MovieChat Forums > alv790 > Replies
alv790's Replies
More than African American, you need to be woke.
But it's not just race virtue-signalling, the show is just not as well-written as the original. For example, in the latest episode the father becomes a scout-master and immediately puts the scout trope to do his home repairs. That's the kind of cheap sitcom joke that undermines a show seeking some nostalgic remembrance of how things were. No one can take those clownish kind of plots and pretend that they reflect the experience of growing up at that time. The original, on the other hand, got the poignant, nostalgic tone right, and didn't sacrifice it for a cheap laugh.
With the new one, it just doesn't ring true, so it can't be poignant and have emotional resonance.
I don't know. I remember that when I was around 8 I was all about playing soccer (I live in Europe) and I thought girls were silly for liking quieter games.
What need is there of a sequel? This is a character study of a group of people and the interaction between them during a crisis, and a stunning action scene. The story is complete. Making a sequel would be like making a sequel of 12 Angry Men.
I'm not sure what explanation you want. Perhaps a single incident from his childhood that caused him to become the kind of person he was? I don't think it is that neat and tidy. It was just who he was, his character. This restlessness of him is why he took his family west instead of having a comfortable life in the east. He just wasn't happy with a quiet, safe life. He was certainly not a good family man, but in his way he was a great man. It's sometimes like this, the geniuses, the most outstanding leaders, often do not have a happily family life. They have some internal drive that won't let them settle down and be happy.
Yes, it follows the book, but in a much more streamlined way. The book is a sprawling epic. All the big moments in the book are in the movie, but in the movie the story has been shortened and simplified a bit. In the book you have things like the schoolmarm going back to New England and eventually coming back, the romance between the Virginian and her is slower and more gradual... In general, there is more time for character development.
Well, according to the Grail Knight in The Last Crusade, immortality would require remaining within the Great Seal of the Temple.
I agree. The question is not whether they'll eventually try, but whether the reboot will be successful with a different actor. Will it still feel like Indiana Jones when Ford's roguish grin is no longer there?
Also, take into account that because of cultural changes, many of the pulp adventures that inspired Indiana Jones are no longer considered acceptable nowadays. Imagine making Temple of Doom today, there would be controversy because of the stereotypical portrayal of Indian culture. The problem is, pulp adventures were all about that, exotic settings depicted in a very sensational way. Probably they will have to always use the nazis as antagonists.
i loved this movie when I watched it as a kid, and watching it again as an adult the magic is still there. Yes, it is a very good, bittersweet comedy.
He was excellent, full of childish innocence and charm. Perfect for this role.
In The Andy Griffith Show he was the same. In the Opie-centric episodes he really shone. When he had some material to work with he was able to steal the show, surrounded as he was there too by talented adult actors.
And, as others have said, he became a thoroughly good guy, grounded, talented and hard-working. Often I get sad when I hear about child actors whose job I enjoyed doing badly, but that's never the case with Ronnie Howard. It speaks well of the adults he had around him and of his own character.
Apart from boxing, it also happens in chess. The strongest players in the world, excluding the world champion, compete in the Candidates Tournament. The winner of the candidates tournament gets to challenge the world champion for the title.
There is something dramatic about the winning candidate challenging the current champion. It doesn't mean it's a good idea in most sports, though. As others have said, in a team sport it makes less sense, because a team may change a lot from one year to the other. Also, economically it could make more sense to have the current champion play a lot of matches, instead of going directly to the final.
It's a scifi/fantasy franchise that used to be popular until Disney destroyed it.
Coming back to your question, it seems Danjaq/EON holds the right to produce James Bond films and the rights to use the Ian Fleming stories, but not the rights to those continuation novels by other authors. If they wanted to adapt those continuation novels, either the Gardner novels or more recent ones, they would have to purchase the rights from the Ian Fleming estate. In the same way, the current owners of the Ian Fleming estate could produce movies based on those continuation novels, but they couldn't include James Bond in them, unless they purchased the right from Danjaq/EON (which is not going to happen, since EON obviously would never agree).
So it seems that in practice the only way those continuation novels would be adapted is if EON purchased the rights. As you say, some of those novels have cool titles, but I'm not sure how good the stories are, or how outdated regarding the sociopolitical situation of the world. Perhaps EON prefers to come up with their own plots, and not have to pay for the rights of those novels, particularly considering that it's not that hard to come up with James Bond plots (just add megalomaniac villains, clever gadgets, glamorous women, picturesque settings, car chases, gun fights, hand-to-hand fights and so on).
"I've got a bad feeling about this" is a catchphrase used several times in the Star Wars movies, sometimes by Han Solo. Since the about to be murdered gangster in Goldfinger is called Mr. Solo, there's the connection.
He killed them because they were there to get their money, and Goldfinger did not intend to pay. Of course, Goldfinger was not worried about retribution from other gangsters. He was about to murder thousands of US soldiers and detonate an atomic bomb in Fort Knox. He intended to disappear and enjoy his wealth where the US and all other civilized nations could not find him, much less a bunch of mobsters.
He gave them the speech even though he intends to kill them right afterwards because, as a megalomaniac, he enjoys explaining his plans and being the center of attention. If you can't accept that, the Bond franchise is not for you.
Same thing with the way Mr. Solo was killed. Yes, he could have killed him in a much easier way, but Bond villains like doing things in style, rather than the efficient, easy way.
In 1964 The Beatles were the latest boy band fad. They had published their first album only the previous year. Their music back then was easy, catchy, in the pop-rock style of the Everly Brothers and Buddy Holly. Their fans at that time were youngsters, not grown adults. Sean Connery's 1964 Bond not being a fan of the Beatles is the equivalent of Daniel Craig's Bond not being a fan of One Direction.
From Russia with Love is great, but the pace does lag a bit in the middle of the film. Because of that, I prefer Goldfinger.
Eh... do you remember the size of some of the dinosaurs in the movie? In a year or two, you say?
OP's point is that it would have taken a long time for the dinosaurs to grow to the size seen in the film, so we would have to accept that they had started cloning them decades before the movie starts. Since the 50s or 60s, maybe?
Well, both Spielberg and Crichton are self-admitted luddites: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/11/science/in-new-spielberg-film-a-dim-view-of-science.html
In Crichton's case, most of his books are about how new science/technology is dangerous, and that tendency becomes bizarre in his novel State of Fear, about a scientist who discovers that the scientific work on climate change is all a fraud.
Really? I never got the impression that Ward was a tyrant, or particularly strict or a harsh disciplinarian. Quite the contrary, he seemed quite understanding and "modern", usually willing to look at things from the kid's point of view, considering it's a show from 1957. And when he made a mistake, he admitted it and apologized.
Of course, he would not look away and ignore it when his sons misbehaved, but that's what parents are supposed to do, and it's not the same as being a tyrant.