MovieChat Forums > hurricane > Replies
hurricane's Replies
Originally, the movie was supposed to end with Nancy waking up to find everybody alive, and realising the whole thing had been a dream. The Nightmare On Elm Street was supposed to be that Nancy had a nightmare about a dream stalker called Fred Krueger, who didn't actually exist. He was completely fictitious in her nightmare. The studio changed the script slightly, so there was the opportunity for a sequel. So, what we ended on was a tacked on ending, where Freddy inexplicably came back to life, killed Nancy's mother, and drove Nancy and her friends off to an undetermined fate.
If you had the ending the way it was originally scripted, it makes sense that Freddy's powers were slightly inconistent, because that's how dreams are. Inconsistent and illogical.
The ending we got, didn't make much sense in the context of the story, and made Nancy turning her back on Freddy meaningless.
Sometimes, people who are called Edward have their name shortened to Ted as well.
So, techinically his name could be Edward Theodore Logan.
I didn't find them annoying. Yes, neither of them were Super Geniuses, but they weren't pretending to be.
You didn't see them being unkind or malicious towards anybody. In fact, they seemed to react to most things with joy. And were actually quite kind, in their own way.
Being that you had Halloween, Halloween Kills and Halloween Ends, maybe calling the 2018 one something like Hallowen Reborn or Halloween Contiues, or something like that would've been more apt.
I guess maybe calling it Halloween references back to the first one more, so they thought that would be better at bringing in new or younger fans.
I like Gatwa from what I've seen, but I still feel I need to see him in a few more episodes before forming an opinion.
I think they're trying to make him more postive and happy than recent Doctors, and trying to remove the brooding; "Time Lords are dead" side of the character. Which isn't a bad way to move the character, for me. Either have the Time Lords around, or don't. But don't keep bringing them back, not getting on with them now they're back, killing them off for a second time, being sad about them again. Oh, The Doctor isn't really a Time Lord anyway, but we're still sad they're dead. Will we do anything with that? No probaly not... Just decide whether you're going to include The Time Lords or not, and move on.
Like you, I thought the musical number felt a bit out of place. When they had The Toymaker did his Spice Girls bit, that felt in character. And Neil Patrick Harris played it so well, it could be fun whilst also establishing him as a threat. But having The Doctor break into song when he was trying to rescue a baby from Goblins felt jarring somehow. And when you actually listen the words to the bit that the Goblins were singing, it just felt a really naffly written song. Obviously deliberate, but when you have lines like; "Baby we need, baby we feed. Eat with our teeth, better than beef", and "He's the Goblin King, yes the Goblin King. He's not a myth, he's an actual thing", even if it's meant to be deliberately campy, it's too much so in context. It just sounds like a badly written song, rather than being funny or charming.
For the most part I have enjoyed RTD being back. The Tennant Trilogy was perhaps enjoyable more through nostalgia, but that was fine. Because it was the 60th, there's supposed to be nostalgia. And I have enjoyed Gatwa for the most part, and liked Ruby Sunday. And they've left a little mystery about how the old woman next door new what a TARDIS was. So, there's stuff to look forward to, for me.
I think the issue for me is that it was announced so early.
Maybe it was because I wasn't big on any Doctor Who online communities at the time. But I don't remember there being much talk about Martha leaving until she did. Here, Ruby Sunday was announced as leaving shortly after her first TV appearance. It did have a feeling of being a bit personal somehow. Why announce it that early, if it was just natural and her story was told?
Since RTD, they seem to keep companions on for longer. So maybe it is just an extension of the old writer going back to his old way. But I personally always thought it was a silly rule that a companion should only stay on for one season. Why write out a popular character just for the sake of it? Obviously actors will come and go from the show, but if the actor playing the companion is happy to stay, and the audience like them, why not keep them? It'll save you having to write an introduction to a new companion every season.
We'll have to see. Maybe Ruby Sunday's story comes to a natrual conclusion at the end of the series. If it doesn't, I'd maybe suggest it was a falling out when filming. I know Eccleston said he wouldn't return as long as RTD was working there, so you do wonder if there was some behind the scenes issues between the actor and the writers.
Obviously the; "Oh, she's white. Woke! Woke!" stuff is an overreaction. She wouldn't have been hired at all, if that's what the hiring process was.
Maybe not.
*SPOILERS*
Part of the issue with this was, that it was so different from what they'd built up in Halloween Kills. Kills, they'd built up the entire movie building up to being Laurie Stroud vs Michael Myers one last time. And the whole town had been forming an aggressive mob to finally end Michael Myers.
None of that seemed relevant to Ends. The big cliffhanger of Kills was that Laurie was starring into the camera dramatically, knowing she'd have to fight Myers again. In Ends, it's been five years, and she's happily living and being a grandmother. She's writing a book, and all the neighbours suddenly hate her for obsessing about Myers. Were these the same people forming a mob shouting; "Evil Dies Tonight!", and if not where were those people? It seemed the whole town had been in on it in Kills. Why not now?
Also, i didn't feel it worked as a final, final death of Michael Myers. If Halloween Ends came earlier in the story, and Michael was still alive at the end, it might've been more interesting. But we were promisd Laurie vs Michael, in both the previous movie and in the promotion for this one. Then the first 40 minutes are about some randomer called Corey, and there was a short fight with Myers at the end, who ends up being killed quite easily.
The thing is, introducing Corey might've been interesting, if they'd have done something with him. Or if it was meant a passing of the torch moment for future Halloweens. But he ended up getting killed anyway, so you wonder what the point of him was.
People say; "Oh, there's loads of Halloweens with Michael Myers in, this was something different." Fine. But don't market it as some big final defeat of Michael, then take the story in a different direction with some two minute fight between Laurie and Michael at the end. Of course people are going to be disappointed.
It was only the present from Marty's perspective. It was the future from 1955 Doc's perspective, and he was the one who originally said; "Next Saturday night, we're sending you back to the future...." Hence the title of the movie.
Besides, Back To The Future is a more catchy, exciting sounding title than Back To The Present.
Seems pointless. They already did that in the thrid one.
I know multiverse are very popular in super hero movies right now. But the novelty of stuff like that will wear off if they do it every time.
Better go with something new.
Last Of The Summer Wine, for me, was one of those shows that was made by it's time slot.
Some shows, it doesn't really matter when you watch it. Others, it sort of does.
Last Of The Summer Wine was never supposed to be cutting edge, clever or making any kind of statement. It was just meant to be about an older generation being silly. Yes a lot of the jokes were repeated, and you saw them coming. But it had a gentle charm that made it perfect for Sunday evenings, when it was on. It was cosy tea time show, that didn't really require much thinking. Whack it on on a Saturday, when people have been off all day, not at work tomorrow. Generally in a good mood. Might be having a drink or a takeaway, or are getting ready to go out. You're not really in the mood for a bunch of old geezers falling over and chasing Nora Batty around. Sunday night, you're more likely to be vegged out, trying not to think of work the next day, just want something comfy and familair. Not heavy, or unmissbale, or event TV.
What's the big deal?
Man doesn't like from the 1980s. That's literally all this story is.
Gunn is under no obligation to like any previous Batman movies. Certainly don't fie him for it.
That bit slightly confused me on watching it, too.
Though, as has been said in other posts, I think it was meant to imply that Leon's father also had the same sort of condition as Leon, in that he thought Pin was real. Though he didn't seem to suffer from it to the same extent as Leon. Maybe it started as a way to entertain the kids, and he began to take it more seriously over time.
I do wonder though, if this scene was added to the film to make it a bit more ambiguous as to whether Pin was real or not, at least early in the movie.
Yeah, the ending was weird. There was a cliffhanger of sorts. I sort of had the opposite thought on watching it though. It didn't end strongly enough.
Of course it's fine to put a cliffhanger in to tease for next season, but nothing seemed tied up. It just felt like the season didn't end. It just seemed to stop halfway through the story. It didn't feel like a series finale. After it ended, I had to double check that there wasn't more episodes somewhere.
It kind of felt like an end of episode cliffhanger, not an end of season one.
Yeah, but the whole show was far fetched. Let's be honest.
If you found out your plumber was a famed mass murderer, do you; A) call the police B) beg him to be in a podcast with you?
If you're going to pick holes in the premise, you'll need to allow yourself a lot of time.
Yeah, they overdid the whole dream fantasy bit. None of them felt needed.
SPOILERS!
<spoilers>The ones where they were Kaley was fantasising about the guy she was selling flats to at the start, I guess, illustrated that she had a thing for the guy she was selling flats too. But, as that story line didn't really go anywhere what was the point to it? I guess it highlighted that they're marriage was having difficulties, but we didn't need to see umpteen flashbacks to get the point. One would've done. The bit in the last episode where the woman got out of the grave got me, I'll admit. I hand't realised it was fantasy. But, for the most part, the flashback just seemed an excuse to put sex scenes in. </spoilers>
He's not. In Bruce Almighty, Bruce was given God-like powers, so the name worked. But it doesn't for this one.
I guess they just were continuing the name, as this was if not a sequel, at least a spin-off.
I enjoyed it.
Though, I won't be crying if they don't bring Ezra back what with all his off-screen shenanigans.
Monty Python jokes were often without punchline. They were just random, silly, and quite often funnier for it.
Having a silly, abrupt ending, that didn't really make any sense was pretty much in keeping with the Monty Python humour. It would've been more on-brand than having them rescue the Holy Grail, and it being a happy ending.
It wasn't necessarily a full musical.
There were some songs in it. But there were songs in the 1974 version too.
Admittedly, there's a few more here. But I wouldn't say the entire film was singing.
I actually enjoyed the specials. More so the first and last, than the middle one.
But I can take your point. My enjoyment of the first one may have been more down to the novelty of Tennant and Donna returning than because of the actual episode. But that was perhaps somewhat necessary. Tennant and Tate coming back were always going to be the focal point of the episode, rather than the story. Writing too big a villain, or too complicated an episode would've been a bit of a distraction considering the appeal was Tennant's return.
I'd have left it as it is, but maybe made the Toy Maker episode a two-parter to get more of NPH.