Am I The Only Person Here.........

[Snikt]

I still don't see why the upside down chandelier thing is such a big deal. A tad derivative of THE BOONDOCK SAINTS, but only a tad.

I agree. I think the scene looks kick ass!!t: But that is just from a few seconds of footage. I'll reserve final judgement until I see the movie.

 

[Renegade]

Uhhh, nope. Who is more critical of a Superhero movie than the fans of the comic itself? People were complaining about all sorts of stuff Bullseye did or shouldn't have done in Daredevil... I've never read a Daredevil before, so I didn't know/care about that.

Likewise, people who don't know anything about Punisher aren't going to care that he normally wouldn't spin upside down on a chandelier. However, it's all you hear about from the people on this board.

Uhhh, nope. If the movie ignored the general population of viewers, then the movie would make very little money. Fans of comic books make up hardly a large majority of movie goers. It is OF COURSE important to make the comic fans happy, because they are the CORE, but not the ONLY. Just because a film is exactly like a comic, does not mean the movie will be good. And likewise, a film does not necessarily need to be exactly like a comic to be a successful, good movie.

My point is this: Even if EVERY member of this board agreed that this movie will be "totally awesome, greatest ever." That hardly guarantees that the movie will be GOOD or SUCCEED. All I am saying is that one HAS to separate what fans on these boards think from what the general movie audience thinks. In fact, to go further, people on these boards are biased. We already have perceptions about what we think something should be, and either root for or against something based on our already formed opinions. For example: I remember fans of CATWOMAN on these boards a bunch of years ago, who defended it so rabidly, it was frightening, and how did that work out? It was one of the worst movies in history. I'm NOT saying that this Punisher will be that bad (I don't think anything COULD be that bad). My point is simply that basing how popular a movie will be by polls on these boards is terribly flawed.

 

[Renegade]

Oh, and that chandelier scene was ridiculous. I rolled my eyes the moment I saw the slow-motion spinning.

Also, let me add, that I was relatively optimistic about this movie. I had no previous ideas, nor was I terribly partial to Tom Jane. I did not really care that they recast the role (I do now, seeing the trailer, of course). But, after seeing the trailer, It is MY OPINION that this movie will not be good and fail at the box office.

 

[S. Grundy]

Yeah, the argument of 'well other movies use it' is exactly the point of why it is an eye rolling moment because it is cliched. I would prefer originality to seeing something that has been done a **** load of times before.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

When i saw the trailer for this,it looked like it was a made for a tv movie,idk why, i think because it didn't impress me. I won't judge though until i see the movie

 

[screams]

I can't wait for a second trailer... I just want to see more than just some highlighted sections of the movie... more of a sense of what the plot will be like is what I want to see in the trailer.

A red band trailer would be nice. I hope they release one.

 

[nocomics]

I don't think the movie is gonna be a summer blockbuster or win any awards. I think it will make its budget and a profit for sure and it might be enough to make a sequel or a Direct to DvD
Someone mentioned budget is only 12million? Thats god aweful low budget,but least it most likely will get their money back out of it...

 

[Peyton Westlake]

Well there is a positive thing with a $12 million dollar budget. Usually something like that,the story is very strong for a movie studio to give go ahead and film it. There can obviously be special effects to trick people to come & see it. So, it takes the director to take printed words & translate it to the screen. Just hope she had the skill to do it.

 

[screams]

I hope that with a low budget most of the action is real, with not very many CGI scenes. Fake blood is better than digital blood. That's one thing I enjoyed most about the '04 Punisher, it was all real stunts and fake blood with no animation.

 

[Buttman]

Well there is a positive thing with a $12 million dollar budget. Usually something like that,the story is very strong for a movie studio to give go ahead and film it. There can obviously be special effects to trick people to come & see it. So, it takes the director to take printed words & translate it to the screen. Just hope she had the skill to do it.

But this isn't a 'usual' case. They can put any **** on the screen, and they KNOW regardless of how badly its mauled, Punisher/comic book fans will still go and see the film. Spider-man 3 was one of the worst reviewed films of last year, and one of the highest grossing for instance.

It's exploitation. I'm sorry, I know you guys all have this idealised view of the film industry in that they're making these comic-book films because they have the same love for the characters that we do, but its not remotely the case. They're the lastest action fad, and just as quick as they appeared they'll be gone again, once they stop making the mega-books. "Adaptations" are in right now, with Comics/Harry Potter/LOTRs doing great. It won't last though.

In essense yes, I think from the trailer and just from knowing the director's previous work that this film will be terrible.

 

[Microchip]

Well, they've been making Batman movies since the late 80s, there was a Punisher movie around then too, and books have always been adapted into movies, series like the Neverending Story for example. That's not a fad, it's something that has always been the case.

 

[citizenpain]

But this isn't a 'usual' case. They can put any **** on the screen, and they KNOW regardless of how badly its mauled, Punisher/comic book fans will still go and see the film. Spider-man 3 was one of the worst reviewed films of last year, and one of the highest grossing for instance.

It's exploitation. I'm sorry, I know you guys all have this idealised view of the film industry in that they're making these comic-book films because they have the same love for the characters that we do, but its not remotely the case. They're the lastest action fad, and just as quick as they appeared they'll be gone again, once they stop making the mega-books. "Adaptations" are in right now, with Comics/Harry Potter/LOTRs doing great. It won't last though.

In essense yes, I think from the trailer and just from knowing the director's previous work that this film will be terrible.

you mean... it's all about the money?! wow! quite a discovery, sherlock.

 

[Renegade]

Spider-man 3 was one of the worst reviewed films of last year, and one of the highest grossing for instance.

Okay, I do not mean to be an annoying jerk or anything, and I know this is not really the point of what you were trying to say, but this sort of statement has been annoying me for quite some time.

Spider-Man was not one of the worst reviewed films last year:

(from Rotten Tomatoes)

Spider-Man 3 - 62%
Shrek the 3rd - 42%
Transformers - 57%
Pirates/Caribbean 3 - 45%
Harry Potter/Phoenix - 77%
I am Legend - 68%
Bourn Ultimatum - 93%
National Treasure 2 - 31%
Alvin/Chipmunks - 24%
300 - 60%

These are, in order, the highest ten grossing movies of last year. Spider-Man 3 was the fourth best reviewed. So, it is simply not true that it was not reviewed well, especially compared to the other "good" films of that year. The real critical failures were National Treasure and Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Sorry for the tangent, but I hate how it has become popular to hate on Spider-Man 3 without any actual regard for facts or objectivity.

 

[phillyboy]

Okay, I do not mean to be an annoying jerk or anything, and I know this is not really the point of what you were trying to say, but this sort of statement has been annoying me for quite some time.

Spider-Man was not one of the worst reviewed films last year:

(from Rotten Tomatoes)

Spider-Man 3 - 62%
Shrek the 3rd - 42%
Transformers - 57%
Pirates/Caribbean 3 - 45%
Harry Potter/Phoenix - 77%
I am Legend - 68%
Bourn Ultimatum - 93%
National Treasure 2 - 31%
Alvin/Chipmunks - 24%
300 - 60%

These are, in order, the highest ten grossing movies of last year. Spider-Man 3 was the fourth best reviewed. So, it is simply not true that it was not reviewed well, especially compared to the other "good" films of that year. The real critical failures were National Treasure and Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Sorry for the tangent, but I hate how it has become popular to hate on Spider-Man 3 without any actual regard for facts or objectivity.

100% agree. Although there are aspects of SM3 that I didnt like, there's no way I would call it a bad movie. People who talk trash about SM3 need to watch Ghost Rider.

 

[Renegade]

100% agree. Although there are aspects of SM3 that I didnt like, there's no way I would call it a bad movie. People who talk trash about SM3 need to watch Ghost Rider.

If "phillyboy" means you are from Philadelphia, then it makes sense that we agree. I am also from Philly, and obviously the area must produce the smartest people

 

[Renegade]

I have been around SSH! for years, and I STILL double post!

 

[screams]

I liked Spider-Man 3. I just wish there was more of Venom, less dancing, and maybe one less villain.

 

[Spade]

I still think the best direction for the script would've been an Apocalypse Now view on the Punisher's Vietnam days. Part of the reason this script is shaky is that it simply aspires to be a gory Punisher story, in contrast to the last. That'll make bank, but stories like that have little replay value. War, however, is both bloody and gut-wrenching. Far more interesting than this "Taxi Driver with a skull marking" angle it takes.

 

[phillyboy]

If "phillyboy" means you are from Philadelphia, then it makes sense that we agree. I am also from Philly, and obviously the area must produce the smartest people

Born & raised in philly, but I live in New Zealand these days. And yes, I agree, Philadelphians are Supreme Beings. Kneel before us t:

 

[claydogg]

Am I the only one who, after watching the trailer thought that this Ray Stevenson guy looked, sounded, and most importantly, ACTED nothing like the Punisher? When I saw Tom Jane in the first, I got the impression that, "okay, this guy is Frank Castle" but watching that trailer, I thought, "who the hell is this guy? Rambo? Commando? That's not the Punisher is it? Is that Steven Segal? Who is that guy? What's with the slicked-back hair? Why is he so hideously ugly? Why does he look like a young, uglier Anthony Hopkins?"

Sorry, but this movie looks like crap to me. I'm not a huge Punisher fan or anything, but I consider myself a film connoisseur, of sorts, and I enjoyed the first movie (it was, of course, nothing more than a simple, pared down revenge movie, but the characterization of Castle was clear), but this movie looks completely goofy.

point taken but,,....... but I think Ray is a great frank castle !!the rumored 12 million dollar budget is what has me wondering plus the whole thing.
Kurt sutter wanting to be taken of the list.
but I think it will be good.

as long is it dosen't have this kind of Bull***** scenes like 2004.. I'll be ok with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68QmIDeWSX4&feature=related
Just make frank have some balls and shoot this guy in the head when he threaten you!! unlike Jane.

 

[S. Grundy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68QmIDeWSX4&feature=related
Just make frank have some balls and shoot this guy in the head when he threaten you!! unlike Jane.

Well, you know there were witnesses present, so shooting a guy for playing a song is gonna get you arrested.

Originally as it was scripted Castle walks out into the parking lot with his gun ready, only no one is around and then the car chase starts up, budget forced the scene to be pared down.

 

[claydogg]

no need for that the only witnesses in this scene are Dave, Bumpo, & Joan. no else there at all......and thier not telling no one.

to bad though I like what you said. about the car in the parking lot.
if Hensliegh & France didn't butcher it up, and saved the money and shot it in canada instead of Miami he might of had the cash.

 

[S. Grundy]

no need for that the only witnesses in this scene are Dave, Bumpo, & Joan. no else there at all......and thier not telling no one.

to bad though I like what you said. about the car in the parking lot.
if Hensliegh & France didn't butcher it up, and saved the money and shot it in canada instead of Miami he might of had the cash.

Yeah, but they don't really know Frank and they see him shoot a some random guy for play a song, most people would call the cops.

That's really mostly the studio rather than Hensleigh and France, I'm pretty sure Travolta being cast was all the studio, because Tim Bradstreet was pushing for Terrance Stamp as Saint. It was just cheaper to shoot in Tampa.

 

[screams]

Stamp would have been a way better choice!

 

[citizenpain]

almost anybody else would have been a better choice...