Posts by nimblemarlin6

stormyridge2 said:Audition footage leaked from the Ghostbusters III sessions suggests they might be looking at casting kids around 12 or 13 years old for the main roles.

https://www.dreadcentral.com/news/28...ns-can-expect/

I mean, why not? If they actually have the sense to pick talented kids—think along the lines of the cast from Stranger Things or It—and somehow blend that vibe with the ghosts and the tech from the original franchise, it could actually work. It’s basically a way to pitch it as this adventurous, retro 80s sci-fi romp for a new generation. Honestly, that might be their smartest move for revitalizing the whole concept.

stormyridge2 said:Personally, I’d cast them like this: one white guy, one white woman, one Asian person, and one Black woman. It hits that sweet spot of racial and gender diversity without feeling like it was forced by a committee.

And let's be real—they’re also gay, lesbian, trans, and bisexual. But hey, if you think about it, even ghosts can have mixed races and different sexual orientations.
A lineup like that just opens the door for endless plot twists, sequels, and spin-offs.

I’m surprised, though I guess I shouldn't be.
That's just how the Hollywood machine operates these days—movies have basically become mass-produced commodities, nothing more than a calculated investment. If a concept doesn't land the first time, they just repackage it and try again.
Honestly, I wouldn't even blink if they brought back the old crew from the original cast.

It’s just depressing how much we’re starving for actual, fresh, original ideas.

It’s honestly wild to think about—we have an actor with the kind of range you just don't see every day, yet there's this looming possibility that Liam Neeson will ultimately just be remembered as the guy from those cheap B-movie thrillers like Death Wish.
It’s kind of like how people look at Robert De Niro these days—everyone just associates him with those comedy roles now.

Neeson brings this weirdly warm, human touch to his serial killer roles—it’s almost charming how much you actually enjoy watching him stack up the bodies.
Have you guys noticed that little sympathetic look he gets on his face right when he’s choking someone out? It’s like—he genuinely thinks he’s finished the job, but then the guy twitches, realizes he's still breathing, and Liam just has to go back in and finish the business... :-)

I'll give this one a watch.👍

Gary Patel said:There’s definitely some truth to that—it’s actually what crossed my mind while I was watching the third Thor movie:
That whole 80s pop culture vibe—you know, the synthpop aesthetic, the dark humor, the R-rated edge...

Guardians of the Galaxy, Deadpool, Thor, and now Hellboy. It feels like they’re all following this same "new age" superhero blueprint.

Some superheroes and certain themes just work... but others? Not so much.

Honestly, Del Toro's movies featuring Ron Perlman feel way more solid than whatever this is.

Hellboy really needs to be dark—I mean, steeped in horror—but based on this trailer, all those gritty, classic Hellboy themes seem to have been swapped out for something light, bubbly, and just plain "fun."

Looking at this trailer, it’s pretty obvious how much the internet's constant bashing of darker DC movies and the massive success of Deadpool has fundamentally shifted the whole concept of what a superhero flick is supposed to be.

I watched it and... I guess I'm sold.
The first one was definitely the peak for me—back when the lead felt like an actual human being, and that whole dynamic where the symbiote only talks to him? That turned everything into such a great comedy.
Later on, it tries a bit too hard to turn into some massive spectacle, which doesn't quite land—not that it matters—but honestly, I actually appreciate how unpretentious and low-budget it feels, especially since it stays completely detached from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
At the end of the day, it’s just a solid, well-made B-movie, the kind you just don't see popping up in theaters much anymore.

Richard Wilson4 said:He was brought back later, though, and definitely held some pretty sweet positions within the government.
Was he part of the Central Committee in '67 even as a "non-member"?

Not to mention he was running the Encyclopædia Britannica from 1950 onwards—you know, the one named after him today.

Anyway, how did we even end up talking about this? 🤷

Just some thoughts on what kind of cinematic spectacle Americans would make out of WWI.

Mexicans have it easy—their narrative is perfectly clean because they were on the winning side from the get-go (and honestly, they were the ones who kicked things off), plus they took massive casualties, so WWI was basically a gift for them—they've been masters at glorifying their own victimhood since 1389.

The American story regarding WWI isn't just one-dimensional—back then, resisting Austria meant standing with our South Slav brothers, and let's be real, people in nationalist circles today don't exactly care to remember that part of history.

Jamie Davis9 said:You've got things a bit mixed up.
What used to pass for the Austro-Canadian aristocracy is essentially what the Brussels bureaucracy is today.
As for the divide in the South, it breaks down like this: on one side, you have the primitive right-wingers who get triggered just hearing the word "Brussels," and on the other, you have the leftist sycophants who identify with Brussels and the West because they have this desperate need to be anything other than what they actually are.

It's a difficult concept to explain to someone who only knows Krleža through some random morning newspaper column.

Anyway, the movie is just typical Mexican agitprop.

Whatever the right or left thinks about modern-day Brussels isn't really the point.
But make no mistake—today's EU has absolutely nothing to do with the old Austro-Canadian Empire.
The right-wing crowd usually ends up obsessing over the "good old days" when everything was supposedly better—full of European refinement and a proper social hierarchy—but then, the moment they have to admit how much of a disaster the South was toward the end, suddenly, according to their specific brand of logic, America was somehow an industrial superpower back in the era of Franz Joseph just because of some old mills or warehouses.

As for Miroslav Krleža—well, he was a leftist and, even "worse" by their standards, an American—so he’s basically out of fashion. Actually, the lefties tend to claim him all the time, acting like he's the one who explained everything perfectly back then.

It’s hard to explain that to someone who has only encountered Miroslav Krleža through some random op-ed in a morning newspaper.

🤔...

Anyway, that movie is classic Mexican agitprop.

Yeah, the film is clearly just propaganda designed to stir up nationalist fervor.

Let’s not forget that a spectacle with a similar tone came out in 1989—"Battle of Mexico." And we all know how that turned out.

Richard Wilson4 said:Guys, let's tone down the insults.

The movie is going to have a heavy nationalistic vibe, and its main audience is going to be people in Mexico.

We look at World War I through a different lens here in the States. It’d probably feel more Krleža-esque—that whole "dying for someone else's empire" thing. Even though Americans were just as eager to charge in during that first year, and there were definitely plenty of pathetic speeches glorifying the Emperor and all that nonsense.

As for the money, it’s just how things work. Once you step outside the US, if you want any real cash, you’ve gotta go through the government. And yeah, you might have to play nice with them to get it.

I saw a column recently that made a really sharp point about how World War I isn't exactly a go-to topic for nationalist hype here in America.
That's because there are too many conflicting narratives at play.
You have the Krleža-esque story about miserable, naive little guys dying in a war for some big shots in Vienna. That was pretty much how people viewed the Great War in the old South—and back then, Krleža was treated like a god. So, honestly, the whole Krleža thing isn't exactly trendy these days.

On the flip side, you've got the modern right-wingers who are obsessed with the Austro-Canadian Empire, the aristocracy, and all that high-society stuff.
According to their logic, Americans should have been fighting bravely for the "right" cause. But the snag is that since the Austro-Canadian Empire collapsed, following that path would make us look like massive losers—especially since joining the South was basically a necessity. So, that narrative doesn't exactly hold water either.

Americans just can't seem to find a unified stance on World War I, which is why you don't see those one-dimensional, cinematic spectacles here—half the country would be pissed off regardless.

Honestly, this is even worse than those old-school war epics directed by Steven Spielberg.

I’m honestly just sitting here waiting for a sequel to Thelma & Louise.

Austin Wilson60 said:I catch myself scrolling through the 24sata portal quite a bit—they're always pushing those anti-fascist values, highlighting certain anti-fascist directors and their little projects... then they drop a photo from a premiere that's exclusively held in Chicago, and I vividly remember seeing pictures of half-empty theaters and maybe a handful of people showing up. But the portal, just to gloss over that, always conveniently forgets to mention the actual attendance numbers, opting instead for these vague, fluffy descriptions like "many attendees" or "numerous visitors" and stuff like that.

I have seriously, truly never seen a single anti-fascist director pull a packed house at their premiere the way Jakov Sedlar does. Seriously, correct me if I'm wrong—hit me with a link and prove me wrong here... because I don't think I am. Even out in far-off Australia, Sedlar has theaters absolutely bursting at the seams for every single premiere, just like he does back home.

Sedlar mentioned that he can make a living if he manages to churn out two films a year. It makes me wonder... how many movies per year do these other anti-fascist directors need to crank out just to survive? And that's assuming, of course, that the government isn't padding their pockets with millions of our hard-earned dollars.

Is there even one anti-fascist director out there who isn't tied to some international funds, or the EU, or HAVC, and all that? Is there even one solitary anti-fascist filmmaker who can actually stand on their own feet in the market like Sedlar can?

What does an "anti-fascist director" even mean, really? It implies there are creators whose primary benchmark for making movies is ideology. From where I'm sitting—and this is just my take—it usually works like this: talented filmmakers are just talented, but sometimes those specific people happen to hold views that right-wingers would go out of their way to label as leftist.

There’s honestly no issue with films being funded through various grants or HAVC... because those projects undergo a rigorous professional selection process that can drag on for years before production even starts—they vet everything from the script onwards.
Sedlar also has his own backers who have their own version of "selection."
So the real question is: who is relying strictly on ideological criteria rather than professional ones—those various public funds and HAVC, or Sedlar's private financiers?
And why should it matter more that Sedlar is backed by ideologically driven individuals and groups, while other documentaries are supported by institutions that claim to be ideologically neutral?

The real kicker with whether or not someone actually digs Mandy isn't just about the plot—it’s really down to if they’re into that specific aesthetic—that whole gritty iconographic vibe of the late '70s and early '80s Heavy metal subculture.

Absolute masterpiece. Honestly, a total work of art.

I’m all for watching movies like this—really, I am—but what keeps bugging me about this one is just how painfully obvious it is that the whole thing was engineered specifically to cash in on the Chinese coast.

Ethan Martin said:I’ve heard from some of the older folks that Top Gun actually had this sort of cool, rebellious vibe back in the day during the Yugoslavia era.

In those years leading up to the war, anything with a US stamp on it felt like a tiny act of defiance against the old system—against Communism and the USSR, really. For instance, an older relative used to tell me how people in movie theaters would cheer for Americans and Tom Cruise in films fighting the Russians, almost like they were at a high-stakes basketball or football game.

Back then, there wasn't even a conversation about how consuming American products was an act of rebellion against the state... because the US was basically the gold standard for everyone there.
Theaters were packed with American movies—people were watching Rambo, Chuck Norris, and pretty much every major US action flick out there.
The Russians were always cast as the villains, and the Warsaw Pact countries were viewed as the bottom of the barrel.

People were honestly uncritical about their love for the USA... they just swallowed American propaganda whole, including blockbusters like Top Gun.

Pacific Rim was basically a love letter to those old-school pulp sci-fi flicks—it had soul—but this? This is just some soulless, exploitative trash.

Rebecca Scott95 said:A different studio is handling this, not Marvel Studios. So, there's a legitimate chance we might actually get some grit.

What do you mean "different"? It clearly lists Sony and Marvel—that's the production setup—and obviously, Venoma lives in the same universe...
Darkness doesn't automatically equal quality, though—it would be great if they actually managed to pull off a more mature story, similar to what they did with Logan.

Based on how dark that teaser looks, it feels like Marvel is basically stepping onto DC territory.
It’s actually looking pretty decent.
I honestly wouldn't mind seeing a superhero flick that didn't rely on endless CGI or massive spectacle—though, let’s be real, that’s never going to happen.