So Mike Henry in an interview recently said "It is Family Guy with a big heart and not as vicious with celebrities"
Great so the show is not only what i predicted before, but it's a safer alternative. This is what's wrong with Seth McFarlane today is that he's going soft in the head, that just because family guy was perfectly marketable, he then decides to make an even safer show to make it even more marketable (like the Simpsons, but lame). I'm sure that the writing will still be funny, but It just seems that it just seems to be there.
1) Not to up-set African Americans who have complained about the lack of black people in Family Guys
2) To do what most Hollywood movies do; sell happy meals. I'm not saying that the Cleveland show will be marketed at a child's audience, but certainly a younger audience making it more safe, and more marketable.
Seth: I want you to stand in the corner and think about what you have done, and then apologise.
Sunday, 28 September 2008
Resident Evil 5 (update)
Well according to Power Unlimited we have some interesting facts for RE5:
- The story will tell who Chris Redfield really is, what he has been doing for the past ten years and the nature of his relationships with the other characters.
- Chris Redfield helped establish the Bioterrorism Security Assessment Alliance (BSAA) after the Raccoon City incident in 1998.
- Much of the story will be told as flashbacks.
- The BSAA has branches all over the world, but the executive decisions – like sending Chris to Africa – are made from the USA.
- Sheva Alomar is part of the West African branch of the BSAA
- Weapons are supplied to Chris and Sheva by Kralin, an ex-BSAA member who is attempting to flee the city with the BirdWoman.
- The guy with the megaphone in the trailer is the richest man in the village and so be default their leader. He is funding the construction seen.
- Wesker will appear about 5% into the game.
- Sherry Birkin will appear in substantially more of the game. - The following characters will not appear in the game: Jill, Barry, Claire, Billy and Leon.
- Chris and Sheva will face many relationship difficulties.
- The game will take 15 hours to finish and will have 8 hours of cut-scenes… hopefully in addition to the 15 hours.
- Capcom want Resident Evil 5 to be the best looking game of 2009.
- There is a big emphasis on puzzles, many of which a co-op based.
- Co-op drop in and drop-out is confirmed.
- There will be one hour of solo Chris gameplay before you meet Sheva.
- No mirages and heat/cold features in the game.
- Flashbacks are not playable.
- There are 30 weapons in the game, 20 for Chris and 10 for Sheva.
- You can use the chainsaw, once you have acquired it from the final fight with Moreso.
Some of this news is good; some of it is VERY bad indeed. For example one part of the article says that most of the game will consist of flashbacks. However another part of the article says the flashbacks will not be playable. I know that MGS4 had a lot of cut scenes but when the article says most of the story will consist of flashbacks it's hard to see if there will be much of a future storyline. I mean I agree; some flashback should consist of just video, however some flashbacks would be awesome to play through, and would add something just that little bit nicer. The fact you can use the chainsaw is just awesome, however I think that this will not make it in the final build, because one build of RE4 for the PS2 did in fact have an unlockable chainsaw weapon, however it was cut due to Leon being a protagonist, and the fact he shouldn't sink to the level of a chainsaw wielding maniac, also the fact that it may have raised the age level to an 18, it certainly would not have made it in the German version of the game.
It is nice to know that (probably after Umbrella went under, Chris started the BSAA, I reckon there will be a tie in with Resident Evil: Degeneration.
It is interesting that the "BirrdWoman" may be an ally, as this guy is supplying you with weapons (aka a new Merchant). We now know what the Merchant System will be. However I still don't know if the "BirdWoman" can be trusted?
"Wesker will appear about 5% into the game." I think the meant 5% in the game, so I guess that means the final 5% of the game, and not 5% into the game. this confirms my assumption that Wesker will yet again be in mini/separate ways type games too, which is predictable. Capcom have a villain that they seem to be recycling more that Bowser and Dr Robotnik.
It's in one way a relief that the previous STARS members will not appear; but I REALLY want Barry to appear GOD FUCKING DAMN IT! However maybe they may have a surprise ending with Barry rescuing your ass?! Please, lets hope so!
There are other positive notes such as more emphasis on Puzzles, many of them being co-op based (online).
However the fact that the game is only 15 hours on your first playthrough is quite sad, it is said there is 8 hours of storyline, however that may or may NOT be included in the 15 hour game time. Last time RE4's first playthrough was around 20+ hours, I appreciate the 8 hours of storyline, but only 15 hours of gameplay?! They better have some damn fine extra modes!
So altogether I've been given a small amount of faith with this game, but I've also seen a lot of negative or predictable things too, which means this game is a one step forward 2 steps back kind of game.
This is Anonymous Gamer signing off:
You stay classy Internets
- The story will tell who Chris Redfield really is, what he has been doing for the past ten years and the nature of his relationships with the other characters.
- Chris Redfield helped establish the Bioterrorism Security Assessment Alliance (BSAA) after the Raccoon City incident in 1998.
- Much of the story will be told as flashbacks.
- The BSAA has branches all over the world, but the executive decisions – like sending Chris to Africa – are made from the USA.
- Sheva Alomar is part of the West African branch of the BSAA
- Weapons are supplied to Chris and Sheva by Kralin, an ex-BSAA member who is attempting to flee the city with the BirdWoman.
- The guy with the megaphone in the trailer is the richest man in the village and so be default their leader. He is funding the construction seen.
- Wesker will appear about 5% into the game.
- Sherry Birkin will appear in substantially more of the game. - The following characters will not appear in the game: Jill, Barry, Claire, Billy and Leon.
- Chris and Sheva will face many relationship difficulties.
- The game will take 15 hours to finish and will have 8 hours of cut-scenes… hopefully in addition to the 15 hours.
- Capcom want Resident Evil 5 to be the best looking game of 2009.
- There is a big emphasis on puzzles, many of which a co-op based.
- Co-op drop in and drop-out is confirmed.
- There will be one hour of solo Chris gameplay before you meet Sheva.
- No mirages and heat/cold features in the game.
- Flashbacks are not playable.
- There are 30 weapons in the game, 20 for Chris and 10 for Sheva.
- You can use the chainsaw, once you have acquired it from the final fight with Moreso.
Some of this news is good; some of it is VERY bad indeed. For example one part of the article says that most of the game will consist of flashbacks. However another part of the article says the flashbacks will not be playable. I know that MGS4 had a lot of cut scenes but when the article says most of the story will consist of flashbacks it's hard to see if there will be much of a future storyline. I mean I agree; some flashback should consist of just video, however some flashbacks would be awesome to play through, and would add something just that little bit nicer. The fact you can use the chainsaw is just awesome, however I think that this will not make it in the final build, because one build of RE4 for the PS2 did in fact have an unlockable chainsaw weapon, however it was cut due to Leon being a protagonist, and the fact he shouldn't sink to the level of a chainsaw wielding maniac, also the fact that it may have raised the age level to an 18, it certainly would not have made it in the German version of the game.
It is nice to know that (probably after Umbrella went under, Chris started the BSAA, I reckon there will be a tie in with Resident Evil: Degeneration.
It is interesting that the "BirrdWoman" may be an ally, as this guy is supplying you with weapons (aka a new Merchant). We now know what the Merchant System will be. However I still don't know if the "BirdWoman" can be trusted?
"Wesker will appear about 5% into the game." I think the meant 5% in the game, so I guess that means the final 5% of the game, and not 5% into the game. this confirms my assumption that Wesker will yet again be in mini/separate ways type games too, which is predictable. Capcom have a villain that they seem to be recycling more that Bowser and Dr Robotnik.
It's in one way a relief that the previous STARS members will not appear; but I REALLY want Barry to appear GOD FUCKING DAMN IT! However maybe they may have a surprise ending with Barry rescuing your ass?! Please, lets hope so!
There are other positive notes such as more emphasis on Puzzles, many of them being co-op based (online).
However the fact that the game is only 15 hours on your first playthrough is quite sad, it is said there is 8 hours of storyline, however that may or may NOT be included in the 15 hour game time. Last time RE4's first playthrough was around 20+ hours, I appreciate the 8 hours of storyline, but only 15 hours of gameplay?! They better have some damn fine extra modes!
So altogether I've been given a small amount of faith with this game, but I've also seen a lot of negative or predictable things too, which means this game is a one step forward 2 steps back kind of game.
This is Anonymous Gamer signing off:
You stay classy InternetsSaturday, 27 September 2008
RIP Paul Newman
Well Paul, you died yesterday, Rest in Peace. You entertained me gretaly throught your life...
(Paul Newman died aged 83[January 26, 1925 - September 26 2008)
(Paul Newman died aged 83[January 26, 1925 - September 26 2008)
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Resident Evil Wimake
So Capcom announced via Famitsu, that Japan will be getting a Wii edition of the Gamcube remake. Yet again with the same control scheme that they had for the Resident Evil 0 Wii Edition. Which was unchanged and hand completely no control difference.
Just give us either a brand new title that ties in with RE5 OR get us a remake of RE2 with wiiremote controls, there is NO point in repackaging the same game WITHOUT anything different, especially when the game is over 6 years old. Jesus christ...
Capcom; you officially suck.
I appologise for the lack of depth to this preview/review, bu there isn't much depth to Capcom's thinking....
Just give us either a brand new title that ties in with RE5 OR get us a remake of RE2 with wiiremote controls, there is NO point in repackaging the same game WITHOUT anything different, especially when the game is over 6 years old. Jesus christ...
Capcom; you officially suck.
I appologise for the lack of depth to this preview/review, bu there isn't much depth to Capcom's thinking....
Monday, 22 September 2008
Hollywood has gone too far!
THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE!
Ok, so I can cope with all those 80's remakes. But when a 1968 children's classic; Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was announced that a remake could be on its way this stops me in my tacks. I think why?! This means that they are going to pull another Willy Wonka?!
Now I'm asked If I liked Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and if I think It's better than the original, but I can't say it's anything like the original, one is a musical, one is a film adaptation, you can't compare. I must admit that the new one didn't seem to have that magic that the musical one did, however it did have more scenes from the book compared to the original (which Roald Dahl hated). I do own both on DVD, and although the film is no way a masterpiece It isn't the worse interpretation of the book, it still had some pretty scary stuff for children like those squirrels dragging that girl to her doom. if I was a kid I'd be scared of squirrels.
Squirrels are the enemy, they must be killed!
Anyway Chitty Chitty Bang Bang doesn't need an update, nor did Willy Wonka, it's a timeless classic and shouldn't be remade. What is it about 'today's audience' which is apparently so obsessed with having everything aesthetically pleasing and so very plastic? What is wrong with the restoration technique that Disney uses on their classic films? I mean it's like remaking snow white, and using Pixar to do it. It just doesn't work, and should never be done!!!!
This is equal to having a remake of Alien or Terminator, Or Citizen Kane or even Jaws, there are hundreds more films, but then my blog post would be too long.
Why do 'today's audience' care more on how a film looks rather that what a film is? What have we done with our kids? I mean I grew up with Chitty and I never thought that the film was lame. Neither should kids now, and to be honest I don't think kids do care. If the Star Wars prequels never came out would there be a rush of kids demanding prequels?! Would all these reboots and re-imagings of older movies be missed if the never happened, the answer is no. The real answer is that Hollywood is really lacking in true writers, and true talent. To get a Hollywood film which is at a high standard really takes a long time, and I think 98% of Hollywood’s talent really should not be in film until they realise their faults of mashing they keys on a keyboard until the letters fall in a place where something seems to make some sort of sense. We have directors which rely heavily on chroma key technology and CGI, and misuse them as the tools they should be used as, and just add CGI because it's flavour of the month. They concentrate on making the film look good, and not on if the film has the actors for the job, or if the story is worth telling. We have actors that look pretty, but can't act for fuck.
So why is this? Simply; cost. You do a shitty script because it's usually cheaper (not true look at all the classic films that were done on little to no budget), you hire either a famous director who's losing their edge because it attracts fanboys to see the movie, or you hire a cheap director with little to nothing in his portfolio to prove themselves, you rely on green screens and CGI, because somehow CGI has become less expensive that doing things for real, even though doing things for real looks and feels better. All because of the budget. Well if they put money on a film which would actually be good rather than some generic marketable bullshit then maybe the industry wouldn't be in so much trouble with piracy etc.
So on with the news of a Chitty remake:
Michael G Wilson, who co-owns the rights to the story, told The Sunday Telegraph
"There may be a new film of Chitty, we will have to see"
That's just bullshit, you already got the stage version, why go for a new version? Just so you can sell Happy Meals, shitty computer game editions, DVD and blu-ray discs, and just for fun rape our childhoods. Our assholes are sore from all these reboots/remakes/ re-imagings, stop my ass can't take much more of a pounding!!!!
Waving Goodbye to sanity; the original Chitty Cast must be pissed off.
Ok, so I can cope with all those 80's remakes. But when a 1968 children's classic; Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was announced that a remake could be on its way this stops me in my tacks. I think why?! This means that they are going to pull another Willy Wonka?!
Now I'm asked If I liked Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and if I think It's better than the original, but I can't say it's anything like the original, one is a musical, one is a film adaptation, you can't compare. I must admit that the new one didn't seem to have that magic that the musical one did, however it did have more scenes from the book compared to the original (which Roald Dahl hated). I do own both on DVD, and although the film is no way a masterpiece It isn't the worse interpretation of the book, it still had some pretty scary stuff for children like those squirrels dragging that girl to her doom. if I was a kid I'd be scared of squirrels.
Squirrels are the enemy, they must be killed!Anyway Chitty Chitty Bang Bang doesn't need an update, nor did Willy Wonka, it's a timeless classic and shouldn't be remade. What is it about 'today's audience' which is apparently so obsessed with having everything aesthetically pleasing and so very plastic? What is wrong with the restoration technique that Disney uses on their classic films? I mean it's like remaking snow white, and using Pixar to do it. It just doesn't work, and should never be done!!!!
This is equal to having a remake of Alien or Terminator, Or Citizen Kane or even Jaws, there are hundreds more films, but then my blog post would be too long.
Why do 'today's audience' care more on how a film looks rather that what a film is? What have we done with our kids? I mean I grew up with Chitty and I never thought that the film was lame. Neither should kids now, and to be honest I don't think kids do care. If the Star Wars prequels never came out would there be a rush of kids demanding prequels?! Would all these reboots and re-imagings of older movies be missed if the never happened, the answer is no. The real answer is that Hollywood is really lacking in true writers, and true talent. To get a Hollywood film which is at a high standard really takes a long time, and I think 98% of Hollywood’s talent really should not be in film until they realise their faults of mashing they keys on a keyboard until the letters fall in a place where something seems to make some sort of sense. We have directors which rely heavily on chroma key technology and CGI, and misuse them as the tools they should be used as, and just add CGI because it's flavour of the month. They concentrate on making the film look good, and not on if the film has the actors for the job, or if the story is worth telling. We have actors that look pretty, but can't act for fuck.
So why is this? Simply; cost. You do a shitty script because it's usually cheaper (not true look at all the classic films that were done on little to no budget), you hire either a famous director who's losing their edge because it attracts fanboys to see the movie, or you hire a cheap director with little to nothing in his portfolio to prove themselves, you rely on green screens and CGI, because somehow CGI has become less expensive that doing things for real, even though doing things for real looks and feels better. All because of the budget. Well if they put money on a film which would actually be good rather than some generic marketable bullshit then maybe the industry wouldn't be in so much trouble with piracy etc.
So on with the news of a Chitty remake:
Michael G Wilson, who co-owns the rights to the story, told The Sunday Telegraph
"There may be a new film of Chitty, we will have to see"
That's just bullshit, you already got the stage version, why go for a new version? Just so you can sell Happy Meals, shitty computer game editions, DVD and blu-ray discs, and just for fun rape our childhoods. Our assholes are sore from all these reboots/remakes/ re-imagings, stop my ass can't take much more of a pounding!!!!
Waving Goodbye to sanity; the original Chitty Cast must be pissed off.Friday, 19 September 2008
Robocop (Update)
Apparently Darren Aronofsky will adapt Robocop. Not only that but it will have little to do with the original series.
"What I like...is that Hollywood is making big films right now and I’ve always had an interest in that. The thing I like about Robocop is that it’s not as iconic as those other titles, and I think that fans of it will be open to reinterpretation. And yet a studio will probably back it because it’s got that tentpole feeling to it"
Aronofsky is not the first choice I'd imagine for adapting/directing the reboot of Robocop, and to be fair I think that's a good thing. However the first Robocop rocked, and I hope that they don't fuck thing too much in the ear. Sure a reimaging could have the minute chance of being good; but it has a very high chance of falling flat on it's face, much like Rob Zombie's "reimaging" of Halloween.
I hope to god they keep in all the plot elements that made the first movie such a great one. Such as Murphy's hideous demise at the beginning of the film, and the ED-209 makes a comeback, along with other iconic moments. I don't have much hope in this "reimaging." HOWEVER I think it is a clever/brave move to change the film, where most reboots/remake/reimagings try and fail at making someone elses hard work look like their own.
"What I like...is that Hollywood is making big films right now and I’ve always had an interest in that. The thing I like about Robocop is that it’s not as iconic as those other titles, and I think that fans of it will be open to reinterpretation. And yet a studio will probably back it because it’s got that tentpole feeling to it"
Aronofsky is not the first choice I'd imagine for adapting/directing the reboot of Robocop, and to be fair I think that's a good thing. However the first Robocop rocked, and I hope that they don't fuck thing too much in the ear. Sure a reimaging could have the minute chance of being good; but it has a very high chance of falling flat on it's face, much like Rob Zombie's "reimaging" of Halloween.
I hope to god they keep in all the plot elements that made the first movie such a great one. Such as Murphy's hideous demise at the beginning of the film, and the ED-209 makes a comeback, along with other iconic moments. I don't have much hope in this "reimaging." HOWEVER I think it is a clever/brave move to change the film, where most reboots/remake/reimagings try and fail at making someone elses hard work look like their own.
Monday, 15 September 2008
Ghostbusters 3 (update)
Harold Rammis has said to The Chicago Tribune
"Yes, columbia is developing a script for GB3 with my year one writing partners, Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg. judd apatow is co-producing year one and has made several other films for Sony, so of course the studio is hoping to tap into some of the same acting talent. Aykroyd, Ivan Reitman and I are consulting at this point, and according to Dan, Bill Murray is willing to be involved on some level. he did record his dialogue for the new Ghostbusters video game, as did Danny and I, and Ernie Hudson. The concept is that the old Ghostbusters would appear in the film in some mentor capacity. Not much else to say at this point. Everyone is confident a decent script can be written and I guess we'll take it from there."
Well all I can say Is shit. It looks like minimum involvement from the original guys, but in a way this is a good thing. Say this does end up like Crystal Skull; that means that we can blame the writers and the producers etc because they are NOT the original cast and crew. It means my faith in Dan, Harold, Bill and Ernie can still be kept in tact. I am pretty excited when I read Mr Impossible Bill Murray would be involved 'at some level' jesus, getting him to act now is harder than getting George Lucas to be a good writer/producer....
"Yes, columbia is developing a script for GB3 with my year one writing partners, Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg. judd apatow is co-producing year one and has made several other films for Sony, so of course the studio is hoping to tap into some of the same acting talent. Aykroyd, Ivan Reitman and I are consulting at this point, and according to Dan, Bill Murray is willing to be involved on some level. he did record his dialogue for the new Ghostbusters video game, as did Danny and I, and Ernie Hudson. The concept is that the old Ghostbusters would appear in the film in some mentor capacity. Not much else to say at this point. Everyone is confident a decent script can be written and I guess we'll take it from there."
Well all I can say Is shit. It looks like minimum involvement from the original guys, but in a way this is a good thing. Say this does end up like Crystal Skull; that means that we can blame the writers and the producers etc because they are NOT the original cast and crew. It means my faith in Dan, Harold, Bill and Ernie can still be kept in tact. I am pretty excited when I read Mr Impossible Bill Murray would be involved 'at some level' jesus, getting him to act now is harder than getting George Lucas to be a good writer/producer....
Thursday, 11 September 2008
Dead Rising (update)
Apparently according to Aussie-Nintendo. Christian Svensson, Corporate Officer/VP of Strategic Planning & Business Development at Capcom has said
"Take the car underground, day 2-3, run em down.. you’ll see several hundred rendered in scene," he boasted. "I can’t quote you exact numbers because I don’t know what they are. But it’s a hell of a lot."
You should be ashamed of yourself Spiderman
"Take the car underground, day 2-3, run em down.. you’ll see several hundred rendered in scene," he boasted. "I can’t quote you exact numbers because I don’t know what they are. But it’s a hell of a lot."
Does this mean the pitiful ammount of Zombies seen in the first demo have been corrected, or is it just on day 2-3? Or is it just in the parking garrage? I just don't get it. I so want to see what they have done since the last demo because it seems they may have made some improvments. However just because they have raised the ammount of Zombies doesn't mean they have a good game. They have mentioned NOTHING about improving graphics, or sound or gameplay, some of the few compliants I had last time. So far it seems that Dead Rising: Chop 'Till You Drop could be another Spiderman 3 (Wii); a big fucking dissapointment, heck all three movie for that matter..
You should be ashamed of yourself SpidermanTuesday, 9 September 2008
Short Holiday
I'm on a short 3 day break, so I wont be able to keep this updated for a couple of days, rest assured I'll be back on Thursday updating this bastard like mad!!
Sunday, 7 September 2008
Ghostbusters 3 (update)
Well it seems that Ghostbusters 3 will involve an all new team of Ghostbusters, and I'm half glad that's happened. I mean the Ghostbuster's team (no offence to any of them) are looking OLD, I mean it would take ages and money for them to all get back into shape enough to do this movie. Dan Aykroyd told E!Online that he would love to have Seth Rogen as one of the new Ghostbusters. To be honestly honest I think this choice are great. Although I don't think he is a great comedian, he does have a great personality which shines through in his movies. This personality I think could work well. The only large problem is two factors:
1) The writeres aren neither Dan Aykroyd nor Harold Ramis. This to me is having a mocha, without all the toppings, it just doesn't taste as nice. I just need some kind of proof from these writers that they can match the genius
2) I'm afrid that this is going to be another Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, nuff said.
1) The writeres aren neither Dan Aykroyd nor Harold Ramis. This to me is having a mocha, without all the toppings, it just doesn't taste as nice. I just need some kind of proof from these writers that they can match the genius
2) I'm afrid that this is going to be another Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, nuff said.
Friday, 5 September 2008
Ghostbusters 3
Ok, I received some news that a 3rd Ghostbusters is going ahead and is being written by the American office writers....
Ok this is all I need to say, because you should by now have stopped crapping yourself with excitment, when you hear that the writers are not Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd, but Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky. These men should not be allowed to TOUCH a film like this. Why not Harrold and Dan? They wrote the last two, and both films were great (with varying rates of greatness), and although the GAME was supoosed to be the 3rd film. The douches at Colombia have decided to make the 3rd film.
According to BBC News, they plan to reunite the 4 Ghostbusters. However All are too old and most out of shape for the role, and Bill Murray would have to cost the studio more than what he's worth.
This film as Egon would put it "would be bad"
I feel that this film will just be another dissapointment like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Shit...
I would be more excited if Dan and Harold were writing the film, as I don't trust the duo writing it currently. I hope that this film gets cancelled, or by some miracle it's actually good,
Dear Hollywood,
You ruin classic movies, such as Indiana Jones, Terminator, Alien, Robocop, Die Hard (Ok Die Hard 4 was quite good, despite it not being near the quality of the 1st and 3rd), and now my childhood heroes The Ghostbusters......WHY?!?
Yours faithfully
Anonymous Gamer
Ok this is all I need to say, because you should by now have stopped crapping yourself with excitment, when you hear that the writers are not Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd, but Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky. These men should not be allowed to TOUCH a film like this. Why not Harrold and Dan? They wrote the last two, and both films were great (with varying rates of greatness), and although the GAME was supoosed to be the 3rd film. The douches at Colombia have decided to make the 3rd film.
According to BBC News, they plan to reunite the 4 Ghostbusters. However All are too old and most out of shape for the role, and Bill Murray would have to cost the studio more than what he's worth.
This film as Egon would put it "would be bad"
I feel that this film will just be another dissapointment like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Shit...
I would be more excited if Dan and Harold were writing the film, as I don't trust the duo writing it currently. I hope that this film gets cancelled, or by some miracle it's actually good,
Dear Hollywood,
You ruin classic movies, such as Indiana Jones, Terminator, Alien, Robocop, Die Hard (Ok Die Hard 4 was quite good, despite it not being near the quality of the 1st and 3rd), and now my childhood heroes The Ghostbusters......WHY?!?
Yours faithfully
Anonymous Gamer
Facebook just threatened me...
Yes that's right Facebook has in some twisted form pulled a George Lucas, for me to explain I'm going to have to take you back a few months.
Around a few months ago facebook introduced us to the "New Facebook" which to be honest I never tried; however, like the "New Star Wars" I got constant status updates from people thoroughly disappointed by this "New Facebook" so i never tried it.
However I suddenly get this message pop up:
Who do they think they are? Adolph Hitler?
Why force people to go to the new facebook, when it's obvious that NO ONE LIKES THE CHANGES! Do some fucing customer research before you decide to ruin facebook forever, you already allowed the pointless birrage of shitty applications that you get constant invites over, and now you try and clean that up with a new facebook layout, in which now you are forcing you to watch.
It would be like George Lucas suddenly taking away all the classics and giving you back Epsodes 1-3, and only selling the 2006 digital cuts which replace the original actor of Anikin Skywalker.
Oh wait...
So I feel completly threatened over this new move, they are ristricting our freedom so much that I'm tempted to move to another social networking site which allows you your freedom to say NO.
Around a few months ago facebook introduced us to the "New Facebook" which to be honest I never tried; however, like the "New Star Wars" I got constant status updates from people thoroughly disappointed by this "New Facebook" so i never tried it.
However I suddenly get this message pop up:
Who do they think they are? Adolph Hitler?
Why force people to go to the new facebook, when it's obvious that NO ONE LIKES THE CHANGES! Do some fucing customer research before you decide to ruin facebook forever, you already allowed the pointless birrage of shitty applications that you get constant invites over, and now you try and clean that up with a new facebook layout, in which now you are forcing you to watch.It would be like George Lucas suddenly taking away all the classics and giving you back Epsodes 1-3, and only selling the 2006 digital cuts which replace the original actor of Anikin Skywalker.
Oh wait...
So I feel completly threatened over this new move, they are ristricting our freedom so much that I'm tempted to move to another social networking site which allows you your freedom to say NO.
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
ResidentEvil 5 (update)
So it looks like the old control scheme has changed. Apparently they are more like "Gears of War" well I've never played Gears of War, so i'll have to take their word that controls will be improved. I have no opinion on this really until I see the new footage, it still doesn't make up for such a shitty game.
I have to remind anyone who reads this. Resident Evil 5 isn't a shitty game because of the controls, the enemies, the charcters or the script. It remains a shitty game because it just feels the same as RE4, if they took RE4 as a basis, and made it different (such as a difference in enemies, or even the animations), then I'd be looking forward to this game.
So
Same Enemy Animations (for a next gen game) + Same Enemies (even after it was said not to be the T-Virus or a Parasite) + Same God-Awful writing + Similar Sound-Track + Improved Gameplay + SemiHD Graphics = Shitty Game which SHOULDN'T BE!
I have to remind anyone who reads this. Resident Evil 5 isn't a shitty game because of the controls, the enemies, the charcters or the script. It remains a shitty game because it just feels the same as RE4, if they took RE4 as a basis, and made it different (such as a difference in enemies, or even the animations), then I'd be looking forward to this game.
So
Same Enemy Animations (for a next gen game) + Same Enemies (even after it was said not to be the T-Virus or a Parasite) + Same God-Awful writing + Similar Sound-Track + Improved Gameplay + SemiHD Graphics = Shitty Game which SHOULDN'T BE!
Monday, 1 September 2008
Guilty Pleasures?
Ok, with all the shit remakes coming out, not many movie series' are safe now-a-days. So if one of your all time favourite movies were to be re-booted; what film would it be?
Mine would be JAWS; just because I couldn't sacrifice Alien, or any other classic film series. So I'd have to sacrifice JAWS, however I'd have to have full control (mind control?) over who would be employed?
First of all the script would have to follow the novel slightly more. this is just to be different from the original; I never see the point with remakes, if they are just frame by frame copies (Psycho anyone?). So having allot more from the novel would be cool. However I'd like to try and keep the suspense of the original by NOT showing the shark until the very end.
Minimal CGI. I can't stand it when Hollywood uses CGI just because it's there; if you can physically do it, then do it physically. I mean over 50% of Deep Blue Sea was actually using almatronics, and the shark's looked pretty damn fine when the almatronics were in shot. Pan's Labyrinth used CG as a tool and NOT as a gimmick.
So who would I employ?
Well Steven Spielberg as Exec Producer/Producer - My reasoning is that he did the original, so I'm sure he can make the right decisions?
I'd have Ridley Scott to Direct. Simpley because of Alien. Despite his directorial genius, he did "JAWS in Space", and really managed to pull off one of the best films of all time.
I'd have Roger Deakins (No Country for Old Men) as Director of Photography
I'd have to have Ted Tally to write the screenplay.
I'd have William Peterson as Martin Brody just because I think he:
a) physically matches my idea of what Martin Bordy looks like
b) He's a brilliant actor.
I'd be tempted to place Kiefer Sutherland for the Role of Quint. Now people here might start to ask: Is this guy MAD?! Kiefer Sutherland as QUINT?! Well I think he's moody enough to play Quint, however this would only be the choice if this was set in modern day America; If this was set in 70's America, I'd probably have Clint Eastwood just becaue of the age is perfect, and no offence to Kiefer but, Clint Eastwood is just the superior actor here.
Matt Hooper is quite the mystery, he'd have to be; Young, Handsome, and Geeky. I'm currently thinking looooong and hard about this one. All I know is apparently Spielberg (when asked) he said he'd have to sign up Tom Curise for a role. I suppose if there is any role to give him, it's the role of Matt Hooper; at least you get to see Tom's guts squeezed out of him, and eaten alive! :D (check novel for details). In fact having Tom as Matt Hooper gets more and more tempting every time I imagine him being eaten by a giant rogue great white!
If I could have the absolute power NOT hire Tom though I'd probably say Brad Pitt or Edward Norton.
I'd have to put Uma Thurman as Elien Brody. Just because.... I don't know to be honest, but she's a decent actor, however she only seems to really pull her socks up when in Quentin Tarantino movies.
This would probably be my dream team, IF I had to sacrifice a film to Hollywood in order to save other classic films from being raped.
Unfortunately, I've quite enjoyed picking and choosing cast and crew for a remake of JAWS. What does this mean?
From Top Left (Clockwise) William Peterson taking the Role of Roy Scheider's Martin Brody, Edward Norton/Brad Pitt taking the role of Richard Dreyfuss' Matt Hooper, Uma Thurman taking Lorraine Gary's Ellen Brody, and Clint Eastwood taking Robert Shaw's Quint
Mine would be JAWS; just because I couldn't sacrifice Alien, or any other classic film series. So I'd have to sacrifice JAWS, however I'd have to have full control (mind control?) over who would be employed?
First of all the script would have to follow the novel slightly more. this is just to be different from the original; I never see the point with remakes, if they are just frame by frame copies (Psycho anyone?). So having allot more from the novel would be cool. However I'd like to try and keep the suspense of the original by NOT showing the shark until the very end.
Minimal CGI. I can't stand it when Hollywood uses CGI just because it's there; if you can physically do it, then do it physically. I mean over 50% of Deep Blue Sea was actually using almatronics, and the shark's looked pretty damn fine when the almatronics were in shot. Pan's Labyrinth used CG as a tool and NOT as a gimmick.
So who would I employ?
Well Steven Spielberg as Exec Producer/Producer - My reasoning is that he did the original, so I'm sure he can make the right decisions?
I'd have Ridley Scott to Direct. Simpley because of Alien. Despite his directorial genius, he did "JAWS in Space", and really managed to pull off one of the best films of all time.
I'd have Roger Deakins (No Country for Old Men) as Director of Photography
I'd have to have Ted Tally to write the screenplay.
I'd have William Peterson as Martin Brody just because I think he:
a) physically matches my idea of what Martin Bordy looks like
b) He's a brilliant actor.
I'd be tempted to place Kiefer Sutherland for the Role of Quint. Now people here might start to ask: Is this guy MAD?! Kiefer Sutherland as QUINT?! Well I think he's moody enough to play Quint, however this would only be the choice if this was set in modern day America; If this was set in 70's America, I'd probably have Clint Eastwood just becaue of the age is perfect, and no offence to Kiefer but, Clint Eastwood is just the superior actor here.
Matt Hooper is quite the mystery, he'd have to be; Young, Handsome, and Geeky. I'm currently thinking looooong and hard about this one. All I know is apparently Spielberg (when asked) he said he'd have to sign up Tom Curise for a role. I suppose if there is any role to give him, it's the role of Matt Hooper; at least you get to see Tom's guts squeezed out of him, and eaten alive! :D (check novel for details). In fact having Tom as Matt Hooper gets more and more tempting every time I imagine him being eaten by a giant rogue great white!
If I could have the absolute power NOT hire Tom though I'd probably say Brad Pitt or Edward Norton.
I'd have to put Uma Thurman as Elien Brody. Just because.... I don't know to be honest, but she's a decent actor, however she only seems to really pull her socks up when in Quentin Tarantino movies.
This would probably be my dream team, IF I had to sacrifice a film to Hollywood in order to save other classic films from being raped.
Unfortunately, I've quite enjoyed picking and choosing cast and crew for a remake of JAWS. What does this mean?
From Top Left (Clockwise) William Peterson taking the Role of Roy Scheider's Martin Brody, Edward Norton/Brad Pitt taking the role of Richard Dreyfuss' Matt Hooper, Uma Thurman taking Lorraine Gary's Ellen Brody, and Clint Eastwood taking Robert Shaw's Quint
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
