Dan_Dare Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 no trailer yet, but I think the IMDB hints at a fairly late release. It's got loads going for it atm- I can't see any reason to doubt that it's going to be really, really good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 WATCHMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hate you Fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Yeah they're twats. Apparently they commented on it like 2 months before filming started and were "Yeah s'cool" So basically they lied. And at no point during filming did they ever mention any of this. Cunts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Yeah they're twats. Apparently they commented on it like 2 months before filming started and were "Yeah s'cool" So basically they lied. And at no point during filming did they ever mention any of this. Cunts. You realise that "apparently" will be total bollocks, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 You realise that "apparently" will be total bollocks, right? It was from Aintitcool....so probably not to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I don't think I could watch Watchmen anyway. I'd die from laughing too much at the costumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 It was from Aintitcool....so probably not to be honest. If they did that, then they would have signed something saying it's fine for the film to go ahead. There is no way two huge companies would discuss a film going ahead with the conversation being: "Hey, this is Warner. We're making a Watchmen movie...you down with that?" "'S'up...Yeah like totally" That "apparently" is total bollocks. I wouldn't be suprised if it's all actually down to a stupid error at Warner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 What a awful poster for a movie. Sometimes the soul of a dead person has been so tainted with evil that it is denied entrance to heaven. It must endlessly wander the borderlands between worlds, desperately searching for a new body to inhabit. And sometimes it actually succeeds. Writer/director David Goyer (Blade: Trinity, The Invisible) gives a terrifying glimpse into the life of the undead in The Unborn, a supernatural thriller that follows a young woman pulled into a world of nightmares when a demonic spirit haunts her and threatens everyone she loves. Casey Beldon (Odette Yustman) hated her mother for leaving her as a child. But when inexplicable things start to happen, Casey begins to understand why she left. Plagued by merciless dreams and a tortured ghost that haunts her waking hours, she must turn to the only spirtual advisor, Sendak (Gary Oldman), who can make it stop. With Sendak’s help, Casey uncovers the source of a family curse dating back to Nazi Germany - a creature with the ability to inhabit anyone or anything that is getting stronger with each possession. With the curse unleashed, her only chance at survival is to shut a doorway from beyond our world that has been pried open by someone who was never born. Trailer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 What a awful poster for a movie. Trailer This has been posted like 5 times before! The trailer i saw was actually slightly interesting (in that it looked like it has disturbing elements). The poster is rubbish though, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 I dunno....theres a few good things about the poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 I dunno....theres a few good things about the poster.Or one... unless you're counting each cheek!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 I think there's enough reason for that, yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomJcg Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 It looks wrong >.< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triforce_keeper Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Wtf is wrong with her ass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomJcg Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Looks separated, unrealistic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 FFS guys! it's just the tight sports type pants they've got her in... ala miss Sharapova! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 And the fact she's leaning it causes a shift in...cheeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 I dunno...seperated cheeks seems more realistic to me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomJcg Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 ...how? seriously how? also, they just are going for the whole, shes pretty look come see the movie, and with a name like unborn i can see why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Well it was a joke, lol. I still don't see how it isn't realistic though. You have two arse cheeks right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomJcg Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Well it was a joke, lol. I still don't see how it isn't realistic though. You have two arse cheeks right? When you stand are your cheeks apart the way hers are or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 No...lol...but this is for various reasons. 1) I'm not a woman. 2) I don't have a sexy ass. 3) I don't wear that kind of underwear. Heck I don't wear underwear period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 Fucking hell, some people on this forum go SO overboard on the whole photoshop/what is and what isn't natural thing, it's unreal!! Who cares! it's a pretty gal with a nice arse on a movie poster. And of course it's been done to draw your attention to the poster! it's advertising! And in terms of whether your arse cheeks are together when you stand up, if your fat[ter] then they will be, if your skinny[ier] then they wont be! And it will depend, like her if you're in sports pants, or whatever you're wearing! It's hardly rocket science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Fucking hell, some people on this forum go SO overboard on the whole photoshop/what is and what isn't natural thing, it's unreal!! Who cares! it's a pretty gal with a nice arse on a movie poster. And of course it's been done to draw your attention to the poster! it's advertising! And in terms of whether your arse cheeks are together when you stand up, if your fat[ter] then they will be, if your skinny[ier] then they wont be! And it will depend, like her if you're in sports pants, or whatever you're wearing! It's hardly rocket science! *Applauds* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted January 5, 2009 Author Share Posted January 5, 2009 News on how they are going to do the Thor 'origins' movie: http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/941/941289p1.html How Thor Came to Earth Plus, director Branagh to reportedly act in Marvel film as well. One of the big questions about how Marvel's God of Thunder would make his transition from the Thor movie to The Avengers has reportedly been answered. According to IESB, rumor has it that "the character of Donald Blake has been added to the end of the script. Let me reiterate that he wasn't there before, the script was set entirely in the land of the Norse Gods. The introduction of the character is essential to how Marvel will tie Thor into the Avengers that is set in contemporary Tony Stark/Hulk timeframe. It explains how the actual Thor film will be set in the ancient time of the Norse Gods and how they will subsequently bring the character into a modern time with Donald Blake discovering the magical Norse hammer Mjolnir and turning into Thor." Marvel reminds us of the comic book history of the character of Dr. Donald Blake: "Thor chased a monster into the land of the Frost Giants, a breech of protocol that nearly sparked a war in all of Asgard. Odin had to teach Thor a lesson. He created a mortal body for him, one with a lame leg, and sent Thor, stripped of his powers and memories, to Earth. Thor arrived on the campus of New York State College of Medicine as Donald Blake. Blake proved to be the humble and patient man Odin had hoped for. He eventually graduated with top honors, gained a reputation as a caring family doctor and a brilliant surgeon, and opened a private practice in New York City. His nurse, Jane Foster, was equally caring and competent, and the two began to fall in love." IESB adds that, in addition to directing Thor, Kenneth Branagh will play an unspecified supporting role in the film as well. Branagh previously acted and directed in films such as Henry V, Hamlet, Dead Again, and Much Ado About Nothing. I haven't any understanding of the Thor universe, having never read the comics and the fact that [unlike Spiderman, at least to my knowledge] there has never been a Thor cartoon. However, I think the concept for the film sounds great! So basically the large majority of the film will be set in ancient land of Asgard with all these Gods and mythical creatures; so a Lord of the Rings type get-up. And then towards the end of the film he'll be banished to Earth, and you'll probably get some short cut-together sequences of how his Earth life has been playing out. Then right at the end, or maybe after the credits, he'll find his Hammer! And be Thor again! Really like the sound of this! And after Iron Man [and the new Hulk is supposed to be pretty good isn't it], there's some renewed hope in Marvel, after the aweful Spiderman 3 and X-Men 3. Few Questions: - Who should play Thor? read on IGN some people thought Gerard Butler [of 300] would be good for the part, do Thor fans on here agree? - As all these 'origin' movies [iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain Amercia etc...] are gearing up to an Avengers movie... are Spiderman and the X-Men in the Avengers? It's wierd because i've never really thought of Spiderman and X-Men being in the same 'universe', though I've been aware of Spiderman and Wolverine meeting! so I really should have! - Does anyone think Spiderman 4 and 5 will have an appearance from Wolverine [Hugh Jackman will be busy] or another X-Men character, or another Marvel character, in order in tie the worlds together? Because at the moment they are tying Iron-Man and the Hulk [and presumably Captain America, Thor etc], yet Spiderman, X-Men and Fantastic Four for that matter! all seem very distant from this and in their own worlds. Or aren't Spidey, X-Men/Wolverine, FF important to the Avengers? End Rant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts