Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

A forum for creative people.

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Wed May 04, 2016 8:50 pm

I've found the greatest motion picture ever made. Everyone else can go home.

By the power of Greyskull!

(Message me for a link.)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlkn50 ... railer_fun

The lead character was sometimes known as "Golden Bat" - that is, a South Korean ripoff of both Batman and the Japanese superhero "Golden Bat."

Here is a clip from the film, with a different soundtrack, specifically as a joke for Hailey Lain (who likes Japanese hero "Golden Bat" but not this guy).

https://vimeo.com/165389520

http://image.kobay.co.kr/common_filesys ... S8OF_2.jpg

There was an animated movie, "Black Star and the Golden Bat" ("검은별과 황금박쥐")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6BRC8spkrY
http://cfile208.uf.daum.net/image/20536 ... 432B256E6E

But the live action / animation hybrid is completely nuts, ripping off Power Rangers, Masters of the Universe, Japanese robot shows and everything else.

While I'm at it, Korea also gave us an animated Wonder Woman ripoff. 날아라 원더공주 (1978) (Narara Wondeogongju)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdxTrzoOML4
http://cfile207.uf.daum.net/image/137A8 ... 381A385C38



John Paul Cassidy:
I read about this film in ORIENTAL CINEMA in about 1994-95! I'm quite aware. And yes, you'll find how South Korea often ripped off not only Japanese tokusatsu (special effects) superheroes, but a lot of other characters (Batman, Ninja Turtles, etc.)! They also did a ripoff of both Godzilla and Gamera in YONGARY: MONSTER FROM THE DEEP (Kuk Dong; 1967), which was, ironically, a Japanese co-production (a Japanese FX team did the special FX).

Batman on the poster is a swipe from GATCHAMAN, and Mazinger V is obviously based on Great Mazinger.

In case you're wondering, the Koreans mixing animation with live-action became very popular, due to the success of Shim Hyung Rae's UREME series (where he played a comical superhero called Esperman, who rides an animated giant robot)! A lot of Korean superhero films have often imitated this formula.
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6010
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Postby SmarTeeMackxs » Wed May 04, 2016 10:18 pm

SmarTeeMackxs
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:36 am

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Sat May 07, 2016 11:07 pm

Andy Warhol reviews Marvel's Civil War: "In the future every Marvel hero will be comic-accurate for 15 minutes per film."

Although he wasn't actually in the film, I really felt Peter Parker's grief over the loss of his Uncle Vinny.

When Marvel's The Avengers came out in 2012, I said, this is about seven of the best superhero films ever made. If you love comic characters like Captain America, The Hulk, Thor and Iron Man, you get to see them fighting alongside one another in the same universe. That was something entirely new for film, and entirely due to Marvel Comics taking control of its own film output. Adaptations of comic book heroes to film are normally a crapshoot. Sometimes good, usually bad, but very rarely capturing more than a little bit of the spirit of the comics they come from. A lot gets changed in the adaptation. Well, The Avengers felt like a Marvel comic come to life.

If characters aren't accurate to the spirit of the comics, that screws up Marvel's comic output. They have a vested interest in making these characters come to life and feel as they should, even more than the fans do.

Captain America: Civil War takes that ball and runs with it further than any Marvel film to date. I don't know if that actually makes this a Great Movie or The Best Marvel Movie or anything, but who cares? If you like this kind of stuff, this is exactly what you like. And I do mean exactly. While most superhero films struggle to get even one lead character accurate to what you like about them in the comic, "Civil War" pits more than ten familiar Marvel characters against one another, and guess what? They're all accurate to what fans like about them in both the previous movies and the comics in general. They all get their own little moments to shine, and it's both exciting and heartbreaking to see them fight one another, based on the decisions Steve Rogers and Tony Stark have made.

Where Age of Ultron often stumbled with its characters, dropping the ball on some of them and saddling them with storylines that didn't show them off to full effect, Civil War seems tight and focused.

What this has in common with that film is that this is Steve and Tony's movie.

It says a lot that Thor, The Hulk, Nick Fury and others are missing here, but you don't miss them.

The "Civil War" arc in the comics was heavily criticized. Tony Stark and his side of the "war" were often portrayed as plainly evil and wrong, and frankly out of character.

That's not true here. Both Steve and Tony are 100% in character with everything that's been established in the previous films. There is good and bad about the decisions they make, and their actions and intentions throughout are perfectly understandable.

The other characters don't blindly follow along, either. They all have their own motivations and agendas which are completely clear and consistent with what we know about the characters.

Hey, remember Tony Stark in the previous movies? Trying to make the world a better place but constantly haunted with PTSD from the consequences of his actions? Playing it cool to cover a grief that never heals? Thinking big and making big decisions and big mistakes, while still a big hero who should trust himself more?

Well, in this movie, he's that guy.

Remember Steve Rogers, who trusts himself and trusts a small circle of friends who he'd take a bullet for, but has learned not to trust blindly in government agencies? Brilliant at planning the details and leading a small team into battle. Clashing with Tony because Tony's decisions are too often ruled by guilt and fear. Steve Rogers, who cares so much about Bucky Barnes that he becomes a fugitive from justice to save the soul of the Winter Soldier.

Well, in this movie, that's what you get.

The writing is smart enough that they're both right and they're both wrong. Steve is going to extremes to protect Bucky, who is still a brainwashed murderer. Tony is going to extremes to legitimize the Avengers in the eyes of the US government, and apologize for the death toll from their previous onscreen adventures.

Somewhere in the background, the Scarlet Witch is dealing with her own guilt over what she's done, and wondering if the world will always hate and fear her. And The Vision is developing feelings for her, and feelings in general, while wondering what it means for an artificial man to become more human.

They're minor players in the film but these are very much the characters fans like from the comics. The film understands what's interesting about them, and gives us that.

Same with Black Panther, King of Wakanda. He's very much his own man in the film, only marginally on Tony's "side." It's clear that T'Challa is the main character in his own storyline here, as far as he's concerned. We get a sense of how he thinks and what he values, of his morality, and we get to visit Wakanda.

Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow provides handy support to first Cap and then Tony, but it's also clear that she's on no one's "side" - her decisions are her own, and more rational than either Cap or Tony's. And we see why Cap and Hawkeye trust her a lot more than Tony does. She's been a supporting character for so long that her character often seems to completely change from movie to movie, like that unfortunate stuff in Age of Ultron. I liked the version in the original Avengers, the calculating one who spends her time trying to read her opponents, and make herself seem vulnerable so that they open up for attack and expose themselves. Anyway, this is the version from Winter Soldier, the chilled-out, ready-for-anything master spy who's best friends with Cap and can read a situation for danger the way he does. Which is your favorite or second favorite version of the character. Even the wardrobe's the same.

The Falcon is just as charming as he was in Winter Soldier, supporting Cap's side with his no-nonsense, okay a little nonsense, attitude.

Meanwhile Rhodey would still take a bullet for Tony, and all but does here.

We see both Bucky Barnes and the Winter Soldier in Sebastian Stan's portrayal here. We see that Bucky is still very much there, but so is the deadly assassin, whose actions Bucky can't forgive himself for, and which can be triggered in him at any moment. Completely in keeping with the previous Cap films.

Hawkeye, in his limited screentime, is very much as he was in Age of Ultron. Very much his own man, an everyman looking for a little sanity in his life, and from everyone around him, and annoyed at the nonsense he's caught up in. His established friendship with Black Widow and Scarlet Witch also informs all his actions.

Paul Rudd's Ant-Man is just as he was in his own film - sly, funny, charming and underestimated, using the powers of Pym particles in surprising ways. Well, that movie was a little generic but still a ton of fun. Same here. Despite his limited screentime, when Rudd is speaking it feels entirely like he's the star of the movie, if only for that moment.

And then Spider-man. It's sort of a shame that a new Spider-man has to deal with being introduced as a minor character in a film which already has so much going on. But for a few minutes this becomes a Spider-man movie, and it's delightful. There's a problem with superhero sequels which change the lead actor, like Batman Forever and The Amazing Spider-Man. Technically they're introducing a new version of the character but they also have to avoid doing stuff the previous film already did, because they're still sort of a sequel to films starring another actor. The most famous villain is already gone. Instead of fighting The Joker, you might have The Riddler and Two-Face both directed to act like The Joker. Or some half-assed version of Ra's Al-Ghul and The Scarecrow or The Lizard or whoever hasn't been done yet.

Well, the deal with Spider-Man is, technically we've seen his origin twice already, in recent memory. We don't have time for an origin here, or any real interest. Now, Spidey's origin suddenly involves working with Tony Stark, because that's what this movie is about. The death of Uncle Ben is hinted at, and it's a great character moment with Robert Downey Jr, one of many in the film.

Aunt May, who in the comics and the still-classic Sam Raimi films was a wrinkled old grandmother, became America's Sweetheart Sally Field in the crap Marc Webb movies.

Well, now she's America's Sweetheart Marisa Tomei, so we have an Aunt May where Tony Stark spends a lot of time talking about how attractive she is. Go for it, Tony. No one would blame you.

Well, Spider-man's been done, and done to death. The Sam Raimi movies raised the bar for comic book films, giving us nonstop action, and a genuinely weird sense of humor - from the director's side more than the character's. Since then the films have tried to give us a "funny, wisecracking Peter Parker." Andrew Garfield's incarnation came off instead as all over the place, his emotions impossible to follow from one scene to the next. Raimi's films felt eerily true to the comics at times. Not always, but their secret weapon were things like J Jonah Jameson seeming like he stepped right off the comic page. To this day, the films haven't tried to replace him.

We've had five Spider-Man features in very recent memory, the last two and a half of which ran the franchise into the ground. It felt like the character should take a break.

What I'll say about Marvel and Tom Holland's Spider-Man, or The Russos' Spider-Man, is that after all that, this version of the character is completely fresh and like nothing we've seen before. And accurate to the comic character in ways we haven't seen previously.

He's a kid. That's the surprise of it. He's young and broke and easy to underestimate. We always see in the comics how Peter is struggling, how tough his life is. How he can't really stand easily side by side with your average Avenger. This version of the character actually accomplishes that. He's so young that it's immediately clear why he's poor and doesn't have his life together. He's not mopey and tortured in an overplayed way, he's a high school kid with a lot on his mind, who's dealing with a lot. As a hero Spider-Man is every bit an Avenger, but Peter Parker, the kid from Queens, is a fish out of water there. We completely understand that. We also get the talkative, wisecracking Peter Parker you know from the comics. It's not forced into the script with a crowbar either. It's just the seemingly natural reactions of a kid who's in over his head in a new and different world.

And then there's Sharon Carter, who I don't care about much. Sorry. As in Winter Soldier, she's a SHIELD agent type and a love interest for Cap to make the whole Bucky thing seem less gay. And no one's buying it. They kiss in this one, for some reason. Cap and Sharon, I mean.

It's Sharon who gets the most famous Captain America speech from the original Civil War comic. She attributes it to Peggy, who's dead now, unfortunately.

I wish we'd gotten Cap doing that speech. I bet there's a script where he did. I bet they even shot it. I figured they were setting that up to pay it off later. But still, it comes back in everything Cap does.

Here's the iconic speech from the comic:

'Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."'

It's a shame that the movie didn't use that. I'm sure there's a lot of stuff you'd wish they'd used.

But Sharon says a version of that early on, which informs Cap's actions the entire film.

The villain here is Baron Zemo. A Nazi supervillain in the comics, here he's just some guy. He's made small because he's not the point. The point is that Cap and Tony fight each other. They fight to destroy one another. At the end of Civil War, the Avengers are in ruins. Battered and wiser and fugitives from the law, a bit like how the Winter Soldier ended.

This isn't a big, happy victory. It's been tragedy the whole time, setting up meaty conflicts between Cap and Tony and the rest of the Avengers as well, and hammering them hard. All great stuff, as a movie.

Not so good for a victory. There is none, and this movie leaves you wanting more. A lot more. It does more superheroes justice than any previous film and you want more of that.

This is by the Russo Brothers, who did Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Also a great Marvel film. And they're doing the next Avengers. Previously they worked on the TV series Community. You got a cameo by Danny Pudi before. Here we get Jim Rash, all but in character as Dean Pelton.

I don't know if "Captain America: Civil War" is actually a great movie, or even a great superhero movie. What it is, is a great installment in the ongoing Marvel saga, like a graphic novel that you want to read the next one of, or a great season of television.

More so than even the Avengers films this is a Marvel comic brought to life and opened up on the screen, with lots of characters behaving just as they should. By its own standards it's a stunning success, and something that no other superhero film has previously achieved to this degree.

It leaves you wanting more, which you'll get next time. It's an Empire Strikes Back, where you hope they'll get the bad guys next time.

Any complaints I have are quibbles. It accomplished what it set out to do. If you like this sort of thing, this is exactly the sort of thing you like. Go see it.
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6010
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Mon May 09, 2016 7:48 pm

Ryan Reynolds is a delight in Deadpool, carrying the film almost single-handedly. It's a part he's been wanting to play for ten years, and it shows. It's also a film Twentieth Century Fox kept passing on, until a leaked test scene set the internet on fire. It was too weird for a mass audience, they thought. They were wrong, of course. Deadpool is an unusual character, for sure, but that's what makes him entertaining, and he's been translated faithfully to the screen. Audiences loved it.

The movie, for better or worse, captures Deadpool as a character. He's a violent, talkative assassin with mutant healing powers who is funny and weird in a way designed to make people around him uncomfortable if they're not in on the joke. Here, he's like Wolverine as written by Seth MacFarlane - walking the borderline of bad taste. It's to the film's credit that it straddles that line without falling off, even hinting at the character's pansexuality.

He's had better moments in the comics, where he often functions as chaotic-neutral comic relief, creating awkward scenes and nursing a crush on Spider-Man. Writers have had a lot of fun with him. He's having a lot of fun in this film too, as if he walked right off the comic page.

Deadpool, as a character and a movie is unpredictable and shocking in ways a teenage boy in particular should love. This is a hard R, with more violence and profanity than your average Quentin Tarantino movie. Everyone involved deserves a lot of credit for not holding back and delivering something uncensored and true to the character.

For an adult audience, it's going to come across as immature and aggressively dumb almost to the point of incoherency, but it's still a lot of fun. There's a sense of joy to the whole thing. Ryan Reynolds really digs into the character like he's been preparing all this time and has earned it. References to his past career as Green Lantern, and the unfortunate Deadpool in Wolverine Origins, only solidify this. Reynolds is never short of 100% committed to the part. There's a subtext throughout that this is an underdog of a film that they almost weren't allowed to make, and isn't it great that they're getting away with this? Being naughty and ridiculous.

It's the kind of movie where Stan Lee shows up at a strip club. That very nearly sums things up here.

Deadpool's creation was an unlikely one. "Wade Wilson" first showed up as a villain, created by Rob Liefeld, the worst artist in comics. He was a copy of "Slade Wilson," AKA Deathstroke, the DC Comics character. Not exactly original. But other minds took the character and ran with him, until he became something original and one of the more reliably weird characters in comics.

The film is an unlikely success too. You can see why they didn't want to make something as weird as this. FOX's Marvel superhero films have lacked the comic accuracy of Marvel's own work, tackling the characters in a more Hollywood way. Or even a B-movie way, with the cheap and disastrous Fantastic Four movies. The first X-Men movie was timidly done, not ready to go full-on comic book with the characters. Many, many X-Men films later the franchise still struggles to the point where you could technically call this one of the better X-Men films, up there with First Class.

That would be cruel, since this is simply Deadpool's movie. It only features two X-men.

There's Negasonic Teenage Warhead - quiet and sullen. She's not given a lot to do, but they'd do well to bring her back for other movies. It's a "less is more" part where Reynolds tends to do the talking, but the oil and water difference between the two makes it play.

A giant, computer-animated Colossus shows up, very unlike the versions in the other X-Men movies, who had to be played by a real actor. Daniel Cudmore, who played a toned down Colossus in the films, turned this down. Here Colossus looks like the comic version of the character, or even a parody of that character, since it's not clear how this hulk could ever be played by a human. This was the director's choice - he thinks of Colossus as eight feet tall, with that Russian accent. It's the kind of decision you make when you grew up reading the comics - not wanting to tone the absurdity down.

The movie is small in scale, though the ending trashes what is probably an entire SHIELD helicarrier from the "real" Marvel movies. It's effectively a day in the life of Deadpool as he tries to take revenge on the man who made him what he is, and save his girlfriend. That's Firefly's Morena Baccarin, delightful in a role which doesn't ask much more of her than dirty jokes.

Leslie Uggams turns up as Deadpool's blind roommate, and isn't it nice to see her again? Gina Carano plays a tough bruiser of a villain, and tears things up in the fights at least. It's interesting to see a woman onscreen who could clearly do some damage- like her own stuntwoman.

TJ Miller (Silicon Valley) plays Wade's bartender friend. His deadpan performance is nothing too special but gets laughs playing off of Reynolds. It feels like the sort of relationship Daredevil and Foggy could have.

Ed Skrein is the villain - all good looks and English charm twisted in the wrong direction.

Deadpool had a $58 million dollar budget, much less than bigger superhero films. It's nowhere near the $250 million budget of "Avengers: Age of Ultron," though more than the $35 million budget of "Punisher: War Zone." Like "War Zone" every penny of that budget is up there on screen, and director Tim Miller deserves a lot of credit for making a film which can happily stand alongside, or surpass, superhero films with higher budgets. It's a small story, but no smaller than "The Wolverine" which had twice the budget - and a lot of the same problems.

In "The Wolverine," you had Hugh Jackman, as a basically unkillable superhero, run riot through Japan murdering hundreds of random human beings with his blades. Hardly seems like a fair fight (although Wolverine is wounded during most of the movie). Superman would never do that!

Same problem here. Deadpool is all but impossible to kill, but the film delights in killing about a hundred guys in over the top, graphic fashion. Guns and swords and that's supposed to be part of the fun. Hardly a fair fight! It's very much in character for Deadpool, though. I'm not sure you'd say that about Wolverine, who has sometimes been a more kid-friendly character with a certain moral code.

The thing is, superheroes need to have a moral code. There's a reason superheroes have a code against killing. Otherwise they're people with superhuman abilities who effectively can't be killed, murdering people on the street. That is fascist, and it's a problem when you make a Batman or Daredevil story too "dark." Even as a power fantasy for kids it's problematic. Batman "doesn't kill." In Daredevil season 2 they introduced The Punisher, the ultra-violent vigilante who was originally introduced in the comics as a cautionary tale. Someone literally insane who would murder people over the smallest violation of the law. As the character became popular, the comics sided with him, and so does Daredevil season 2. It's hard to wrap your mind around that. No one deserves a death sentence just for being "a criminal of some kind," and The Punisher, like "The Wolverine," doesn't stop to make sure you know that all the guys being killed deserve it.

Neither does Deadpool. But it looks better on Deadpool, because he's supposed to be a little cracked in the head. He's been through a lot of trauma, which lent an extra, more dangerous edge to his sense of humor. He was already a killer before he became Deadpool. He was already a wisecracker, ready to push boundaries. He represents the unrepressed urges of a teenager who hasn't quite figured the world out yet, but is eager to test the edges of it and see what pushes people's buttons.

Back in 2007 I made a movie about She-Hulk. She's another of Marvel's "funny" characters, who has sometimes known she's in the comic and can break the fourth wall and talk to the reader. I was trying to do a whole lot of what this movie does, nine years earlier. But there's a key difference in tone and character.

At the end of this film, Colossus makes a big speech, urging Deadpool to truly become a hero, and to spare the villain he's been chasing after this whole film. Because heroes don't kill.

Ah, but Deadpool does. He has this entire movie.

A similar scene is my She-Hulk movie, but she spares the guy. It's straight out of the comics.

So is this, because Deadpool kills people.

With a ton of superhero movies being made now, we're reaching the point where they really feel like the comics, and can explore the things which really make these characters different from another. Like Deadpool, a hard-R, weird and wacky and violent character who might have been unthinkable in a movie fifteen years ago.

But it also reminds us why superheroes were for kids in the first place. I want a Superman with a moral code, one who doesn't kill people. I don't want what Zack Snyder is giving us.

And I'm worried about "The Wolverine" showing no regard for human life. Or Daredevil being too empathetic to the Punisher.

But Deadpool's going to do its own thing. It's so juvenile and "extreme-edgy-offensive," it barely scratches the surface of any adult reality. It might as well be a Tarantino film.

What we have, at least, is a perfectly cast, perfectly-performed Marvel hero who looks and acts like he stepped right off the comic book page, supported by a director who completely understands the material in and out.

And that's an achievement, regardless of anything else.
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6010
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Mon May 09, 2016 10:11 pm

A Harbold writes:
Isn't it maybe conceivable that the film looks unoriginal, unfunny and, like Ghostbusters 2, something that just shouldn't have been made?


Aw MAN, SORRY. I didn't realize y'all were psychic and could tell exactly how good or bad a movie was gonna be based entirely on a 2 minute trailer.

Man, the internet must have amazing powers of extrapolation, and just great eyes for that!

Naw, you're right. That must be why the trailer is the most disliked video in Youtube history, with automated bots being set up to dislike it hundreds of times.

It couldn't be because of misogynist manbabies who hate women.

Couldn't be.

THEY'RE JUST FILM CRITICS I get it now



Man, who even gives a shit if the movie is good or bad at this point? I just wanna watch the people who already hate it burn.

It's funny because we're all part of the problem. This won't be the only 'conversation' I have that's like this.
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6010
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am


Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Sun May 15, 2016 10:01 pm

http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me ... -movie-set

On a low budget film there's a lot of temptation to break the law and lie to get the movie done, like the film is the most important thing ... filmmakers should be better than that. And clearly they're not. They made her the scapegoat for their behavior, passing the buck to her as the designated killjoy. Toxic environment!
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6010
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Sat May 28, 2016 6:22 pm

Megan Fox's audition was going to Michael Bay's home to wash his Ferrari while he filmed her. Footage is "lost".

Bay constantly told Kate Beckinsale and the press she wasn't attractive enough.

http://www.hitfix.com/harpy/what-michae ... -hollywood
http://www.hitfix.com/harpy/margot-robb ... -or-is-she
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6010
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Thu Jun 02, 2016 5:11 pm

http://www.planethenderson.com/#/spiderman4/

Awesome stuff from the unmade Sam Raimi Spider-man 4.

There were rumors about Mysterio being Bruce Campbell and I thought it was just a fan theory. I was so disappointed when Spider-Man 3 didn't go that route. It was also supposed to have a Ben Kingsley Vulture instead of Venom, who Raimi clearly wasn't interested in.

Amazing that Campbell Mysterio could really have happened. Would have been great. Looks great in the boards.

The concepts for a more comic book like suit for TASM remind me of what happened in Civil War.

"Speaking with io9, Henderson revealed the film would have started with a montage of Spider-Man fighting against “C and D-list villains” that never would have been primary antagonists in the film, including Mysterio, the Shocker, the Prowler, the “old school-onesie-wearing version” of the Rhino, and potentially Stilt-Man."

I love that Stilt-Man turned up in this. [His stilts have appeared in Daredevil on Netflix.] I actually used Stilt-Man in my 2007 low-budget She-Hulk feature, except I'd changed him to have a different gimmick, as "Weathermaster!" It was cheaper to shoot!
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6010
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Postby Garrett Gilchrist » Sun Jun 05, 2016 4:09 pm

If the new Ninja Turtles movie looked more like the old ones, it'd make as much as a Marvel picture. But you didn't hear it from me.

https://67.media.tumblr.com/6e73993f9d2 ... o1_400.gif
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6010
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Big Round Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron