StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Um, IP, I don't actually see what from Shroom Man you're replying to, especially anything that would need to be followed with that kind of reply.

The closest thing I can think of is when he said that the movie has the clones needing to be alive while their organs are removed. But even that doesn't really make any sense.

Durandal wrote:Honestly, it sounds like yet another "OMG CLONGING WILL ODOOM US ALL!!!!!!!!" propaganda piece. Companies actually clone people for harvesting organs from them? Why? Because they're just plain evil? Wouldn't it cost less to just clone the part that was needed instead of growing a fully-functional human being, feeding and raising it?

Well, Typically that's how Distopias work, they pretty much show humans at their worst. It can work sometimes (if it's satirical, and not too preachy) but when it doesn't, it just comes off as being some sort of indoctrination piece. I enjoyed it and

EDIT: And is it just me, or is Scarlett Johansson like a much hotter version of Tara Reid?

Oh Come ON!!?!? Placing those two side by side is ridiculous!!


All sarcasm aside. I think Scarlett looks more like a younger Uma Thurman.

I agree, Scarlett > Little Red X

Since when has Reid actually ever looked like that recently? The pictures I've seen her in make her out as a perpetual party girl skank.

Well, looks like this film is going to be a major bomb.

It cost $125 million to make, but only earned $12 million over the weekend. That does not make for a good outcome.

KrauserKrauser wrote:I agree, Scarlett > Little Red X

I see it just fine.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Since when has Reid actually ever looked like that recently? The pictures I've seen her in make her out as a perpetual party girl skank.

Well I picked that picture b/c it was one of her better ones. Scarlett is just sooo much hotter.

Well, looks like this film is going to be a major bomb.

It cost $125 million to make, but only earned $12 million over the weekend. That does not make for a good outcome.

Sadly yes. I enjoyed it for what it was. A) a Dytopic future setting.
B) Guns, explosions, and over the top car chases.
C)Scarlett Johansson. (Nude would have been preferable, but beggers can't be choosers)
D) Ewan McGregor. Fan of his work.

Durandal wrote:EDIT: And is it just me, or is Scarlett Johansson like a much hotter version of Tara Reid?

I never thought that, probably because I know that Scarlett is not a natural blonde. (I clearly remember seeing a pre-stardom photo where she had brown hair)

The Hooligan Jedi wrote:All sarcasm aside. I think Scarlett looks more like a younger Uma Thurman.

Well, they both have sort-of "triangular" faces due to having very narrow chins, but other than that I do not see much of a resemblance.

(then again, I also think that Milla Jovovich would resemble a younger Jane Birkin if she got a second nosejob, so who am I to judge that?)

Peregrin Toker wrote:

The Hooligan Jedi wrote:All sarcasm aside. I think Scarlett looks more like a younger Uma Thurman.

Well, they both have sort-of "triangular" faces due to having very narrow chins, but other than that I do not see much of a resemblance.

I mostly see it in the eyes and in the basic shape of their faces.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:

Peregrin Toker wrote:

The Hooligan Jedi wrote:All sarcasm aside. I think Scarlett looks more like a younger Uma Thurman.

Well, they both have sort-of "triangular" faces due to having very narrow chins, but other than that I do not see much of a resemblance.

I mostly see it in the eyes and in the basic shape of their faces.

Meh, more like a Charlize Theron

I just came back from seeing The Island, and I thought it was a good, exciting movie. There were some stupidities, but nothing that was extremely glaring. Although it was far from perfect, I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "dumb" movie. IMO, it definately didn't deserve the crappy 40% rating it got at Rottentomatoes.com.

Can anyone think of any reason for this movie's flop? It cost over $100 million, and only opened at #3 with $12.1 million. The Island will probably only make about a third of its budget. This seems really strange to me, because lots of other poorly-reviewed, big budget action flicks that were a lot dumber than this one have done well financially before.

It was thoroughly entertaining to me, though I found it hard to believe the african guy didn't notice when Lincoln Echo slapped the bracelet on Tom Lincoln.

Buscemi stole every scene he was in, put in a solid performance. Was the president's clone the "Oh man, I never win the lottery" guy?

Jim Raynor wrote:I just came back from seeing The Island, and I thought it was a good, exciting movie. There were some stupidities, but nothing that was extremely glaring. Although it was far from perfect, I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "dumb" movie. IMO, it definately didn't deserve the crappy 40% rating it got at Rottentomatoes.com.

Can anyone think of any reason for this movie's flop? It cost over $100 million, and only opened at #3 with $12.1 million. The Island will probably only make about a third of its budget. This seems really strange to me, because lots of other poorly-reviewed, big budget action flicks that were a lot dumber than this one have done well financially before.

Could be lack of general audience interest.

Well, maybe they'll think twice about giving Michael Bay Transformers to ruin now.

It's too late for that, since they've already given it to him.

Jim Raynor wrote: Can anyone think of any reason for this movie's flop? It cost over $100 million, and only opened at #3 with $12.1 million. The Island will probably only make about a third of its budget. This seems really strange to me, because lots of other poorly-reviewed, big budget action flicks that were a lot dumber than this one have done well financially before.

I think it just has too much competition from the flashier big time summer popcorn movies. Plus, if people are going to take their kids with them I think they would definately be more drawn to the various comic book movies or Star Wars than they would The Island and that doesn't even take into account the movies that are directly marketed at kids.

I also think that this movie wasn't promoted that heavilly. Sure I've seen preveiws for it this summer but some of the big movies for this summer have been promoted for a lot longer than a few months.

Joe wrote:Well, maybe they'll think twice about giving Michael Bay Transformers to ruin now.

Michael Bay doesn't necessarily fuck up every film he does. I loved The Rock, for example. That's about the only one I can think of.

Jim Raynor wrote:Can anyone think of any reason for this movie's flop? It cost over $100 million, and only opened at #3 with $12.1 million. The Island will probably only make about a third of its budget. This seems really strange to me, because lots of other poorly-reviewed, big budget action flicks that were a lot dumber than this one have done well financially before.

I am seriously blaming the hype about how it was a rip-off of Clonus.

Peregrin Toker wrote:I am seriously blaming the hype about how it was a rip-off of Clonus.

That's not even remotely possible, for at least three reasons:

1. Clonus would have to be more than an obscure low budget late-70s science fiction film. Seriously, outside of the MST3K communitity (which itself is pretty small), hardly anybody would have ever heard of it.

2. Clonus would more than likely have to actually be a good movie. It isn't. Actually, Clonus itself already comes across as an imitation of Coma and Logan's Run, which is among the primary comparisons that have been made for The Island.

3. People would actually have to care.

Besides, what hype? Out of approximately 40 reviews for The Island that I read, only maybe five or six actually mentioned Clonus, while virtually everyone was citing Coma, Logan's Run, and THX 1138. The only place I can think of that "publically" announced the connection between the two films and accused The Island of being an unauthorised remake of Clonus is The Agony Booth bad movie review site.

Knife wrote:

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:

Peregrin Toker wrote: Well, they both have sort-of "triangular" faces due to having very narrow chins, but other than that I do not see much of a resemblance.

I mostly see it in the eyes and in the basic shape of their faces.

Meh, more like a Charlize Theron

Charlize Theron is spot on, if we're going to compare two different people's appearances. Uma Thurman? Dear god no. Scarlett Johannsen can act, but even if she couldn't then she still looks too different (ie, hotter). And Tara Reid? The only comparison that can be made between them is that both are blond.

Actually to be honest, I have to wonder why people are going: "Person x looks like a hotter/younger/fuckable version of person y." Which is bizarre, because one would think person x looks like person x, not a different version of person y.

I'm sure we can all agree: Scarlet is hot, hot, hot. Man, that chick is hot.

Stofsk wrote:

Knife wrote:

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote: I mostly see it in the eyes and in the basic shape of their faces.

Meh, more like a Charlize Theron

Charlize Theron is spot on, if we're going to compare two different people's appearances. Uma Thurman? Dear god no. Scarlett Johannsen can act, but even if she couldn't then she still looks too different (ie, hotter). And Tara Reid? The only comparison that can be made between them is that both are blond.

Actually to be honest, I have to wonder why people are going: "Person x looks like a hotter/younger/fuckable version of person y." Which is bizarre, because one would think person x looks like person x, not a different version of person y.

I'm sure we can all agree: Scarlet is hot, hot, hot. Man, that chick is hot.

I would be about to start a rant about how I do not see why this Scarlett person is that hot, but then reminded myself that:

1. It may have something to do with the fact that I have the same surname as her, thus adding an uneasy incest angle to the thought.
2. A year and a half ago, I said exactly the same about Milla Jovovich and Kristin Kreuk but I have changed my mind in the meantime.

The Digital Bits passed the word that Robert Fiveson (Clonus' director) has started legal action against Dreamworks over the similarity between Bay's film and his:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/m ... ipoff.html

Peregrin Toker wrote:

Stofsk wrote:

Knife wrote: Meh, more like a Charlize Theron

Charlize Theron is spot on, if we're going to compare two different people's appearances. Uma Thurman? Dear god no. Scarlett Johannsen can act, but even if she couldn't then she still looks too different (ie, hotter). And Tara Reid? The only comparison that can be made between them is that both are blond.

Actually to be honest, I have to wonder why people are going: "Person x looks like a hotter/younger/fuckable version of person y." Which is bizarre, because one would think person x looks like person x, not a different version of person y.

I'm sure we can all agree: Scarlet is hot, hot, hot. Man, that chick is hot.

I would be about to start a rant about how I do not see why this Scarlett person is that hot, but then reminded myself that:

1. It may have something to do with the fact that I have the same surname as her, thus adding an uneasy incest angle to the thought.
2. A year and a half ago, I said exactly the same about Milla Jovovich and Kristin Kreuk but I have changed my mind in the meantime.

I kinda changed my mind about it myself. I thought she was attractive, but not SUPER hot like some other people say. Hell, I'm typically harder on blonds when I judge them. (mostly b/c guys for some reason seem to equate blond hair with attractiveness, w/o even looking at faces)
But now she's pretty high up on my list of attractive Celebs.

At the same time, I have very inconsistent tastes in women. (I don't really have a "type" anymore)