Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:18 pm
by Leisher
In 2010-
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Shrek 4
Spiderman 4
Also announced-
Captain America
JLA (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc in the same film)
Avengers (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, etc. in the same film)
Y: The Last Man (Think I Am Legend except women instead of vampires)
Punisher 2
Superman Returns Again (or something)
Green Hornet
Sub Mariner
Wolverine
There are more, but I'm forgetting them at the moment.
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:27 pm
by GORDON
The second part of your list is almost entirely comic books. When Hollywood gets fixated on an idea...
Hey, isn't there some Hollywood writers (or something) strike coming up?
That wouldn't apply to films made in England, right? I don't want my next Harry Potter movie delayed.
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:37 pm
by Leisher
The second part of your list is almost entirely comic books. When Hollywood gets fixated on an idea...
As I've stated before, just about everything coming out now is based on a comic or a trade.
Combine it with remakes or blatant ripoffs. Then add in the movies based on books.
Now find an idea that actually originates in Hollywood...
Hey, isn't there some Hollywood writers (or something) strike coming up?
That wouldn't apply to films made in England, right? I don't want my next Harry Potter movie delayed.
Not sure if that is still coming up or was settled. I also don't know if it applied to films or just TV. I thought it was just TV writers.
But yes, it would apply to films in England IF the writers are in the union going on strike.
Edited By Leisher on 1189640348
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:05 pm
by DoctorChaos
A strike might be the best thing to happen to originality in Hollywood. I don't go to the movies that often so it wouldn't be a big loss for me.
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:08 pm
by Paul
You can sell two scripts to Hollywood without becoming a part of the writer's union. After that they won't touch your script.
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:19 pm
by GORDON
Yeah; McCarthy was WAY off base accusing them all of being commies.
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:01 am
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Yeah; McCarthy was WAY off base accusing them all of being commies.
If he decided not to be a raging psycho, his opinion might count.
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:32 am
by GORDON
It was the alcohol. Today he would have a disease... but since he was anti-hippy, he was just bad.
Edited By GORDON on 1189690389
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:06 am
by Malcolm
Insane is insane, man. I mean, he could've at least tried to make his shit consistent.
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:00 pm
by GORDON
Don't question the guy, he had a disease. The booze was in charge and he couldn't help it.
Plus a lot of the people he said were commies were actually commies.
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:31 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Don't question the guy, he had a disease. The booze was in charge and he couldn't help it.
Plus a lot of the people he said were commies were actually commies.
I'm not denying that commies abounded back in the day. I'm denying that McCarthy had his "iron clad" proof on all of them. Saying there's ultra-liberals in Hollywood is like saying there's sand in the desert. His paranoia & erring on the plus side of statistics is not evidence.
EDIT : & I don't buy the booze excuse, either.
Edited By Malcolm on 1189704790
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:09 pm
by GORDON
You're missing my point. You CAN use the "he was a victim" excuse, so you SHOULD. The other side uses it every day. If the other side argues with you about it, you can point out their hypocrisy to them.