Movies That are Going to Suck: Part Deux

Bamshalam wrote:

WHY, GOD






WHY

IT'S LIKE I'M NOT WATCHING THE SHOW AT ALL.

Quote :

Grace Potter and the Nocturnals - "White Rabbit"

In an Alice in Wonderland movie? Wow! What an original and novel use of this song!

Bamshalam wrote:

WHY, GOD






WHY

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What the hell did I just see?

Seriously, the original TV series sucked ass. Who thought making a live-action/animated movie about it would make it any better?

Bammy, I blame this movie's existence on you. Not because you posted it here. Nonono. But because you're black and everything is your fault.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Watch to see these movies make 60+ million dollars.

They won't be getting any of my money, that's for sure. Who the hell thought the Smurfs movie would be a good idea? And how many drugs did they have to take first?

The effects probably look a lot better in that trailer than they will do in the movie. Crappy compression is like candlelight for the 3D soul.

PS premise is a lie, real bears have much more basic intelligence than that

So lately, most of the ad support on the South Park Studios website has been taken over by this boring turd. For those who don't want to click the link, it's a preview for a movie called "Dinner for Schmucks" starring Steve Carrell. Apparently, the premise is that some douchebag gets a bunch of other douchebags together to see whose bag is the douchiest. The preview contains almost no actual humor content, but an awful lot of flailing and mugging that is supposed to indicate that what's happening onscreen is humorous. I think it gave me cancer.

Nihilist wrote:

WHY I'M SMARTER THAN THE AVERAGE BEAR HURR HURR HURR

Aaaand . . . the last bit of my childhood is now gone. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Tungsten Monk wrote:

So lately, most of the ad support on the South Park Studios website has been taken over by this boring turd.

Was that meant to be an advertisement, or a warning?

You guys go away. Steve Carrell is awesome.

InkWeaver wrote:

You guys go away. Steve Carrell is awesome.

Agreed. I want to see this Dinner for Schmucks (and mostly because of Carrell).

I realize this is going to likely have me labeled as a complete naysayer, but the fact that Spike TV's Deadliest Warrior is getting its own movie makes me wonder just how desperate movie makers are these days. If they can't even get the history right in the TV show, what hope is there that a movie would do any better?

Tungsten Monk wrote:

So lately, most of the ad support on the South Park Studios website has been taken over by this boring turd. For those who don't want to click the link, it's a preview for a movie called "Dinner for Schmucks" starring Steve Carrell.

If it's as well done as the original version then it should be a good movie. The original script is Dîner de cons, a French theater piece, written in 1993, adapted for the big screen in 1998.

The concept of the "schmuck dinner" is that every guest has to bring a schmuck that has a strange hobby/passion/past-time with him and during the evening these schmucks are laughed at without them knowing. At the end of the evening, one of them is crowned winner. So it's not a bunch of douchebags inviting more douchebags and see who's the biggest douche, but a bunch of douches inviting people they judge simple-minded and abnormal in their hobbies to laugh at them and see who is the easiest to troll/the biggest loser.

But that one dinner doesn't go as planned, and that's where the movie becomes interesting (unless the Studios fucked up).



I just hope the US won't kill the movie with their remake, like they did in good part with Taxi (a trilogy of French movies that are actually interesting).

Well, after the 20-year preproduction train wreck that begat the well-intentioned but inept Superman Returns, WB has decided to shit all over the character yet again.

Christopher Nolan is producing and overseeing the script. Which, I'm sure, will completely miss the point of superhero escapism and be devoid of anything resembling sense, intelligence, or genuine emotion just as much as his shitty Batman movies.

Zack Snyder, a guy who never met a slo-mo shot he didn't adore and has voiced a disdain for Superman's fundamental optimism, was just hired to direct.

You know, the last time WB gave Superman over to guys who either didn't like or didn't get the character, or whose sensibilities were just plain wrong for it, , they wound up with years of development hell and $70 million in the red before anything was filmed. Why are they repeating their worst mistakes?

pirategrrl wrote:

InkWeaver wrote:

You guys go away. Steve Carrell is awesome.

Agreed. I want to see this Dinner for Schmucks (and mostly because of Carrell).

I went to see it because it had Jeff Dunham as a cameo. It was worth it.

TheIan wrote:

pirategrrl wrote:

InkWeaver wrote:

You guys go away. Steve Carrell is awesome.

Agreed. I want to see this Dinner for Schmucks (and mostly because of Carrell).

I went to see it because it had Jeff Dunham as a cameo. It was worth it.

Wut.

Quote :

I went to see it because it had Jeff Dunham as a cameo.

Quote :

because it had Jeff Dunham

Quote :

Jeff Dunham

Quote :

Jeff Dunham

I don't know if it upsets me more that Jeff Dunham is in this movie (that has so much potential) or the fact that you actually went to see this movie for this once-funny boob. I mean, come on! At least go see the movie for Steve Carrell.

Though, judging by what I know of your taste in comedy, you were probably one of two people that thought The Jeff Dunham Show was funny.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

TheIan wrote:

pirategrrl wrote:

InkWeaver wrote:

You guys go away. Steve Carrell is awesome.

Agreed. I want to see this Dinner for Schmucks (and mostly because of Carrell).

I went to see it because it had Jeff Dunham as a cameo. It was worth it.

Wut.

Quote :

I went to see it because it had Jeff Dunham as a cameo.

Quote :

because it had Jeff Dunham

Quote :

Jeff Dunham

Quote :

Jeff Dunham

I don't know if it upsets me more that Jeff Dunham is in this movie (that has so much potential) or the fact that you actually went to see this movie for this once-funny boob. I mean, come on! At least go see the movie for Steve Carrell.

Though, judging by what I know of your taste in comedy, you were probably one of two people that thought The Jeff Dunham Show was funny.

Actually, I went to see it for Steve Carell and Paul Rudd also, Jeff Dunham was a highlight.

Jeff Dunham Show, was not all that well thought out.

Ian, where do you live that the film hasn't come out (and more than likely already left theaters) yet?

Drabbler wrote:

Ian, where do you live that the film hasn't come out (and more than likely already left theaters) yet?

I saw it in Maine while I was Job Corps. I don't know if it's still showing anywhere, though.

I skimmed through the thread, so excuse me if it's been said before (or in the first part), but I think it's significant enough - there's been talk, (thankfully not confirmed, unfortunately probable) of a Watchmen film part two. Now that would be something completely inexcusable. Even the cast from the film hated the idea.

And on an unrelated topic, I agree with Vilecat's opinion that this Dinner of Schmucks should be good if it's anything like the original. Although I'm starting to dread this Hollywood trend to remake "foreign" films that were just perfect as it was, Steve Carrell makes me hopeful that this isn't going to be another "Death at a Funeral" case.

Ozymandias wrote:

I skimmed through the thread, so excuse me if it's been said before (or in the first part), but I think it's significant enough - there's been talk, (thankfully not confirmed, unfortunately probable) of a Watchmen film part two. Now that would be something completely inexcusable. Even the cast from the film hated the idea.

Thankfully still, this has been utterly denied, so don't panic.


In fact, WB tried to sell Alam Moore the rights to Watchmen back, with the added caveat that he produce some sequel/prequel ideas.

He told them to sod off:

Quote :

I just told them that if they said that 10 years ago, when I asked them for that, then yeah it might have worked,” he said. “But these days I don’t want Watchmen back. Certainly, I don’t want it back under those kinds of terms.”

Insert huge relief sigh here. Thank god for not being up to date with film-comic news. :D This pleases me so.

Really, I can't think of something that could've been less necessary... or forgivable. It's nice to see that there are geniuses out there that won't whore their work away first chance so haha fuck you WB.

Nihilist wrote:

WHY I'M SMARTER THAN THE AVERAGE BEAR HURR HURR HURR

[Is speechless with rage]

Mr. Comic Book wrote:

You know, the last time WB gave Superman over to guys who either didn't like or didn't get the character, or whose sensibilities were just plain wrong for it, , they wound up with years of development hell and $70 million in the red before anything was filmed. Why are they repeating their worst mistakes?

Uh...they're clinically insane?

Chris91 wrote:

Mr. Comic Book wrote:

You know, the last time WB gave Superman over to guys who either didn't like or didn't get the character, or whose sensibilities were just plain wrong for it, , they wound up with years of development hell and $70 million in the red before anything was filmed. Why are they repeating their worst mistakes?

Uh...they're clinically insane?

*looks at 2011 WB slate, which includes an IT remake, a Dark Shadows movie, and a Marvin The Martian movie with Mike Myers in the starring role*

Clinically insane doesn't even begin to cover it.

If there's a Live Action Akira, I predict that it will be disgustingly Americanised and will suck as a result because there's no way they're going to allow the main protragonist to be a womanising juvenile delinquent and one of his best friends is a young homosexual with a crush on him and that is one of the survivors.