Greatoneshere

3 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

The situation involving Tameem Antoniades's departure from Ninja Theory is quite odd.  According to a Microsoft statement to Polygon, he was only involved in the "early stages" of Hellblade II's development and that he departed from Ninja Theory some time ago, but no one noticed for a couple of years that he wasn't seen in any developer videos whereas he was featured pretty prominently in them for previous releases.

Well, that would explain the "2 more years" of his Instagram post I just referenced in my post above yours. If that's the case, then his post does make more sense if he's actually been gone awhile. Kind of a strange way by him and Microsoft/Ninja Theory to announce it this way rather than whenever it actually happened.

11 minutes ago, stepee said:

Honestly since the main writer/director/co founder left right before release I wouldn’t be surprised if he saw the writing on the wall at MS and bounced.

You know I thought the same thing but the person you're referring to, Tameem Antoniades, said on his Instagram in a post that he has wanted to leave the company since Hellblade 1 came out, but "stayed on for 2 more years" to help with the transition of him leaving. He said this on April 5th when he announced he has left the company. What doesn't make sense about that to me is Hellblade 1 came out in August 2017. He just left the company. That doesn't add up to just "2 more years", that adds up to 6.5 more years. He stayed on an additional 4.5 more years than he planned to according to his post. Reading between the lines, you could argue that he wanted to see Hellblade II through to the end and does see the writing on the wall so he left right before release. It isn't the official reason he gave, but that's what I see. 

Edit: Well, according to SFLUFAN's post underneath mine it seems Tameem Antoniades may have left the company some time ago, matching up with the "2 more years" bit.

Tam Antoniades (@superninjatam) • Instagram photos and videos

WWW.INSTAGRAM.COM

---

874 likes, 89 comments - superninjatam on April 5, 2024: "Cat's out the bag! Yes, I've left Ninja Theory, the company I founded and led creatively for 20 years. Exhausted, proud and satisfied, I ...".

I'm sure the video gets into some of this but Ninja Gaiden 2 was an excellent sequel to Ninja Gaiden, I don't remember anyone at the time deriding that as a disappointing sequel. The reason Ninja Gaiden 3 was a step down for Team Ninja was Ninja Gaiden/Dead or Alive creator Tomonobu Itagaki left during the end of the tumultuous development of NG2 so NG3 was made without Itagaki at the helm and it showed. 

This is the same reason Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (a game I liked) is on the list - it was made during the tumultuous firings of Modern Warfare creators Jason West and Vince Zampella from the company Infinity Ward in 2010 by Activision (Modern Warfare 3 came out in 2011), they then went to co-found Respawn Entertainment.

And Deus Ex: Mankind Divided certainly doesn't deserve to be on a top 20 of disappointing game sequels. It was a great game. Yes, the story goes unfinished but top 20? I think that's way too high for what is an otherwise good game. I agree with most of the others on the list, though I'll always go to bat for Dead Space 3 being pretty great, though I do understand it disappointed many fans due to the more action-oriented gameplay and co-op mode diffusing the horror/tension. 

Even though I thought it was a solid game, I'm surprised not to see Dragon Age II on this list. It was certainly a step down from Dragon Age: Origins.

The first was an incredible experience, been looking forward to this since it was announced. Hoping for something really special, especially given how long its been in development. Was a big fan of Ninja Theory's Heavenly Sword, Enslaved: Odyssey to the West and the DmC: Devil May Cry one-off reboot.

Fun fact: Alex Garland (28 Days Later, Sunshine, Dredd, Ex Machina, etc.) contributed to the script of Enslaved: Odyssey to the West (enough to receive credit for it) and it shows. Game's story was solidly told.

The weekend recap: 

-The Holdovers (2023; dir. Alexander Payne): 7.5/10

-Dream Scenario (2023; dir. Kristoffer Borgli): 7.5/10

-Eraserhead (1977; David Lynch): 7.5/10

-Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992; dir. Francis Ford Coppola): 7/10

-Django Unchained (2012; dir. Quentin Tarantino): 9/10

-G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009; dir. Stephen Sommers): 5/10

-Dragon Ball Z: Movie 6 - The Return of Cooler (1992; dir. Daisuke Nishio): 6.5/10

2 hours ago, elbobo said:

Wander Earth 2

 

The first movie was the most absurd thing I think I may have ever watched, the Chinese love child of a coked up Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich. This is very much the sequel, well actually its a prequel. If you liked the first one you like this, I did not enjoy them. I shouted "fucking what" multiple times during this movie.

 

3/10

I didn't think they were as bad as this due to the amount of imaginative sci-fi tech on display and the opening action scene with the drones in The Wandering Earth Part II was pretty dope I thought. That being said, neither movie is as good as each could have been. Some really good individual scenes and filmmaking on display but I had ultimately hoped for more. 

Ah, the "let's go after the least empowered groups, they must be the threat!" logic. We sure brain worms haven't spread worldwide?

Another reason to hate the Chiefs.  

56 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Just further proof that @Greatoneshere is a know it all jerk that doesn't even know what he's talking about!

I totally forgot about Borat, I'll definitely give you that one, but that is a great example of the exception proving the rule. Also, the other three you mentioned aren't legacy comedy sequels. Those came out within 5 years of their previous movie. Just further proof Keyser_Soze doesn't read posts carefully or check his own examples!  I even emphasized legacy in my previous post with italics.  

1 hour ago, thewhyteboar said:

Demented. I love it. 

I'm in if it's good demented for sure. Love to see something different.

Finally caught up with the first episode of this eight episode second season that aired this past Sunday. It really is great to be back in this weird sort of off kilter world that vampires live in while mingling with humans. That was certainly a very poorly timed trip to Europe given they chose to do it during WWII. A lot of really good stuff in this table setting episode and I think things will pick up quickly once Louis and Claudia arrive in Paris now that the war is over. The present day stuff also has me very intrigued because that plot could really go anywhere but clearly plans are afoot. Hope others get in on this show, now is the time to catch up.

@Commissar SFLUFAN

@EternallDarkness

@Mercury33

@TheLeon

@SuperSpreader

@silentbob

Sounds, if nothing else, far more interesting than the glut of normal movies we get all the time. Seems first reactions are split on whether it all adds up to something or not.

Well, I certainly wish the writers' room luck on matching that level of writing quality.

4 hours ago, TwinIon said:

Anyone know how much the prequel books cover this time period?

My earlier post in this thread may be a bit confusing, but no books cover the timeline where the show is starting. The prequel books cover the period of time many thousands of years prior to this show when the Butlerian Jihan happened (war of humans against robots) and some other prequel books take place right before this show, setting up all the great houses and organizations. And there is no prequel book material between this show and basically the start of the first Frank Herbert Dune book (and movie). Things in the universe are more or less set in place for 10,191 years from the start of this show until Dune book/film happens. 

If all Villenueuve had done with the title card was say something like "year 10,191 AG (23,191 AD)" would have been nice.

Reviews are beginning to come in. IGN and /FIlm each gave this movie a 10/10, Collider gave it a 7/10. Many more reviews will now be incoming, I'm sure. Very promising.

Furiosa Review: This Thrilling Epic On The Fury Road Is George Miller's Magnum Opus - SlashFilm

WWW.SLASHFILM.COM

---

Our Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga review looks at the action epic from director George Miller starring Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga Review - IGN

WWW.IGN.COM

---

George Miller's prequel to Fury Road is a masterpiece that explores how the harsh Wasteland created a scene-stealing hero.

'Furiosa' Review - Anya Taylor-Joy’s Movie Is No 'Fury Road'

COLLIDER.COM

---

We shouldn't be comparing it to 'Fury Road,' but we can't help it either.

20 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said:

 

🤷‍♂️

 

Was it good?? I don't remember at all lol

It was solid but mostly just fine. Worth watching once but room to improve.

1 minute ago, Reputator said:

That was one of the Biden campaign's conditions, yes.

Well that's pretty good news. Surprised the Trump campaign agreed to that. Please god I hope they use it as much as is needed.

Because legacy comedy sequels typically turn out so well. Anchorman 2, Zoolander 2, Coming 2 America, Space Jam 2, were all pretty terrible for recent examples of bad legacy comedy sequels. I didn't even like Joe Dirt but apparently Joe Dirt 2 is far worse, but I haven't seen it. It's hard to do a good comedy sequel when striking the iron while it's still hot, legacy comedy sequels are that much harder to pull off. I haven't seen it but based on aggregate review scores it seems like Bill & Ted Face the Music was well received to some degree and that's probably the best of this bunch (seems like RottenTomatoes liked it a good bit more than IMDb; a rare RT vs. IMDb split versus the usual critics vs. audiences split). Point is, I have little faith this will be good as a result (obviously depending on who is writing and directing).

Please cut the mics, especially Trump's, no rambling allowed.

In the right hands this could be really good or break things if they go the Halo TV route. I think/hope it will be the former. It's an interesting part of the timeline they've chosen, taking place 10,191 years prior to Paul Atreides' war on Dune. That means it takes place soon after (just a couple years after) Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert's Great Schools book trilogy which explains how the current universe's order and organizations had come to be (an Emperor, CHOAM, the Great Houses, the Spacing Guild, the Bene Gesserit, etc.) and this is when the "AG" calendar begins (before that we were at 13,000 AD, so by the time Paul comes around it'll have been 23,191 AD according to our current calendar, the movie fumbles this a bit by not adding "AG" when it says "year 10,191" at the beginning of Part One, most viewers probably assume that meant "AD" when it doesn't, far more time than that has passed). This looks like it starts right after Javicco Corrino (Mark Strong's character in the trailer) takes the Emperor's throne in 9 AG after that book trilogy has just ended. This time period isn't covered in any books. Kevin J. Anderson's books don't pick back up until 10,153 AG, just a couple decades before Paul comes around so they have a lot of space to play with which is good news I think (the Butlerian Jihad and all of that happens before the formation of the Great Houses and Schools, which many of the books do cover). So long as they don't break any existing canon and the writing is compelling, I'm in.

Like with any prequel, like with House of the Dragon, we do know where all of this is heading but on a much, much longer timeline gap. Going for "Game of Thrones but in space" is a good call since that allows a lot of political stuff (which was likely what was happening during this long time period in Dune's lore) to be going on without a lot of actual changes or shifts in the world order so we can still get to Paul and House Atreides getting to Dune. This also allows them to further explore organizations and concepts that the movies barely had any time for, which should be cool if done right.

4 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I can understand where you're coming from. I actually mostly enjoy the prequels, but I'm well aware of their significant shortcomings  

I can't disagree - I've seen them plenty of times (moreso in my teens) since they came out. Probably more than The Hobbit trilogy (but I was older when those came out). But I think that's more for the few high points and just getting to be in that world than the movies themselves for me. It's really hard to get past the bland filmmaking and dry acting and dialogue but Jango Fett vs. Obi-Wan for like a minute on Kamino is badass! The ratio of good to bad is fucked but I get it.  

1 hour ago, SuperSpreader said:

I think I watched the other one... I don't remember.

5 minutes ago, legend said:

Not sure any one specific thing. Culturally, yes, but also its movie-going spectacle. So many of us had dreamed of seeing full-fledged Jedi in their prime in action. PM delivered that.

 

The Hobbit series was basically the same in scope and kind as LotR, but worse  

Yeah, I'd agree with that characterization of both. Even so, it's an objectively worse movie I think than The Hobbit movies as it didn't even deliver that well on that premise. Trade blockades!  Plus the acting, the dialogue. It can sometimes be really hard to get through unless you treat it as camp. I'd rather dwarves float down a lazy river of gold than an animal farting in Jar Jar Binks face during the podrace scene every time. I'll even take Radagast's ridiculousness since it somewhat fits his crazy character over whatever the hell Jar Jar Binks is doing in the final battle.

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

Yeah I dunno that I've seen The Hobbit movies since they came out for purchase on streaming; I should probably give them another go.

 

And I appreciate my take on Bilbo is an outlier. Maybe it's the modern thing? Maybe it's cross contamination from me just not loving the movies? Maybe I think he's a bit "higher energy" than I always expected Bilbo to be? I can't put my finger on why.

I'd definitely give them another go since it's been a good while (try the extended editions if you haven't), I think you'll like them more than the SW prequels (maybe) on rewatch, or at least see that they are clearly better made films at least.

1 hour ago, legend said:

I think something that complicates this analysis is that while PM has numerous obvious faults, it felt impactful in the time it was released. Whereas The Hobbit was outclassed in every way by its own predecessor (successor?)

By impactful do you mean cultural impact? I agree its cultural impact might be greater but not in a good way I think.

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

I'd need to think if I like any of The Hobbit movies are as "good" as I've come to think The Phantom Menace is.  They're all very flawed with some really over the top stupidity, but they have their moments. I don't think anything in any of The Hobbit movies is as good as the saber duel in Phantom Menace, but It's been a while since I've watched them.

 

Aside from quality, I can just never buy Martin Freeman as Bilbo. I don't know why. He's a good actor, he does very well in these movies. And I generally don't have an issue when a film portrayal is different than how I imagined the literary character; I get why Gimli is the way he is in the LotR trilogy and I can get into it even if it's a not especially faithful take on the character. But for whatever reason I always see Martin Freeman doing a Bilbo LARP and not just... Bilbo. 

Even if the Darth Maul duel outdoes anything in the Hobbit movies, few things in the Hobbit movies are as bad as most of the rest of the prequel scenes are, so I think Hobbit comes out ahead in the end, one scene or not when all added up. I should say this applies to the extended editions for me, which are far less choppy and sit with scenes longer than the theatrical editions.

As for Bilbo, that was casting I think many felt was spot on, but perhaps his performance is too modern? Sometimes I get that vibe but I thought he was a great Bilbo myself.