Ace_Spade's Replies


I think a lot of people do. The original film had Eric and Shelley as a mixed-race couple, too. Just gave it a watch. I have a mixed reaction to it. I think that the strength of what I saw was largely in the visuals. The trainyard stuff in the afterlife looks good. I don't mean artistically, I mean on a pure visual level, it looks like a bit of a feast. I would extend this to the lavish entrance hall that Eric is stalking up towards the end of the trailer, too. It's obvious that they've dropped a lot of money and effort into making the film look slick. And while visuals are hardly the main reason I see a movie, they are important and with something as stylish as The Crow - whether comic book or film - the way it looks is important. I do wish they had stuck with the iconic look of Eric from the comic. They're close, but not quite there. That shock-white face is necessary. Although that does bring me to the second thing I kinda liked. I know this is a downside for a lot of people, but I like that they're mixing up the plot a bit. Why? Well, I have a pretty faithful original comic adaptation (barring some name swaps and fleshed-out subplots) already. The original Crow movie did a really good job of getting it all exactly copied. I know they extended the ending and whatnot, but it was mostly faithful and worked perfectly. Why try to replicate it? I do like that they're maybe going to do a bit of a remix. However, that brings me to my biggest dislike in the trailer, which might be an ill omen of bad things to come... Eric and Shelley as prisoners in a prison yard suggests that they will be ex-cons together. That backstory isn't just an unnecessary change it is - at least as far as I can tell - a wretched-bad one. Eric's soul is tortured enough to return partially - in my opinion - because of the senseless brutality by evil against innocence. Eric and Shelley were just two people in love. They have this act of horrific violence perpetrated against them. Eric returns with the eponymous bird seeking vengeance and justice. Now, okay, there's a big difference between an ex-con going straight and an unrepentant gangster. Or it's possible that, in the larger context of the full movie, Eric and Shelley were just framed or something. But as it appears, the movie has changed the backstory for the worse in such a way that it doesn't fit the story and themes of the original. Which, in conclusion, basically suggests that any excitement or interest generated by their willingness to mix it up is burned away into ash. If they don't understand the story, the changes will be random, and probably make the story worse. I'll end on a positive note: Bill Skarsgard is a great actor and a great choice for Eric. The casting seems pretty solid here, so that might be cool. I don't know if I'll wind up seeing the film or not. But while I was cautiously optimistic before watching the trailer, after watching it I've just got concerns and trepidation. I never realised Drive and Valhalla Rising were directed by the same chap. That actually makes a LOT of sense. I think I prefer VR, but Drive was quite good. I'm not saying she's "the problem," I'm answering the question of why some people hate Greta Thunberg with a passion. I don't hate Thunberg. I do find her to be naive and out of her depth - at least when she was "trending" - and that does devalue her opinion for me. But in terms of environmentalism, I do think we're doing a terrible job of caring for the planet and need to do much better. I'm not radical, but I would be closer to Thunberg than "the corporations" in terms of where I'd like to see us take wastefulness and climate care. That's part of what I mean with "the Nickelback Effect." The popularity overruns the perceived value by people who don't like the phenomenon very much. So, I do agree that giving credibility to Thunberg on a national scale is part of what angers the people who detest her. I think I'm mostly in alignment here. I like both, although I do prefer Dalton's portrayal. Basically, I feel like Dalton was a better Bond, but because Moore isn't trying to do that - he's trying for dapper and quippy, not the gentleman-thug that "pure Bond" is - I can't really fault his performance because they don't have the same goal. And your last point I will echo entirely: with seven films, Moore participated in some wonderful Bond adventures, so even though I'm not as big a fan of his Bond, I am a big fan of The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, and Live and Let Die. Although, let the record show that I think Licence to Kill is one of the most underrated Bond films of all-time (along with The World is Not Enough). The people who I know who dislike Thunberg do so because she is both very inexperienced/naive and expresses her opinion with haughty indignation. Now, I'm not commenting on her myself, I'm just saying that this is the perception of those who detest her and basically they think she's foolish and incredibly annoying because she's basically coming off (to them) as a petulant child. I believe this is compounded by the "Nickelback Effect" where the perceived value of the event/person is incongruous with the perceived response. In other words: just like Nickelback is a middling band that is stadium-filling popular, so too is this credential-less child turned into a guru by the public. Because those who hate Nickelback/Thunberg find them baffling, any popularity those people have becomes infuriating. If they shot him on the van ride out of there, they could have torched his body with the vehicle, too. I concur. I doubt they're furious. They might be disappointed they didn't get director/actor nominations, but I don't think it'd be that much of a problem for them. Think about it this way: their movie made bank at the box office, got huge buzz, got nominated for a BUNCH of other awards, and was a success all-around. It'd be hard to generate fury when you're sitting on top like that. See, and giving the "legion of Skanks" a cause like a band seems healthy to me. That's a positive place to channel their energy, as opposed to joining gangs and committing crimes. I agree with you 100% on T-Bird's demise. Yeah, he isn't surprised. I get the feeling that he was just evil enough to be trusted with some of the bizarre stuff Top Dollar and Myca got up to, which is why he knows that this was a possibility. He knew. I've always found T-Bird's final monologue - everything you're citing, especially "Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is" - to be particularly disturbing. It's kinda scary and uncanny and unsettling because here's this "fire-it-up" gang goon just going limp and kinda quietly freaking out behind the eyes, but just accepting it. It's like a child, as you said, and his inability to change his fate anymore - that's a profound commentary on paths in life. It's also just horrifying. This guy going, "Oh, I guess I'm going to Hell now," and just going quietly... You're right, in a way. Skank as an individual wasn't scary, but the idea of "the Skanks of the world" is quite a sobering thought. As opposed to "the skanks of the world," which depends on your view on sex work... But the cure for people who just want a place to fit in and will do anything to get there is to find them and care for them. Give them a good group to belong to and the T-Birds of the world can't scoop them up and warp them. To me, T-Bird is/represents the worst of the group. Even more than Top Dollar... In the film, Top Dollar is pure evil incarnate. He (and his creepy sister) is devil-like. He wants carnage for its own sake. He revels in it and seeks it out. That guy doesn't really exist. T-Bird, though, or his ilk, can be found in real life and is already pretty evil. He might not be Satanic, but he is hellish. He warps, twists, destroys, and leads others (like Skank) to destruction. T-Bird always seemed the worst of it, to me. He felt like a real person in the worst way. He was also funny, yes; that helps. The remake has big shoes to fill, but as long as they focus on translating the graphic novel into a new movie, I think we could wind up with something pretty great. I've talked to Batman fans about the various bat-incarnations over the years and the way it shakes down is that, Burton, Nolan, Reeves, or Snyder, everybody's got a favourite, but we got really lucky with multiple great batman franchises. Cross your fingers: maybe we get a second great movie out of The Crow. Bill Skarsgard is certainly good casting. I always felt a little bad for Skank. Not because he was a good person - he participated in the same heinous crimes as the others - but more because he just seemed dumb and scared. If he ran with a different crowd, he'd have just followed along and probably not done such horrible things. So, while he still was part of the evil, I think he could've had a different path in life. Very different situation for the other characters. Top Dollar, Tin-Tin, Funboy, and T-Bird seemed like they could've been raised by Jesuits away from humanity and they'd still have wound up burning down the monastery, stealing any silver/gold holy relics, and using the monks' gardens to grow opium. Any animated movie going toe-to-toe with a Miyazaki movie isn't "snubbed" if it loses. To each their own - if you preferred Spiderverse, that's fine - but snubbed? Into the Spiderverse won Best Animated Feature, so it's not like the Academy are just ignoring Spider-man cartoons. Exactly. It's fun. Fallout isn't realisitc; I don't need the movie to be. As long as it follows the internal logic of the show/games, and as long as it maintains the dark comic tone and lore, I'm in. That could be.