Movies The 'Cats' Movie Looks Nuts. Just Absolutely Bonkers, update - the movie is literally getting a "Day One Patch"

[Jason]

Anyhow the good news for this movie is that it's not like there's particularly stiff competition this weekend. 

[Reputator]

6 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

Someone at Metacritic is having fun today.

 

CATS
It's not as bad as it looks. Correction: We just read the reviews, and it is in fact exactly that bad.

 

 

This is amazing.

[TwinIon]

It's currently predicted to open around $15M. For a nearly $100M film, that's not good. However, The Greatest Showman opened to only $8M and went on to gross $175M. That's clearly what Cats is hoping to emulate, but it sure seems like a stretch. Showman went up 530% in its second weekend without opening in any additional theaters exactly because it was competing with Star Wars. So I'd look to that second weekend to tell the story of its box office.

[Derek]

I lost interest when I heard they had to edit out Jason Derulo's massive penis.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The movie is getting a "Day 1 Patch"

 

 

[Jason]

27 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

The movie is getting a "Day 1 Patch"

 

 

 

[Brick]

Tom Hooper just one-upped George Lucas. He's releasing his Special Edition while the original movie is still playing in theatres.

[CayceG]

I really kinda want to see it tomorrow before the update hits. 

[Reputator]

Now THAT'S unique!

[TheLeon]

Among the updates is a time stamp that lets you know the best times to drop your acid.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

My sister and her friends are big fans of the stage play. They liked the movie. They said it was pretty much just the stage play. 

[Keyser_Soze]

1 hour ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

My sister and her friends are big fans of the stage play. They liked the movie. They said it was pretty much just the stage play. 

 

That's why I'm confused by the reviews. Maybe they were just befuddled by the look of the movie but if it follows the play I don't see why it should be rated so horribly.

[johnny]

2 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

That's why I'm confused by the reviews. Maybe they were just befuddled by the look of the movie but if it follows the play I don't see why it should be rated so horribly.

I’m pretty sure the Broadway is horrible as well despite people liking it 

[Ghost_MH]

2 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

That's why I'm confused by the reviews. Maybe they were just befuddled by the look of the movie but if it follows the play I don't see why it should be rated so horribly.

 

I'm almost 100% positive that if the CG were reversed, the hate this movie is getting would be far less. That is, practical costumes and CG sets rather than the crazy idea of going with CG costumes and practical sets.

[XxEvil AshxX]

On 12/19/2019 at 5:58 PM, TwinIon said:

It's currently predicted to open around $15M. For a nearly $100M film, that's not good. However, The Greatest Showman opened to only $8M and went on to gross $175M. That's clearly what Cats is hoping to emulate, but it sure seems like a stretch. Showman went up 530% in its second weekend without opening in any additional theaters exactly because it was competing with Star Wars. So I'd look to that second weekend to tell the story of its box office.

 

The Greatest Showman also had Hugh Jackman and a great "feel good" song for ugly people. 

[Ghost_MH]

16 minutes ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

The Greatest Showman also had Hugh Jackman and a great "feel good" song for ugly people. 

 

That song charted pretty well which moved people that liked the song into theaters. Nobody outside of Cats fans likes any of the music in Cats. I can't see any scenario where a clip from Cats is going up on YouTube and changing folks' perception of the movie.

[XxEvil AshxX]

3 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

That song charted pretty well which moved people that liked the song into theaters. Nobody outside of Cats fans likes any of the music in Cats. I can't see any scenario where a clip from Cats is going up on YouTube and changing folks' perception of the movie.

 

Exactly. Joking aside, the Greatest Showman has a damn good soundtrack.

[Jason]

 

[CayceG]

I am definitely seeing this movie. 

 

 

 

 

 

[johnny]

 

[CayceG]

I saw it.

 

 

I saw CATS. It was horny. It was disturbing. It was unsettling. It was inhuman. It was super horny. It was beyond campy. Ian McKellen was probably the most appropriately camp in it. Everyone else played it super camp. Rebel Wilson was just herself. Did I mention EVERYONE was horny in it? 

I really do not know the plot, but whoever said "it's just cats introducing themselves until one of them dies" was pretty much the most complete description there could be. 

 

It feels like I went through something pivotal in our country's history. A bit hollow. Ashamed. Excited? Definitely relieved. But I can't let go of it. I can't unsee it. I can't wash away that experience. 

 

Still...

I had a better, more enjoyable theater experience seeing CATS than I did either time I saw Star Wars. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Future historians will produce many peer-reviewed, well-regarded academic treatises of how CATS: The Motion Picture was the living embodiment of the decline and fall of the American empire, culture, and society.

[CayceG]

[Dre801]

My friend and her mom saw it on Christmas night.  They liked it, but they love musicals and have low standards.

 

Fiddler on the Roof is the only musical I can tolerate.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I’d rather watch all the new SW movies that sit down to Cats. Shit, I’d rather rewatch the SW prequels. 

[sexy_shapiro]

I saw it last night and oddly enjoyed it, but maybe enjoy isn’t the appropriate word to describe my experience. I was laughing in disbelief for the first 15 minutes. But after a certain point I just accepted everything and went along for the ride.

 

Unlike movies like La La Land, this dancing in this movie is legitimately good. The lead actress is an unknown actress but a professional ballerina. This movie almost feel like an old Hollywood dance spectacle but with cat people. That was one aspect that kept me captivated most of the time.

 

I don’t know if I would say overall this movie was good but it did put me under a spell and transported me to another world for two hours. That’s more than I can say for Rise or Skywalker, which moved too fast for me to feel like I was ever part of that world.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

 

[silentbob]

My cousin found an Asian ripped copy of the movie online a few weeks back. So we got ourselves super high, snuggled up in our robes and put it on my 4K projection screen and we still couldn’t get through this disaster of a movie. The ripped copy looked great but my gawd was it bad and turned it off after 24minutes into the flick. Got my mom up to watch as well and she sort of liked it artistic set wise, but even admitted it was pretty bad. Plus the music wasn’t even that great and I think Memory is the only good song in the movie. I like my musicals too (little shop of horrors being my fav) and then their look on screen is just odd. Human hands/feet, fur bodies and a working cat tail. It was just weird looking and sort of distracting, but nothing like an upside down chorus line of human faced dancing cockroaches . . . .no I’m not lying and that was in the first 24 minutes I did see. Maybe I need to find a new strain to try and watch it again, but i doubt it.

 

changed it up for my 4K copy of Into the Spider-Verse instead and the weed worked great on that one with the colours.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

 

[TheLeon]

#releasethebuttholecut

[SaysWho?]

 

 

 

 

If you want more, just click/tap on "Their tales are dancing" and read the rest, lol.

[silentbob]

Yeah I know this doesn’t need the attention, butt you gotta admire this fan made trailer

 

 

[Keyser_Soze]

[Reputator]

That's in my brain forever now.

[Brick]

This whole butt hole cut thing makes me think of something; who the hell would think making sure the butt holes are visible is a good idea? Was it someone that figured since butt holes are visible on actual cats then the movie should be anatomically correct?

 

It reminds me of a guy I knew in college, and we were making a short film for final year. He had been asked by the writer/director if he could do the VFX and design the monster creature that would be featured in the film. The creature would look like a rabid, sick, wolf-like thing. One day he's showing me his progress on the creature, and there's a long bulge between the hind legs; he gave the creature a penis. I ask him why he gave it a penis, and he said because it's anatomically correct that it would have a penis, to which I reply, but WHY does it have a penis? It's not necessary to have a penis, you don't actually need it to be visible, no one is going to care that it's not there, so why did you give it a penis? He says the director asked him to. I found that odd, and a little while later ask said director about it, and he says, what the fuck, no he didn't ask it to have a penis, tell him to take it out right now. So this guy not only thought he was doing a good job with his creature design, and being detailed, he flat out blatantly lied to me.

 

Forgetting the fact that I don't think it was ever decided whether the creature would be male or female, why did he honestly think it needed to have a penis, and that it was a good idea? I mean how many creatures, or just CGI animals in general, in movies show the genitalia? Do you see King Kong's dong flapping about while he walks around? Do you see the wolves in The Grey sporting a red rocket? Do you see where Godzilla's cloaca is located? Perhaps whichever VFX artist is responsible for the butt holes had a similar mindset as this guy, and thought that it would be a good attention to detail or some shit.