When the movie was first released, several fans noted that while the character was called Hal Jordan, he was written more like Kyle Rayner.Ryan Reynolds acted too much like a jackass (maybe this was how he should have portrayed Deadpool?) so to see him get his act together was rewarding.
Tim Burton's last great movies.Big Fish
Ed Wood
Haven't seen either before
Wrong, Alice in Wonderland is great too.Tim Burton's last great movies.
HahahahahahahahahahahaWrong, Alice in Wonderland is great too.
Tim Burton's last watchable movie.Tim Burton's last great movies.
Wrong, Alice in Wonderland is great too.
^Hahahahahahahahahahaha
I wouldn't say it was amazing, but I thought more of the shorts were good than bad. There was only 1 I didn't really like.VHS - 2.5/5 Not sure why people enjoyed this movie so much. While it has good special effects and some of the scenes are pretty good, it is disjointed and nothing fits together to a cohesive whole.
Ok. I feel stupid. I didn't realize it was supposed to be an anthology of stories. I missed the beginning of it and had trouble hearing some of the dialogue.I wouldn't say it was amazing, but I thought more of the shorts were good than bad. There was only 1 I didn't really like.
Agree 100%, he needs to stick with his own original ideas because heAlice in Wonderland is abysmal. Burton should avoid any remakes/"reimaginings" for the rest of his career.
Cept for the Alice sequel I guess. Can't believe it made so much money.
Yes but the two biggest elements of the plot are straight remade, albeit with the characters flipped.I wouldn't go as far as to call it a remake.
Reimagining maybe, but it's still a very different movie from Star Trek II
I didn't really mind the remake nature of the movie. I was never a big fan of the original Star Trek movies or show so it's been ages since I've seen them. And the second is the only one remember really liking.Yes but the two biggest elements of the plot are straight remade, albeit with the characters flipped.
I didn't have a huge problem with them using him as the villain, and Cumberbatch is a great actor, but there wasn't any need to go there at all. Especially when the characters don't share the sane bond as in the older film. There were plenty other ways the movie could have gone.
I didn't get that feeling from Kyle from the stories I've read with him (the one year period following Reign of the Superman). I thought Kyle was trying to get his life together, especially since the passing of his girlfriend. If the comic writers made him more pompous, then that sucks.When the movie was first released, several fans noted that while the character was called Hal Jordan, he was written more like Kyle Rayner.
I understand but I still don't see the need to do it. I'm actually most excited for the third movie, I hope more of it is like the first 6 minutes or so of Into Darkness, seeing new alien species was cool. There's lots of new things they can present, even the redesigned Klingons were pretty awesome.There have been a few what are you playing threads in the general gaming area, but they haven't tended to get a lot of sustained activity. That forum area is pretty slow anyway outside of the GGT thread and a couple other threads like it.
I didn't really mind the remake nature of the movie. I was never a big fan of the original Star Trek movies or show so it's been ages since I've seen them. And the second is the only one remember really liking.
In any case, with this series being set up as a slightly alternate reality (same crew came together etc.). slightly different events happening makes sense as the reality wasn't shifted that much by the events if the first one.