Posts by briskhound2

This remake is going to be such absolute garbage it’s actually impressive—and honestly, the trailer pretty much gives it all away...

Look, I get it, but Sylvester Stallone is honestly one of those icons you just can't replicate if he didn't exist. His career has definitely had its ups and downs—total roller coaster—but the man is still standing. When it comes to the Rambo stuff, people tend to lump First Blood into that mindless action category, which isn't really fair... it’s got way more substance than that. But this latest installment? It feels like an echo of those old news cycles where everyone thought Johnny was going to hunt down osama Bin-Laden, only for the whole thing to turn into something else entirely. Honestly, I’d much rather see them go back to the roots; maybe some local militia out in the hills—sort of a nod to First Blood—or even a run-in with a drug cartel. A cartel story would be a blast because they'd just tear through everything in their path, and I bet the audience would eat that up...

zuikaku said:I don't get the hype around the first movie... I mean, sure, the soundtrack is killer, but besides that? It’s basically just a glorified, long-form recruitment video for the USAF wrapped around a pretty dull romance subplot.

Even now, Top Gun still sets the bar for how aerial combat should actually look on screen. Just like how Days of Thunder has the best racing sequences ever filmed... honestly, you can't deny that Tony Scott really knew how to handle action scenes...

Edward Price6 said:briskhound2 was asking me for links, proof, whatever... But when I actually go looking for them, everyone suddenly goes deaf. Why is that?

Because you’re being contradictory. In one thread, you’re accusing me of being some nostalgic fossil who only likes action figures and hates every single movie made after 1990—then in the next one, you point out how I praised San Andreas, which came out back in 2015. So, it’s not really about the debate for you, is it? It’s just about throwing stuff at me. That’s why I’m asking you for those links—to back up this imaginary claim that I can't handle modern films. Like Blood dim told you, the admins can see all the posts. If you can't find them, at least point me to the thread where they supposedly exist. Otherwise, you're just making things up...

It would be interesting to see how many times a moderator has actually been warned, given a strike, or had their mod status suspended—either temporarily or permanently—within a specific timeframe. My guess is zero, since moderators are apparently perfect beings. Which, statistically speaking, is impossible.

I’ve personally taken both a warning and a formal strike from the admin in charge of the Movie section. I overstepped, did something I shouldn't have, took the strike, apologized, and we moved on...🤷

Where does that happen?! Where else can a moderator talk to a user like that?

Should I bring up that old saying about whose mother is spinning black wool? If you asked me, he’d probably get a massive strike just for the insinuation involving someone's mother, but hey, that's just my take. Your way of addressing the mods is truly something to behold...

I’ll get a strike, they’ll insult me, and then they’ll just delete whichever part of my post they don't like. That way, they always get the last word, creating this image of a moderator who never loses an argument. Again, statistically impossible.

The math doesn't add up, because Bumboslav—the guy you claim I'm protecting—has actually picked up six strikes from me for trolling, mostly during that Prometheus discussion, plus maybe four or five warnings to just chill out and behave. You, on the other hand, got one strike after ignoring advice to stop trolling and basically throwing it in my face. Besides, I haven't warned you or punished you once before or since. So, who's actually coming out ahead here? The guy I supposedly "protect" because we agree, or you, whose opinion I totally disagree with?...

Edward Price6 said:But he’s basically mocking me and insulting my taste in movies.

Just for the record, your very first post was basically...

some guy who's totally obsessed with ancient classics and spits on anything made after 1990.

Followed by stuff like...

go grab your old-school gear from last century, and I'll bring my modern setup, and we can meet up in some Mad Max wasteland. Let's settle this once and for all and see who's actually got the goods.

...which is a direct hit on MY taste in films for no reason—not to mention you're making up this idea that I hate everything new—and then you go ahead and throw out a little threat, I don't know, like a dawn duel? Anyway, this kind of communication just isn't it. And aiming this directly at me just to provoke a reaction is also not cool.

The first official teaser trailer



Two new posters just dropped

Alexander Howard79 said:Pulling in 20-30 mil isn't exactly a disaster for a movie like that.

Actually, yeah, it’s a total flop. Given that the sequel is looking at a $100 million budget... I mean, anyone with half a brain wouldn't touch a project like that if they were expecting those kinds of returns. Even bigger franchises have tanked after pulling in more than that...

So, basically, none of that $100 million the movie pulled in was actually profit—yet they’re already greenlighting a sequel... like, why? Just to lose money all over again? I get that it feels pretty gross when some total flop somehow turns into a massive hit, but look, folks... if the movie didn't make its money back, they wouldn't be throwing cash at a second one. It's just how the business works.

Alexander Howard79 said:People keep bringing this up here, but there’s still this massive confusion between gross box office and actual net profit. Google pulled in maybe twenty mil in net from worldwide distribution—which is pretty underwhelming considering the movie had a $70m budget...

So, you're saying $140 million went just into the production itself? Like, covering the costs? By that logic, Marvel would need to pull in something like $3 billion just to scrape by with a few extra million in profit... The budget was $70m, if I remember correctly, and I think they dumped another 2 or 3 mil into marketing too. So we're looking at a minimum of $80m, let's say $70m total when you bundle it all together. That's before even touching the DVD and Blu-Ray sales, which added another $34m to the pile. At the end of the day, the movie cleared a hundred mil regardless of how you slice it. Which, honestly, is still a win...

Alexander Howard79 said:...and they're totally spot on.

I mean, it depends on how you look at it. Nobody was out there marketing this thing as some high-brow masterpiece—it was sold as pure, unadulterated carnage. Sure, the plot is pretty much non-existent, but honestly? It ended up being way more fun than, say, the last Die Hard movie. Pointing out how dumb the story is in reviews feels kind of redundant... almost like pointing out that water is wet, especially when the whole marketing campaign was leaning into that exact vibe.

As far as the box office goes, it wasn't exactly a blowout. Amazon wasn't some massive success, nor did it blow up in every market. It broke even and made a little profit, sure, but we're talking light years away from a true blockbuster.

Look, if a movie covers its $70 million budget and still manages to toss another $90 million into the piggy bank, that’s a hit by any definition. I get it, it wasn't a Marvel style hit, but calling it anything else is just being dramatic...

YouTube trailer

Just saw the YouTube trailer... honestly, I'm still processing it. It’s got that vibe, you know? A little bit of everything, but it's definitely doing something different this time around...

To break up the endless monotony of Star Wars, Batman, and all those other characters stuck in spandex—here’s one title that actually deserves some hype in theaters this year, hopefully... Just another sequel, specifically the kind that makes serious cinephiles want to tear their hair out while complaining about how Hollywood only churns out mindless junk. In this particular case, they aren't entirely wrong. Back in 2013, we saw... So, I finally sat down to watch Olympus Has Fallen... and honestly? It’s exactly what you’d expect from a movie like this. It’s got that classic, high-octane energy where everything just goes to hell in a handbasket—but in a way that’s actually kind of fun if you aren't looking for a deep philosophical debate... Just pure, unadulterated chaos. Gerard Butler plays the hero, obviously, and he does that whole "rugged guy forced into impossible situations" thing perfectly. He’s got that grit down to a science. Then you’ve got the rest of the heavy hitters—Morgan Freeman bringing that effortless gravitas, Aaron Eckhart, even Angela Bassett... the cast is stacked, which feels almost overkill for a flick like this, but hey, I'm not complaining. The plot is pretty much standard action fare—terrorists take over the White House, things get intense, everyone’s running around sweating through their suits—but there’s a certain rhythm to it that works. It doesn't try to be smarter than it is, which is probably why it lands. If you're looking for something to put on when you just want to see stuff blow up while following a guy who refuses to die... yeah, this is your movie. It’s loud, it’s fast, and it’s unapologetically an action movie... nothing more, nothing less.So, we’re looking at an action flick ripped straight from that iconic Die Hard franchise—you know, the one where some guy always ends up stuck in the middle of a massive, chaotic mess. In this case, terrorists have stormed the White House, and our guy is basically tasked with saving the President himself. Critics absolutely tore it to shreds—just endless nitpicking and bad reviews—but the audience? They didn't seem to care. People clearly showed up for the over-the-top action, because the movie actually cleared its budget and turned into a decent little hit globally. And that brings us right to the sequel... Gerard Butler I mean, honestly... I don't even know where to start with this one. It’s just one of those things that sticks in the back of your mind, you know? Just sitting there, swirling around... maybe it's the way everything feels so deliberate lately, or maybe I'm just overthinking it. Either way—it's definitely something worth chewing on for a bit... Gerard Butler... So, he’s stepping back into that secret agent role again—basically playing a guy who manages to sniff out some massive conspiracy just like Jack Bauer would... all while hanging out with the rest of the original crew, including Morgan Freeman, Aaron Eckhart, Angela Bassett, and Radha Mitchell, during some official thing over in England. We don't know for sure who the big bad is yet, but if the first movie was any indication, we’re looking at another chaotic, high-stakes brawl where everything gets blown to bits... plus plenty of those classic explosions we love. This time around, though, it looks like London is the one taking the hit. Should be hitting theaters sometime in 2015...

Just some behind-the-scenes shots from the set...

@Ronald Jones

Alright, enough with the GIFs and the pictures already... This thread is supposed to be for an actual discussion, not just a dumping ground for random images. You made your point clear—we all know what it looks like—so let's just move on...

Look, I’m not trying to be a total buzzkill here—trust me, I love Mulder and Scully just as much as the next guy—but we really can't be debating the series in this specific thread. There’s already a dedicated TV discussion happening over on the main boards, and I’m pretty sure someone (if they haven't already) is gonna spin up a new thread once the upcoming episodes drop. Just gotta stick to the rules and keep things organized, you know?

bluenomad2 said:briskhound2, as a total fan of the show, what’s your take on the revival?

To be honest, I'm stoked to see them back on our screens, but... I really wish they'd just put the cash toward writing a killer script and filming a brand new movie instead. That first movie was actually pretty solid, even if it felt a bit weighed down by trying to tie back to the series too tightly. These new episodes might feel a little aimless since both of them got kicked out of the FBI—which we already saw happen in the second movie, so... yeah.

lonehound2 said:Yeah, sure—besides the fact they’ve been upgraded, and they hail from some planet called Cybertron that doesn't actually exist, and they happen to speak perfect English, and oh yeah, they can turn into vehicles...

Right. And? Bumblebee even dances. I don't really get where you're going with this. Is everything just "Fantasy" to you unless it’s strictly proven, tangible, and backed by hard science? If that's the case, please, enlighten me—which movie qualifies as pure sci-fi under those ridiculous standards of yours?

cosmicgull said:briskhound2. The robots in the movie have souls, just like humans. Those laws of physics you keep bringing up? They pretty much dictate that a machine built entirely out of metal and precious alloys isn't going to suddenly develop a soul. It's not a deus ex machina.

And then we hit the part called FICTION. For some reason, people struggle to wrap their heads around how genres actually work. SCIENCE (cars, planes, things flying, things crashing) FICTION (characters with human personalities). By that logic, Star Trek Fantasy fits the bill too... honestly, every single movie does. Even 2001: A Space Odyssey. You've got a black monolith that isn't real, a computer that doesn't exist, and a massive space voyage that—let's be honest—is physically impossible to pull off as shown...

lonehound2 said:because Transformers aren't real and they never will be.

Look, robots exist. At the end of the day, Transformers are just oversized robots... so I don't really get why people are arguing over whether they count as sci-fi. They aren't using magic to power up or casting spells at their enemies—everything about them, from how they move to how they function, stays within the realm of proven physics, even if it's all just highly advanced technology...

cosmicgull said:Telepathy and telekinesis don't have anything to do with science—those terms just fall into the pseudoscience bucket. They're basically just baseless nonsense, imaginary products of the human mind. For instance, you’ll find debates about those kinds of mystified pseudosciences in an Alternative news PDF rather than in a Natural Science journal... and while teleportation is actually a scientific topic, why does everyone assume SF always means space opera? I haven't claimed that once in any of my posts!

Time travel doesn't have anything to do with science either because, let's face it, it's impossible. You won't find a single real-world example to back it up, but sure, you can build a theory and try to support it with actual scientific facts—like the speed of light. Telekinesis and telepathy, along with pyrokinesis, all sit right on the fringes of science... and I say "science" because, like I mentioned before, it's similar to theoretical physics. You can frame them within a scientific context (check out Welsov's Time Machine) and then you end up with a theory that actually ties back to some scientific reality. Granted, it's unachievable, but that's why we call it fiction. It's also called imagination, creativity, and pushing boundaries... Back in the day, Star Trek was dismissed as total trash, yet here we are with smartphones, tablets, and computers with user interfaces that basically manifested from those exact ideas. And since we're talking about it, Thor is fundamentally Fantasy because he leans so heavily on Norse mythology, but if you pair him with Iron Man—who uses actual tech (I mean, jet packs have been around since the '60s)—you get Sci-Fi / Fantasy. Honestly, genres blurring together isn't even the issue. I mean, does anyone actually call Indiana Jones a fantasy movie? It's packed with all that bullshit like the Holy Grail and the Ark of the Covenant, yet nobody labels it purely fantasy...

cosmicgull said:Look, we should definitely champion artistic freedom, but I just can't bring myself to call movies like Superman, Batman, Robin, Catwoman, X-Men, or the Avengers "Sci-Fi." There isn't a shred of actual science in those films. Trying to lump them into the Sci-Fi genre is honestly just a wild idea...

I could sit here all day and list the specific tropes that make every single one of those movies Sci-Fi. We're talking telepathy, telekinesis, teleportation... it's just a tiny fraction of the toolkit used in the X-Men franchise. Just because they don't feature deep space, distant planets, or massive starships doesn't mean they aren't Sci-Fi any more than Superman is. Then you've got Batman and Iron Man—it's all about that superior tech. Every movie has its own little details... but yeah, they lean into Fantasy too. You can't just pin them down to one neat little category and say, "okay, this is it." It's not that simple. I mean, what even is Frequency? Is it Sci-Fi or just a thriller?...

cosmicgull said:Look, can we please skip these kinds of posts... Seriously. Interstellar is Sci-Fi, so by definition, it belongs in that genre—and there's nothing you can do about it being in the opening post, which is exactly where it should be anyway. Even if you think the scientific accuracy is a bit iffy, the movie is still top-tier for the genre. This isn't a thread about whether movies are objectively good or what everyone's subjective opinion is... this is about breaking down genres objectively and sharing some personal takes on them. Have a nice day. 🙂

Hey, let's maybe watch the tone a little when talking to other users. Just a thought...

William Lee64 said:I mean, fine, whatever, but why is Interstellar in the opening post listed among the absolute peaks of its genre?
What is Interstellar even doing in the same sentence as the greatest film ever made—maybe even the biggest film of all time—the one movie that basically defines the entire genre, the one every director thinks about whenever they touch Sci-Fi?
Odyssey is practically sacred in cinema... it doesn't deserve to be dragged down by comparisons to a standard blockbuster that just, you know, entertains people and touches on some interesting themes for a bit.
Total blasphemy...

Actually, Interstellar belongs right there specifically because it pays homage to Odyssey in several spots—you know, that holy grail of the genre. And in terms of structure, story, and execution, Interstellar is anything but just another mindless explosion-fest. It’s got its flaws, sure, but it's miles ahead of those typical titles...

wiredraven82, chill out, man.

Look, you want to know why Gravity is Sci-Fi? It's because a huge chunk of what happens actually sticks to scientific principles—things stay where they should, things exist, stuff works... you get it. You wanna know where the fiction kicks in? It’s that synchronized orbit with all that space junk and the whole sequence of how they enter Earth's orbit. That alone just flies right in the face of physics... you can't really pass that off as "realism." Theoretically, sure, anything is possible, but in the real world? Not a chance...