Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Movie Mash-Up


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

At least someone's playing.  I've got to give to props to George.  

Yes it is Sandy Bullock.  Section, sequence, or whatever you want to call them 1 is Miss Congeniality.  And number 4 was Demolition Man.  The other two I picked because they were imo her most popular and the other was her most recent film.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Human without the bean said:

At least someone's playing.  I've got to give to props to George.

Yes it is Sandy Bullock.  Section, sequence, or whatever you want to call them 1 is Miss Congeniality.  And number 4 was Demolition Man.  The other two I picked because they were imo her most popular and the other was her most recent film.   

The first post says this is for threads with "clues to a movie."  Forgive me if I'm not at my best when the round isn't with "clues to a movie." I also hate looking anything up and will wait for some sort of follow-up clue since that actually allows me to play rather than look up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that we've all stretched the rules, once or twice.  :rolleyes:

 

I didn't think of this movie as a "coming of age" story, although most of the characters are young adults.  Apparently, the producer and director saw it that way, however, and required the cast to watch a John Hughes marathon, in preparation for their roles.

The main villain of the film has played villainous roles before (to some acclaim); but he is probably better remembered for portraying an iconic hero.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2018 at 10:07 AM, WordWolf said:

The first post says this is for threads with "clues to a movie."  Forgive me if I'm not at my best when the round isn't with "clues to a movie." I also hate looking anything up and will wait for some sort of follow-up clue since that actually allows me to play rather than look up. 

Yeah I know WordWolf I often wait for a couple of days or more for anything resembling a response .  At that point I will then allocate the time needed for continuing on with the post.  That's what I did.  I gave another clue, two in fact.  I gave George his props (what is props short for anyway?  proper something?  Maybe), because he at least kept going forward.  That's what I like to see. 

  After a while, I usually just stop with more continuation of clues because no one is playing.  Hell, I spoon feed lots of time's just to get a response.  It's gets really old then.  I've said that before, rather than sit there and cross the days off the calendar, instead of that, play along or put I don't know or something so that it lets me know someone is playing and then I would play.  So, to your point WordWolf I left more clues, so why are barking up this tree? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2018 at 12:56 AM, Human without the bean said:

At least someone's playing.  I've got to give to props to George.  

Yes it is Sandy Bullock.  Section, sequence, or whatever you want to call them 1 is Miss Congeniality.  And number 4 was Demolition Man.  The other two I picked because they were imo her most popular and the other was her most recent film.   

For follow up then, Sandy Bullock's in her most popular movie imo, (at least in recent memory) and that is movie # 2 The Proposal and since hollywood paired heartthrob Ryan Reynolds with the aging Bullock and throw in Betty White and you have a hit movie.  Then, she had her most recent film which was movie # 3 Blind Side and she received an Academy Award for her performance.

So there you  go.  No one took this round.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Human without the bean said:

So there you  go.  No one took this round.  

I assumed you gave it to me as being the closest.  Assuming I may continue,

I didn't think of this movie as a "coming of age" story, although most of the characters are young adults.  Apparently, the producer and director saw it that way, however, and required the cast to watch a John Hughes marathon, in preparation for their roles.

The main villain of the film has played villainous roles before (to some acclaim); but he is probably better remembered for portraying an iconic hero.


In the comics, the hero spends a lot of time in introspection.  Since thought balloons don't work in movies, and it would seem creepy for the character to talk to himself, he was given a handheld computer to take the place of half of his inner dialogue.

George

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think of this movie as a "coming of age" story, although most of the characters are young adults.  Apparently, the producer and director saw it that way, however, and required the cast to watch a John Hughes marathon, in preparation for their roles.

The main villain of the film has played villainous roles before (to some acclaim); but he is probably better remembered for portraying an iconic hero.


In the comics, the hero spends a lot of time in introspection.  Since thought balloons don't work in movies, and it would seem creepy for the character to talk to himself, he was given a handheld computer to take the place of half of his inner dialogue.

CGI made the main character much more like the comic-book version of him in this movie than in previous movies.

The star was 19 when cast, younger than the "old men" (25 and 26) who had the role, previously.

 

George

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
8 hours ago, WordWolf said:

Ok, computer talking to someone instead of internal monologues finally rang a bell.

Is this "SPIDER MAN-HOMECOMING"?   And is it worth seeing?

Yes, and Yes.  (If you haven't seen the movie, how did you know about the computer?)

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2018 at 10:43 AM, GeorgeStGeorge said:

Yes, and Yes.  (If you haven't seen the movie, how did you know about the computer?)

George

In "Before and After", I linked up "Spider-Man-HomeComing to America." I read the IMDb page looking for ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-There's a title that's shared by 2 movies-which is fair since they're 2 different versions of the same story. The 2nd version was directed by Frank Oz.  The 1st included Jack Nicholson among the cast. 

-None of the endings of the story were incredibly happy. However, in the original, one of the main characters survives, and in the 2nd, 2 of them do (but their future looks endangered.)  The 2nd one had an ending that was trashed and never made it past the test audiences-  everybody died, and the Earth was invaded, quite successfully (complete with the theater audience among the casualties, with a 4th wall break.) 

-Many people forget (or don't know) there was an original version, which was a black-and-white. In that one (made on a shoestring budget of about $30,000 US), they used a clip of a full moon as a cutaway to bridge 2 scenes that didn't link properly.  20 years later, they were shocked to read an 8-page magazine article about the significance of the  moon in that movie.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, WordWolf said:

-There's a title that's shared by 2 movies-which is fair since they're 2 different versions of the same story. The 2nd version was directed by Frank Oz.  The 1st included Jack Nicholson among the cast. 

-None of the endings of the story were incredibly happy. However, in the original, one of the main characters survives, and in the 2nd, 2 of them do (but their future looks endangered.)  The 2nd one had an ending that was trashed and never made it past the test audiences-  everybody died, and the Earth was invaded, quite successfully (complete with the theater audience among the casualties, with a 4th wall break.) 

-Many people forget (or don't know) there was an original version, which was a black-and-white. In that one (made on a shoestring budget of about $30,000 US), they used a clip of a full moon as a cutaway to bridge 2 scenes that didn't link properly.  20 years later, they were shocked to read an 8-page magazine article about the significance of the  moon in that movie.

 

Roger Corman's original was in black-and-white on a shoestring budget, and a young Nicholson was in the cast.  The woman "Audrey" survived that, but no other main character did.

Later, there was a musical, and a movie of the musical. Frank Oz directed it.  That had Steve Martin as a dentist.  In that movie, the couple survives, but we see a bud of the same plant where they settle down.   The test audiences saw one where the plants-which were aliens in all versions AFAIK-  overran the Earth and broke the 4th wall attacking through the movie screen.  

The idea of someone overthinking elements from books and movies is common.  "Deep thinkers" can go on for pages on something that was a whim or an accident, according to the author.  And yes, many people don't know there was a b-&-w original by Corman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The title character of the film has been around since 1998, in various media.

A TV version had a star who, IMHO, was much more true to the character than the movie star.

The movie's original title was too similar to "Hellboy," which came out about the same time.  This was thought to be likely to hurt ticket sales, so the title was changed.

The look of Hell was based on old footage of nuclear tests, specifically the sudden shockwave immediately after the blast that disintegrated anything in its path, hence the crumbling landscape.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The title character of the film has been around since 1998, in various media.

A TV version had a star who, IMHO, was much more true to the character than the movie star.

The movie's original title was too similar to "Hellboy," which came out about the same time.  This was thought to be likely to hurt ticket sales, so the title was changed.

The look of Hell was based on old footage of nuclear tests, specifically the sudden shockwave immediately after the blast that disintegrated anything in its path, hence the crumbling landscape.

Kevin Spacey and Mel Gibson were touted for the title role, but it went to a younger (but still quite well-known) actor.

The tattoo on the star's arms is the alchemical symbol of the Red King, which was worn (by him) for protection. It is "the fire triangle with three radiating arrows below represents the 'Perfect Red King,' the Sulfur of the Philosophers."

According to an interview with The A.V. Club published on August 28, 2017, Peter Stormare came up with his own costume design for the appearance of Lucifer - the off white linen suit with tar dripping down from his feet are specifically mentioned. The producer and director had initially wanted "leather pants, bare-chested...a dog collar with spikes" and tattoos over Stormare's face and chest.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The title character of the film has been around since 1998, in various media.

A TV version had a star who, IMHO, was much more true to the character than the movie star.

The movie's original title was too similar to "Hellboy," which came out about the same time.  This was thought to be likely to hurt ticket sales, so the title was changed.

The look of Hell was based on old footage of nuclear tests, specifically the sudden shockwave immediately after the blast that disintegrated anything in its path, hence the crumbling landscape.

Kevin Spacey and Mel Gibson were touted for the title role, but it went to a younger (but still quite well-known) actor.

The tattoo on the star's arms is the alchemical symbol of the Red King, which was worn (by him) for protection. It is "the fire triangle with three radiating arrows below represents the 'Perfect Red King,' the Sulfur of the Philosophers."

According to an interview with The A.V. Club published on August 28, 2017, Peter Stormare came up with his own costume design for the appearance of Lucifer - the off white linen suit with tar dripping down from his feet are specifically mentioned. The producer and director had initially wanted "leather pants, bare-chested...a dog collar with spikes" and tattoos over Stormare's face and chest.

In addition to the title role, the movie stars Rachael Weisz, Shia Lebeouf, Peter Stormare, Djimon Hounsou, and Tilda Swinton.

When the title character attempts suicide, he cuts his left wrist, and Lucifer reaches out to claim him with his left hand, in keeping with the traditional depiction of the left ("sinister") side being associated with evil.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Constantine" is correct.  "1998" was a typo.  I meant "1988," which is when "Hellblazer" appeared, though, as you point out, Constantine first appeared in Swamp Thing in 1984.

"Hellblazer" was thought to be too similar to "Hellboy," so "Contantine" was picked as the title.

I REALLY prefer Matt Ryan's take to Keanu Reeves's.

You're up!

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...