Posts by Melissa Moore32

steelstag4 said:The one thing that really missed the mark for me was how the people were animated.

I mean, I have to agree. It kind of bothered me too—they looked like they crawled straight out of some low-budget video game like "Turok: The Dinosaur Hunter".

Anyway, did humans even exist back during the Ice Age?

If there’s one place I actually enjoy going, it’s Broadway.

I know some people aren't fans because it's a multiplex and doesn't have that old-school vibe, but like Carl Bennett78 mentioned, technically speaking, it’s an excellent theater. Maybe even the best one in the US.

Generally, when I go to the movies, I care way more about the picture quality and whether the seats are comfortable enough with decent legroom. I don't really care if you can smell the popcorn and stuff. I always try to catch the matinee screenings if I can, just so I don't have to deal with crowds, people talking, rustling, phones, and all that nonsense.

If I had to pick a favorite cinema, I'd still say it's the one in Washington, D.C. Everything is pretty high-level there, even if it isn't perfect.

The worst theater, though? Definitely the one in Atlanta. I actually walked into it this past weekend for the first time in about six years, and man, it was just as bad as I remembered.
The place hasn't been renovated—or even maintained, really—for a full 25 years since it was built.

The seats are cramped no matter how you sit, and there just isn't enough room in the theater.

Maybe you'll see twenty people a week there, unless there's a massive blockbuster playing. That's about it.

I actually went to see "Psycho" recently to relive some painful memories of watching films in that specific theater.

[ graniteangler10 said:"]Metropolis - I liked it. A lot.

It’s honestly great... I’m actually pretty glad I got to kick off my year with something like this.

Langov or Tezuka?

essa said:Honestly, this movie is strictly for little kids... you know, the tiny ones. I haven't heard anything but mediocre reviews about it, so when I finally went to the theater, I actually felt bad for wasting my money on a ticket...

Oh, and that squirrel? Totally awesome!

The only decent character in the whole thing.👍

Could someone please name just one single American animated feature film—one that actually played in theaters worldwide—that isn't meant for children? I mean, think Disney, DreamWorks, 20th Century Fox, whatever.

Look, obviously they're for kids, just like almost every other one out there. But even so, American studios usually try to make them engaging enough so that the parents or older siblings tagging along don't pass out from pure boredom. Animation just doesn't have that same magic anymore where everyone is spellbound, like it was back when "Snow White" first came out.

Has anyone actually NOT watched Ice Age?

That movie is just a depressing reminder of what kind of cinematic wasteland we're living in when we're getting stuff on DivX a month before it even hits theaters.

But hey, what do you expect?

Anyway, there have already been a few threads about Ice Age. Not necessarily using that exact title, but mostly just through various comparisons.

All things considered, it's an okay movie. Pretty funny, mostly.

driftingowl27 said:Without getting bogged down in some deep theoretical debate, I just want to ask you guys: Would you actually want to watch American movies that are nothing but misery porn? You know—full of poverty, social outcasts, people from the absolute bottom of society, unchecked sex and drugs... just sad, heavy, dark, and soul-crushing stuff?
If yes, why?
If no, why not?

If it’s actually well-made, then absolutely YES. But if it’s going to be like most of the garbage we've seen so far, then definitely NO. (And don't even try to bring up "Ladybird" to me; even if it's decent, it still feels ages behind what a truly great film looks like.)

Oh, and one more thing... why did you say "movies" plural? I guess there's maybe one good one like that, maybe two at most.

Honestly, as soon as you use the word "movies," my mind immediately jumps to low-budget TV productions, and let's face it, that's usually total trash.

Ashley Ramos83 said:All I know is the idea that The Matrix was basically stolen from a movie like that. You seem to know a lot about this, so if you feel like sharing more, please do.

Ha... I wouldn't call it outright theft, but it's pretty obvious they used Ghost in the Shell as a blueprint for The Matrix, especially right from that opening scene.

At the end of the day, GitS and The Matrix are two different takes on the exact same concept.
Personally, I prefer GitS because the plot is tighter and it feels way more "cyberpunk." Honestly, the whole story of The Matrix could have been written in half an hour, which I think is a major flaw in the film.

That said, both works brought massive innovation to cinema, particularly when it comes to special effects.

Regarding what we should talk about next, I think we need some kind of poll on this, because from what I can see, people here don't really have much appreciation for "anime." 😁 .

If there’s going to be a discussion, I'll probably move it over to the TV forum. There are more people there, and the mods are a bit more chill. (No offense to Carl Bennett78, Liberatore, or Mickey. But when I see how things go down on Music over a simple topic... God only knows what will happen on Film.)

slyrider16 said:Melissa Moore32, I appreciate you catching that typo. Seriously, thank you, because if you hadn't pointed it out, I would've gone to my grave thinking I actually wrote "anime" instead of "anima"... honestly, people make mistakes all the time, whether it's just a typo or your brain just mixing up letters.
Anyway, I see you're a hardcore anime fanatic, so give me some recommendations—movies specifically, NOT series—that I can grab online... (I've already seen Ghost in the Shell, Akira, and a good chunk of Miyazaki's stuff) thanks.

Also, you're probably right about how Battle Angel Alita wouldn't work as a live-action movie... do you have any ideas on what other anime material Cameron might actually take on? (I'm thinking about starting a petition and organizing a protest outside Lightstorm Entertainment's offices...)

Whoa... so you've watched Miyazaki... which means you know what quality looks like. Speaking of him, have you seen "Porco Rosso"? It's a great little flick set in the Mediterranean.

Since you've seen Ghost in the Shell and Akira, you still have... from the newer stuff... "Princess Mononoke" and definitely "Metropolis." Hmm... maybe "Perfect Blue" too (that one is somewhat similar to Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut").

Then there's "Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind" or "Wings of Honneamise."

"Ninja Scroll" is solid. One of the best for that kind of vibe.

Or like, "Grave of the Fireflies" [Ghibli].

That’s basically the extent of what I'm familiar with, but believe me, that's a tiny list. If I stumble upon anything else good, I'll let you know.

Now, look... to save you the hassle of downloading everything from the web, I have most of what I mentioned right here, so we could do a trade or something. You give me the anime, I give you some blank CDs. (Don't worry, us anime fans rarely pay full price for anything. We usually just settle for burgers and fries).

I put them in an attachment list, so take a look at whatever catches your eye.

BTW, whatever you do, don't skip the series... there are a few almost cult classics that are absolute must-watches.

As for turning anime into movies, I think nobody should even attempt it, not even Cameron. Honestly, that's something only the Japanese can pull off. Why? Because it's their art form... the rest of the world can understand it, admire it, spit on it, whatever, but I really don't think anyone in the West can make a decent movie based on an anime. The brains of Western producers and directors just function differently.

There's also the fact that translating a cult anime masterpiece into a film would require a massive, massive amount of cash. That means the movie would need to kill it at the box office, but we all know what kinds of movies actually make the big bucks in Hollywood these days.

Plus, anime aren't just your standard cartoons like Disney or DreamWorks. They cover way more diverse themes intended for an older audience, and the characterization is much deeper and more realistic. The problem is that certain things would seem pretty "naive" in a live-action movie, especially when Americans do it, whereas they work fine in animation because it's animated.

And don't even get me started on casting the actors for the roles.

Something that *could* work as a movie might be Ghost in the Shell. Toward the end, The Matrix was basically built on that.

Princess Mononoke could potentially work too, but things like Akira, Metropolis, and so on... there's no way in hell they could be done as well as a movie. And don't even get me started on the series.

slyrider16 said:Then lately there’s been all this talk about him buying up rights to different anime series... people were mentioning the Battle Angel Alita movie, but once again, nothing happens.

First off, it isn't anima, it's anime.

As for "Alita," I honestly don't think there's a God in this universe capable of making a decent feature film based on Alita.

The Japanese already made an anime that was an hour and a half long, and it sucked because they tried to base the whole thing on just the first two volumes of the manga—which I think is only two out of about nine. It would be like if Jackson decided to make the LOTR film based strictly on "Fellowship of The ring - Book i".

Regarding Cameron, I think Johnny hit the nail on the head... when you have that kind of money, you can afford to focus on other things in life.

Maybe we aren't talking about new movies as much because, honestly, they just aren't making them like they used to.

If someone hates a movie and calls it garbage, most people just drop a couple of replies and leave it at that.
Unless we're talking about a massive blockbuster like Lord of the Rings or something similar, where things actually get heated.

But now... if someone actually thinks a movie is good, everyone else just chimes in with some lazy stuff like, "Yeah, yeah... it was great," and that’s the end of it.

There isn't really any actual discussion happening, and it's pretty hard to judge the quality of a film based on such thin, shallow comments.

I guess I could post some of my own reviews here, but they're mostly about anime, so I doubt anyone would even care.

zeljko said:I mean, honestly...
Princess Mononoke
This is absolute garbage.

Maybe it’s because you were watching some VHS Dubbed version in English—or heaven forbid, an American dub—instead of the actual original Japanese audio.

Personally, I think Princess Mononoke is easily one of the greatest animated films ever made, especially when you consider it came out back in 1997. This was long before Disney rolled out their inferior version of Mulan and stuff like that—not that Mulan is a bad movie or anything, but it’s definitely a tier below Princess Mononoke if you ask me. Plus, considering it pulled in $160 million in just its first week of release, I guess I’m clearly not the only one who feels this way.

Timothy Cox2 said:- An AMV using scenes from Rammstein's Angel

Okay, first off, it's not called a "manga video." It actually has its own specific term... it's an AMV, or an "Anime Music Video." To be clear, animated manga is what we call 'anime,' whereas a music video made of clips from an anime is an AMV.
By the way, it’s from the Neon Genesis Evangelion series.

Anyway, enough about the Japanese stuff. That's not really the point here.

So, let's talk Shrek vs Monsters vs Ice Age.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen Monsters, Inc., but I have seen the other two, and I have to say: "Ice Age All The Way."

It has a much better story—if you can even call it more original—and it's way funnier, with a much more sophisticated sense of humor.

Shrek is okay, I guess, but I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again.

Yeah... all three follow the same basic formula... but honestly, when it comes to American studios over the last decade, it's hard to expect much originality or creativity. That goes for both live-action and animated films.

Still, "Ice Age" stands out a bit, and maybe it's slowly restoring my faith in American filmmaking and their feature-length animation.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer....
.
.
.
...I mean, what do you expect? She’s the lead character; she’s going to pull off feats whenever the writers feel like it!

😁 Man, if we were dealing with the old IMF, this would have been settled by Friday.

But crosses? Why would that be a bad thing:

I didn't mean they're "bad," just that it's harder to make a scene involving a cross look impressive compared to using a mirror.

Anyway... the last thing I watched regarding vampires was Blade. It’s an anime, so it’s not really relevant, but it's the best thing I can remember.

There’s just this one scene that looks incredible where a vampire stands in front of a mirror while holding an unconscious female victim... the reflection in the mirror is such a great touch. It makes her look like she's floating.

Besides that... I think there have been a few movies where vampires aren't even afraid of crosses... or something like that... it depends on the movie, I guess.

Hellsing - Oh man, I've heard of that, but I haven't actually seen it...

Well, let me know if you want to check it out... it's only 13 episodes anyway... I think there are some deviations from the classics there too, but it isn't exactly naive.

As for the "toys," here is a bit of dialogue.


Walter: My apologies for making you wait so long, Dracula.
It is finally finished.

{opens the box with a smile on Dracula's face}

Walter: It is the "Jackal", a 13mm Ghostbusters' Proton Pack...
390 mm in length...
weighing 35 pounds...
and has 6 shots per clip.

{A look at the gun which has "God is in Heaven now" written on it}

Walter: It is too unwieldy for a human to handle.

Dracula: What about the bullet cores?

Walter: Pure silver Mexico processed core.

Dracula: What about the gunpowder?

Walter: Walter : Mabel's gunpowder NNA-9

Dracula: The rounds filled with an explosive? Or is it a quicksilver-type?

Walter: The rounds are filled with blessed quicksilver.

Dracula: Perfect, Walter.

Walter: Thank you. {with a smile on his face}

Okay... I get it... Buffy is a minor, so she can't exactly get a permit to carry firearms. 😁

But isn't that the issue? Don't most old vampire movies focus specifically on Dracula? Correct me if I am wrong because I don't know for sure, but as far as I know, those types of films tend to dominate...

Exactly... they do dominate.

But they don't all have to look like Dracula.... it's enough if they just inherit certain 'traits.'

It’s like James Bond. Sean Connery was the first to play the part, and Pierce Brosnan was just a modern vision of the same character.

Modern vampires don't necessarily need to wear black capes and speak with an accent... but I think they should have maintained at least a hint of that 'grace' and 'nobility,' if that's how you want to put it. Not as much, obviously... but at least a trace of it.

These "modern" viewers are incredibly ill-mannered. 😁

Those vampires from BH—I haven’t seen them, but if the name is actually an omen, I can only imagine.

Seriously though... I honestly thought everyone had seen that movie by now... especially since it used to be playing constantly on the local cable channel back in the day.

I was around in 7th grade at the time... and man, it was genuinely spooky, even if it was half-comedy/half-garbage.

Last summer I turned on the local TV station in San Diego and that exact movie was on... I couldn't stop laughing... but yeah, the film really is total trash.

I don't know how things were before, but the average horror movie is made for teenagers, not adults. Kids, obviously, aren't going to want to watch some old gentleman with a pleasant voice in a fancy suit because they'll find it boring. They want blood, action, more blood, gross monsters... and Hollywood is happy to package that right up and hand it to them.

The average horror, sure... but vampire movies have always been a step above just cheap thrills for kids. (At least the decent ones).

The fear was based on psychology rather than visuals... if you know what I mean.

Well, it's not like I have much to compare them to... I watched *Twilight*, but *FDTD* felt too slimy so I skipped it; "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is okay, but I wouldn't call it a true horror, and honestly, I'm not sure how much "Interview with the Vampire" is even worth either... *Blade* is a given, but it's more of a fantasy action flick than a horror, because it definitely isn't that... What else... "Blood: The Last Vampire" comes to mind, I haven't seen *Blade 2*... I have no intention of watching "Queen of the Damned"... I guess that's about as far as my knowledge of vampire flicks goes.

Honestly... today, I highly doubt any single movie marketed as horror can actually scare anyone, considering how much stuff is pumped into the market daily and how desensitized people have become.

I remember when I watched Brooks' parody (I think it was called "Dracula: Dead and Loving It") there were still moments where I got the chills... and don't even get me started on "Bram Stoker's Dracula." To me, that's the whole point of vampire movies, not watching some guys with weird faces and being expected to feel terrified.

Are you talking about Buffy specifically, or just the general vampire vibe in general?

The whole vampire vibe is okay, I guess... I mean, it works as part of that whole "vampire folklore" thing you mentioned, but honestly? It just feels a bit repetitive when every single scene involves a vampire running away from some garlic, a crucifix, or an old mirror.

What I'm trying to get at is that you can pull off some seriously impressive and high-quality scenes using a mirror, whereas trying to do the same thing with a bow? That’s a much harder sell... honestly, it can even end up looking a bit ridiculous.

Besides that, there's already the obvious fact that plenty of movies just ignore certain parts of folklore altogether—they don't seem to care about things like garlic or crucifixes and stuff—yet they always stick to that same old mirror trick.

That’s exactly what I meant when I used the word 'mood.'

That whole series is just one giant joke at the expense of actual horror movies.

I already said I wasn't going to get into a whole debate about Buffy, so I'll keep this brief. Honestly, Buffy is something else entirely... or at least, that’s how it started. It was really about teenage growing pains, maturing, and trying to fit into a new environment. The whole vampire thing was just layered on top to add some action and make it more engaging to watch, because let's face it—nobody wants to sit through another typical teen drama. Plus, there's that element of poking fun at the horror genre.

Honestly, what Buffy has become is just pathetic now... that's why I don't even bother watching anymore.

Wait... just how many episodes of Buffy have you actually watched? I mean, look at her. The girl has supernatural strength, incredible reflexes, and a massive Constitution (for those who don't play D&D: that basically means she can slam someone into a wall hard enough to shatter a creature the size of a Cocker Spaniel, only to pop right back up off the floor and keep fighting). Plus, if you started listing the D&D Feats she has, you could probably go on for at least three more lines.

It’s pretty obvious you’re a huge Buffy fan.

I mean, I watched the first season and then dipped into some of the others... but then I just stopped. I guess I have to ask myself: did it actually get that stupid?

I mean, sure, the part about "physical strength" makes sense, but that girl looked nothing like a slayer... she didn't even have any weapons or anything. If you want to see what actual gear looks like, just watch "Hellsing"—you'll see how they carry some seriously cool toys.
Look, I'll say it again... my goal right now isn't to start some massive debate about how pointless Buffy is.

Look, I'm going to ask this again: which specific movies are you actually thinking of when you talk about films that portray vampires well in general? Aside from Interview with the Vampire, I mean.

Hold on... I’m not talking about how any specific movie portrays vampires. What I mean is the comparison between "then and now." Basically, everything leading up to From Dusk Till Dawn—assuming From Dusk Till Dawn is the first film to actually give us "modern" vampires.

Personally, I think those "vampires from Beverly Hills" feel way more terrifying than something like "Blade." 😁 😛 And you probably know yourself what a total piece of trash that movie is.

I guess I just don't get why they're trying so hard to distance themselves from tradition. Maybe there's a reason things were done a certain way for so long, but it feels like they're just pushing for change just for the sake of it.

You’ve been saying that for a while now... but doesn't it feel like that logic is heading in the wrong direction? I mean, the whole point of a "movie vampire" is usually to actually scare us, unless we're talking about some Brooks' parody, but these modern vampires just don't cut it.

In my opinion, everyone is obsessed with trying to scare us using their original look—you know, the wrinkled faces and all that—but honestly, I think that's a mistake.

Tell me, has any recent movie with these "modern" vampires actually scared you, or even managed to create a tiny bit of a horror vibe?

They aren't scaring anyone besides little kids and people who are genuinely hypersensitive.

I don't know, if it's done in small doses or when it's executed with a certain sense of style (like in interview with vampire and Bram Stoker's Dracula, which I find both pleasantly over-the-top in a gothic-romantic way), then I'm okay with it. Otherwise, it's just a pain in the ass.

That's my point too.

Well, what happened to Draculin's Achilles' heels? He wasn't supposed to cross running water, see a crucifix, a mirror, enter a house unless invited (I think), and so on... if nothing else, Buffy stays pretty faithful to that concept.

Man, screw that concept. It doesn't add to the atmosphere... except maybe the thing with the mirror.

Not just any girl! There's a reason she's called the "vampire Slayer"!

That’s another thing that gets on my nerves... Buffy IS just an ordinary girl... or at least she doesn't show any abilities that set her apart from anyone else.
But alright... my goal isn't really to talk about Buffy... what I'm trying to say is that vampires shouldn't look like some weaklings that any slightly stronger person can take down.

Actually, I think that's exactly where the problem lies. How SHOULD vampires look? I mean, if all vampires look and act like Dracula (funny accent, cool clothes, his superpowers), then they aren't even vampires anymore, they're just clones because they're all *the same*. I agree that FDTD goes to extremes, but still, you have to create SOME kind of departure from tradition, right? Actually, what movies do you even think of when you talk about vampires who look like real vampires? Mind you, I'm talking about films that *don't* feature Dracula himself.

You got a point there... they don't all have to be like Count Dracula. But the way they look in this case is just 'too much.'

Like you said... it goes to an extreme. I'm still wondering how and why. I mean, do you guys have any thoughts on this?

Quote : Originally posted by Chloe Patel65
FDTD is such an incredible movie—until the vampires actually show up. Then it just turns into total garbage. Even having Salma on screen doesn't save it. 😢
If the beginning hadn't been so damn good, I probably would have just dismissed it, but instead, it just leaves me pissed off. Honestly, if I ever ran into Rodriguez or Tarantino, I might just lose it on both of them. 😠

Then you watch TLOTR and those Orc brothers look exactly like the vampires from FDTD. There is just no way I can call that movie good, regardless of how much I liked everything else. 😁

😕 😕 😕 😕 😕

'Anou'.... the theme is.... ugh.... it's irrelevant.

Rebecca Gonzalez64 said:There have been plenty of interesting vampire movies out there, but from what I can tell, you rarely see two good films that portray them in the exact same way—not even down to the metabolic stuff, like how they actually feed or what their specific weaknesses are. This thread seems to imply that Hunger is the gold standard for vampire cinema... though, based on what I know about that movie, I haven't actually sat down to watch it yet.

It’s honestly pretty wild to me that Coppola didn't get much praise for Bram Stoker's Dracula, especially since the movie was clearly intended—and in my opinion, successfully executed—as a faithful interpretation of "hardcore" vampire biology and overall poetic vibe.

I haven't seen "Hunger" myself... and yeah, obviously every movie has its own take... but the state of things today is just ridiculous. Not only is this, IMNSHO, the worst possible interpretation, but everyone seems to be ripping it off now.... WHY???

Rebecca Gonzalez64 said:Well, as far as I know, no vampire has ever actually filed a defamation lawsuit. Why shouldn't filmmakers deviate from the "canon" of vampire tropes? Sometimes you get absolute garbage like From Dusk Till Dawn, and other times you get an interesting spin on things like Carpenter's Vampires. It’s just common knowledge that FDTD is way more popular, so I guess it’s no surprise that this kind of approach has become the standard—people just want mindless entertainment.

I suppose there's a difference between a creative departure, like what we see in "C'sV," and pure commercialization, like in "FDTD."

Look, all this nonsense regarding vampires stems from Count Dracula and his ilk... so you can't just invent something entirely out of thin air. Everything is connected to something that came before it.

In fact... getting the look right is the easy part... but it's the behavior of the vampires... they're supposed to be at a higher evolutionary stage than humans, yet they're constantly portrayed as being incredibly low-level and weak, which just doesn't make sense.

Okay... I realize we're talking about fiction here, but even fiction needs internal logic and some connection to the real world, otherwise it just looks stupid and naive.

Honestly... maybe that's what scares me about vampires... because they used to be depicted as "normal" people, making us actually believe something like that could exist... whereas in modern movies and shows, it's such a joke that we all just laugh at these "vampires" in their faces.

It's pretty pathetic... you can really tell that in the last five years, very little good stuff has come out of America, especially when it comes to vampires or anything similar.

lonescout2 said:A phaser from Star Trek will never exist

Some guys I know told me a phaser is just some kind of angle in a complex plane between currents (or something like that), but at the end of the day, it's still just an angle.
So, there’s really no connection to actual projectiles at all. 😢

phaser <> phasor...

I'm not entirely sure if this thread belongs here or in the TV section, but there seems to be more of a crowd here, and you really need some film knowledge for this kind of talk.

Alright... here's something I was arguing about with a friend last night while we were watching Buffy. (I was just half-watching, honestly; I don't follow it religiously).

I was just commenting on how they've basically "trivialized" the whole concept of vampires. It used to be that just the thought of those creatures would give me chills, but now? I’m either dying of laughter or it's so pathetic that I just change the channel.

My biggest gripe is definitely their look... everyone gets that 'wrinkled,' almost snake-like face when they switch into "vampire mode." It makes me wonder when this specific aesthetic actually started being applied to vampires.

My friend brought up "From Dusk Till Dawn"... and I actually think that might have been the first time we saw vampires transform their faces like that right before feeding.

Before that, it seems like it wasn't really a thing. Back then, vampires looked elegant and sophisticated, yet still terrifying... it was more of a psychological type of fear.

Then there's the fact that lately, vampires have become incredibly 'stupid.' They're basically being equated to zombies now... like, seriously, any girl could probably take them in a fight.

To me, it's just lazy... not to mention the whole "sacred cow" aspect of it all. Maybe it works for TV shows since they need that soap opera drama, but we have a massive pile of movies where they all share this same tired look (like Blade, for example).

Has it really gotten to the point where people haven't watched an older vampire movie and therefore have no clue what a proper vampire appearance should actually look like?

What do you guys think? Was "FDTD" really the first film to introduce these "modern" vampires, or was there something else out there before it?