Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Transformers 3 1/2: Battleship
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Travoltron
May 19, 2012, 3:07:36 AM5/19/12
to
Surprise, surprise, it sucks.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/battleship/
I really hope this tanks so we don't have to endure Adam Sandler's Candy
Land. (Yes, this is actually in the works.)
I love how they're too afraid of offending potential foreign markets to
have the US Navy fight a foreign fleet... it has to be aliens.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/battleship/
I really hope this tanks so we don't have to endure Adam Sandler's Candy
Land. (Yes, this is actually in the works.)
I love how they're too afraid of offending potential foreign markets to
have the US Navy fight a foreign fleet... it has to be aliens.
Travoltron
May 19, 2012, 4:58:27 PM5/19/12
to
Dave Van Domelen
May 19, 2012, 5:17:13 PM5/19/12
to
I saw Battleship this afternoon. I liked it. Yes, there's some serious
"why are the aliens so stupid" plot holes because they decided to not show us
anything from the alien perspective (the novel fixes that), but it's a solid
piece of MilSF. I half expected Hammers Slammers to come over the horizon.
Dave Van Domelen, reads a lot of military science fiction....
"why are the aliens so stupid" plot holes because they decided to not show us
anything from the alien perspective (the novel fixes that), but it's a solid
piece of MilSF. I half expected Hammers Slammers to come over the horizon.
Dave Van Domelen, reads a lot of military science fiction....
Travoltron
May 20, 2012, 3:37:03 PM5/20/12
to
On 5/19/2012 2:17 PM, Dave Van Domelen wrote:
> I saw Battleship this afternoon. I liked it. Yes, there's some serious
> "why are the aliens so stupid" plot holes because they decided to not show us
> anything from the alien perspective (the novel fixes that),
I'm happy you enjoyed the film. I hear this a lot these days with
> I saw Battleship this afternoon. I liked it. Yes, there's some serious
> "why are the aliens so stupid" plot holes because they decided to not show us
> anything from the alien perspective (the novel fixes that),
various movies; "The novelization explains that", "The comic book
prequel mini-series explains that", "Well, that is explained in the
deleted scenes". A movie should be able to stand on its own. It really
bugs me because it's usually a case of lousy writing by millionaire
screenwriters being creatively patched up by modestly paid comic book
writers.
Dave Van Domelen
May 20, 2012, 5:11:40 PM5/20/12
to
In article <jpbh4s$7ub$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
Millionaire screenwriters? Usually not any better paid than the comic
book guys, actually. And when you have an action movie, they often DO film
the "makes sense of the plot" scenes, but drop them in editing because the
typical filmgoer doesn't care and they need to make cuts for time somewhere.
Hence the "in the deleted scenes" part. That's not lousy writing, it's
editing driven by audiences that don't care if it makes sense.
That said, if you know what to look for, you can see that a fair amount
of the background stuff is worked into the movie, but it's subtle. And it's
hard to notice subtle when things are exploding.
Dave Van Domelen, "aliens suffer from budget cuts too" explains most of
it, BTW.
book guys, actually. And when you have an action movie, they often DO film
the "makes sense of the plot" scenes, but drop them in editing because the
typical filmgoer doesn't care and they need to make cuts for time somewhere.
Hence the "in the deleted scenes" part. That's not lousy writing, it's
editing driven by audiences that don't care if it makes sense.
That said, if you know what to look for, you can see that a fair amount
of the background stuff is worked into the movie, but it's subtle. And it's
hard to notice subtle when things are exploding.
Dave Van Domelen, "aliens suffer from budget cuts too" explains most of
it, BTW.
Travoltron
May 20, 2012, 5:39:46 PM5/20/12
to
On 5/20/2012 2:11 PM, Dave Van Domelen wrote:
> Millionaire screenwriters? Usually not any better paid than the comic
> book guys, actually.
"On the film side a good rule of thumb is scripts can make up between
> Millionaire screenwriters? Usually not any better paid than the comic
> book guys, actually.
2-5% of the total budget."
http://screenwritingfromiowa.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/how-much-do-screenwriters-make/
That's a LOT of money when you're dealing with the genres guys like Orci
& Kurtzman keep writing in.
I'll take your word on Battleship. I haven't seen it and probably never
will, so I really have no right to criticize it. But I will probably
still be cursing Orci & Kurtzman's (Transformers, Star Trek, and Cowboys
& Aliens) on my deathbed.
...Also Known As Thunder
May 20, 2012, 11:45:26 PM5/20/12
to
Travoltron wrote:
> But I will probably
> still be cursing Orci & Kurtzman's (Transformers, Star Trek, and Cowboys
> & Aliens) on my deathbed.
Ditto.
> But I will probably
> still be cursing Orci & Kurtzman's (Transformers, Star Trek, and Cowboys
> & Aliens) on my deathbed.
t.k.
Ultra Magnotron
May 20, 2012, 11:59:58 PM5/20/12
to
--
The Transformers (G1) Subtitles:
http://www.box.com/s/931509f9d6b565d675d8
Ultra Magnotron's Transformers Blog:
http://www.elden.co/transformers
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Travoltron
May 21, 2012, 1:04:25 AM5/21/12
to
On 5/20/2012 8:59 PM, Ultra Magnotron wrote:
> Um... I liked Star Trek. Looking forward to sequel.
The villain's motivations made no sense. He wanted to kill Spock
> Um... I liked Star Trek. Looking forward to sequel.
because Spock unsuccessfully tried to save his planet. That would be
like <invoking Godwin's Law> a Holocaust survivor trying to kill Oscar
Schindler for not being able to save _everyone_. This is one of those
mistakes that I'm told was explained/fixed in the comics.
There was also a period of unaccounted years where the villain
apparently sits on his butt for 20-odd years and does nothing. This,
I'm told, was explained in the deleted scenes.
And the fact they had Spock and Uhura hook up to dispel any gay vibes
they were afraid the audience might get from Spock.
I don't have high hopes for the sequel after hearing that they're
rebooting Khan.
Thaddeus Cultt
May 21, 2012, 1:26:44 AM5/21/12
to
Ultra Magnotron <ultra.m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/20/2012 08:45 PM, ...Also Known As Thunder wrote:
>> Travoltron wrote:
>>> But I will probably
>>> still be cursing Orci & Kurtzman's (Transformers, Star Trek, and Cowboys
>>> & Aliens) on my deathbed.
>>
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>> t.k.
>
> Um... I liked Star Trek. Looking forward to sequel.
Same here, the new Trek is one of my favorite films!
> On 05/20/2012 08:45 PM, ...Also Known As Thunder wrote:
>> Travoltron wrote:
>>> But I will probably
>>> still be cursing Orci & Kurtzman's (Transformers, Star Trek, and Cowboys
>>> & Aliens) on my deathbed.
>>
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>> t.k.
>
> Um... I liked Star Trek. Looking forward to sequel.
Thaddeus Cultt
--
“In the end the only one left smiling was the Jester, and his was only
painted on…”
Gustavo Wombat
May 21, 2012, 2:13:59 AM5/21/12
to
On Sunday, May 20, 2012 2:11:40 PM UTC-7, Dave Van Domelen wrote:
> In article <jpbh4s$7ub$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Travoltron <travo...@defender.uni> wrote:
> >On 5/19/2012 2:17 PM, Dave Van Domelen wrote:
> >> I saw Battleship this afternoon. I liked it. Yes, there's some serious
> >> "why are the aliens so stupid" plot holes because they decided to not show us
> >> anything from the alien perspective (the novel fixes that),
> >
> >I'm happy you enjoyed the film. I hear this a lot these days with
> >various movies; "The novelization explains that", "The comic book
> >prequel mini-series explains that", "Well, that is explained in the
> >deleted scenes". A movie should be able to stand on its own. It really
> >bugs me because it's usually a case of lousy writing by millionaire
> >screenwriters being creatively patched up by modestly paid comic book
> >writers.
>
> Millionaire screenwriters? Usually not any better paid than the comic
> book guys, actually.
Except for the writer of "Showgirls", who got a million dollars for that script. And it was a masterpiece.
> In article <jpbh4s$7ub$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Travoltron <travo...@defender.uni> wrote:
> >On 5/19/2012 2:17 PM, Dave Van Domelen wrote:
> >> I saw Battleship this afternoon. I liked it. Yes, there's some serious
> >> "why are the aliens so stupid" plot holes because they decided to not show us
> >> anything from the alien perspective (the novel fixes that),
> >
> >I'm happy you enjoyed the film. I hear this a lot these days with
> >various movies; "The novelization explains that", "The comic book
> >prequel mini-series explains that", "Well, that is explained in the
> >deleted scenes". A movie should be able to stand on its own. It really
> >bugs me because it's usually a case of lousy writing by millionaire
> >screenwriters being creatively patched up by modestly paid comic book
> >writers.
>
> Millionaire screenwriters? Usually not any better paid than the comic
> book guys, actually.
Most movies are just terrible in one way, from start to finish. But "Showgirls" surprises and delights by being terrible in a different way in every scene. It's awesome. And awful. Awe-full.
Gustavo!
Gustavo Wombat
May 21, 2012, 2:10:49 AM5/21/12
to
On Sunday, May 20, 2012 10:04:25 PM UTC-7, Travoltron wrote:
> On 5/20/2012 8:59 PM, Ultra Magnotron wrote:
>
> > Um... I liked Star Trek. Looking forward to sequel.
>
> The villain's motivations made no sense. He wanted to kill Spock
> because Spock unsuccessfully tried to save his planet. That would be
> like <invoking Godwin's Law> a Holocaust survivor trying to kill Oscar
> Schindler for not being able to save _everyone_. This is one of those
> mistakes that I'm told was explained/fixed in the comics.
I thought the movie explained it well enough. The Romulan didn't trust Spock, and assumed Spock intentionally destroyed his planet.
> On 5/20/2012 8:59 PM, Ultra Magnotron wrote:
>
> > Um... I liked Star Trek. Looking forward to sequel.
>
> The villain's motivations made no sense. He wanted to kill Spock
> because Spock unsuccessfully tried to save his planet. That would be
> like <invoking Godwin's Law> a Holocaust survivor trying to kill Oscar
> Schindler for not being able to save _everyone_. This is one of those
> mistakes that I'm told was explained/fixed in the comics.
> There was also a period of unaccounted years where the villain
> apparently sits on his butt for 20-odd years and does nothing. This,
> I'm told, was explained in the deleted scenes.
> And the fact they had Spock and Uhura hook up to dispel any gay vibes
> they were afraid the audience might get from Spock.
Sexy, sexy Spock was fine though.
Gustavo!
Irrellius Spamticon king of the Potato people
May 21, 2012, 4:18:52 AM5/21/12
to
draw their own conclusions a bit too much.
As for Spock being gay? most of the original series I just didn't
apply procreative situations to Spock's current situation.
Would it be so absolutely terrible if he were gay? I wouldn't have
really cared if they pulled a Dumbledore, Dumbledore was retconned as
being gay but it doesn't impact the films in any way. It just does not
matter at all. I never understood why anyone cares if someone they
have no connection to is gay or not.
Lens flare was quite annoying, but many people have said that.
Apparently Battleship tanked at the box office, so maybe Sandlerland
won't come to fruition. That scares me, just the idea.
Every time I hear about Sandler I think of the following:
http://hijinksensue.com/2012/03/13/fetch-a-pail-of-water/
G.B. Blackrock
May 21, 2012, 4:27:01 PM5/21/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 1:18:52 AM UTC-7, Irrellius Spamticon king of the Potato people wrote:
>
> As for Spock being gay? most of the original series I just didn't
> apply procreative situations to Spock's current situation.
>
> Would it be so absolutely terrible if he were gay? I wouldn't have
> really cared if they pulled a Dumbledore, Dumbledore was retconned as
> being gay but it doesn't impact the films in any way. It just does not
> matter at all. I never understood why anyone cares if someone they
> have no connection to is gay or not.
Nit-picky and off-topic, but Dumbledore wasn't retconned. We just didn't know that was what Rowling had in her mind all along, until after the books were finished when she decided that it was "safe" to reveal (you may remember that she got enough flak back in the day because the books featured "magic" and how terrible that was to some people. One could argue that she might not have really risked alienating anyone, since those people were already lost causes, but she did things the way she did, and we can't change it now).
>
> As for Spock being gay? most of the original series I just didn't
> apply procreative situations to Spock's current situation.
>
> Would it be so absolutely terrible if he were gay? I wouldn't have
> really cared if they pulled a Dumbledore, Dumbledore was retconned as
> being gay but it doesn't impact the films in any way. It just does not
> matter at all. I never understood why anyone cares if someone they
> have no connection to is gay or not.
But in answer to your actual question: if Spock weren't a pre-existing character with an established (hetero)sexuality, it SHOULDN'T have mattered, but given that this was Spock... well, it would have caused a lot of uproar, and rightly so. It was bad enough that they changed the timeline (that is, a lot of arguments started because of that), but to change something like that about the character that the timeline change wouldn't have even explained? Yeah, I'm kinda glad they didn't go that route.
My two cents,
G.B. Blackrock
Zobovor
May 21, 2012, 8:48:46 PM5/21/12
to
On May 21, 2:27 pm, "G.B. Blackrock" <nicodemusleg...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Nit-picky and off-topic, but Dumbledore wasn't retconned.
I'm inclined to agree, if only because his sexual orientation was
never mentioned or discussed in the Harry Potter books proper—only
mentioned as a parenthetical remark by the author, after the fact. At
best, it's psedocanon, along the same lines as Bob Forward speculating
as to the chronological ages of the Beast Wars characters. It's an
interesting insight into the characters, but it's not part of the
canon.
> But in answer to your actual question: if Spock weren't a pre-existing character with an established
> (hetero)sexuality, it SHOULDN'T have mattered, but given that this was Spock... well, it would have
> caused a lot of uproar, and rightly so.
I've never perceived Spock as an ambiguously gay character, in any
continuity. He had a flirtation with Uhura in the 1960's television
show, so it's not like the writers of the film just pulled those
character moments out of nowhere. Granted, it was much more subtle
and low-key in the TV show, but it was there.
As far as I know, the only time Spock is depicted as homosexual is in
fan fiction written by people who pair him with Captain Kirk.
Zob
wrote:
> Nit-picky and off-topic, but Dumbledore wasn't retconned.
never mentioned or discussed in the Harry Potter books proper—only
mentioned as a parenthetical remark by the author, after the fact. At
best, it's psedocanon, along the same lines as Bob Forward speculating
as to the chronological ages of the Beast Wars characters. It's an
interesting insight into the characters, but it's not part of the
canon.
> But in answer to your actual question: if Spock weren't a pre-existing character with an established
> (hetero)sexuality, it SHOULDN'T have mattered, but given that this was Spock... well, it would have
> caused a lot of uproar, and rightly so.
continuity. He had a flirtation with Uhura in the 1960's television
show, so it's not like the writers of the film just pulled those
character moments out of nowhere. Granted, it was much more subtle
and low-key in the TV show, but it was there.
As far as I know, the only time Spock is depicted as homosexual is in
fan fiction written by people who pair him with Captain Kirk.
Zob
Gustavo Wombat
May 22, 2012, 12:54:55 AM5/22/12
to
On Monday, May 21, 2012 5:48:46 PM UTC-7, Zobovor wrote:
> On May 21, 2:27 pm, "G.B. Blackrock" <nicodemusleg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Nit-picky and off-topic, but Dumbledore wasn't retconned.
>
> I'm inclined to agree, if only because his sexual orientation was
> never mentioned or discussed in the Harry Potter books proper—only
> mentioned as a parenthetical remark by the author, after the fact. At
> best, it's psedocanon, along the same lines as Bob Forward speculating
> as to the chronological ages of the Beast Wars characters. It's an
> interesting insight into the characters, but it's not part of the
> canon.
One of the books spent a lot of time on Dumbledore's past, and I remember thinking at the time, before J. K. Rowling made her statement, "His relationship with the other wizard really seems kind of gay."
> On May 21, 2:27 pm, "G.B. Blackrock" <nicodemusleg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Nit-picky and off-topic, but Dumbledore wasn't retconned.
>
> I'm inclined to agree, if only because his sexual orientation was
> never mentioned or discussed in the Harry Potter books proper—only
> mentioned as a parenthetical remark by the author, after the fact. At
> best, it's psedocanon, along the same lines as Bob Forward speculating
> as to the chronological ages of the Beast Wars characters. It's an
> interesting insight into the characters, but it's not part of the
> canon.
It was there if you wanted to pick it up -- never explicitly stated, but the character's motivations and behavior make a lot more sense if it is there.
It's also what the author intended, but I don't think the author's intent matters one whit. F. Scott Fitzgerald never meant for Gatsby to be a light skinned black man passing for white, but the novel (novella?) works beautifully with that assumption. The writers of Energon never intended their work to be a series of pointless events loosely connected by the dreams you had as you dozed off from tedium, but again, there is it.
> > But in answer to your actual question: if Spock weren't a pre-existing character with an established
> > (hetero)sexuality, it SHOULDN'T have mattered, but given that this was Spock... well, it would have
> > caused a lot of uproar, and rightly so.
>
> I've never perceived Spock as an ambiguously gay character, in any
> continuity. He had a flirtation with Uhura in the 1960's television
> show, so it's not like the writers of the film just pulled those
> character moments out of nowhere. Granted, it was much more subtle
> and low-key in the TV show, but it was there.
> As far as I know, the only time Spock is depicted as homosexual is in
> fan fiction written by people who pair him with Captain Kirk.
Zobovor
May 22, 2012, 8:49:12 AM5/22/12
to
On May 21, 10:54 pm, Gustavo Wombat <GustavoWom...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just because Spock had an interest in women does not mean that he didn't also have an interest in men.
Hmm, good point. Now that I think about it, Star Trek as a whole
> Just because Spock had an interest in women does not mean that he didn't also have an interest in men.
tends to be really forward-thinking when it comes to race relations
but strangely conservative when it comes to depicting same-gender
relationships. I can only think of a couple of examples off-hand, and
both times it was presented as a controversial issue (there was a Next
Generation episode where Riker finds himself in love with a member of
an alien race who isn't supposed to have genders at all; at the end,
the alien is brainwashed back to the societal norm, an obvious
allegory for conversion therapy; there was a Deep Space Nine episode
where Dax's old Trill lover goes from a male humanoid host to a
female, but she was completely unable to cope with the change, despite
swapping hosts being a standard practice for all Trill life forms).
It would have been far better if they'd shown some same-gender
relationships without making it The Message of the episode.
Zob
Ultra Magnotron
May 22, 2012, 8:05:24 PM5/22/12
to
According to Wikipedia, this is doing poorly.
Wiki:
The film didn't fare as well in North America, where it now boasts the
worst opening in history for a film with a reported production budget
of more than $200 million.[30] Likely due to competition with The
Avengers, it grossed a disappointing $9.1 million for a projected
weekend debut of just $25.1 million.[31][32] Such a result is well
below the anticipated $35 million-$40 million range that Universal and
director Peter Berg were hoping for. Despite poor initial performance
in North America, many analysts felt that Battleship's international
gross may help bolster global grosses.
My Transformers Blog:
Wiki:
The film didn't fare as well in North America, where it now boasts the
worst opening in history for a film with a reported production budget
of more than $200 million.[30] Likely due to competition with The
Avengers, it grossed a disappointing $9.1 million for a projected
weekend debut of just $25.1 million.[31][32] Such a result is well
below the anticipated $35 million-$40 million range that Universal and
director Peter Berg were hoping for. Despite poor initial performance
in North America, many analysts felt that Battleship's international
gross may help bolster global grosses.
My Transformers Blog:
Travoltron
May 24, 2012, 1:10:29 AM5/24/12
to
On 5/22/2012 5:05 PM, Ultra Magnotron wrote:
> According to Wikipedia, this is doing poorly.
>
> Wiki:
> The film didn't fare as well in North America, where it now boasts the
> worst opening in history for a film with a reported production budget
> of more than $200 million.
GI Joe 2 is getting delayed now.
> According to Wikipedia, this is doing poorly.
>
> Wiki:
> The film didn't fare as well in North America, where it now boasts the
> worst opening in history for a film with a reported production budget
> of more than $200 million.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/05/23/gi-joe-retaliation-booted-back-nine-months-to-march-2013-why-hasbro-have-some-story-about-3d/
They're blaming Battleship's failure on the fact it was 2D. I don't
think that's it.
I've ranted on this before, but I'm just terribly annoyed that Hasbro
doesn't "get it"-- the fact that Transformers was and is special and
unique. What worked for it doesn't necessarily work for another Hasbro
product. You can't make NERF: The Movie or Don't Wake Daddy: The Movie.
People simply don't love those things the same way.
Onslaught Six
May 24, 2012, 9:49:29 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 1:10 am, Travoltron <travolt...@defender.uni> wrote:
> I've ranted on this before, but I'm just terribly annoyed that Hasbro
> doesn't "get it"-- the fact that Transformers was and is special and
> unique. What worked for it doesn't necessarily work for another Hasbro
> product. You can't make NERF: The Movie or Don't Wake Daddy: The Movie.
> People simply don't love those things the same way.
Yeah. GI Joe at least has that kind of similar storyline and is pretty
> I've ranted on this before, but I'm just terribly annoyed that Hasbro
> doesn't "get it"-- the fact that Transformers was and is special and
> unique. What worked for it doesn't necessarily work for another Hasbro
> product. You can't make NERF: The Movie or Don't Wake Daddy: The Movie.
> People simply don't love those things the same way.
much Hasbro's first brand ever; it's a household name. I can think of
a few other franchises that would make a good live action movie
revival, most of them forgotten--Inhumanoids would be an AWESOME
movie--but board games? Really?
Ultra Magnotron
May 24, 2012, 4:22:39 PM5/24/12
to
On 5/24/2012 6:49 AM, Onslaught Six wrote:
> but board games? Really?
Well there was Jumanji and Zathura. I think they both did
ok at the box office. Not great, but I don't think they
were total failures either.
> but board games? Really?
Well there was Jumanji and Zathura. I think they both did
ok at the box office. Not great, but I don't think they
were total failures either.
Zobovor
May 24, 2012, 5:40:18 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 2:22 pm, Ultra Magnotron <ultra.magnot...@hotmail.com>
of them was released in conjunction with their respective films. The
movies weren't based on the games; the games were created to promote
the movies.
Entertainment Weekly magazine did a great spoof of other potential
board games that could be made into films. One of them was a satire
of the Jaws movie poster, only instead of a shark in the water, there
was a hippopotamus. The tagline was, "They're not just hungry....
they're hungry hungry."
Zob
wrote:
> > but board games? Really?
>
> Well there was Jumanji and Zathura.
While it's true that there are board games with both those names, each
> > but board games? Really?
>
> Well there was Jumanji and Zathura.
of them was released in conjunction with their respective films. The
movies weren't based on the games; the games were created to promote
the movies.
Entertainment Weekly magazine did a great spoof of other potential
board games that could be made into films. One of them was a satire
of the Jaws movie poster, only instead of a shark in the water, there
was a hippopotamus. The tagline was, "They're not just hungry....
they're hungry hungry."
Zob
Travoltron
May 25, 2012, 2:05:33 AM5/25/12
to
On 5/24/2012 2:40 PM, Zobovor wrote:
> One of them was a satire
> of the Jaws movie poster, only instead of a shark in the water, there
> was a hippopotamus. The tagline was, "They're not just hungry....
> they're hungry hungry."
Hippos are said to be one of the most dangerous animals on earth.
> One of them was a satire
> of the Jaws movie poster, only instead of a shark in the water, there
> was a hippopotamus. The tagline was, "They're not just hungry....
> they're hungry hungry."
Here's a recent, famous case of a killer hippo:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/pet-hippo-kills-its-owner/
It could make a great horror movie on the simple fact that I don't think
anyone has done it yet.
Chad Rushing
May 26, 2012, 1:23:43 AM5/26/12
to
On May 25, 1:05 am, Travoltron <travolt...@defender.uni> wrote:
>
> Hippos are said to be one of the most dangerous animals on earth.
> Here's a recent, famous case of a killer hippo:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/pet-hippo-kills-its-ow...
>
> Hippos are said to be one of the most dangerous animals on earth.
> Here's a recent, famous case of a killer hippo:
>
>
> It could make a great horror movie on the simple fact that I don't think
> anyone has done it yet.
I've read that hippos actually kill more people than crocodiles do in
> It could make a great horror movie on the simple fact that I don't think
> anyone has done it yet.
areas where both types of animals are present. They're supposedly
extremely strong and aggressive, not the least bit goofy and comical
like they're usually presented in animated fiction.
- Chad
Chad Rushing
May 26, 2012, 1:25:09 AM5/26/12
to
On May 25, 1:05 am, Travoltron <travolt...@defender.uni> wrote:
>
>
> Hippos are said to be one of the most dangerous animals on earth.
> Here's a recent, famous case of a killer hippo:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/pet-hippo-kills-its-ow...
> Here's a recent, famous case of a killer hippo:
>
OK, that news article basically said exactly the same thing I just
posted. Maybe, I should have read it first.
- Chad
SteveD
May 26, 2012, 4:19:15 AM5/26/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 22:10:29 -0700, Travoltron <travo...@defender.uni>
wrote:
>I've ranted on this before, but I'm just terribly annoyed that Hasbro
>doesn't "get it"-- the fact that Transformers was and is special and
>unique.
From our perspective, yeah. From theirs, it's just one product line
amongst many.
If Hasbro apportioned money and great writing talent to product-themed
movies according to their fanbase, we'd be looking at multiple Oscars for
Friendship Is Magic: The Movie.
As it is, it makes more sense to simply assign popular brand names to
whoever is likely to make the most money out of them - thus Michael Bay.
_Battleship_ is a well-known name and game (if more in the pen-and-paper
version), but it doesn't exactly have a fan base. No wonder if got handed
off to the first person who said "Hey, we'd like to make a movie based on
one of your so-far-unmovied products."
And yeah, sure we'd all like to see Joss Whedon take on a Transformers
reboot. Although we'd be debating the whole time as to which semipopular
heroic character was going to get fatally impaled two-thirds of the way
through. My money would be on Cliffjumper.
-SteveD
wrote:
>I've ranted on this before, but I'm just terribly annoyed that Hasbro
>doesn't "get it"-- the fact that Transformers was and is special and
>unique.
amongst many.
If Hasbro apportioned money and great writing talent to product-themed
movies according to their fanbase, we'd be looking at multiple Oscars for
Friendship Is Magic: The Movie.
As it is, it makes more sense to simply assign popular brand names to
whoever is likely to make the most money out of them - thus Michael Bay.
_Battleship_ is a well-known name and game (if more in the pen-and-paper
version), but it doesn't exactly have a fan base. No wonder if got handed
off to the first person who said "Hey, we'd like to make a movie based on
one of your so-far-unmovied products."
And yeah, sure we'd all like to see Joss Whedon take on a Transformers
reboot. Although we'd be debating the whole time as to which semipopular
heroic character was going to get fatally impaled two-thirds of the way
through. My money would be on Cliffjumper.
-SteveD
0 new messages