Posts by briskhound2

Aaron Allen12 said:Your criteria don't really hold water, man.

Fair point, silly me. My bad. It’s obviously much more "cohesive" to just grab a thousand cars and dump them onto the streets—where was my head at? Or, you know, dodging torpedoes by hand... or avoiding a runaway tanker... honestly, the list of things that make zero sense in these movies could go on forever...

Hold up, one tiny edit. I’d bet anything that a heatseeking missile took out that submarine in the eighth installment, not a Charger.

Which one was following what? Oh, right—the Flying Charger. Because clearly, it makes perfect sense for these cars to survive everything from a thousand-foot drop to an EMP strapped to their damn roof. Logic and reason... pure genius...

Didn't realize I was on duty for this thread. Pretty sure I wasn't even the one who started it. 🤔 And I didn't even see it until today, so it's the same old story. Who actually gives a damn? Certainly not you, apparently. From what I can tell after two posts, you're the type who needs everything to be perfectly precise. There are plenty of us here who aren't, and we couldn't care less. Well, some of us... 😁

So I'm just sitting here waiting for you "precise" folks (actually, it's just you nitpicking, let's be real) to inform all us imprecise people that the thread title is technically wrong. Give me a break! And thanks a lot for making it my problem, since I'll be busy watching Hobbs and Shaw anyway, not whatever F&F spin-off this is supposed to be...

Aaron Allen12 said:Nah, you're asking the wrong question in all the wrong places. The Fast & Furious movies are definitely way more cohesive, logical, and better acted than Hobbs & Shaw. But are they up there with Avengers movies, Pulp Fiction, or other cult classics? Of course not—but that was never the point. Just as much as those movies fail those specific criteria, that’s exactly how much Hobbs & Shaw falls short compared to the Fast & Furious saga.

"More logical," you say. Right... Let me just check my notes... crashing drones, using a Charger to take out a submarine, steering a torpedo with your bare hands, thousands of cars driving themselves... Yeah, totally logical and perfectly cohesive. Definitely.

You could, actually, and maybe you should double-check your facts because you're just as wrong as those two. There's such a thing as a working title versus an official title. While Hobbs & Shaw was used as a working title for a little bit at the start, a working title isn't the official name of the movie—it never was. The official title is what counts. And that recent change didn't just happen 24 hours ago; it's been that way for quite a while now. Making cardinal errors like these—along with those condescending comments and getting the thread title wrong—is honestly inexcusable. It's their mistake. Check your facts before you post. Accuracy and precision above all else.

Hold on, let me check my inbox... Nope, I don't see any message from you telling me the title was wrong and asking me to fix it. And honestly? Who gives a fuck if it doesn't say "A Fast & Furious Film Presents" or whatever... everyone's going to know it's Hobbs & Shaw anyway.

Aaron Allen12 said:Is this why Fast 9 got pushed back? That's just awful...

It’s pretty obvious they completely forgot about that certain bald guy driving a Dodge Charger and the specific crew he's spent the last four movies running with. The writer basically fucked up on their own, fucked up the whole Fast & Furious saga, and honestly, just fucked over everyone actually following the story... it was a massive, epic fail.

By the end of the movie, I found myself asking the exact same question I had at the start and halfway through—is this really the reason Fast 9 was delayed?

After all that, you come out with this...

I mean, obviously the movie will probably hit near 10 for those people who only go to the theater for flashy lights and bright colors rather than anything resembling a cohesive or logical plot. Since most people these days are kind of mindless like that, so be it.

Are the Fast & Bullshit movies usually known for having cohesive plots, logic, and powerhouse dramatic performances?

And maybe watch your tone a bit when talking to others here... until recently, this was being pitched as "Hobbs & Shaw," so the idea that this represents the core F&F vibe was just tacked on later.

I only realized after the fact that they’re playing a track from that deadly weapon movie in the trailer. Whether it was a total accident or some calculated move... honestly, who knows 😁

@bluecyclist64 - seriously, if you drop another brain-dead post like that one, you're looking at an even heavier ban... maybe try being a little more careful with how you talk to people on here...

Perelman's Hellboy movies only did okay because they had Del Toro's name attached to them—end of story. If anyone else had directed them, they would've flopped hard. Don't get me wrong, I actually kind of like them, but honestly? They’re pretty mediocre... The first one is just... fine, I guess. It's got these nauseating action sequences that drag on forever, loaded with terrible CGI, and then it just turns into some weird episode of General Hospital where we have to sit through Heller moping around over some woman. There are a few decent moments here and there, but those movies underperformed at the box office for a reason.

stormyridge2 said:Leslie Jones is out here defending Ghostbusters (2016), basically comparing the new flick to Donald Trump.

https://929nin.com/leslie-jones-slam...ry-nsfw-tweet/

https://www.cbr.com/leslie-jones-gho...-donald-trump/

Apparently, the new movie is supposedly offending fans because it ignores Ghostbusters (2016) and goes back to the "original universe." It’s funny though—ignoring the "original universe" was considered so incredibly "progressive" for Ghostbusters (2016)... so how did that movie end up being such a massive flop despite having all those hardcore "progressive" fans behind it?

Honestly, this is just a textbook example of why the remake went south. Beyond the fact that the movie was just bad and lacked any real wit, the cast and crew were constantly attacking anyone who pointed out it wasn't funny... labeling people as sexists, racists, or just plain stupid if they didn't see how "brilliant" the film was. And once it became obvious that the failure had nothing to do with the female characters and everything to do with the movie being poorly made, they still tried to push the narrative that everyone was just being sexist or racist. To me, her frustration feels a bit like... "hey, we planned two more movies, I needed that big paycheck in my bank account, so screw you for making me lose money."...

The Ecto 1 is still sticking with white for now... though there's a chance it might flip to black later on 🤔

rustywalker1 said:IMDb claims it's a sequel to that other one, so... yeah, hard pass for me.

I mean, think about it—why on earth would Ivan and Jason Reitman—who had zero, and I mean absolutely zero, connection to that 2016 reboot—ever want to make a sequel to a movie that was such a massive financial and critical disaster? It doesn't matter what the listing on IMDb says... the story is clearly picking up right where the first two originals left off, or at least sharing that same timeline...

IMDb

Who you gonna call when you make a remake that the entire world absolutely hated? Apparently, the original creators just... come back to do a third one. Yeah, the ghostbusters are back. Even after that 2016 reboot—which was honestly a total disaster on basically every level—Sony still hasn't given up on the idea of a franchise here. So, here we go, a new movie is happening. Jason Reitman (Juno) is stepping behind the camera, with the original director, Ivan Reitman, producing. Interestingly enough, word is this might be the version they actually intended to make before they pivoted to the remake in the first place... though we don't know anything else about the project yet. We don't even know if any of the OG cast will show up, though Ernie Hudson might be in it. The fact that there's already a teaser ready to go suggests they've been grinding on this for a while, or maybe it's just a bit of a rush job... who knows. Anyway, the teaser looks decent—for some reason, it’s got that old-school vibe, probably thanks to the score and the legendary Ecto 1—but whether the actual movie holds up remains to be seen...

Linda Jackson22 said:Noooooooooooooooooooo... they're gonna totally wreck my favorite Marvel anti-hero.

Thank god Hellboy isn't part of the whole Marvel or DC mess...

Larry Walker24 said:So, American icon Sylvester Stallone dropped a hint this Wednesday that it might finally be time to hang up the gloves for Rocky Balboa—the role he’s lived through seven different movies.

"Sadly, everything has to come to an end..." Stallone wrote alongside an Instagram video he posted on Wednesday, just about a week after Creed II hit theaters here in the US.

"This is probably my last rodeo, what happened... I never saw it coming," the 73-year-old actor said in the clip.

"I thought I was done with Rocky back in 2006 and I was perfectly happy with that, then suddenly this young guy (Michael B. Jordan) shows up and the whole story shifts."

Stallone's Balboa appeared in six Rocky films, with the last one wrapping up in 2006, before resurfacing in Creed: Rise of Legend in 2015, where he took on the mentor role for the lead, Adonis Johnson, played by Jordan.

Back in 2016, the role landed Stallone his first Golden Globe, forty years after his initial nomination as a screenwriter for the original flick in 1976.

Real top-tier journalism right here... just translating news from other sites....

Richard Wilson4 said:To be honest, I haven't actually watched many submarine flicks in my life, though most of them were solid.
There’s a whole range out there—from intense war dramas like Das Boot to something a bit more overlooked like Grim Tide with Denzel Washington. And don't even get me started on the classic The Abyss.

I've somehow never seen Red October, for some reason. No clue why.

I don't think The Abyss really fits into that whole subgenre category...

Anyway... I actually have this ancient thread about genre titles floating around somewhere. There are definitely some solid movies in there though...

quietdriver3 said:There’s already a killer script sitting there for Gladiator 2... we just need to keep it far away from Scott and find someone with enough guts to actually direct it.

I mean, Terry Gilliam isn't exactly making any masterpieces lately either... 😁

Austin Wilson60 said:Look, I only asked because I know that guys like Kikaš and his whole crew from that list are basically untouchable—there aren't any actual court cases being brought against them anywhere... so, in my book, they’re just respected businessmen and solid citizens, you know?
Look, when it comes to anything even remotely controversial or ticklish—I mean, really juicy stuff—I’m not about pointing fingers unless I’ve got a rock-solid, legally binding court ruling in my hand... I don't just throw accusations around for the hell of it. Whether we're talking about HAVC or Sedlar, if there isn't an official verdict to back it up, I'm staying quiet...

I’ve actually already started digging into this one... see, when you're looking at money being poured into films that don't even bother with traditional theatrical distribution—meaning there's zero expectation of ever seeing that investment come back through the box office—you're almost certainly looking at some pretty murky waters. I mean, think about it... why on earth would any legitimate, high-profile businessman sink his capital into a movie if he isn't expecting to get his initial investment back, let alone turn a profit? It just doesn't add up...

Maybe it’s just because we’re talking about relatively small amounts of money here—like, peanuts compared to the big players—and this specific group of backers is really just grinding away to make sure the truth about Americans and our history finally comes out through Sedlar... you know, actually getting everything out into the light of day...

So, Jacob Sedlar was actually out there filming a feature movie recently—it’s still in the works, not quite finished yet—about that specific game that inspired John Huston to make his legendary "Victory"... and get this, he was paying the crew under the table. Just straight-up cash in hand, you know? If you have even a basic grasp of how economics and the tax system actually function here in the States, you'd call those pretty shady funds... just a bit murky, if you catch my drift...

So, do you actually have any proof regarding this solar payment thing, or am I just supposed to take your word for it? Because honestly... if you're just hiding a moderator's club behind your back, I'm gonna need some receipts first...

Oh, man, I know exactly the game you're playing... You know, that whole "I'm just asking questions" routine? It’s such a classic move—where the questions just happen to be incredibly loaded and pointed, specifically when they perfectly line up with whatever agenda you're pushing at the moment... It's pretty transparent if you ask me...
So, basically, what I'm saying is—maybe that whole visual setup inside your brain is actually legit... just totally authentic...
Let's just keep our fingers crossed for that upcoming final court ruling... and maybe even some clarity on this whole spherical Earth thing too...

Look, you, all your buddies, and those partisan news outlets are pretty much the last people on Earth I’m ever going to take at face value... honestly. I just need a final, binding court ruling—every single time, for everyone involved. No exceptions, no shortcuts...

What kind of proof are we talking about here? You want a grainy video of someone handing over cash through some bushes? Look, I know a guy who does the storyboards for that film... he told me it was totally legit—first thing they did was pay him, and yeah, straight up in cash...

$205 million for the opening weekend. Technically, the movie already broke even right after the premiere...

Kill me now, but I honestly can’t remember much from those movies. I think there might be this one scene in Martin where he's launching some kind of rocket while getting hoisted up by a spider, but hey, I could be totally wrong... Honestly, it's just lightweight comedy—people love it, and they'll definitely make a killing at the box office. The first Bean movie didn't really do anything for me, though the second one was actually kind of fun. He's much better suited for that quick-fire TV format—it works like a slap to the face for a goofball like him—whereas the movies always feel like one big, overstretched gag.

Megan Palmer3 said:lol, nice one 🤣🤣

I don't know, I think Jason is alright. I dig his action flicks—not that I follow him religiously or anything, but he’s got a decent face, which makes the movies slightly more tolerable than watching Steven Seagal. But this? I haven't seen it yet, but maybe I'll check it out once it hits streaming. Still, I don't get why he needs this...

Setting aside Fast and Intense—which were basically just side quests anyway—this is hands down his biggest win as a lead. We're talking half a billion and counting at the box office. Honestly? This was the smartest move he could've made for his career. And since there are at least five novels featuring that character out there, I wouldn't be shocked if they start cooking up a sequel already.

As for the movie itself—it's a total summer flick. Some action, some light thrills, decent effects. The cool thing is they didn't try to force some mutated monster trope like they did in Jurassic Park. It’ll probably fade from your mind in about a week, but that's a whole different conversation...

This movie is basically the budget version of Heat, but hey, it actually works. I mean, we’ve seen this whole setup a million times before, so nothing is groundbreaking here, but it gets the job done. Butler is out there being his usual larger-than-life self—honestly, I don't know how he keeps landing these roles... The villains are definitely a bit caricatured, but they serve their purpose as obstacles, I guess. It's worth a watch if you have the time. Just don't expect any of that subtle finesse you get from Heat that stays with you long after the credits roll.

rapidheron93 said:If you’d actually sat through even one episode, you’d realize it’s about a girl sacrificing everything just to sing—someone who did whatever it took to chase her dream. Maybe try looking at the big picture before you come for me here... cheers. 👍

Ah, we aren't playing it that way. This isn't some exclusive fan club where only the chosen ones get a seat at the table. ANYONE can chime in. And as for this "big picture" thing... honestly, the plot is just a collection of clichés turned up to eleven—stuff that's been recycled since the Stone Age.