The "I definitely won't be seeing that." thread

We have been seeing a lot of new trailers for new movies. Which ones are you definitely NOT going to see, and why?

starting it off:

Percy Jackson and the Olympians

Why? Because it looks like an Americanized version of Harry Potter. Kind of like the Monkees being the American-manufactured equivalent of the Beatles. I guess Chris Columbus wants to make another film about an adolescent who will do "A great many things."

I know I like to rant and bitch about things, because I am good at it, but is there really any reason to keep doing the same thing for anything but money. It has an all-star cast, but I don't see it being convincing.

From what I have read, the reviews say that the book was good, but the film isn't. So, like Narnia, this adaptation fails to be anywhere near as good as the source material, and to avoid paying $10 for something horrible, I will invest that money in something else.

Why was Harry Potter surprisingly good? While it may have cut some things out, it stuck to the source material.

"Avatar" it looks like shit generic story, and I don't like the look of the alien world.

"Alice in Wonderland" See above, and TOO EFFEMINATE

Any film where the Vampire(s) show off a six-pack.

"Wolfman"  Don't need to see Benny howling at the "Honeyyyyy Moooooon".

And most important of all (and disappointing), I will not be seeing any tax refund check this year. *frown*

Ok, so it's not a movie, but the funds I would have gotten would have helped me see more movies...

FF

TV's Frink said:

FanFiltration said:

"Alice in Wonderland" See above, and TOO EFFEMINATE

Hmmm....

I rest my case.

Indiana Jones V

That Lucash Tuskagee Airmen movie.

Star Wars live action show.

Avatar

Alice in Wonderland-how many times can Tim Burton make the same movie?

The Wolfman-why not The Creature Walks Among Us while they're at it?

And definitely not Tuskegee Airmen-how the heck does he think that will make anything at the box office?

captainsolo said:

Avatar

Alice in Wonderland-how many times can Tim Burton make the same movie?

I just wonder when Tim and Johnny's baby is going to be arriving. I like Johnny Depp in some roles, but Tim needs to start adding people who are not family members. His wife is in everything he makes, and she scares the shit out of me.

FanFiltration said:

TV's Frink said:

FanFiltration said:

"Alice in Wonderland" See above, and TOO EFFEMINATE

Hmmm....

I rest my case.

Looking at all of the production artwork, I can't help but think that Tim is stealing work of the David Stoupakis. And his name is nowhere in the production credits

And here is the poster for AIWL

Looks like a thievery to me. Look at the baby with the top hat and bow tie then look at Johnny Depp, then look at the rabbit on the poster compared to the rabbit on korn's album cover.

Warbler said:

I know its been out while but, Sherlock Holmes.   I can tell by the trailer it is nothing like the books.   

It was surprisingly good. It isn't an adaptation of any of the great mysteries in Conan Doyle's series, rather than a continuation.

And for once Dr. Watson isn't a clumsy idiot like all of the other unfaithful adaptations. He is as helpful as he was in the books.

While it doesn't use any particular book as the story, it does have some great allusions to many of them.

The trailer only shows the action and never shows anything that made the film good. This movie has action, but it isn't constantly in your face.

This movie caught me off guard and I will go as far as saying that it is the best movie I have seen in 5 years. 10 if I really think about it.

Most people would say that it didn't follow the books, but it is the first that actually showed Holmes and Watson as they were written. The characters are not different at all.

I don't know.  I actually went to see it without ever having read any Sherlock Holmes stories (except for The Hound of the Baskervilles in high school, and I don't really remember it).  I enjoyed it, although Holmes and Watson seemed quite a bit more like Batman and Robin or a pair of ninjas than anything else.  It prompted me to check out the entire collection of canonical short stories from the library, which I have been enjoying for the past month, but I can hardly say from reading them that they movie was anything like it.  Honestly, Watson is much MORE competent in the film than he ever seemed to be in the stories.  Holmes's cocaine addiction and general reclusiveness is played up an extraordinary amount.  And Irene Adler, like most Holmes fanfiction, is given a much larger role (and a role much more romantically linked to Holmes) than she ever had in the canon. 

So my verdict:  definitely worth seeing, and I thought it was a good movie, but it's very much the Star Trek 2009 version of Sherlock Holmes.

And just so you know:  I'm Gaffer Tape!  I do my research!  You all suck!  Mwahahahaha!

Oooh, look at me! I'm Gaffer Tape! I do my research! You all suck!

:D

Sorry about the double post, but I've been dying to be juvenile towards someone lately - Gaff just happened to be in the way.

Edited for... some kind of effect.  Chew on that!

EyeShotFirst said:

David Stoupakis.

Hey he is Greek!

In fact half Italian half Greek :D

:D:D:D

-Angel

captainsolo said:

Alice in Wonderland-how many times can Tim Burton make the same movie?

 Maybe it's the movie he's been trying to make for the past 15 years and he's finally getting it out of his system.  *shrug*