MovieChat Forums > John0325 > Replies
John0325's Replies
And they even retconned the comics to make Magneto not their father anymore and also reduced mutants drastically... Bet they're regretting that now that Disney has them back, lol.
It was simply a double meaning designed to mislead us. We all just assumed it meant more than it did, but almost everything going wrong with Wanda's perfect world absolutely <i>was</i> Agatha all along as shown in the theme song... Making Herb glitch to freak out Vision, trying to put suspicion on Monica Rambeau, acting weird about doing another take when it seemed like a scene wasn't going her way, killing the dog (presumably to see if Wanda could really bring the dead back to life), sending in fake Pietro to try and suss out the secret behind her power, faking during the Halloween ep to slip to Vision that he's "dead", etc. She was poking and prodding at every weak point and creating cracks to try and get Wanda to reveal the secret, screwing up Wanda's chance at a happy sitcom with Vision.
In America, it's "difficult/different."
Right. If you take technology out of the equation, it makes more sense to do it at a time when Terry is long gone and around strangers so there isn't corroboration from people he knows in the town and the witnesses that point the finger don't run across the real Terry somewhere else and doubt what they saw.
And still, even today, it's not like we're constantly recorded everywhere in hi-def with audio. It was really just a freak chance that there happened to be a clear recording of Terry asking a question... Something El Cuco may not have encountered before. The surveillance cameras that caught him were uncertain at best.
That and it also seems like the monster might be on a bit of a time crunch, where it only has a certain window to maintain the appearance and feed.
Well, he was on drugs the first half of his career and barely remembers writing any of it, lol. It's taken him a while to find his sober groove. I hear some of his newer stuff is actually really good, though I haven't read it. 11/22/63, in particular, gets some pretty high praise. I did read Doctor Sleep and enjoyed it, though not as good as The Shining.
That's the story The Kid told, but we were supposed to wonder if it was the truth or not. It seems it was not the truth. We "saw" it in season 1, but that was all a dramatization of The Kid's story. There may not be a parallel world at all.
Yeah. Season 2 has no connection to season 1.
It would be very hard nowadays, but the setting of the film is more like the 80s. People were a lot more relaxed about security pre 9/11.
He's said he's very happy with the Doctor Sleep film.
Despite heavily borrowing the iconic visuals and ideas of Kubrick's film, the movie isn't really a direct sequel to either the Kubrick film or the original book, but rather both. The director approached King and asked him what would bridge the gap between the book and the movie. It seems like the Doctor Sleep film will follow as if Kubrick made a version of The Shining Stephen King was happier with.
The book was split in two for the movie.
We needed the extra time to see Simba's fur roll across the land in a ball of giraffe poop.
I watched the original the day before I went to see this one. The soullessness is amplified over the other live-action remakes because photorealistic animals just can't emote properly. It was just boring, and the big scenes didn't stir up any of the proper feeling.
The cat likely got in through an upstairs window, the same way it got into Ellie's room earlier. Ellie then came in while Judd was upstairs investigating (she wasn't upstairs at all, she was at the bottom where she stabbed his heel).
I agree. It's especially egregious, because they try to fake you out in the actual movie and make you think it's the little boy that's about to get hit, only to rescue him at the last second.
Same with Judd's death. They try to fake out people who have seen the original movie with a closeup of his ankle next to the bed, when we already know it happens on the stairs in this movie from seeing the trailer.
I was inclined to agree before I saw the movie, but I think the choice had more to do with how they changed the ending. They needed the zombie to be a little more capable than the baby (can't see the baby dragging his mother to the burial site and burying her) and they obviously wanted that moment at the end where the baby is helpless in the car as his whole resurrected zombie family comes for him. I can't really say I like this ending better, but it was an interesting way to make it different from the original.
I just thought it was hilarious how the movie tried to fake us out with the baby's and Judd's deaths, when they already spoiled both of those moments in the trailer. If you've seen the trailer and the original movie, you've basically already seen this movie apart from the last 5 minutes.
I mean... It was in the trailer, and this topic was made before the movie was even out.
Yeah, I have a sister named Teresa who sometimes goes by Tree.
Seems like you're projecting a bit.
"You're too invested in the outcome!" *writes long wall of text in reply to a two sentence post*
Fact is, while critics disliked it, audiences in general are finding it pretty good. It's not a 10, but it's certainly not bad, and the majority certainly doesn't seem to hate it like you're projecting. Clearly you can't be happy simply disliking a movie that other people like. You've gone to incredible lengths to convince yourself that the "outcome" supports your opinion 100%.
"You're too invested in the outcome."
From what I remember of the first film, I believe the prohibition on inter marriage was only in America, unless I'm remembering that wrong.
The movies are very pretty, and I think they have some good ideas stuck in all the plots that never quite come together. I think she's just very inexperienced with writing film scripts. If these movies were in novel form, I'd enjoy them a lot more. Then they could be adapted later on into much better films by someone who knows how to write for films.