“Only The Brave” Pretty good watch, Intense Fire scenes. Emotional story.
Wait… are we talking “The Wicker Man” with Edward Woodward?
When I saw “Wickerman”, I was drawing a blank, thinking it to be a last-name movie, like “Locke” or “Rambo”.
Like Simon Wickerman, Certified Public Accountant or something. 
Anyhoo, been ages since I saw the OG, don’t think I saw the remake.
Correct, The Wicker Man with Mr Woodward. That movie is pretty far out there. We like to watch it once every couple years. My wife and I are 41, not sure how we ever came across it, but it’s a cult classic in our house!
It really is good despite the cover, poster and title being a bit of a spoiler. 
Wow, the new Snow White movie has a 1.6/10.0 on IMDb!
I’ll be skipping this one. 
Bladerunner 2049…
- long.
- quiet (mostly).
- never did get used to Gosling as a Bladerunner.
i hope the TV show will be better…
2 words: Rachel Zegler.
She singlehandedly zeglered that movie, which would’ve been dogshiite to begin with, but she made it a sure thing that no one would want to go see it.
She trashed her co-star Gail Godot at every turn, inserted politics into her Tick Tocks, alienated huge swaths of any potential viewing audience, shiite all over the original 1930s version of Snow White (“Weird… weird…”), and was just all-around intolerably obnoxious.
Never mind the CGIed nightmare-fuel freaks they call dwarves. Instead of hiring actual dwarves for the roles, they went the CGI route. Took away jobs from actors who right from the start have limited roles to play.
She literally said something along the lines that if you don’t agree with her or her views, then “unfollow” her and don’t watch her movies. And all too many people just said “A’ight…”.
To be fair, some good did actually come of the new “Snow White”: chat music.
There are 4 parts in total, added in turn, so look up the others, but the first is
Nah, I couldn’t leave youse hanging:
That should be all 4 parts (so far). Enjoy!
1 Thank
I would say that I hope that Disney will finally leave the classics alone and start making new stuff, but lazy cash-grabs are easy.
There are many things that are wrong with this movie, but casting a non-white actor in the role of a character called “Snow White”, so-named because of her “skin as white as snow” is a diversity hire too far. I’m all in favour of diversity where appropriate, but this is akin to casting a white actor in the lead of the next Black Panther movie.
1 Thank
Kinda like Wesley Snapes in the new Harry Potter remake.
Dewd’s described as “sallow” with “skin the color of sour milk”, and the drawing where JKR envisioned Snape looked almost exactly how Alan Rickman looked in the movies.
The dewd (Essiedu or something) they cast for the remake looks like he just came from Wakanda.
Like, c’mon… At least make the characters look slightly like the real deal.
Like people were saying, getting, say, Adam Driver to play him would’ve been an infinitely better choice.
But you’d think they’d learn? Nope.
You got this dogshiite “Snow White”, the last season of “Dr Who” with record-low ratings (thanks, RTD! you got what you wanted!), all the D’hisni “Star Wars” abortions, all the “Star Treks” since STD (appropriate initials), and so on.
Indy Jones gets turned into a feeble wreck of an old man so Gril Boss can punch some sense into him and lead the way.
Snow Brown don’t need no man (Zegler called The Prince in the original “a stalker”) and it’s all about her “agency” and leading a socialist revolt against The Queen.
ReeRee Whutsherface dumpster-dives in Tony Stark’s joint and is hailed as a genius for putting together his pilfered stuff to become The Iron Heart and outshine The Iron Man.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
They want to destroy all the original IP and remold it to reflect The Message™, and gear it to The Modern Audience™.
Only problem is, all those dozens and dozens of noisy activists in The Modern Audience™ ain’t plunking down the cash to fill those seats in theaters. The real fans, from old-timers in love with the OG Snow White story, to those teethed on the early Indy Jones movies, to the hardcore ST, SW, and DW fans, all hate those abominations, and aren’t ponying up the bux to go see it.
The stars, producers, writers, everybody involved in those things, are TELLING people that “if you don’t like it, don’t buy it / see it / watch it / play it”. And y’know what? All those OG fans listened.
So we get IMDB ratings of 1.6, record-low box-office takes, record-low viewership, and then they all go Surprised Pinkachu Face when they flop.
Duuuh.
Oh, and cherry on top, “Snow White” was rereleased this past weekend for Mother’s Day Weekend to try to milk some more cash from it, it was just as much a flop now as then. Might be waaay off on the numbers from memory, but it averaged only something like 200bux/theater in the 1500 or so theaters it was in.
Contrast?
“Mario Bros.” Kinda goofball movie. not my thing, but made for fans, and it paid off hugely.
“Minecraft”. Objectively a sort of terrible movie, but again, made for fans, who loved it, filled theaters, and made it a hit.
“B’harbi”. Made for chicks, strong feminist message, but it all worked, and women loved it and even men who saw it liked it.
(Of course, I could sit for hours and just watch a movie of Margot Robbie reading from a phone-book, but that’s just me. 
)
Movies should entertain, not preach. People don’t want to go to a movie and feel like they’re being preached at, or berated, or guilted. And “entertain” doesn’t always mean happy happy joy joy. “Private Ryan”, “Sophie’s Choice”, “Brian’s Song”, etc., weren’t exactly bedtime stories, but they’re Highly Regarded because they told a story, and told it well.
Wellp, I’m just a voice crying out in a desert… or yelling at clouds. Don’t care which.
Peace.
Adam Driver would have been an excellent choice for Snape, although I think anyone following Alan Rickman in that role is going to have an uphill battle. I agree that the casting choice seems an odd one based on the description of Snape. TBH I can’t see how the TV series is going to improve on the movies anyway.
With the caveat that I’ve not watched the last season of Dr Who yet, given that he’s a character that periodically regenerates into an entirely new body I have no problem with the casting of Ncuti Gatwa, nor did I with Jodie Whittaker. Whether the storylines are up to par remains to be seen, but The Doctor changing race or gender is entirely within the realm of canon. According to an interview with Tom Baker they mooted the idea of the next Doctor after him being female back then.
As for Indiana Jones and Star Wars, in both cases I only recognise the existence of the original trilogy. Although I will give an honourable mention to Rogue One.
The problem with the last Dr Who is that, okay, take the scene where Tennant refers to that muppet or whatever it is, then gets berated with “Why do you assume it’s a ‘he’? Why don’t you ask for his pronouns?”, then The Muppet says that yeah, he’s a they/them. Uhhhh, ooookay.
He’s a freaking Time Lord and they totally cuck him.
Contrast that to The One Word Test, The Time-Lord Victorious, Daleks and Cybermen verbally bitch-slapping each other, The Empty Child, The Weeping Angels, Dalek In Chains, Anyone For Dodgems?, all the classic and even chilling scenes.
It’s like classic Shakespeare devolving into a bad Benny Hill skit.
The Jodi Whittaker season basically turned into Scooby-Doo! with The Scooby Gang following her. Didn’t bother watching all that much of it when that became apparent.
To me, DW ended with Peter Capaldi being The Last Doctor.
1 Thank
The most widely printed books nobody has ever heard of.
I’ve read the first 50 or so.
Hello is alright.
How shall you die?
All the Best, Jeff
The Destroyer
I’m a very casual enjoyer of Harry Potter since I haven’t read the books and have only seen the movies a couple times. That being said, Adam Driver would have been a fantastic Snape.
@Lightbringer
TBH I don’t think that the movie would have been a roaring success even if Zegler had never said anything. Disney made a lot of bad choices, and now they are essentially using their young foolish star as a scapegoat. She didn’t do herself or Disney any favors, but the list of bad decisions by Disney can’t be undererstated
- Cast actress who doesn’t match the iconic character description
- Retcon said classic story to try and explain away the bad casting decision
- Eliminate jobs for little people by replacing the dwarves with CGI which looks instantly dated
- Downplay the traditional elements of the happily-ever-after story in marketing
- Cast actress more classically beautiful than the lead to play the Queen
- Cast actress who can’t really act to play the villain in a big budget production
Bottom line is, Disney wants to tell little girls that they don’t need to get married and have kids to be happy. The problem is they keep trying to do it using the Disney Princess brand.
Disney princesses exist in sanitized versions of the stories they come from. They overcome some obstacles and/or get rescued, and then they get married and live happily ever after. The stories are feel-good-fluff with roots in the past. This is what moviegoers want and expect when they go see a Disney princess movie.
Cinderella is from the 1600s, Snow White was recorded in 1812 but existed in oral tradition before that. These stories are time capsules and that’s o.k. Sometimes people want to be reminded of how things used to be. Can you make a modern adaption of these stories that’s good? Probably, but it wouldn’t really be the same story anymore.
I wish Disney would instead make PG13 or R adaptions of the Grimm versions. They shouldn’t exaggerate anything, just add back the elements they removed to make them kid friendly. They should be period-accurate windows into the past. I think the stories work better in the times they were created, for example a modern day Cinderella could escape her situations in any number of ways while a 1600s Cinderella would have been had much worse options.
1 Thank
Wellp, as far as adapting a story to modern times (vs to The Modern Audience™), it can be done, but very very carefully.
Eg, there was… don’t think it was “Macbeth” but “Hamlet” instead, which took place in more modern times. Eg, instead of swords, there were guns, and inside the house were surveillance cameras, etc.
When I first heard that, I was like “are you f’n kidding me??”, but I watched it, and it was really good.
Of course, having Patrick Stewart and I think David Tennant in it certainly helped. On the surface, it was a sort of dystopian almost “Dune”-like setting.
I gotta grab a copy of that and rewatch it…
So yeah, changing details, settings, etc., to fit a more “modern” time is doable, as long as they don’t change the f’n story or characters. And ABSOLUTELY don’t twist and mangle the story to fit some New Narrative.
Ah, here we go…
1 Thank
The new Netflix movie Nonnas.
That rendition of Hamlet sounds interesting. 3 hrs, wow!
I think some stories are more adaptable to a modern setting than others. But as I go over my reasoning against adapting some folk tales, I realize I may be I’m trying to argue against adaptions moreso because Disney’s efforts have left a bad taste in my mouth lol
Still, all that money and studios never just tell the original story–it always has to have a twist…that’s a little annoying. Even this French version of Beauty and the Beast adds a bunch of extraneous stuff in, they just can’t help themselves. (not a terrible movie though)
It was interesting, but too depressing for me. I’ve heard people criticize the realism too stating that it was more concerned with making drugs look bad than with being accurate
1 Thank