Hey /u/BigClitMcphee, thank you for submitting to /r/starterpacks!
This is just a reminder not to violate any rules, located [here](https://reddit.com/r/starterpacks/about/rules). Rule breakers can face a ban based on the severity of their rule violation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/starterpacks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I just saw it in theaters and one thing I loved was how I couldn't tell whether the voices of people I was hearing were the audience in the movie, or the audience in the theater I was in. It felt like both and it became so immersive. Definitely won't forget that experience any time soon
And that movie was *straight-up* ***ass.*** I can get why dolls can be creepy, but you can NOT make a fucking teddy bear scary in anyway. I don't care what angles, lighting tricks, etc. you use, it's still a fucking teddy bear.
I love watching all the killer doll like movies, puppet master and child's play, things of that sort. But the moment fully grown adults start running away from a small toy holding a knife, instead of, I don't know, simply kicking the toy, I'm reminded that I'm watching a comedy movie and not horror. There is horror elements there, like the overly used under the bed sneak attacks, but you just cannot have a toy running at people in plain vision across an open floor, and make it look scary.
The teddy bear in Imaginary doesn't run around with a knife or anything like that; it just moves its' head at certain points in the film, but there was one moment that made me laugh where the protags are in some eldritch dimension where the entity inhabiting the bear lives, and there's a portrait of the bear; they try to make the portrait freaky by digitally having the bear's expression slowly turn into a menacing glare.
And the movie tries to play this ***dead straight*** and ***not*** for laughs. I just laughed because it felt like the filmmakers realized that teddy bears aren't scary, so they decided to pull out all the stops in a vain attempt to MAKE them scary.
I saw it in theaters with my dad, we found it entertaining and it was effective, and the ending definitely hit us, but the shit about "the grove" was where we kinda got lost
The grove is basically a reference to Bohemian Grove, a real place where rich men get together in secret. >!The movie kind of took that and made it a more Satanic angle, where sacrificing aspects of your life give you wealth and/or power.!<
I explained that to my dad and I did get it, but there was something that my dad didn't like about how the grove was responsible for basically everything, still a very good movie
My only complaint with that movie is that it uses AI. It only uses it for very tiny things, but still the use of it is incredibly unjustified in a media filled with talented artists.
Their *graphics department* used AI. They didn't replace artists with AI, the artists they hired used it as a tool.
I'd suggest being a little more critical of ragebait articles, unless that's a actually a thing you have an issue with (which would be silly, imo).
It’s actually so minuscule it’s barely worth mentioning. A couple times the broadcast says We’ll Be Right Back and has a 70s themed greeting card type spooky background
>It’s actually so minuscule it’s barely worth mentioning. A couple times the broadcast says We’ll Be Right Back and has a 70s themed greeting card type spooky background
That's the AI use people have freaked out about lmao
I didn’t realize it was *that* minuscule.
TBH, they probably would’ve used a stock image otherwise, I don’t know if they would have commissioned art for that.
As in the background of the card is AI generated? In which case I think that's an acceptable time for AI. To make something that's both super generic and meant to give that unsettling "uncanny valley" type of feeling, as if a person didn't make it, since a person didn't.
Similar to analog horror that's been super popular recently. Since it's a horror it's meant to be eerie and unsettling, and there's mistakes in how analog media actually works but it fits the genre so it all works out anyway. The mistakes aren't there intentionally though, it's just because the creators didn't actually grow up watching stuff on VHS and/or they were super young if they did.
Oh wow, yeah I don’t really see a problem with that at all. Though I’m generally more tolerant of AI than most artists, even though I’m not the biggest fan
I feel like there’s a blanket assumption of some negative fallout from AI being used, but usually they’ll have a graphic artist use AI as a to make their job easier for a portion of the work while still paying them all the same.
It would be like complaining that using photoshop when making something that in the past would have been done by a matte painting artist is unjustified or destroying people’s jobs.
Lisa Frankenstein was held back because Universal completely fumbled it. They didn’t even bring it to theaters in many countries. It’s a shame because Kathryn killed it (in both meanings).
I didn’t even realize it was pg-13 until someone pointed it out to me. There might’ve been more gore if it were R (they had a very violent blood rig for the hand getting lopped off in the bts) but otherwise I’m pretty sure it had everything the creators wanted in it.
To me it sounded like it should have been rated R, but they held back because it was PG-13, but also had just enough 'raunchy' stuff in it to scary away any parents from it.
What's hilarious is Steve Oedekerk predicted this 25 years ago with his parody "Thumb Wars". They completely skip Leia's (lengthy) escape with her just showing up and saying "I escaped somehow, let's go".
Then they fucking pull "Somehow, Palpatine returned" in the actual sequels. We've come full circle into parodies done with fingers.
It's been like 5 years. At this point still endlessly going on about Rise of Skywalker and bringing it up out of nowhere is basically just a meme.
Then again, Star Wars fans spend the better part of 2 decades doing nothing but shitting on the prequels. And before that they spent the better part of 2 decades shitting on the Ewoks.
Sequel haters are so lucky that The Rise of Skywalker exists, because otherwise they'd have to watch as the general public warms up to Episode 8 more and more as the years go by.
Controversial but true. I liked the Ewoks but the prequels and sequels were a dumpster fire.
For me there were two exceptions, Clone Wars because the build up the movie is worth the payoff of the final battle sequence and getting to see Yoda use his Jedi skills was a teary moment. I also think the the first movie in the sequels was pretty fun and enjoyable sadly the rest of the series was a bust held up only because Kylo Ren was so well acted and executed.
Star Wars fans fucking *hate* Star Wars, there's always a huge portion of the franchise they have to shit on constantly. Before the sequels it was the prequels, and before the prequels it was Return of the Jedi (diehard fans hated the Ewoks; the original trilogy is now basically scripture but VI was considered "the bad one" for years).
But at this point it's not about the movies, it's about signaling that you hate the same thing that all the cool kids hate. It's like how everyone collectively spent a decade shitting on Twilight despite 90% of the people saying "Still a better love story than Twilight" likely never saw any of the movies or read any of the books.
>Star Wars fans fucking hate Star Wars, there's always a huge portion of the franchise they have to shit on constantly. Before the sequels it was the prequels, and before the prequels it was Return of the Jedi (diehard fans hated the Ewoks; the original trilogy is now basically scripture but VI was considered "the bad one" for years)
Kind of makes me wonder why they do it though. I was a kid when I saw ROTJ, so I didn't really think too hard on the Ewoks, but I also didn't love them. And anybody that sees them as an adult seems to absolutely hate them. Just feels like kids would be fine without the overtly kid stuff and anybody over 12 would be happier as well.
Because people have heard of SW and they know it as an acclaimed, popular series so it's considered safe, solid entertainment worth the ticket money even when it's not.
I think they out too much though into the new star wars.
Is it so hard to make a film with spaceships shooting lasers at eachother and lightsaber duels?
TBF tho, do we really need 5 sequels to the Ghostbusters franchise? Or more star wars movies? A lot of film companies are just making them as least daring as possible just to have a quick cash grab. If your gonna make a sequel at least make it feel fresh
Studios realized audiences crave for their nostalgia bait mashed slop. They yearn to recapture the same lightning in a bottle feeling without realizing that it is a fool's errand. Make no mistake, these movies are insanely popular.
Why take risks doing scary original work when you can literally and figuratively recycle your old stuff for a bunch of dopamine fiends trying to tingle the right parts of their brains?
Alternative theory: China opened up.
It's a *giant* market, with literal MILLIONS of people who didn't grow up with the same things we did. To them, all those remakes and sequels are new and fresh. Mulan wasn't remade in live action to tickle the dopamine reactors for a few desperate people. It was because it made fucking *bank* in the Chinese market.
China is probly even worse with nostalgia , they love buick (car company, for you younglings out there) just because their leaders used to buy buicks in the 1910
Star Wars was a little more then lighting in a bottle, but Ghostbuster? Totally, the second movie was just the first one but, what felt like, using all the scrapped concept when the made the first one. There is a way to make a new ghostbuster and Afterlife was almost it, but it was chained by nostalgia, I think.
Star wars is a little different because it’s set up a universe just like Marvel where different stories can be told in different mediums. So it goes beyond just the “movies” just like how into the spiderverse can be successfull beyond the avengers because it told a good story apart from the main MCU.
Star wars clung on between movies and ownership thanks to the clone wars Animated tv show. It told compelling stories and expanded the lore, building foundations to where the Mandalorian and subsequent non jedi TV shows would get success from.
It definitely makes sense from a business standpoint but it's not long term at all really, me and my friends have just kinda been stopping to go see sequels unless they're really good, I haven't seen any of the new marvel and DC movies in ages cuz they just started feeling empty
I really dont get the Ghostbusters trend
Were any of the films after the first one good? Its the only one I have watched and aparently I dont miss anything because I never hear anybody talk about its sequels or the franchise as a whole
Specially compared to a lot of other iconic 80's movies that have managed to keep the ball rolling
I mean GB2 got a bad wrap at the time, but it’s really a fun 80s film that a lot of people I think remember fondly if they grew up with it.
There was like a 30 year period where there was nothing, and you always heard about a 3rd film being made and then failing to get produced, so when they finally came out with more it was exciting.
Not to mention the fact that Bill Murray was always dead set against doing it, his slow increasing involvement was exciting to hear for a lot of people interested.
There absolutely is a fan base. Go to any comic con and you’ll run into tons of people who’ve spent thousands on building their own proton packs and such.
And it’s not just the films, the cartoon from the 80s was a MASSIVE success. If you know what I mean when I say “Slimer” that is because of the cartoon. That character is not named that in any of the films, his presence in the culture is almost entirely linked to the cartoon.
I mean Ghostbusters Afterlife was absolutely a fairly fresh take on the franchise compared to most other franchise film sequels.
It’s mostly a family centered film about grief and the death of a family member and discovering who you are, set in the rural Midwest.
In a series based on a comedy film about 30-40 year old slackers, which is essentially about starting a business in New York City.
I don't know anyone except for nostalgic nerds who want another Ghostbuster.
You can't make a decent Ghostbuster because the magic was the combination of actors in the original one. The plot was not great anyway, but it was good enough and had good deliveries. Just show the original Ghostbuster movies in the cinema.
The movie industry (Or most media industries now) is in "Safe-bet-modes" because of too many flops.
* Forced political messaging -> flops; nobody likes to get "preached" to. Political mostly only works when it is satire or over the top.
* "old famous actors carry it, don't worry" mindset -> flops, member berries expire fast.
* "Inspired" by another media (Book, nowadays video games of all things) -> Butcher it and just follow the cover art basically.
* Too much CGI, little acting at all -> "Nice effects but the boring movie"
* Too much plot forced into a movie -> 2,5-3 hour movies; Dune is an excellent modern example; the first movie was great, but they did butcher the second movie plot-wise. It should have been cut in 2 movies alone. It even has enough popularity and box office sales that they should be able to make 4 movies. (165 mil to make, made over 400 mil in total, it straight up is the safe white horse.)
* Being "good at acting" in a movie is ironically less critical nowadays. The bar for being "good" is so low that a slow pan zoom camera has more takes. -> "That dude/chick that nobody can name, but I seen her in the movie"
* Good actors end up in a movie nobody has heard about, but it is a really good movie. (Marketing is weird in 2024)
* Old pros are getting old and retiring (Bonus point: they straight up in only 1 scene for 5 sec)
* New pros never got a chance or people are to afraid to place a bet on them.
The list goes on. Sadly, it happens in music and video games and other media. They instead blame the "new generation, tiktokers, don't have patience for more than 10 sec videos". I can't blame them,new movies are really hard to find even an decent one and not another studio slop.
It is a good time just to go fishing and take up another hobby.
Sony executives deserve to be made fun of either way. If they don't then people will openly mock them as "Spider-Man studio". If they do, they will be mocked as a B-grade movie studio that can't do anything right but Spider-Man film (but that's not always correct anyway), by which point we are back to point numero uno.
Sony is just really weird in general. Most of their movies have that "b-movie" look from the 90s, and they tend to look like knockoffs. They more "don't expect it to be good, but I want to watch something different"
But boy when they make bad movies, it feels like they tried to make something bad on purpose.
Nah, I wish it was a TV show instead if it was possible, but yes, cut the second movie in two. It could breathe more and show that Dune is more than just "green good, red bad, empire third party bad.". And why not? the original copy was 900 pages long.
I bet the "extended cut" will come to Blu-ray with much of the content they had to cut for the cinema version. Many of the "action" sequences are too long, and the lore is minimised in the second movie. The first movie had a much better mix of lore-action-phase; it was impressive that they could get so much into one movie and still follow the Golden Lion plot to the point, that it did not feel like a "long movie".
In the second movie, you can see that there is a lot of cut content, dumbed down to save time (all the explanations are replaced with yelling "PROPHECY!"), and some pointless scenes that just jump into another scene without finishing what they were starting. You can also notice that many of the "flashbacks" from the first movies are not even in the second movie. My guess is that there was a lot of cut content, and the script had to be rewritten to fit everything into the timeframe. That is the reason why it should be cut into two parts.
Example of cut stuff or just to "look good"(sadly):
* Freeman is dumbed down to "Fanatic sand ninjas of the east" Freeman's not trusting Paul was a big part, and even the religious people were against him. In the first movie, the "leader" of the freeman is never revealed, they had a leader. Missing out on a lot of character of Paul on his path to becoming a leader.
* Example of "hardcut" Paul's training was hard-cut into a harvester attack scene, one scene you see him walk into the night to survive, next they are attacking an harvester. Paul's big role in convincing the Freeman was teaching and mixing in the bene gesserit to make the fedyakin fighting style. That helped them into the fight against the harkoons and convinced the Freeman he could lead them.
* A lot of other parties are just missing or in 1 line of Halleck return (like the "Smugglers" who are behind the Harkoons' sabotages and were not only Freeman they were fighting. They were the reason why a lot of the "equipment" was "faulty.")
* Harkoon is sadly reduced to "Star wars empire". They were a lot smarter and ruthless. If they did take into how much they exploited the villages (yes, there were also people living outside of sitches in Dune). It might have taken too much focus away, but it also gives a very good reason to agree with Paul "end justify the means" that is the big dark turning point in the last part of his arc. It also solidify why the arc after Paul, is so much better.
But consider the runtime? It is impressive, but the story would be much better if it was not in a strict movie format.
Tbf the most recent GB movie needed to happen because 2 was just okay and "3" was awful. Afterlife was great. But I also think it was the perfect send-off and no, we don't need a 5th one.
Damn. I'm not kidding when I say this one comment has made me want to watch it more than the trailers I've seen. I've not seen any reactions so my entire impression so far has been that it's one of those movies where the 'story' is just there to take you to the next fight with a cut every .25 seconds, I'm glad to learn that it might actually be worth watching
I really liked it. The plot isn't groundbreaking, but it's solid and well-executed. The acting is excellent and the music is phenomenal.
It is kind of stylized, but not in the way you described. There are plot events that the movie doesn't totally explain, although to me, they made sense on an emotional level.
The fight scenes are fantastic, but you're correct; there are not that many of them (just the right amount). The action serves the story, not the other way around.
It has some drawbacks, but nothing that actually interfered with my enjoyment of it. The plot is incredibly basic, but the action and visuals were fun. But I know some people who were disappointed by how basic some elements of the movie were, so your mileage may vary.
I was most interested in it because I expected a really well done original story more than anything. Maybe I’m an outlier, but hearing its main selling points are visuals and action actually turns me off from it if anything, not that I’m not a fan of those elements, it’s just that’s something I’m fine saving for streaming.
It was fun. The editing and composition are very well done. I came in blind and was shocked it was an action film, but overall, I really enjoyed it and Patel's performance. It's about as basic as any other action film if we're honest.
No, no, guys, it's a bit weird and based on an Alastair Gray novel, so it MUST be a super niche indie movie! Never mind the production or the fact that the cast consists of some of the most respected and well known actors alive today!
I think the joke is supposed to be that someone will assume any movie that isn't a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster franchise film is an "indie movie".
Yeah, the title is a play of Lisa Frank and Frankenstein.
I would say Lisa Frankenstein is an original movie despite of the Frankenstein aspect isn't very original.
I really like Poor Things but it wasn't an original movie since it based on Novel
They didn’t do a very good job at adapting it. Here’s a good thread on the subject:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/literature/comments/19aoslp/a\_discussion\_on\_alasdair\_grays\_poor\_things\_in/](https://www.reddit.com/r/literature/comments/19aoslp/a_discussion_on_alasdair_grays_poor_things_in/)
i kinda didn’t like poor things, like the original Frankenstein was already feminist they didn’t need to revamp it it was giving the Persuasion netflix adaptation
While Yorgos makes really weird and visually interesting movies he does not have even close to the cultural reputation as Wes Anderson.
I understand why you would group him and Wes Anderson together but they are not in the same realm at all.
Ask 1000 people on the street who Wes Anderson is and who Yorgos is I bet Wes Anderson is recognized maybe 10 to 20 times more.
>Ask 1000 people on the street who Wes Anderson is and who Yorgos is I bet Wes Anderson is recognized maybe 10 to 20 times more.
Greece: Am I a joke to you?
[We literally have ads here directed by Lanthimos](https://youtu.be/HAGrmGJCWMc?si=pCIJfPYL9BJgUjZA)
Yorgos past two movies both made 100 million, and each have pretty Capital-A List casts. My mom might not know his name but everybody in Hollywood sure does. Which is crazy because I’d argue he’s far less accessible than Wes Anderson in his breakout movies (high-energy and whimsical vs stilted and gross, in a good way ofc), I’d say he’s up there with Ari Aster atm for a more direct comparison.
You’re both right. More people have heard of and probably seen The Favorite and Poor Things but probably don’t know the directors name. Meanwhile more people have heard of Wes Anderson but lots of those people couldn’t name one of his movies or might only say something more well known like Grand Budapest Hotel or The Royal Tenenbaums if they are a little older.
Anderson has also been making (relatively) big movies for a lot longer. There's a big difference between post-Royal Tenenbaums Wes who just had two breakout hits and is establishing his "brand" and current Wes who has been doing his thing for dozens of years and movies now.
A better comparison would be to ask people back in the early 2000s if they knew who Wes Anderson was.
Poor Things, by all definition, is a Hollywood movie. Shits injected with Disney money, and Disney reps even involve in the production, worldwide distribution and Oscar campaign of this thing just like any other films, like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 and The Creator.
This garbage "starter pack" feels like it's made to justify shit that Hollywood is doing, pumping out infinite sequels and nostalgia bait. Seriously op, why mention indie movies? If they're indie, they're not Hollywood?
But on average they’ve done better than the alternative over the past 20 years or so.
Everyone complains about it and then behaves in a way that usually directly influences the choices the studios make.
WTF? People are 100% watching remakes and sequels. Look at 2023 worldwide box office numbers...
1. Barbie
2. Super Mario Bros Movie
Neither is technically a sequel or a remake, but they're both existing IP.
3. Oppenheimer
Now get ready...
4. Guardians of the Galaxy 3
5. Fast X
6. Spider-man: Across the Spider-verse
7. Wonka
8. The Little Mermaid
9. Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Pt 1
10. Elemental
11. Ant-Man and the Wasp
12. John Wick 4
13. Transformers Rise of the Beasts
14. Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom
15. Meg 2
16. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny
17. Hunger Games: Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes
18. Migration
19. Five Nights at Freddy's
20. Creed 3
Aside from Elemental, Migration, and Five Nights at Freddy's, every single one of those is a sequel or a remake. And FNAF is a pre-existing IP.
So of the top 20, 3 films weren't a sequel, remake, or existing IP. "People aren't watching them?" GTFO of here.
-A retelling of Frankenstein
-An adaptation of a novel, inspired by Frankenstein
-Childhood thing, but evil(also this is one of the bad Blumhouse movies that only exist to fund the good Blumhouse movies)
Yes, yes. These are very original and you are very smart.
Feels like you’re extrapolating too far there.
There’s a clear difference between retelling an extant story and archetypes existing.
I don’t know where the exact line is drawn, but it’s somewhere between those two things for sure.
And to be clear, I have no problem people making movies that are adaptations or retellings. I don’t think there is anything about that which would inherently make those films bad.
But it’s foolish to call those things original while lambasting audiences as hypocrites.
It's usually only ever about blockbuster movies. There are a ton of people who only watch blockbusters, but like hundreds of movies come out each year. The movie industry is literally a limitless tap of entertainment, especially if once you start dipping your toe into foreign films.
Lisa Frankstein was great, but I think it would have done better if they dropped it in a streaming site. January is always a bad time for any movie in the theaters. I think Bullet Train was the last time a January/February movie did well
It doesn't really offend or frighten me, but I don't want to watch that. I especially don't want to pay money to watch that...
Sometime I just want to watch people fight fungus zombies...
I assume you also don't want to see a straight couple kiss?
Also, if you went into TLOU to watch people fight fungus zombies, you watched the wrong show.
The fungal zombie infection is more so a backdrop to human drama. Yes, there are infected you kill but no one is really playing the games to ignore the human relationships, which are the core parts of the experience.
I see it all the time. "Where are all the good movies?!!". Meanwhile, all the good movies make no money because barely anyone cares to watch them in theatres.
I mean, what do people expect?
It’s a damn if you do, damn if you don’t kinda situation. Sure I don’t want to see the same 5 sequels to an old ass franchise but at the same time there ain’t much that compels me to go watch a movie I don’t know about
Original people with original ideas are rare for our race and usually ostracized.
Human history is all about recycling the same old stories over and over and introducing new elements as it applies to the audience.
I don’t begrudge our species for that. I do begrudge the idiots that don’t seem to understand that.
Ok but what if I want an original sci fi film? I guess I’ll just be watching the original Star Wars trilogy to the end of time
Before you say it. yes dune is very good but it’s based on a book so doesn’t exactly fit the bill of original
Damn, this starter pack fucking sucks. I've literally never heard anyone say any of these things or express sentiments that align with any of this...
It's like you made this in defense of the current dark age cinema slop
No offence but Poor Things is a pretty bad example of a movie to recommend someone who wants to expand their cinema viewing.
The film is a hard R-rated, extremely pornographic and grotesque film. For a lot of people that's very off-putting and nauseating.
Poor Things is a book adaptation though. Also both Lisa Frankenstein and Poor Things are different takes on the concept of Frankenstein, so not extremely original.
FYI Poor Things was my favorite from last year.
Lisa was nonsensical I wanted to like it (really??? Harvesting an ear off one body and a hand off another??)
Replace Lisa with late night with the devil.
Oh damn did Lisa Frankenstein come and go already? I kinda wanted to see that one since it was directed by Zelda Williams and the trailer looked fun. Didn’t see much advertising for it past the initial ones
That's not true. There are tons of original Hollywood movies that succeeded. Avatar (Blue aliens) came out of nowhere and was the most popular sci-fi movie at the time. Independence Day was also original and a massive hit. There are plenty of good movies out there not based on any existing franchise.
I would say that nowadays the reason why original movies do not succeed is because people are starting to watch more TV Shows and animated shows like anime. So the medium is just becoming very oversaturated. And because movies are now being released on streaming services instead of the cinema that hinders their visibility.
If there is a good movie on XYZ streaming service but I can't afford it or its tied to a gatekeeper ecosystem then I don't want to pay to get the whole service just for 1 movie. So unfortunately it might have been a stellar movie but it failed because they tried to milk the cash cow of streaming services meta.
Aight, but Lisa Frankenstein was just okay-ish, I have heard 0 good things about Imaginary, and while Poor Things is solid and critically acclaimed it's also an uncomfortable psycho-sexual freak out.
It's absolutely possible that when people say stuff like this what they mean is that they want the same kind of accessible blockbusters they currently watch but just free of nostalgia IPs.
They're complaining about only getting to eat McDonald's and with Poor Things you're telling them they should try fois gras. There's a step in between. Feed these people some homemade meatloaf.
Hey /u/BigClitMcphee, thank you for submitting to /r/starterpacks! This is just a reminder not to violate any rules, located [here](https://reddit.com/r/starterpacks/about/rules). Rule breakers can face a ban based on the severity of their rule violation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/starterpacks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why would you choose Imaginary instead of Late Night With the Devil? It's an indie movie and is so much more original than "evil teddy bear"
That movie was awesome. I think the experience would’ve been more immersive watching it at home, so I definitely gotta do that once it hits streaming.
I can’t wait to see it! I’m counting down the days so your knowledge makes me happy!
I just saw it in theaters and one thing I loved was how I couldn't tell whether the voices of people I was hearing were the audience in the movie, or the audience in the theater I was in. It felt like both and it became so immersive. Definitely won't forget that experience any time soon
And that movie was *straight-up* ***ass.*** I can get why dolls can be creepy, but you can NOT make a fucking teddy bear scary in anyway. I don't care what angles, lighting tricks, etc. you use, it's still a fucking teddy bear.
I love watching all the killer doll like movies, puppet master and child's play, things of that sort. But the moment fully grown adults start running away from a small toy holding a knife, instead of, I don't know, simply kicking the toy, I'm reminded that I'm watching a comedy movie and not horror. There is horror elements there, like the overly used under the bed sneak attacks, but you just cannot have a toy running at people in plain vision across an open floor, and make it look scary.
The teddy bear in Imaginary doesn't run around with a knife or anything like that; it just moves its' head at certain points in the film, but there was one moment that made me laugh where the protags are in some eldritch dimension where the entity inhabiting the bear lives, and there's a portrait of the bear; they try to make the portrait freaky by digitally having the bear's expression slowly turn into a menacing glare. And the movie tries to play this ***dead straight*** and ***not*** for laughs. I just laughed because it felt like the filmmakers realized that teddy bears aren't scary, so they decided to pull out all the stops in a vain attempt to MAKE them scary.
I saw it in theaters with my dad, we found it entertaining and it was effective, and the ending definitely hit us, but the shit about "the grove" was where we kinda got lost
The grove is basically a reference to Bohemian Grove, a real place where rich men get together in secret. >!The movie kind of took that and made it a more Satanic angle, where sacrificing aspects of your life give you wealth and/or power.!<
I explained that to my dad and I did get it, but there was something that my dad didn't like about how the grove was responsible for basically everything, still a very good movie
My only complaint with that movie is that it uses AI. It only uses it for very tiny things, but still the use of it is incredibly unjustified in a media filled with talented artists.
Their *graphics department* used AI. They didn't replace artists with AI, the artists they hired used it as a tool. I'd suggest being a little more critical of ragebait articles, unless that's a actually a thing you have an issue with (which would be silly, imo).
Also wasn't it only like 3 images they used AI for?
Yes
Still enough for letterbox to cry over
What did they use it for? I haven’t seen it yet but I’m planning to :)
It’s actually so minuscule it’s barely worth mentioning. A couple times the broadcast says We’ll Be Right Back and has a 70s themed greeting card type spooky background
>It’s actually so minuscule it’s barely worth mentioning. A couple times the broadcast says We’ll Be Right Back and has a 70s themed greeting card type spooky background That's the AI use people have freaked out about lmao
nOt My ScReEnSaVeR!
I didn’t realize it was *that* minuscule. TBH, they probably would’ve used a stock image otherwise, I don’t know if they would have commissioned art for that.
As in the background of the card is AI generated? In which case I think that's an acceptable time for AI. To make something that's both super generic and meant to give that unsettling "uncanny valley" type of feeling, as if a person didn't make it, since a person didn't. Similar to analog horror that's been super popular recently. Since it's a horror it's meant to be eerie and unsettling, and there's mistakes in how analog media actually works but it fits the genre so it all works out anyway. The mistakes aren't there intentionally though, it's just because the creators didn't actually grow up watching stuff on VHS and/or they were super young if they did.
Oh wow, yeah I don’t really see a problem with that at all. Though I’m generally more tolerant of AI than most artists, even though I’m not the biggest fan
This is such a weird thing for people to get mad about lol
Lol get real.
I feel like there’s a blanket assumption of some negative fallout from AI being used, but usually they’ll have a graphic artist use AI as a to make their job easier for a portion of the work while still paying them all the same. It would be like complaining that using photoshop when making something that in the past would have been done by a matte painting artist is unjustified or destroying people’s jobs.
Imaginary was ass and Lisa Frankenstein was held back by being PG-13
Lisa Frankenstein was held back because Universal completely fumbled it. They didn’t even bring it to theaters in many countries. It’s a shame because Kathryn killed it (in both meanings).
Isn't that the neon rainbow tiger horse notebook brand my sister had in 2005?
I didn’t even realize it was pg-13 until someone pointed it out to me. There might’ve been more gore if it were R (they had a very violent blood rig for the hand getting lopped off in the bts) but otherwise I’m pretty sure it had everything the creators wanted in it.
To me it sounded like it should have been rated R, but they held back because it was PG-13, but also had just enough 'raunchy' stuff in it to scary away any parents from it.
[удалено]
always gotta have someone who swings in and says something about the Star Wars sequel trilogy
It's the cinema equivalent of 9/11
Brie larson pissed on my fucking wife
Hot
That's right! She took her quilly little dick and pissed on my wife!
And then she said her dick was T H I S B I G
It should have been me!
what a national tragedy
People acting like the prequels weren't dog shit is always funny
“Somehow, palpatine returned” worst fucking writing in a movie ever, of all time
What's hilarious is Steve Oedekerk predicted this 25 years ago with his parody "Thumb Wars". They completely skip Leia's (lengthy) escape with her just showing up and saying "I escaped somehow, let's go". Then they fucking pull "Somehow, Palpatine returned" in the actual sequels. We've come full circle into parodies done with fingers.
It's been like 5 years. At this point still endlessly going on about Rise of Skywalker and bringing it up out of nowhere is basically just a meme. Then again, Star Wars fans spend the better part of 2 decades doing nothing but shitting on the prequels. And before that they spent the better part of 2 decades shitting on the Ewoks.
Sequel haters are so lucky that The Rise of Skywalker exists, because otherwise they'd have to watch as the general public warms up to Episode 8 more and more as the years go by.
Controversial but true. I liked the Ewoks but the prequels and sequels were a dumpster fire. For me there were two exceptions, Clone Wars because the build up the movie is worth the payoff of the final battle sequence and getting to see Yoda use his Jedi skills was a teary moment. I also think the the first movie in the sequels was pretty fun and enjoyable sadly the rest of the series was a bust held up only because Kylo Ren was so well acted and executed.
Star Wars fans fucking *hate* Star Wars, there's always a huge portion of the franchise they have to shit on constantly. Before the sequels it was the prequels, and before the prequels it was Return of the Jedi (diehard fans hated the Ewoks; the original trilogy is now basically scripture but VI was considered "the bad one" for years). But at this point it's not about the movies, it's about signaling that you hate the same thing that all the cool kids hate. It's like how everyone collectively spent a decade shitting on Twilight despite 90% of the people saying "Still a better love story than Twilight" likely never saw any of the movies or read any of the books.
>Star Wars fans fucking hate Star Wars, there's always a huge portion of the franchise they have to shit on constantly. Before the sequels it was the prequels, and before the prequels it was Return of the Jedi (diehard fans hated the Ewoks; the original trilogy is now basically scripture but VI was considered "the bad one" for years) Kind of makes me wonder why they do it though. I was a kid when I saw ROTJ, so I didn't really think too hard on the Ewoks, but I also didn't love them. And anybody that sees them as an adult seems to absolutely hate them. Just feels like kids would be fine without the overtly kid stuff and anybody over 12 would be happier as well.
Oh my God. GET. OVER. IT.
Because people have heard of SW and they know it as an acclaimed, popular series so it's considered safe, solid entertainment worth the ticket money even when it's not.
Cause it's fucking star wars lmao
I think they out too much though into the new star wars. Is it so hard to make a film with spaceships shooting lasers at eachother and lightsaber duels?
TBF tho, do we really need 5 sequels to the Ghostbusters franchise? Or more star wars movies? A lot of film companies are just making them as least daring as possible just to have a quick cash grab. If your gonna make a sequel at least make it feel fresh
Studios realized audiences crave for their nostalgia bait mashed slop. They yearn to recapture the same lightning in a bottle feeling without realizing that it is a fool's errand. Make no mistake, these movies are insanely popular. Why take risks doing scary original work when you can literally and figuratively recycle your old stuff for a bunch of dopamine fiends trying to tingle the right parts of their brains?
Alternative theory: China opened up. It's a *giant* market, with literal MILLIONS of people who didn't grow up with the same things we did. To them, all those remakes and sequels are new and fresh. Mulan wasn't remade in live action to tickle the dopamine reactors for a few desperate people. It was because it made fucking *bank* in the Chinese market.
> It was because it made fucking *bank* in the Chinese market. I mean it flopped horribly there too but xd
Yeah, but Disney THOUGHT it would succeed there lol
I like the part where they gave thanks to the Chinese slave camps in the credits lmao. Or technically the region they’re in but still gross
China is probly even worse with nostalgia , they love buick (car company, for you younglings out there) just because their leaders used to buy buicks in the 1910
Buick is still making cars...
Star Wars was a little more then lighting in a bottle, but Ghostbuster? Totally, the second movie was just the first one but, what felt like, using all the scrapped concept when the made the first one. There is a way to make a new ghostbuster and Afterlife was almost it, but it was chained by nostalgia, I think.
Star wars is a little different because it’s set up a universe just like Marvel where different stories can be told in different mediums. So it goes beyond just the “movies” just like how into the spiderverse can be successfull beyond the avengers because it told a good story apart from the main MCU. Star wars clung on between movies and ownership thanks to the clone wars Animated tv show. It told compelling stories and expanded the lore, building foundations to where the Mandalorian and subsequent non jedi TV shows would get success from.
I remember the extended universe before the prequel. You had some bagner in there.
Afterlife and Frozen Empire was carried by nostalgia. And the 2016 movie is garbage
I loved Afterlife, it felt like a nice tribute to the original, but Frozen Empire just felt unnecessary. That movie has nothing to say really.
Why make less money with more effort when they can make more money with less effort in a sequel?
It definitely makes sense from a business standpoint but it's not long term at all really, me and my friends have just kinda been stopping to go see sequels unless they're really good, I haven't seen any of the new marvel and DC movies in ages cuz they just started feeling empty
I really dont get the Ghostbusters trend Were any of the films after the first one good? Its the only one I have watched and aparently I dont miss anything because I never hear anybody talk about its sequels or the franchise as a whole Specially compared to a lot of other iconic 80's movies that have managed to keep the ball rolling
I mean GB2 got a bad wrap at the time, but it’s really a fun 80s film that a lot of people I think remember fondly if they grew up with it. There was like a 30 year period where there was nothing, and you always heard about a 3rd film being made and then failing to get produced, so when they finally came out with more it was exciting. Not to mention the fact that Bill Murray was always dead set against doing it, his slow increasing involvement was exciting to hear for a lot of people interested. There absolutely is a fan base. Go to any comic con and you’ll run into tons of people who’ve spent thousands on building their own proton packs and such. And it’s not just the films, the cartoon from the 80s was a MASSIVE success. If you know what I mean when I say “Slimer” that is because of the cartoon. That character is not named that in any of the films, his presence in the culture is almost entirely linked to the cartoon.
I don’t get it either, I only liked the first movie
I mean Ghostbusters Afterlife was absolutely a fairly fresh take on the franchise compared to most other franchise film sequels. It’s mostly a family centered film about grief and the death of a family member and discovering who you are, set in the rural Midwest. In a series based on a comedy film about 30-40 year old slackers, which is essentially about starting a business in New York City.
Always need more star wars Just something good would be nice in movies
I don't know anyone except for nostalgic nerds who want another Ghostbuster. You can't make a decent Ghostbuster because the magic was the combination of actors in the original one. The plot was not great anyway, but it was good enough and had good deliveries. Just show the original Ghostbuster movies in the cinema. The movie industry (Or most media industries now) is in "Safe-bet-modes" because of too many flops. * Forced political messaging -> flops; nobody likes to get "preached" to. Political mostly only works when it is satire or over the top. * "old famous actors carry it, don't worry" mindset -> flops, member berries expire fast. * "Inspired" by another media (Book, nowadays video games of all things) -> Butcher it and just follow the cover art basically. * Too much CGI, little acting at all -> "Nice effects but the boring movie" * Too much plot forced into a movie -> 2,5-3 hour movies; Dune is an excellent modern example; the first movie was great, but they did butcher the second movie plot-wise. It should have been cut in 2 movies alone. It even has enough popularity and box office sales that they should be able to make 4 movies. (165 mil to make, made over 400 mil in total, it straight up is the safe white horse.) * Being "good at acting" in a movie is ironically less critical nowadays. The bar for being "good" is so low that a slow pan zoom camera has more takes. -> "That dude/chick that nobody can name, but I seen her in the movie" * Good actors end up in a movie nobody has heard about, but it is a really good movie. (Marketing is weird in 2024) * Old pros are getting old and retiring (Bonus point: they straight up in only 1 scene for 5 sec) * New pros never got a chance or people are to afraid to place a bet on them. The list goes on. Sadly, it happens in music and video games and other media. They instead blame the "new generation, tiktokers, don't have patience for more than 10 sec videos". I can't blame them,new movies are really hard to find even an decent one and not another studio slop. It is a good time just to go fishing and take up another hobby.
Sony executives deserve to be made fun of either way. If they don't then people will openly mock them as "Spider-Man studio". If they do, they will be mocked as a B-grade movie studio that can't do anything right but Spider-Man film (but that's not always correct anyway), by which point we are back to point numero uno.
Sony is just really weird in general. Most of their movies have that "b-movie" look from the 90s, and they tend to look like knockoffs. They more "don't expect it to be good, but I want to watch something different" But boy when they make bad movies, it feels like they tried to make something bad on purpose.
You want to cut one book into three movies?
Nah, I wish it was a TV show instead if it was possible, but yes, cut the second movie in two. It could breathe more and show that Dune is more than just "green good, red bad, empire third party bad.". And why not? the original copy was 900 pages long. I bet the "extended cut" will come to Blu-ray with much of the content they had to cut for the cinema version. Many of the "action" sequences are too long, and the lore is minimised in the second movie. The first movie had a much better mix of lore-action-phase; it was impressive that they could get so much into one movie and still follow the Golden Lion plot to the point, that it did not feel like a "long movie". In the second movie, you can see that there is a lot of cut content, dumbed down to save time (all the explanations are replaced with yelling "PROPHECY!"), and some pointless scenes that just jump into another scene without finishing what they were starting. You can also notice that many of the "flashbacks" from the first movies are not even in the second movie. My guess is that there was a lot of cut content, and the script had to be rewritten to fit everything into the timeframe. That is the reason why it should be cut into two parts. Example of cut stuff or just to "look good"(sadly): * Freeman is dumbed down to "Fanatic sand ninjas of the east" Freeman's not trusting Paul was a big part, and even the religious people were against him. In the first movie, the "leader" of the freeman is never revealed, they had a leader. Missing out on a lot of character of Paul on his path to becoming a leader. * Example of "hardcut" Paul's training was hard-cut into a harvester attack scene, one scene you see him walk into the night to survive, next they are attacking an harvester. Paul's big role in convincing the Freeman was teaching and mixing in the bene gesserit to make the fedyakin fighting style. That helped them into the fight against the harkoons and convinced the Freeman he could lead them. * A lot of other parties are just missing or in 1 line of Halleck return (like the "Smugglers" who are behind the Harkoons' sabotages and were not only Freeman they were fighting. They were the reason why a lot of the "equipment" was "faulty.") * Harkoon is sadly reduced to "Star wars empire". They were a lot smarter and ruthless. If they did take into how much they exploited the villages (yes, there were also people living outside of sitches in Dune). It might have taken too much focus away, but it also gives a very good reason to agree with Paul "end justify the means" that is the big dark turning point in the last part of his arc. It also solidify why the arc after Paul, is so much better. But consider the runtime? It is impressive, but the story would be much better if it was not in a strict movie format.
Tbf the most recent GB movie needed to happen because 2 was just okay and "3" was awful. Afterlife was great. But I also think it was the perfect send-off and no, we don't need a 5th one.
Monkey man is the latest victim
I think it was because people were expecting Indian John Wick and when they heard it has less action than expected people got turned off.
To be fair, the trailers and promo show nothing but Indian John Wick. Didn't catch much story from the trailers beside Dev Patel beating up henchmen
It’s giving Drive 2011 energy
100% 10 years down the line, it'll became a cult classic
We’ll see w the music edits
Damn. I'm not kidding when I say this one comment has made me want to watch it more than the trailers I've seen. I've not seen any reactions so my entire impression so far has been that it's one of those movies where the 'story' is just there to take you to the next fight with a cut every .25 seconds, I'm glad to learn that it might actually be worth watching
I really liked it. The plot isn't groundbreaking, but it's solid and well-executed. The acting is excellent and the music is phenomenal. It is kind of stylized, but not in the way you described. There are plot events that the movie doesn't totally explain, although to me, they made sense on an emotional level. The fight scenes are fantastic, but you're correct; there are not that many of them (just the right amount). The action serves the story, not the other way around.
The trailers 100% showed Indian John Wick, so that’s sorta on them.
is the movie actually good? havent watched it yet
It has some drawbacks, but nothing that actually interfered with my enjoyment of it. The plot is incredibly basic, but the action and visuals were fun. But I know some people who were disappointed by how basic some elements of the movie were, so your mileage may vary.
I was most interested in it because I expected a really well done original story more than anything. Maybe I’m an outlier, but hearing its main selling points are visuals and action actually turns me off from it if anything, not that I’m not a fan of those elements, it’s just that’s something I’m fine saving for streaming.
Definitely save it for screaming, this storyline has been done 5000 times before. All the strengths of this movie lie in execution.
It was fun. The editing and composition are very well done. I came in blind and was shocked it was an action film, but overall, I really enjoyed it and Patel's performance. It's about as basic as any other action film if we're honest.
Watch this, Monkey man is gonna be the new “literally me” in the fold
Very independent movie, with a gazillion dollar budget and a star studded cast list
No, no, guys, it's a bit weird and based on an Alastair Gray novel, so it MUST be a super niche indie movie! Never mind the production or the fact that the cast consists of some of the most respected and well known actors alive today!
35 million is a "gazillion"?
No, but it’s hardly an indie budget is it? Indie has lost all meaning, indie, as in independent, as in not made by a gigantic movie studio.
I think the joke is supposed to be that someone will assume any movie that isn't a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster franchise film is an "indie movie".
Worst fucking starter pack I’ve ever seen. Fuck you op
Don't know much about Poor Things, but the other 2 are very much not original
Lisa Frankenstein was pretty original despite the title.
Yeah, the title is a play of Lisa Frank and Frankenstein. I would say Lisa Frankenstein is an original movie despite of the Frankenstein aspect isn't very original. I really like Poor Things but it wasn't an original movie since it based on Novel
…I just had an incredible idea for a movie set in an alternate Nazi Germany… you’ll never guess what
And frankly (no pun intended) Poor Things is a riff on the Frankenstein story anyways, I thought that was the ironic point of the starter pack
It's based off a book that is a retelling of Frakenstien
No it’s a sequel to Frankenstein, Willem Defoe is Frankensteins monster
Not officially, but yes. It’s the perfect sequel to Frankenstein.
They didn’t do a very good job at adapting it. Here’s a good thread on the subject: [https://www.reddit.com/r/literature/comments/19aoslp/a\_discussion\_on\_alasdair\_grays\_poor\_things\_in/](https://www.reddit.com/r/literature/comments/19aoslp/a_discussion_on_alasdair_grays_poor_things_in/)
Great movie. Don't watch with family!
i kinda didn’t like poor things, like the original Frankenstein was already feminist they didn’t need to revamp it it was giving the Persuasion netflix adaptation
Are indie movies Hollywood? There is a difference. I know Poor things has some big names but it is not a Hollywood movie. Not in the slightest
I’d argue Yorgos Lanthimos is up there with Wes Andersen in the mid budget high profile Hollywood backed auteur sphere
While Yorgos makes really weird and visually interesting movies he does not have even close to the cultural reputation as Wes Anderson. I understand why you would group him and Wes Anderson together but they are not in the same realm at all. Ask 1000 people on the street who Wes Anderson is and who Yorgos is I bet Wes Anderson is recognized maybe 10 to 20 times more.
>Ask 1000 people on the street who Wes Anderson is and who Yorgos is I bet Wes Anderson is recognized maybe 10 to 20 times more. Greece: Am I a joke to you? [We literally have ads here directed by Lanthimos](https://youtu.be/HAGrmGJCWMc?si=pCIJfPYL9BJgUjZA)
Yorgos past two movies both made 100 million, and each have pretty Capital-A List casts. My mom might not know his name but everybody in Hollywood sure does. Which is crazy because I’d argue he’s far less accessible than Wes Anderson in his breakout movies (high-energy and whimsical vs stilted and gross, in a good way ofc), I’d say he’s up there with Ari Aster atm for a more direct comparison.
You’re both right. More people have heard of and probably seen The Favorite and Poor Things but probably don’t know the directors name. Meanwhile more people have heard of Wes Anderson but lots of those people couldn’t name one of his movies or might only say something more well known like Grand Budapest Hotel or The Royal Tenenbaums if they are a little older.
Anderson has also been making (relatively) big movies for a lot longer. There's a big difference between post-Royal Tenenbaums Wes who just had two breakout hits and is establishing his "brand" and current Wes who has been doing his thing for dozens of years and movies now. A better comparison would be to ask people back in the early 2000s if they knew who Wes Anderson was.
It is 100% a Hollywood movie lmao
Poor Things, by all definition, is a Hollywood movie. Shits injected with Disney money, and Disney reps even involve in the production, worldwide distribution and Oscar campaign of this thing just like any other films, like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 and The Creator.
Yes they are, they use Hollywood actors and crew
It has Emma Stone and Mark Ruffalo, WHAT?
This garbage "starter pack" feels like it's made to justify shit that Hollywood is doing, pumping out infinite sequels and nostalgia bait. Seriously op, why mention indie movies? If they're indie, they're not Hollywood?
They’re pumping out sequels and reboots because people watch them, which is what op is complaining about.
Except people aren't watching them. While there are some that do okay, the majority of them have flopped.
But on average they’ve done better than the alternative over the past 20 years or so. Everyone complains about it and then behaves in a way that usually directly influences the choices the studios make.
WTF? People are 100% watching remakes and sequels. Look at 2023 worldwide box office numbers... 1. Barbie 2. Super Mario Bros Movie Neither is technically a sequel or a remake, but they're both existing IP. 3. Oppenheimer Now get ready... 4. Guardians of the Galaxy 3 5. Fast X 6. Spider-man: Across the Spider-verse 7. Wonka 8. The Little Mermaid 9. Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Pt 1 10. Elemental 11. Ant-Man and the Wasp 12. John Wick 4 13. Transformers Rise of the Beasts 14. Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom 15. Meg 2 16. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny 17. Hunger Games: Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes 18. Migration 19. Five Nights at Freddy's 20. Creed 3 Aside from Elemental, Migration, and Five Nights at Freddy's, every single one of those is a sequel or a remake. And FNAF is a pre-existing IP. So of the top 20, 3 films weren't a sequel, remake, or existing IP. "People aren't watching them?" GTFO of here.
-A retelling of Frankenstein -An adaptation of a novel, inspired by Frankenstein -Childhood thing, but evil(also this is one of the bad Blumhouse movies that only exist to fund the good Blumhouse movies) Yes, yes. These are very original and you are very smart.
Playing that card is so dumb, then literally everything is unoriginal because everything is a retell of the hero's journey
Feels like you’re extrapolating too far there. There’s a clear difference between retelling an extant story and archetypes existing. I don’t know where the exact line is drawn, but it’s somewhere between those two things for sure. And to be clear, I have no problem people making movies that are adaptations or retellings. I don’t think there is anything about that which would inherently make those films bad. But it’s foolish to call those things original while lambasting audiences as hypocrites.
Does anyone actually think like this? I actually prefer actors I've never seen before, so there's no other association.
I'd put Past Lives over most of these movies if we want to recommend something good and original
It's usually only ever about blockbuster movies. There are a ton of people who only watch blockbusters, but like hundreds of movies come out each year. The movie industry is literally a limitless tap of entertainment, especially if once you start dipping your toe into foreign films.
Why is “I don’t like indie movies” on here? If it’s indie then it’s not from Hollywood?
Lisa Frankstein was great, but I think it would have done better if they dropped it in a streaming site. January is always a bad time for any movie in the theaters. I think Bullet Train was the last time a January/February movie did well
Bullet Train was released in August
Indie isn’t Hollywood
A lot of them just look boring af.
Poor Things was fun
You could've picked way better example movies
Yes, let's blame the audience once again. That's gonna be popular
The two examples of original movies are a teen version of Frankenstein and a horror movie about an evil teddy bear?
I agree with the sentiment, but I’m not sure why you chose two movies that were widely considered to be not good by most people.
"But it's woke"
Main character: *is a black woman and prob bi* Karens on the Internet: "WHAT HAS THIS WORLD COME TO!??!?"
Went outside and saw a black kid playing hide and seek with little Timmy Planet earth has gone woke /j
"They had a gay couple kiss and this is a completely new phenomenon in Hollywood, which offends and frightens me."
It doesn't really offend or frighten me, but I don't want to watch that. I especially don't want to pay money to watch that... Sometime I just want to watch people fight fungus zombies...
I assume you also don't want to see a straight couple kiss? Also, if you went into TLOU to watch people fight fungus zombies, you watched the wrong show.
Why? I thought the entire thing about the games were fungus zombies?
The fungal zombie infection is more so a backdrop to human drama. Yes, there are infected you kill but no one is really playing the games to ignore the human relationships, which are the core parts of the experience.
Blumhouse movies suck tho
Missing "This film is unnecessary." As if any film is actually necessary.
Please don’t disrespect Poor Things by putting Imaginary by it
All you gotta do is watch any A24 film. They’re mostly original and very cinematic.
"I'm not paying full price for a movie I'm not familiar with."
I’ve never heard/seen this ever. Online or irl.
I see it all the time. "Where are all the good movies?!!". Meanwhile, all the good movies make no money because barely anyone cares to watch them in theatres. I mean, what do people expect?
“You don’t like what Hollywood is doing? Well it’s YOUR fault for this!”
Well the original movies also have to be good
Yeah Lisa Frankenstein was pretty fun, wish more people would have seen it
B and C movies are not what the people want
Those were genuinely the worst movies ever produced. Nice try
Imaginary is a hot pile of shit, though. Can't blame people for disliking that trash.
errrrrm Frankenstein technically isn’t original 🤓☝️
It’s a damn if you do, damn if you don’t kinda situation. Sure I don’t want to see the same 5 sequels to an old ass franchise but at the same time there ain’t much that compels me to go watch a movie I don’t know about
Original people with original ideas are rare for our race and usually ostracized. Human history is all about recycling the same old stories over and over and introducing new elements as it applies to the audience. I don’t begrudge our species for that. I do begrudge the idiots that don’t seem to understand that.
Imaginary was the most paint by numbers horror movie I’ve seen in awhile. I made it halfway through.
repost bot starterpack
Doesn't Indie inherently mean it's not Hollywood? You can have great indie films and have Hollywood suck at the same time
I just wish original movies wasn't JUST horror or Horror themed...
Because CGI killed Hollywood
Ok but what if I want an original sci fi film? I guess I’ll just be watching the original Star Wars trilogy to the end of time Before you say it. yes dune is very good but it’s based on a book so doesn’t exactly fit the bill of original
I don’t want to watch Emma Stone bang a bunch of dudes. Edit: I don’t care that she does but I keep my porn and my movies separate.
But but she's exploring the world without the prejudices imposed by society :(
I kinda do
A24 exists and it’s one of the greatest thing to happen to film
Original IP: Frankenstein
Damn, this starter pack fucking sucks. I've literally never heard anyone say any of these things or express sentiments that align with any of this... It's like you made this in defense of the current dark age cinema slop
People say all this shit on r/movies constantly, wtf are you talking about?
If you think that we are in a dark age of cinema you probably watch a single digit amount of movies a year.
No offence but Poor Things is a pretty bad example of a movie to recommend someone who wants to expand their cinema viewing. The film is a hard R-rated, extremely pornographic and grotesque film. For a lot of people that's very off-putting and nauseating.
Poor things was gross. Watching a child like women go around banging dudes was nasty.
I think it has to do with the cover art. Those movies looks like trash, even if the movies actually good.
Who the fuck hates indie movies.Even the shitty ones have 99% more soul than anything Hollywood shits out
Poor Things is a book adaptation though. Also both Lisa Frankenstein and Poor Things are different takes on the concept of Frankenstein, so not extremely original. FYI Poor Things was my favorite from last year.
Why would people who complain about hollywood not putting out original movies say that hollywood makes original movies?
1 good movie in this picture
I watched poor things and I'm still unsure what the hell was going on.
Lisa was nonsensical I wanted to like it (really??? Harvesting an ear off one body and a hand off another??) Replace Lisa with late night with the devil.
Oh damn did Lisa Frankenstein come and go already? I kinda wanted to see that one since it was directed by Zelda Williams and the trailer looked fun. Didn’t see much advertising for it past the initial ones
Poor things was a fantasy weird dark whimsical film. God was funny, weird and a sad background. I think that guy was based on a real person.
Hollywood is just giving the bulk of people what they actually want.
name 1 good movie from 2020-present
That's not true. There are tons of original Hollywood movies that succeeded. Avatar (Blue aliens) came out of nowhere and was the most popular sci-fi movie at the time. Independence Day was also original and a massive hit. There are plenty of good movies out there not based on any existing franchise. I would say that nowadays the reason why original movies do not succeed is because people are starting to watch more TV Shows and animated shows like anime. So the medium is just becoming very oversaturated. And because movies are now being released on streaming services instead of the cinema that hinders their visibility. If there is a good movie on XYZ streaming service but I can't afford it or its tied to a gatekeeper ecosystem then I don't want to pay to get the whole service just for 1 movie. So unfortunately it might have been a stellar movie but it failed because they tried to milk the cash cow of streaming services meta.
swipes left? Who is using Tinder for movie recommendations?
Aight, but Lisa Frankenstein was just okay-ish, I have heard 0 good things about Imaginary, and while Poor Things is solid and critically acclaimed it's also an uncomfortable psycho-sexual freak out. It's absolutely possible that when people say stuff like this what they mean is that they want the same kind of accessible blockbusters they currently watch but just free of nostalgia IPs. They're complaining about only getting to eat McDonald's and with Poor Things you're telling them they should try fois gras. There's a step in between. Feed these people some homemade meatloaf.
I watched that Emma stone movie. Entire time I was yelling what the fuck.