Movie news & trailers

Topic

‘This isn’t a paranoid future nightmare’: the explosive return of Chris Morris

Looking forward to this. Four Lions seems like a long time ago now.

Replies

Dave wrote:

I have a strong childhood attachment to ET, and as much as I hate to say it, that ad really worked for me.

For me too. That’s why I felt so dirty afterwarts. Motherfuckers played my emotions like a fiddle and all they want is to sell me their shit!

MaxMaxmarvel123 wrote:

Channing Tatum and ‘IT’ Producer Bringing ’90s Image Comics Series ‘The Maxx’ Back to the Screen (x)

Yeah, I’ll believe that when it happens.

.

For what it’s worth, I’d rather see it as a live-action TV series than a movie. Though it’d work in both formats.

Christian wrote:

I’d rather see it as a live-action TV series

That applies to a lot of things these days.

Christian wrote:

Yeah, I’ll believe that when it happens.

Exactly

though I expect a 90’s era resurgence of material eventually, these projects seem destined for development limbo or some disappointing and quickly forgotten adaptation. By the way, has anyone noticed the increased use of “adaption” rather than “adaptation”? Are both correct?

seems like every year we get a story about some old comic from the 90’s from Valiant, Image, Vertigo, Comico, even Crossgen getting adapted into a film or a reboot of something like The Crow or The Mask or, more recently, Spawn, and it still hasn’t gotten any traction… or we get something like the new HELLBOY movie that just makes all the other projects look like bad prospects.

Anonymous wrote:

By the way, has anyone noticed the increased use of “adaption” rather than “adaptation”? Are both correct?

Huh. No, I hadn’t; that’s weird. “Adaption” is the German word and it’s one of the things where you have to keep in mind it’s just that bit different in English (like visa being the English singular of that word, which is visum in German).

Anonymous wrote:

By the way, has anyone noticed the increased use of “adaption” rather than “adaptation”? Are both correct?

I hadn’t noticed. But when you say “increased use” I suspect you mean on the net rather than in print, in which case you have to remember that nobody is editing the net and most of the people writing on it are barely literate ;)

In fact, both variants are correct in British English and usage of both dates back several centuries, but you will almost always find adaptation is preferred. Adaption is and always has been very rare. I would always “correct” adaption if I was editing.

 

I wonder if adaptation pulled through as the more successful one because phonetically, “adaption” and “adoption” are pretty much homonyms (depending on accent, obviously).

No, it was the Nicholas Cage movie.

I don’t remember that scene from Con Air.

No the other one.

 

You know, the one where he makes all the facial expressions

Oh yeah, I did love The Rock.

Did you though? I thought it was crap. Liked Con Air much better.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Andrew

I actually genuinely did like The Rock a lot better. But they’re both good bad movies.

Dave wrote:

I have a strong childhood attachment to ET, and as much as I hate to say it, that ad really worked for me.

That was incredible.  Even better that Henry Thomas was in it.

Martin Scorsese on The Irishman: ‘Please, please don’t look at it on a phone’

I hate watching things on my phone and wanted to see this movie but I’m now going to download the necessary software to watch it on my phone.

What’s your home address, Ronnie? Mr. Scorsese wants to send you a… a basket of fruit.

Christian wrote:

Did you though? I thought it was crap. Liked Con Air much better.

Are you familiar with the old robot saying DOES NOT COMPUTE

Ghostbusters 2020 title has been confirmed – and a trailer is coming soon

 

Ghostbusters: Afterlife, apparently.

I wonder if that’s a hint that some of the hell stuff from the much-talked-about previous script for Ghostbusters 3 has survived into this version?

Sounds more like the old crew is gonna be starring… which is boring, but whatever, can’t possibly be worse than the last one… or can it? xD

Sounds more like the old crew is gonna be starring… which is boring, but whatever, can’t possibly be worse than the last one… or can it? xD

Jon wrote:

Sounds more like the old crew is gonna be starring… which is boring, but whatever, can’t possibly be worse than the last one… or can it? xD

Not sure what you mean by starring. They’re in the film but they’re not the stars/leads.

rory wrote:

They’re in the film

I wonder what they will do about Ramis. It would be nice to honour him in some way but the title (and general premise of Ghostbusters) offers more than that. I just hope it’s tasteful either way.

That’s the first Disney film I’ve wanted to watch for… well, ever really.

I hope there won’t be any awful musical numbers.

No, they’ll all be excellent.

I meant, “awful to everyone over the age of six who has developed any kind of critical sensibilities”.

No, seriously, is it a musical? I’m assuming not because they would have been pushing the songs in the trailer if it was. I have never watched the animated version so I don’t know if that had songs.

So did they create the sorceress so Milan would have a woman to fight?

DavidM wrote:

No, seriously, is it a musical? I’m assuming not because they would have been pushing the songs in the trailer if it was. I have never watched the animated version so I don’t know if that had songs.

Probably not, the live action adaptations have varied in how faithful they’ve been to the cartoons and how much music is included. There was only a little nod to it in Jungle Book, this trailer suggests there won’t be singing and dancing.

 

Free Guy | Official Trailer | 20th Century Fox

In Twentieth Century Fox’s epic adventure-comedy “Free Guy,” a bank teller who discovers he is actually a background player in an open-world video game, decides to become the hero of his own story…one he rewrites himself. Now in a world where there are no limits, he is determined to be the guy who saves his world his way…before it is too late.

• Starring Ryan Reynolds, Jodie Comer, Joe Keery, Lil Rel Howery, Utkarsh Ambudkar and Taika Waititi.
• Directed by Shawn Levy from a story by Matt Lieberman and a screenplay by Lieberman and Zak Penn.
• Produced by Ryan Reynolds, Shawn Levy, Greg Berlanti, Sarah Schechter and Adam Kolbrenner with Mary McLaglen, Josh McLaglen, George Dewey, Dan Levine and Michael Riley McGrath serving as executive producers.

Free Guy opens scheduled to be released on July 3, 2020

This looks like it’s going to be fun!

It absolutely does. And it’s the kind of movie that’s perfect for Reynolds. Also, Zak Penn co-wrote the screenplay, which is a good thing.

.

Also interesting to see two trailers in direct sequence with a Stranger Things connection. The Turning looks just okay, though. It’s weird how the trailer in the end seems to give away a lot that it tries to keep under wraps for most of the time.

Christian wrote:

Also, Zak Penn co-wrote the screenplay, which is a good thing. .

Huh? Since when? He wrote Elektra.  All the good movies he’s attached to had competent co-writers

Elektra’s not the disaster most people think it is… it’s nowhere near Catwoman for exemple, like at all… yet I think people put them on the same level…

He directed Werner Herzog in a film within a film mockumentary about the Loch Ness monster.

As far as I’m concerned, he gets a free pass on any other films he does.

Jon wrote:

Elektra’s not the disaster most people think it is… it’s nowhere near Catwoman for exemple, like at all… yet I think people put them on the same level…

It is terrible and your taste is questionable.

Zak Penn is the Brett Rather of writers.  They even worked together on this one movie (but you liked that movie I think).

My point is that Zack Penn is not a good writer.  Watch The Grand if you don’t believe me – it’s all him (It also has Herzog in it, Steve, and its still terrible).  He can.do broad strokes story and he’s probably fine in a round table but don’t let him near a shooting script.

I’m not as sold on Free Guy as the rest of you. It feels like The Lego Movie meets Pixels.

Well, I mean, I re-watched it last year, or was it this year? anyways, recently enough, and didn’t find it “terrible”… a bit slow, the FX is so & so but I’ve seen much much much worse…

Watching clips on YouTube is not encouraging me to revisit my opinion on this one, Jon.

Well, he also co-wrote both X2 and the Last Stand… the Incridble Hulk and the Avengers… so he’s a hit or miss I supposed… but either way, as a whole Elektra gets undeserved hate, which was my only point.

No there’s a different between doing story and writing the script.

Check his IMDB  and you’ll get a feel for the movies he’s actually written actual scripts for. (Hint is wasn’t The Avengers).

Anyway, I think you and I have vastly different tastes.

I’m not convinced.

I think it looks pretty promising.

Not enough for me to go on yet. I’m glad they’re doing something pointedly different to the first two (rather than seeking to remake them too closely like the previous attempt at a GB reboot) and I’m keen to see more. But at the same time, there’s not much life here or sense of a story, and I also hope they’re saving the laughs for trailer #2 (Marvel style).

i like the kid approach. The tie ins to Egon are a very nice touch. edited because it took 3 viewings to catch everything.

Rocket wrote:

i like the kid approach. it will be interesting to learn why all the ghostbuster stuff is in that house. is the Annie Potts character their grandmother?

They’re very obviously Egon’s grandkids.

The super-sincere, reverential tone, the reveal of the car, proton packs, etc just does nothing for me. The Ghostbusters were just regular guys doing a job, that just happened to be ghost hunting! The hero worship stuff just feels completely at odds with that.

I’m already dreading the cameos (also the worst part of the last movie).

I’m in.

First reaction is that it looks like a good, well made, mainstream approach, and I’m fine with that.

paul f wrote:

Rocket wrote:

i like the kid approach. it will be interesting to learn why all the ghostbuster stuff is in that house. is the Annie Potts character their grandmother?

They’re very obviously Egon’s grandkids.

The super-sincere, reverential tone, the reveal of the car, proton packs, etc just does nothing for me. The Ghostbusters were just regular guys doing a job, that just happened to be ghost hunting! The hero worship stuff just feels completely at odds with that.

I’m already dreading the cameos (also the worst part of the last movie).

Yeah, I’m not sure revisiting it in such a sombre, reverential fashion is the way to go.

But this is just the trailer – it might play differently in the final movie.

Yeah, I think part of the drawbacks with recent things like Terminator and Star Wars was a refusal to just finally let go of past successes and move forward with something entirely new.  Looks like this is subjecting itself to the same flaw.

paul f wrote:

The Ghostbusters were just regular guys doing a job, that just happened to be ghost hunting! The hero worship stuff just feels completely at odds with that.

don’t you remember the parade and celebration? NY did treat them like heroes. They weren’t regular guys. the only regular guy was Winston. The other three were geniuses. Proton Packs and ghost traps are not created by regular guys. The only reverential tone I get is for the dead grandfather(i.e. Egon). The kids don’t even know who the Ghostbusters are until Rudd shows them. This is a kids’ movie done in the Ghostbuster world. I’m sure there will be comedic moments but it may not be a full blown comedy. but again this is an early trailer and the tone of the movie could change completely with future trailers.

Rocket wrote:

This is a kids’ movie done in the Ghostbuster world. I’m sure there will be comedic moments but it may not be a full blown comedy.

That’s my assumption too.

The bit about the kids not knowing the Ghostbusters is daft.  Even if they’re young teens and there haven’t been any ghosts for thirty-odd years, the mere fact that there were once actual ghosts that tried to take over New York City would be something they would have heard mentioned.

saga wrote:

The bit about the kids not knowing the Ghostbusters is daft.  Even if they’re young teens and there haven’t been any ghosts for thirty-odd years, the mere fact that there were once actual ghosts that tried to take over New York City would be something they would have heard mentioned.

I’m constantly surprised by the things people have never heard of.

HBO’s Chernobyl was the first time some of the people I work with had ever heard of the place and what happened there, and they’re all in their 20’s or even 30’s. The world’s biggest nuclear accident had bypassed them for their entire lives.

Yeah The trailer reminds me a bit of the Goosebumps trailer more than anything.

paul f wrote:

Rocket wrote:

i like the kid approach. it will be interesting to learn why all the ghostbuster stuff is in that house. is the Annie Potts character their grandmother?

They’re very obviously Egon’s grandkids.

The super-sincere, reverential tone, the reveal of the car, proton packs, etc just does nothing for me. The Ghostbusters were just regular guys doing a job, that just happened to be ghost hunting! The hero worship stuff just feels completely at odds with that.

I’m already dreading the cameos (also the worst part of the last movie).

I suspect this first trailer took that tone to try and get off on the right foot with the “fans”. It’s basically, “look, we care very deeply about Ghostbusters and we’re going to treat it with respect” over “check out how funny we are!”. I mean they’ve clearly edited around some slapstick stuff with Slimer in the bits used here.

Vanity Fair had a few extra details the other day and Rudd’s character is one of the few that actually remembers/believes in the New York event(s). I don’t think it’s an unreasonable tack to take, the original team being a fad who were quickly forgotten and/or disbelieved. Extreme Ghostbusters pretty much did the same thing in its opening, with the team having been accused of faking everything (which, thinking about it, is harder to credit for EGB given it also followed Real Ghostbusters, where they had a sustained business).

SteveUK wrote:

I’m constantly surprised by the things people have never heard of.

HBO’s Chernobyl was the first time some of the people I work with had ever heard of the place and what happened there, and they’re all in their 20’s or even 30’s. The world’s biggest nuclear accident had bypassed them for their entire lives.

 

With Ghostbusters though it’s confirmation of the afterlife. Biggest event in human history, it’d be like not hearing of the crucifixion or Moon landing. (Not that a Ghostbusters movie has to take itself very seriously.)

SteveUK wrote:

I’m constantly surprised by the things people have never heard of.

HBO’s Chernobyl was the first time some of the people I work with had ever heard of the place and what happened there, and they’re all in their 20’s or even 30’s. The world’s biggest nuclear accident had bypassed them for their entire lives.

I got the same with The War of The Worlds. The young guys at work had no idea we had been invaded at the turn of the last century.

Like I said, best to just move on completely with these projects from now on.

 

I am curious how younger viewers today would rate the original Ghostbusters movie upon first viewing. FX aside, would they be into it, or would Venkman be placed on a register somewhere?

Annecdotally, the people I know with kids say they like it. Venkman’s sleezey manipulations goes over many heads, especially young ones.

Will_C wrote:

With Ghostbusters though it’s confirmation of the afterlife. Biggest event in human history, it’d be like not hearing of the crucifixion or Moon landing. (Not that a Ghostbusters movie has to take itself very seriously.)

Which it wont.

I get that this trailer isn’t exciting everyone, but I don’t get the reasons that are being put forward.

But then I like the trailer, so they’re not going to connect to me. C’est la vie.

DavidM wrote:

I got the same with The War of The Worlds. The young guys at work had no idea we had been invaded at the turn of the last century.

Well that’s more understandable. No one would have believed, in the last years of the nineteenth century, that human affairs were being watched from the timeless worlds of space. No one could have dreamed that we were being scrutinised as someone with a microscope studies creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. Few men even considered the possibility of life on other planets. And yet, across the gulf of space, minds immeasurably superior to ours regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly, and surely, they drew their plans against us…

oooooooooooooooooooooo laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

paul f wrote:

I’m not convinced.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuude holy shit it’s like they read my posts saying “they should do a Ghost Busters with (and for) kids a-la Stranger Things”… ha! They even got the kid from that show… xD
 
Well… for once I agree with that direction… no, I’m not biased =P
 
Though I agree I’m not sure about that whole “reverential” aspect to the first movies, but eh… they need to get the equipement somewhere if they were gonna use kids, so I’m fine with it… fits that whole “retro” thing they’re obviously going for.

This seems like a good guess at what the plot of Ghostbusters will be about:

https://screencrush.com/references-to-old-ghostbusters-in-new-trailer/

Shandor Mining Co.

This is maybe the hardest Easter egg to spot, and maybe the most important. This mine used to belong to the “Shandor Mining Company,” and in the original Ghostbusters, Ivo Shandor was a doctor who performed unnecessary surgery who formed a secret society of Gozer worshippers in the 1920s. (The mine’s sign says it was established in 1927.) Shandor was also the guy who designed 550 Central Park West, the building that became the focal point for supernatural activity in New York. It was supposedly made out of all kinds of strange metals that helped conduct ghost activity — and perhaps those strange metals that were mined from this location.

I think new Ghostbusters looks promising. Wasn’t the direction I was expecting, but I think the concept could work well if done right. Certainly looks more interesting to me than the last reboot attempt, which despite a solid cast was just blah.

paul f wrote:

This mine used to belong to the “Shandor Mining Company,”

Bootleg “Shandor Mining” merch (starting with t-shirts) will be appearing shortly.

I hope.

SteveUK wrote:

Anecdotally, the people I know with kids say they like it. Venkman’s sleezey manipulations goes over many heads, especially young ones.

Watching with my kids that was exactly the response. They really like it, the Venkman stuff will always go over their heads and I find kids don’t really give as much of a toss about FX in old films as adults may think. While they have grown up with the super CGI of Marvel films and the like if I show much older stuff, even some pretty ropy old TV, it’s never a subject raised once. I think as long as the story engages then it works.

 

Found it! Shandor Mining Co.! Details in comments. from ghostbusters

And there is a t-shirt already.

https://www.teepublic.com/en-gb/t-shirt/6574317-shandor-mining-co-white

Anonymous wrote:

Huh? Since when? He wrote Elektra.  All the good movies he’s attached to had competent co-writers

I don’t think Elektra’s biggest problem was the script. Also, Elektra had multiple writers on it, like most screenplays that Penn worked on. Seems a bit unfair to give him none of the credit for any of the other work, but all of the blame for that one? And I haven’t seen the Grand, but its wiki says it’s improv comedy, so the problem may be that too little of it was scripted at all.

Outside of that one, the only movie I can see that Penn has written alone is the Norton Hulk movie, which I thought was fine (but not especially great or anything).

I haven’t read any of his actual drafts of any screenplays, though, so I expect you know better than I do. But I suppose maybe we can take comfort in the fact that there’s another writer on Free Guy, too? Seems to have worked out fine for most movies involving Penn as long as there are other writers, too.

Probably not. The other screenwriter only has a few credited films to his name (including the recent Addams Family movie), none of which are great.

Nice.  That will be a lot of fun.

My wife’s friend Chris was Benny in the original Off-Broadway and Broadway casts for In the Heights.  He met his wife in the Off-Broadway production.  It looks like Benny is being played by Corey Hawkins, Dr. Dre in Straight Outta Compton, in the film.

Anthony Ramos, the guy playing the main character Usnavi in the film, was in the original Broadway cast of Hamilton as John Laurens and Philip Hamilton.  We got to meet him a few years ago too.

RonnieM wrote:

Anthony Ramos, the guy playing the main character Usnavi in the film,

he also does those Chivas Regal ads too.

Rocket wrote:

he also does those Chivas Regal ads too.

Quite a few of the cast of Hamilton do adds now.  Lin-Manual does an American Express commercial that Chris (guy in the barber chair) and composer Alex Lacamoire are in.

 

Leslie Odom Jr has done several Nationwide commercials.

 

Daveed Diggs hawks for Zelle.

 

There’s probably some I’ve missed.

Other than Cruise and Flight junkies, I don’t see this succeeding. What that trailer reminded me of was who is not in this movie. No Anthony Edwards, No Tom Skerritt, No Meg Ryan, No Michael Ironside. They are the ones who made the first one a success for me.

The story is from back in February but it sounds like Cruise pissed off the crew of the carrier the movie was filmed on.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/tom-cruise-pissed-the-whole-tr-off-uss-theodore-roosevelt-crew-slams-the-actor-for-his-arrogant-behavior-during-top-gun-sequel-filming/

Rocket wrote:

Other than Cruise and Flight junkies, I don’t see this succeeding. What that trailer reminded me of was who is not in this movie. No Anthony Edwards, No Tom Skerritt, No Meg Ryan, No Michael Ironside. They are the ones who made the first one a success for me.

This will be an interesting test for Tom Cruise.  His movies don’t usually flop.   When was his last real disaster?

The Mummy.

Yeah I went to his Imdb after that and realised it was The Mummy.

His star is probably fading.

I can easily see Top Gun 2 failing. It strikes me as another 80s property that is remembered fondly but doesn’t have a modern audience.

Interesting that they’re focusing on F-18’s and somehow pulled an F-14 out of the mothballs unless it’s just 100% digital.  Not quite sure what the space plane he’s flying at the end is.  Thought we’d see some F-22s or F-35s.

RonnieM wrote:

Not quite sure what the space plane he’s flying at the end is.  Thought we’d see some F-22s or F-35s.

They’re real.

This will be something super cutting edge that doesn’t really exist, and they can make it do whatever they want to for the scene(s) it’s in.

As for the other planes, the DOD will have extended whatever cooperation they thought they could justify to a committee, and charged the production for the rest.

Rocket wrote:

They are the ones who made the first one a success for me.

They’re all fine actors, but they didn’t make the first film a hit, they just filled out the cast well at the time and raised a simple plot and 2D characters by being talented.

So they’ve hired a new group to do that this time. It was always about Maverick though.

I don’t know if it’ll be a hit or not. I think it’ll open well enough, but the trailers between now and then had better push the spectacle and I expect IMAX will be a major factor.

SteveUK wrote:

They’re all fine actors, but they didn’t make the first film a hit, they just filled out the cast well at the time and raised a simple plot and 2D characters by being talented. So they’ve hired a new group to do that this time. It was always about Maverick though.

I think you could say the same about a lot of supporting roles in hit films.

But when you do a nostalgia-remake-sequel like this one, I do think people who are old enough to have been a fan of the first one will want to see the old faces back again.

Terminator Dark Fate disagrees.

Terminator Dark Fate is actually a great example of what I’m talking about. They worked Arnie and Hamilton in there and even found room for Furlong.

I didn’t say anything about it guaranteeing that a movie was good, just that the audience expectation is that you’ll see some old friends again.

I’m not commenting on the quality of the film. I’m saying the old faces didn’t get fans to go see it, which is ultimately why they are included.

SteveUK wrote:

It was always about Maverick though.

not for me. Maverick was just a cipher for me. What I remember is Skerritt being a good father figure. Ryan and Edwards being Maverick’s friends  and trying to keep Maverick from putting his head up his ass.  Ironside being a hard ass. James Tolkan getting pissed at Maverick for not following procedure.

I didn’t even remember Skerritt or Ryan were in the film. 🤷🏻‍♂️

rory wrote:

I’m not commenting on the quality of the film. I’m saying the old faces didn’t get fans to go see it, which is ultimately why they are included.

Again though, you’re having a different conversation there. I’m not saying that any of this stuff guarantees a film will be good or successful, just that it’s the standard expectation for these nostalgia revival movies.

Terminator Dark Fate is a good example, but you can also point to Star Wars and the new Ghostbusters movie and other decades-later sequels as following the same model.

SteveUK wrote:

They’re real. This will be something super cutting edge that doesn’t really exist, and they can make it do whatever they want to for the scene(s) it’s in. As for the other planes, the DOD will have extended whatever cooperation they thought they could justify to a committee, and charged the production for the rest.

Oh, I didn’t think that jet was an F-22 or F-35.  It actually looked most like the planned shuttle replacement from a few decades ago (that even got a GI Joe equivalent).

I was surprised that they were featuring F-18s instead of F-35s.  I suspect there is a reason, likely financial or political that possibly involves Boeing.  There is a bit of a sales pitch happening now between those two aircraft trying to pitch one as a cheaper alternative/equivalent to the other.  It is possibly the former but almost definitely not the later.

It looks like the F-14 was non-functional maybe even a prop.  The article that Todd posted said it had to be hoisted onto the deck of the aircraft carrier.

RonnieM wrote:

Oh, I didn’t think that jet was an F-22 or F-35.

I didn’t think you did. I was saying that the filmmakers will be creating a non-existent plane for their own convenience. They can make it look any way they want, and do anything they want. I believe that the plane, as seen, is meant to be a prototype and Maverick is testing it? It’s there to establish his test pilot credentials; he’s still the best of the best, taking risks others wont etc.

There may well be some politics around why the film features F-18s, but it may be as simple as the filmmakers think they look better.

Film in general aren’t too wed to accuracy for it’s own sake, and Top Gun films doubly so.

RonnieM wrote:

Oh, I didn’t think that jet was an F-22 or F-35. It actually looked most like the planned shuttle replacement from a few decades ago (that even got a GI Joe equivalent).
I was surprised that they were featuring F-18s instead of F-35s. I suspect there is a reason, likely financial or political that possibly involves Boeing. There is a bit of a sales pitch happening now between those two aircraft trying to pitch one as a cheaper alternative/equivalent to the other. It is possibly the former but almost definitely not the later.
It looks like the F-14 was non-functional maybe even a prop. The article that Todd posted said it had to be hoisted onto the deck of the aircraft carrier.

Those may be F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. From the Wiki page:

The Super Hornet entered service with the United States Navy in 2001, replacing the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, which was retired in 2006; the Super Hornet serves alongside the original Hornet.

I would assume those are the standard combat aircraft for carriers.

rory wrote:

I didn’t even remember Skerritt or Ryan were in the film.

It was Meg Ryan’s first significant film role. Unless you count AMITYVILLE 3D. 

Why would you not? It’s in 3D!

Dave wrote:

rory wrote:

I’m not commenting on the quality of the film. I’m saying the old faces didn’t get fans to go see it, which is ultimately why they are included.

Again though, you’re having a different conversation there. I’m not saying that any of this stuff guarantees a film will be good or successful, just that it’s the standard expectation for these nostalgia revival movies.

Terminator Dark Fate is a good example, but you can also point to Star Wars and the new Ghostbusters movie and other decades-later sequels as following the same model.

Fair enough. I guess we’re just coming at it from different places.

https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3598104/death-returns-first-image-bill-ted-face-music/

Keanu needs to keep the beard… He does look A LOT older without it… =P

Todd wrote:

Those may be F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

They are.