows; misspelled group cut
from crosspost

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>On 5/13/2012 1:42 PM, CC2...@gmail.clom wrote:

>>>"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com> wrote:

>>>>one of those Friends With Benefits things going on? :)

>>i'm probably older than every one here, what is this
>>Friends with Benefits thing?

>That's "having sex without being in love".

Could you stop sucking off seamus please?

[suzeeq]

anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <jorfvo$ic7$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> wrote:
>
>> CC2...@gmail.clom wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:46:13 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2012 1:42 PM, CC2...@gmail.clom wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 11:10:24 -0700, anim8rFSK<anim...@cox.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> one of those Friends With Benefits things going
>>>>>>> on? :)
>>>>> i'm probably older than every one here, what is this
>>>>> Friends with Benefits thing?
>>>> That's "having sex without being in love".
>>> As somoene who has been married for 25 years I have to ask
>>> why would you want to do this?
>> Sex is fun.
>
> And I suspect the 'friends with benefits' crowd would probably ask 'why
> would you want to be married for 25 years?'

Yeah, there's that.

> Nothing inherently wrong with either model, just different strokes.

Yup.