Gemini Man

[Bartmanhomer]

Hey everyone. Today I went to see Gemini Man in Dolby 3D and I'm going to tell you what I think about the movie.

Today I went to see the movie, Gemini Man. It starting Will Smith as himself and his younger clone. It's about a military man faces his clone. The movie was so boring. I fell asleep for the most part. The action was so boring. It was so anti-climatic. It just wasn't even an interesting movie. This movie is definitely Razzie-worthy. I'll give this movie 1 out of 5 stars for a horrible movie. :sigh:

[Peelee]

When I was a kid he was always my favorite robot master.

[Mystic Muse]

When I was a kid he was always my favorite robot master.

The X series is better. :smalltongue:

[Bartmanhomer]

When I was a kid he was always my favorite robot master.

I didn't know that Will Smith does the voice of Mega Man Robot Master. Which Robot Master does he do the voice anyway? :smile:

[Mystic Muse]

I didn't know that Will Smith does the voice of Mega Man Robot Master. Which Robot Master does he do the voice anyway? :smile:

He doesn't. There's a robot master called Gemini Man in the original Mega Man series.

[Kitten Champion]

When I was a kid he was always my favorite robot master.

Yeah, he has a great track. His stage is a bit weird though. Like, there are robot penguins and what appears to be a frozen wasteland but there's also a deep sea area... with dragonflies floating about?

Granted they are robots and don't have to fit into an actual biome, but I'm also unclear in how they fit the theme of Gemini.

I will say, it took me a long while to realize that the giant penguin factory-thingies are Japanese ice shavers.

[Peelee]

Yeah, he has a great track. His stage is a bit weird though. Like, there are robot penguins and what appears to be a frozen wasteland but there's also a deep sea area... with dragonflies floating about?

Granted they are robots and don't have to fit into an actual biome, but I'm also unclear in how they fit the theme of Gemini.

I will say, it took me a long while to realize that the giant penguin factory-thingies are Japanese ice shavers.

I just thought it was crystals instead of ice, since platformers loved having characters slide on ice and there was no sliding. But the ice does make more sense overall, now that my age is in the double digits.

[JNAProductions]

The X series is better. :smalltongue:

To be fair, the X series also has the benefit of experience from the original. I'd EXPECT and HOPE it's better than its predecessor, since it's designed with more knowledge.

[Peelee]

The X series is better. :smalltongue:

Is the music better/on par? Because the music is a big part of the experience, and the original series just nailed it on that.

[JNAProductions]

Is the music better/on par? Because the music is a big part of the experience.

Oh, dude, the X series has FANTASTIC music! Just from X1, you've got Storm Eagle, Armored Armadillo, Spark Mandrill, the opening stage theme... Good poopnuggets, I love the X soundtrack!

[Mystic Muse]

To be fair, the X series also has the benefit of experience from the original. I'd EXPECT and HOPE it's better than its predecessor, since it's designed with more knowledge.

True, though they also seemed to learn and then forget lessons through the X series. From what I recall, the best designed game was X2.


Is the music better/on par? Because the music is a big part of the experience, and the original series just nailed it on that.

The X series has some really great music. Even some of the worse games had quute good music.

[Magic_Hat]

Am I the only one who hates this movie on execution alone? I want to say I haven't see it so I have no idea how good/bad the story is. However it seems to be another film that's biggest strength is it special effects. "Yeah, that's really good digital de-aging!" seems to be what everyone is saying. Like the ability to cast two people that look similar enough and are a few decades apart in terms of age and just having exposition saying one is a younger version of the other is something that's existed since the birth of cinema and is also sufficient. I'm just tired of the over abundance of CGI in films: digital de-aging, motion capturing to completely create a CGI character, green screens. Just make it animated if you have to go to those length.

[Clertar]

The X series is better. :smalltongue:

Isn't it ( ͡º ͜ʖ ͡º)

[HolyDraconus]

Everytime I wonder why I come to this place, there are gem threads like this one here.

[Magic_Hat]

Everytime I wonder why I come to this place, there are gem threads like this one here.

No, no. This thread is about Gemini Man. There's another thread for Steven Universe.:smallwink:

[Peelee]

No, no. This thread is about Gemini Man.

Imean, really, it's about Mega Man in general.

[Bartmanhomer]

Everybody except Magic Hat is all wrong. This is about a movie of an assassin (why did I say military guy) fighting a younger version clone. :annoyed:

[Magic_Hat]

Everybody except Magic Hat is all wrong.

Who's Magic Hat? Are they someone I know? Are they impersonating me? Because as we all know my screen name is Magic_Hat.

[Peelee]

Everybody except Magic Hat is all wrong. This is about a movie of an assassin (why did I say military guy) fighting a younger version clone. :annoyed:

As of this posting, the thread has 18 posts total. 2 of them are about the movie, and 10 are about the Mega Man series.

Sorry, it's now a Mega Man thread.:smallwink:

And if you want a full accounting, 6 are "what this thread is about." Which means... Megady-megady-mega mayaaaaaaan!

[Magic_Hat]

As of this posting, the thread has 18 posts total. 2 of them are about the movie, and 10 are about the Mega Man series.

Sorry, it's now a Mega Man thread.:smallwink:

And if you want a full accounting, 6 are "what this thread is about." Which means... Megady-megady-mega mayaaaaaaan!

So it's kind of like this thread was Mega Man, and it defeated the posters who wanted to talk about Mega Man, and it absorbed their power making it a Mega Man thread.

But in order for that to make sense this thread would have had to be Mega Man before anyone posted talking about Mega Man. This is a real chicken-and-the-egg situation here.:smallconfused:

[Mystic Muse]

So it's kind of like this thread was Mega Man, and it defeated the posters who wanted to talk about Mega Man, and it absorbed their power making it a Mega Man thread.

But in order for that to make sense this thread would have had to be Mega Man before anyone posted talking about Mega Man. This is a real chicken-and-the-egg situation here.:smallconfused:

No, see, Mega Man killed Gemini man, took his powers, and then those powers resulted in the thread becoming mostly about Megaman instead of Gemini Man, because Mega Man is good, and Gemini Man apparently isn't.

[HolyDraconus]

No, see, Mega Man killed Gemini man, took his powers, and then those powers resulted in the thread becoming mostly about Megaman instead of Gemini Man, because Mega Man is good, and Gemini Man apparently isn't.

Come to think of it... Gemini Man was made in the year of 1993 in our world, or 20XX in the continuity of the Megaverse. So with our world now being 2019, wouldn't that mean we are firmly in the 21XX Megaverse time? So wouldn't Gemini Man be a puppet of... Metal Shark Player?

[Kitten Champion]

Come to think of it... Gemini Man was made in the year of 1993 in our world, or 20XX in the continuity of the Megaverse. So with our world now being 2019, wouldn't that mean we are firmly in the 21XX Megaverse time? So wouldn't Gemini Man be a puppet of... Metal Shark Player?

I wanna be in the timeline with Tron Bonne in it, personally.

Though there's still plenty of time for 2019 to roll over into 20XX.

[Algeh]

So...there are 11 more signs of the zodiac to go after Gemini. Personally, I'm hoping they all get Will Smith movies where he has to fight a genetically-engineered version of himself thematically linked to their relevant zodiac sign.

[Psyren]

Is the music better/on par? Because the music is a big part of the experience, and the original series just nailed it on that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W54gF6QxeqM

Oh, and here's a great video by Egoraptor on how X's gameplay evolved from the original series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM) while still staying true to its core.


Everybody except Magic Hat is all wrong. This is about a movie of an assassin (why did I say military guy) fighting a younger version clone. :annoyed:

I know you want to talk about the movie but it seemed excessively bland, and the reviews seem to bear that out. I'm not sure how Will Smith is picking his projects these days (After Earth, Bright, Suicide Squad, and now this) but it may be time for him to switch tactics.

(Also - the less I say about Benioff the better.)

[Mystic Muse]

So...there are 11 more signs of the zodiac to go after Gemini. Personally, I'm hoping they all get Will Smith movies where he has to fight a genetically-engineered version of himself thematically linked to their relevant zodiac sign.

Nect should be Scorpio. Will Smith has to fight the Scorpion King who would obviously be played by The Rock.

Sounds like a fun romp to me. :smalltongue:

[Peelee]

Nect should be Scorpio. Will Smith has to fight the Scorpion King who would obviously be played by The Rock.

Sounds like a fun romp to me. :smalltongue:

Scorpio (https://megaman.fandom.com/wiki/Scorpio), you say?:smallamused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W54gF6QxeqM

I love music mouth man (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW_Ct49H1ng)!

[Bartmanhomer]

As of this posting, the thread has 18 posts total. 2 of them are about the movie, and 10 are about the Mega Man series.

Sorry, it's now a Mega Man thread.:smallwink:

And if you want a full accounting, 6 are "what this thread is about." Which means... Megady-megady-mega mayaaaaaaan!

Then go make a Gemini Man (Mega Man) thread over there. :annoyed:

[Magic_Hat]

Then go make a Gemini Man (Mega Man) thread over there. :annoyed:

But I thought that was this thread. Now I'm confused.:smallconfused:

[Bartmanhomer]

But I thought that was this thread. Now I'm confused.:smallconfused:

This isn't a Mega Man thread. I thought you read my thread already. :annoyed:

[Magic_Hat]

This isn't a Mega Man thread. I thought you read my thread already. :annoyed:

You must be thinking of Magic (no underscore) Hat.:smallannoyed:

[Lemmy]

Got to go thanks to a friend of mine who works at the theater... And I'm really glad I didn't have to pay full price...

The movie is... Well... boring. The CGI effects were pretty good, one or two actions scenes were decent, but the movie really drags on and some dialogue that makes it clear the producers think the audience is really freaking stupid. To make things worse, I simply couldn't care about the plot or any of the characters.

Not even double Will Smith could give it any heart or appeal. :smallsigh:

[Tvtyrant]

Got to go thanks to a friend of mine who works at the theater... And I'm really glad I didn't have to pay full price...

The movie is... Well... boring. The CGI effects were pretty good, one or two actions scenes were decent, but the movie really drags on and some dialogue that makes it clear the producers think the audience is really freaking stupid. To make things worse, I simply couldn't care about the plot or any of the characters.

Not even double Will Smith could give it any heart or appeal. :smallsigh:

The use if deep fake tech on actors bothers me. An I going to end up watching a new Jimmy Stewart film in a few years? Will they resurrect Robin Williams?

Will Smith at least is alive, but will they ket hin die or are they going to keep making Will Smith B movies my entire life?

[HolyDraconus]

The use if deep fake tech on actors bothers me. An I going to end up watching a new Jimmy Stewart film in a few years? Will they resurrect Robin Williams?

Will Smith at least is alive, but will they ket hin die or are they going to keep making Will Smith B movies my entire life?

And that is the million question. I've ben told that the movie was a marvel for such.

[Lemmy]

The use if deep fake tech on actors bothers me. An I going to end up watching a new Jimmy Stewart film in a few years? Will they resurrect Robin Williams?

Will Smith at least is alive, but will they ket hin die or are they going to keep making Will Smith B movies my entire life?
More importantly... Does it even matter? Acting might just be yet addition to the long list of human occupations overtaken by machines. And while I'm sure there'll be resistance to it, I doubt it can do more than delay that for a few years, maybe decades.

Honestly, I doubt there'll be much left for humans to do in the next 100 years or so, even if we manage to not kill ourselves.

[Tvtyrant]

More importantly... Does it even matter? Acting might just be yet addition to the long list of human occupations overtaken by machines. And while I'm sure there'll be resistance to it, I doubt it can do more than delay that for a few years, maybe decades.

Honestly, I doubt there'll be much left for humans to do in the next 100 years or so, even if we manage to not kill ourselves.

I already boycott self-checkout stores, this just goes on the list of things I won't go to I guess.

[Lemmy]

I already boycott self-checkout stores, this just goes on the list of things I won't go to I guess.
Would you not watch an animated movies that doesn't have voice actors?

[Peelee]

Would you not watch an animated movies that doesn't have voice actors?

It's taking a lot of willpower to not go on my "studios using live-action actors to screw over voice actors" rant here.

[Lemmy]

It's taking a lot of willpower to not go on my "studios using live-action actors to screw over voice actors" rant here.
Believe me, I understand and agree.

My point is just that (at least IMO) studios using CGI and artificial voices in place of actors is pretty much inevitable. It's still going to be decades from now, in any case. The last time they floated the idea of "virtual actors", the movie (Final Fantasy - Spirits Within) flopped so hard they completely gave up on the idea.

[Tvtyrant]

Would you not watch an animated movies that doesn't have voice actors?

No, I wouldn't. It is quite literally no longer art at that point.

[Lemmy]

No, I wouldn't. It is quite literally no longer art at that point.
I disagree. By that logic, silent animated films wouldn't be art.

[Tvtyrant]

I disagree. By that logic, silent animated films wouldn't be art.

Depends on if a computer animated them or not. Art is literally defined by being made by a human. Eventually smart AI will be better writers then humans as well, but if I am alive at that point I won't read those books.

[Peelee]

Depends on if a computer animated them or not. Art is literally defined by being made by a human. Eventually smart AI will be better writers then humans as well, but if I am alive at that point I won't read those books.

Imagine a person takes a picture of a beautiful sunset. The person pressed a button, a machine and nature did everything else. Is that art? What separates that button press from someone pressing a button for a voice?

[Tvtyrant]

Imagine a person takes a picture of a beautiful sunset. The person pressed a button, a machine and nature did everything else. Is that art? What separates that button press from someone pressing a button for a voice?

It isn't art, just like picking up a pretty rock and taking it home isn't art. A painting of the same thing would be art, just like a self portrait is art but a selfie isn't.

These are opinions, of course. Everyone is free to disagree with me.

[JoshL]

The use if deep fake tech on actors bothers me. An I going to end up watching a new Jimmy Stewart film in a few years? Will they resurrect Robin Williams?

Will Smith at least is alive, but will they ket hin die or are they going to keep making Will Smith B movies my entire life?

Rogue One used the concept of "digital makeup"; Guy Henry got the credit for the performance (Peter Cushing got a thanks). For that matter, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow had a performance by Sir Lawrence Olivier 15 years after he passed away! They've been playing with that concept for a while now, but at the end of the day, it's just another creative tool that could be used for good or ill, depending on the film.

[Peelee]

It isn't art, just like picking up a pretty rock and taking it home isn't art. A painting of the same thing would be art, just like a self portrait is art but a selfie isn't.

Why? The person recognized the beauty in the sunset and use tools to create an image of it. If someone painted that same sunset, it would be the same; the painter recognized the beauty in the sunset and use tools to create an image of it. Is one art and one not art because of how efficient those tools were? What's the meaningful difference?

[Tvtyrant]

Why? The person recognized the beauty in the sunset and use tools to create an image of it. If someone painted that same sunset, it would be the same; the painter recognized the beauty in the sunset and use tools to create an image of it. Is one art and one not art because of how efficient those tools were? What's the meaningful difference?

It gets into the fundamental question of art. Art is the narrowing of reality to convey the artists ideas and emotions to the viewer, and the viewer in turn projects ideas and emotions onto art.

If the photo is framed properly to show how the artist felt or what they were thinking about it can be art, but simple depiction of reality isn't. A photo taken by a depressed person takes on less of the depression then a painting of the same thing, you might not even notice their mood while the painting will be inherently shaded by their sadness.

Machines don't have subjective worldviews or emotions to share, they cannot make art. A director could presumably make all CGI movies that are his/her art, but I'm not particularly attached to any directors. I go to see actors (especially Daniel Day Lewis.)

[Jan Mattys]

It gets into the fundamental question of art. Art is the narrowing of reality to convey the artists ideas and emotions to the viewer, and the viewer in turn projects ideas and emotions onto art.

If the photo is framed properly to show how the artist felt or what they were thinking about it can be art, but simple depiction of reality isn't. A photo taken by a depressed person takes on less of the depression then a painting of the same thing, you might not even notice their mood while the painting will be inherently shaded by their sadness.

Machines don't have subjective worldviews or emotions to share, they cannot make art. A director could presumably make all CGI movies that are his/her art, but I'm not particularly attached to any directors. I go to see actors (especially Daniel Day Lewis.)

According to your definition, no animated movie can be considered art. Am I getting this right? Because frankly that sounds absurd.

[Tvtyrant]

According to your definition, no animated movie can be considered art. Am I getting this right? Because frankly that sounds absurd.

I never said that? People make the animations and do the voice acting.

Once computers do all that, then yeah. It is no different then a rock made by erosion looking like a person. There isn't some perfect line drawn between art and not-art, it is arbitrary. Even governments have shrugged at that problem. But I draw the line at computer generated actors and voices.

[Peelee]

If the photo is framed properly to show how the artist felt or what they were thinking about it can be art, but simple depiction of reality isn't. A photo taken by a depressed person takes on less of the depression then a painting of the same thing, you might not even notice their mood while the painting will be inherently shaded by their sadness.

If a sufficiently advanced robot created a perfect representation of Starry Night Over the Rhône and you were presented with the original and the recreation but were not told which was which, could you tell me which was was art and which one wasn't?

[Tvtyrant]

If a sufficiently advanced robot created a perfect representation of Starry Night Over the Rhône and you were presented with the original and the recreation but were not told which was which, could you tell me which was was art and which one wasn't?

Nope. I also won't be able to tell you whether a person online is a human or an AI within my lifetime. The ability to imitate human responses doesn't make one human, and the ability to imitate human art does not make it art.

Get me an AI that can feel and I will reconsider.

[Peelee]

Nope. I also won't be able to tell you whether a person online is a human or an AI within my lifetime. The ability to imitate human responses doesn't make one human, and the ability to imitate human art does not make it art.

But if you can't tell if something is art, then what distinguishes it from actual art?

If you saw a movie and learned after the fact that it was entirely made by robots, would you not have thought it was art when it was presented to you?

[Tvtyrant]

But if you can't tell if something is art, then what distinguishes it from actual art?

Same thing that distinguishes hallucinations from reality.

Art is the same kind of lie Terry Prachett talks about. It is in the same category as truth, equality, hope, etc. I won't spend my money on things that put artists out if business if I can help it, and knowing a machine made something robs it off meaning for me.

Edit: If I found out afterwards I would be angry they did not tell me up front so I could choose not to spend my time and money on it.

That I can be wrong does not repudiate my argument. I can be wrong morally by inadequately applying moral principles and those principles still be correct.

[Peelee]

Same thing that distinguishes hallucinations from reality.

Reality is not fungible with hallucinations. The robot movie is fungible with the same movie made by people.

[Tvtyrant]

Reality is not fungible with hallucinations. The robot movie is fungible with the same movie made by people.

If I got stuck in the Matrix, that still doesn't make it real. My lack of adquate perception does not make illusion real.

[Peelee]

If I got stuck in the Matrix, that still doesn't make it real. My lack of adquate perception does not make illusion real.

If you cannot adequately perceive it, then does it really matter? What's the difference between a red ball and a green ball to a colorblind dog?

[Jan Mattys]

Same thing that distinguishes hallucinations from reality.

Art is the same kind of lie Terry Prachett talks about. It is in the same category as truth, equality, hope, etc. I won't spend my money on things that put artists out if business if I can help it, and knowing a machine made something robs it off meaning for me.

Edit: If I found out afterwards I would be angry they did not tell me up front so I could choose not to spend my time and money on it.

That I can be wrong does not repudiate my argument. I can be wrong morally by inadequately applying moral principles and those principles still be correct.

See, it seems that what's important for you is intent.
But that's the thing: a robot will never (let that "never" pass for the sake of the argument, please) create a movie just because it feels like it. Humans do. Humans have intent, and they apply that intent by arranging and directing tools. A movie is made by many contributors, and yes, in the case of 100% cgi the "actors" will not be one of them. They will be replaced by animators though. The movie will still need a screenplay, a direction, and a message it tries to convey. The tools by which the final product is assembled might be human (and contribute to the artistic value, sometimes critically so like in bad movies saved by great actors) or non-humans, in which case the burden of creating something artistic lies on the shoulders of writers, composers, animators, the director, and what have you.
Both ways can produce art, though, because the intent is human in both cases.

EDIT: if it boils down to "it bothers me because new tools might make actors obsolete", then you have the right to think that way (even if that sounds awfully similar to "tv will kill books" bogus to me), but if you are trying to make a statement about what's art and what's not, I really struggle to see your point.

[Tvtyrant]

If you cannot adequately perceive it, then does it really matter? What's the difference between a red ball and a green ball to a colorblind dog?
The red ball employs thousands of artists and the green ball employs AI slaves. The artist matters.

Edit: On intent. The relationship between ne and the artist is important. A kid making bad art for their parents is cherished for their relationship, I have watched and supported actors and musicians my whole life and so I have a weak relationship. I have none with machines.

There is also how many people's intent it is. Cutting out traditional arts and crafts pushes those people into less fulfilling jobs and so makes our society worse. Hiring less people spreads money around less and so makes our society worse. Treating machines as stand ins for humans cheapens our humanity and so makes society worse.

[Peelee]

But that's the thing: a robot will never (let that "never" pass for the sake of the argument, please)

https://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/Here+you+go+_df56c6c682513c4dc47668eaa9524881.jpg

[Jan Mattys]

The red ball employs thousands of artists and the green ball employs AI slaves. The artist matters.

Edit: On intent. The relationship between ne and the artist is important. A kid making bad art for their parents is cherished for their relationship, I have watched and supported actors and musicians my whole life and so I have a weak relationship. I have none with machines.

There is also how many people's intent it is. Cutting out traditional arts and crafts pushes those people into less fulfilling jobs and so makes our society worse. Hiring less people spreads money around less and so makes our society worse. Treating machines as stand ins for humans cheapens our humanity and so makes society worse.

My opinion on your last paragraph:
People didnt stop sculpting or painting just because photography was invented. People didn't stop writing stuff just because tv was invented. New tools create new jobs. Societies never get better or worse, they just evolve. Often cyclically so.
But that's the last mile I am going on this path because it would a) quickly become something not appropriate for these forums and b) turn into the most gigantic takeover of a thread ever. :smallbiggrin:

[Peelee]

My opinion on your last paragraph:
People didnt stop sculpting or painting just because photography was invented. People didn't stop writing stuff just because tv was invented. New tools create new jobs. Societies never get better or worse, they just evolve. Often cyclically so.
But that's the last mile I am going on this path because it would a) quickly become something not appropriate for these forums and b) turn into the most gigantic takeover of a thread ever. :smallbiggrin:

I think I know exactly where you would have gone, too, because I know I would have.

Anyway. What about robot-men? Like Mega Man?:smallamused:

[Magic_Hat]

Why did this film come out in October? Shouldn't have come out between May 21 and June 21?

[Bartmanhomer]

Why did this film come out in October? Shouldn't have come out between May 21 and June 21?

Why does the month even manner that this film should release? Die Hard released at Christmas and should people say it a Christmas movie.

[Lurkmoar]

Why does the month even manner that this film should release? Die Hard released at Christmas and should people say it a Christmas movie.

I'm committing a cardinal sin by explaining a joke but...

astrology, my man. Gemini is a birth sign for May 21 and June 21.

[Peelee]

Why does the month even manner that this film should release? Die Hard released at Christmas and should people say it a Christmas movie.

Die Hard was a summer blockbuster movie; it released on July 15, 1988. People do say it's a Christmas movie, because the entire movie takes place on Christmas Eve, at a Christmas party.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm committing a cardinal sin by explaining a joke but...

astrology, my man. Gemini is a birth sign for May 21 and June 21.

Oh, I see.

[Tyrant]

Die Hard was a summer blockbuster movie; it released on July 15, 1988. People do say it's a Christmas movie, because the entire movie takes place on Christmas Eve, at a Christmas party.

It's my favorite Christmas movie.

On topic, I preferred the Mega Man X series. I see the newer entries in the regular series and all I can think is "Where's X9?" Wish there would have been another Command Mission too.

[Peelee]

It's my favorite Christmas movie.


That's OK, you're allowed to be wrong.:smalltongue:

For reals, though, have you seen Kiss Kiss Bang Bang?

[Tyrant]

That's OK, you're allowed to be wrong.:smalltongue:

For reals, though, have you seen Kiss Kiss Bang Bang?

Yeah I have. I thought it was pretty entertaining too.

[Magic_Hat]

I'm committing a cardinal sin by explaining a joke but...

astrology, my man. Gemini is a birth sign for May 21 and June 21.

Wait, Gemini is an astrological sign?:smallconfused:
Yes this was sarcasm and a joke.

[Jan Mattys]

Wait, Gemini is an astrological sign?:smallconfused:
Yes this was sarcasm and a joke.

Yup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_sign

[Magic_Hat]

Is the sequel gonna be called Cancer Man? Does Will Smith fight a digital de-aged humanoid crab version of himself?

[Razade]

That's OK, you're allowed to be wrong.:smalltongue:

He is wrong. Die Hard is the second best Christmas movie after Scrooged.



This movie looks like a pretty big steaming load. The amount of money they put trying to get people hyped seemed less because they felt they had a good product but damage control. Is the Golden Boy Will Smith finally poison in movies? Sure seems that way. What was the last good movie he was in?

[Jan Mattys]

He is wrong. Die Hard is the second best Christmas movie after Scrooged.



This movie looks like a pretty big steaming load. The amount of money they put trying to get people hyped seemed less because they felt they had a good product but damage control. Is the Golden Boy Will Smith finally poison in movies? Sure seems that way. What was the last good movie he was in?

Looking at his IMDB page now.
Stretching the definition of "good" (i.e., not great) I'd say that his last solid performance was in Suicide Squad (2016), sadly in a steaming pile of a movie. And the last good flick he was in was probably "I am legend" in 2007...

[Magic_Hat]

He is wrong. Die Hard is the second best Christmas movie after Scrooged.

You're both wrong. Eyes Wide Shut is the best Christmas movie!


This movie looks like a pretty big steaming load. The amount of money they put trying to get people hyped seemed less because they felt they had a good product but damage control. Is the Golden Boy Will Smith finally poison in movies? Sure seems that way. What was the last good movie he was in?

I guessing you never saw Wild, Wild West...or Men in Black II...or After Earth.

[Razade]

Wild Wild West was an amazing movie and I won't hear otherwise because anyone who doesn't understand how insanely camp and homoerotic the whole movie is is just ignoring reality.

[Peelee]

Yeah I have. I thought it was pretty entertaining too.
Then you've seen the greatest Christmas movie. :smallamused:

The second greatest Christmas movie is Lethal Weapon.

Wild Wild West was an amazing movie and I won't hear otherwise because anyone who doesn't understand how insanely camp and homoerotic the whole movie is is just ignoring reality.

Plus there's the giant ****in' spider in the third act. Fans of An Evening with Kevin Smith will always appreciate that.

[Psyren]

Part of me still wants to peek into the alternate reality where Will Smith was Neo instead of Keanu Reeves.


Yup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_sign

Methinks you got bamboozled

[weckar]

Man, it is weird seeing a mod participate this hard in thread hijacking, but I suppose it is not technically a rule to stay on-topic...

[Peelee]

Threads go where the conversation takes them. In this case, my stupid joke took on a life of its own. Frankly, the segue to Kevin Smith talking about Superman Lives is at least tangentially related to the thread topic.

[LibraryOgre]

So, in seeing trailers for this, I kept thinking "This is totally a plot point in 'Woken Furies' (https://amzn.to/32knHbe)". Anyone familiar with both wanna weigh in?

[KillianHawkeye]

I already boycott self-checkout stores, this just goes on the list of things I won't go to I guess.

I totally agree! I can't flirt with an automated checkout machine. I'm not a robosexual! :smallwink:

[Rynjin]

Am I the only one who hates this movie on execution alone? I want to say I haven't see it so I have no idea how good/bad the story is. However it seems to be another film that's biggest strength is it special effects. "Yeah, that's really good digital de-aging!" seems to be what everyone is saying. Like the ability to cast two people that look similar enough and are a few decades apart in terms of age and just having exposition saying one is a younger version of the other is something that's existed since the birth of cinema and is also sufficient. I'm just tired of the over abundance of CGI in films: digital de-aging, motion capturing to completely create a CGI character, green screens. Just make it animated if you have to go to those length.

I'm sure you're not the only person with an irrational hatred of something based on surface elements instead of content, but typically those kinds of opinions aren't valued very highly.

Thankfully general consensus is "movie bad" for a whole host of other reasons, so you can just throw this weird one on the pile of legitimate reasons to dislike the movie, which apparently include plot, pacing, and lack of originality.

...Pretty much like every Will Smith movie of the last 20 years.

[Psyren]

He had some decent ones in that time I'd say: Seven Pounds, Hancock, Hitch, I Am Legend. But the last of those was 2008 and it's been stinker after stinker since. And I am noooooot looking forward to the Bad Boys update.

[Rakaydos]

I thought it was an interesting twist on the "Youth and skill vs age and experience" trope, along with finally doing clones RIGHT. (younger version, not identical copy)

Seriously, name me another non-animated movie that does clones right?

[Peelee]

I thought it was an interesting twist on the "Youth and skill vs age and experience" trope, along with finally doing clones RIGHT. (younger version, not identical copy)

Seriously, name me another non-animated movie that does clones right?

There was some movie where the clones attacked, and they weren't identical...

[Magic_Hat]

...Pretty much like every Will Smith movie of the last 20 years.

Hey! I'd be offended by that if it wasn't 100% true!:smallwink::smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

I thought it was an interesting twist on the "Youth and skill vs age and experience" trope, along with finally doing clones RIGHT. (younger version, not identical copy)

Seriously, name me another non-animated movie that does clones right?

It depend on your definition of "clone":smalltongue: but even limiting it to just "biological/grown in a lab somewhere" there's Us, the Prestige, Blade Runner, and that Schwarzenegger movie The 6th Day that I liked quite a bit. And while cloning isn't the main plot of this one, I'd add Cloud Atlas in there.

If you broaden the definition to include time/reality duplicates as clones, the list gets a lot longer, including things like Looper, The One, Endgame etc.

[Kitten Champion]

It depend on your definition of "clone":smalltongue: but even limiting it to just "biological/grown in a lab somewhere" there's Us, the Prestige, Blade Runner, and that Schwarzenegger movie The 6th Day that I liked quite a bit. And while cloning isn't the main plot of this one, I'd add Cloud Atlas in there.

If you broaden the definition to include time/reality duplicates as clones, the list gets a lot longer, including things like Looper, The One, Endgame etc.

It was also the actual plot to Logan.

[Psyren]

Oh yeah, and isn't the Resident Evil franchise built around cloning?

Though I suppose he was asking for good examples :smallbiggrin:

[Kitten Champion]

Oh yeah, and isn't the Resident Evil franchise built around cloning?

Though I suppose he was asking for good examples :smallbiggrin:

Milla Jovovich gets cloned by the hundreds in one of them at least, but I don't think she ends up fighting any of them unless it happened in the last movie which I haven't seen.

Though Star Trek: Nemesis is another dud of a movie with the young clone/old experienced original premise.

[KillianHawkeye]

Milla Jovovich gets cloned by the hundreds in one of them at least, but I don't think she ends up fighting any of them unless it happened in the last movie which I haven't seen.

They all get killed in the opening scene of the next movie. But the last one reveals that even the original Alice we've been following all this time was a clone herself.

[Kitten Champion]

They all get killed in the opening scene of the next movie. But the last one reveals that even the original Alice we've been following all this time was a clone herself.

I've heard that in a summary - I believe it was on one of those "too stupid to actually exists" youtube videos - but does she end up fighting the original Alice in it? I wasn't given the impression that she was an antagonist.

[Starbuck_II]

I thought it was an interesting twist on the "Youth and skill vs age and experience" trope, along with finally doing clones RIGHT. (younger version, not identical copy)

Seriously, name me another non-animated movie that does clones right?

Replicas?
That one was really good.

[Magic_Hat]

Can we talk more about how digital de-aging is ruining films (either as serious complaints or wacky satire)? I personally can't wait for the live action Rugrats movie.:smallwink: Who should they cast in it?

[Peelee]

Can we talk more about how digital de-aging is ruining films (either as serious complaints or wacky satire)? I personally can't wait for the live action Rugrats movie.:smallwink: Who should they cast in it?

Ernest Borgnine for Tommy.

[The Glyphstone]

Can we talk more about how digital de-aging is ruining films (either as serious complaints or wacky satire)? I personally can't wait for the live action Rugrats movie.:smallwink: Who should they cast in it?

Nicholas Cage. For every role. Including Angelica.

[Magic_Hat]

Nicholas Cage. For every role. Including Angelica.

Makes sense to me. And who to direct?

[The Glyphstone]

Makes sense to me. And who to direct?

Do you have to ask?

Nicholas Cage.

[Magic_Hat]

Do you have to ask?

Nicholas Cage.

And the target demographic(s)?

Nicholas Cage?
And possibly literal cages named Nicolas?

[paddyfool]

I can think of one good film with clones in it (I don't count blade runner - replicants are something else again)... but if I named the film, I'd spoil the central plot twist :-S

[DataNinja]

I can think of one good film with clones in it (I don't count blade runner - replicants are something else again)... but if I named the film, I'd spoil the central plot twist :-S

Ooh, ooh, I bet it's Attack of the Clones. :smalltongue:

[Peelee]

I can think of one good film with clones in it (I don't count blade runner - replicants are something else again)... but if I named the film, I'd spoil the central plot twist :-S

Moon? Because Moon was fantastic.

[The Glyphstone]

And the target demographic(s)?

Nicholas Cage?
And possibly literal cages named Nicolas?

Whoever keeps buying tickets to his movies. Someone must be.

[paddyfool]

Moon? Because Moon was fantastic.

Correct :-)

[Peelee]

Correct :-)

I'm actually kind of upset now that I can't plug that movie in this thread, because it was so good and I never really heard that much about it. If I hadn't been working at a theater at the time I don't think I would have even known about it, much less seen it.