|
Post by wolf359 on May 15, 2020 4:59:17 GMT
I finally found the video of that Jake Hamilton Interview.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 15, 2020 5:33:45 GMT
Oh yeah, that'd be great. Just ignore all the sequels, bring back Randy and Cotton, start over practically. Would definitely give the series a jolt of energy.
That would actually be pretty disrespectful to Wes Craven's work on the Franchise (Just wash away 3 movies like they never happened, give me a break....that is insulting).
Like Craven did with New Nightmare? Heh. Besides, a. it's more Williamson's baby than Craven's. b. Craven himself is on record as regretting killing off Randy, as well as Scream 3 in general.
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 on May 15, 2020 6:20:06 GMT
That would actually be pretty disrespectful to Wes Craven's work on the Franchise (Just wash away 3 movies like they never happened, give me a break....that is insulting).
Like Craven did with New Nightmare? Heh. Besides, a. it's more Williamson's baby than Craven's. b. Craven himself is on record as regretting killing off Randy, as well as Scream 3 in general.
"NEW NIGHTMARE" was Wes Craven's decision and work though, This wouldn't be.
Besides, it sounds just based on Neve Campbell's comments that the Directors of the 5th Movie do indeed plan to honor Wes Craven's work and what he brought to the franchise which to me is the most important thing if they are going to make a 5th Movie.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 15, 2020 6:52:48 GMT
Like Craven did with New Nightmare? Heh. Besides, a. it's more Williamson's baby than Craven's. b. Craven himself is on record as regretting killing off Randy, as well as Scream 3 in general.
"NEW NIGHTMARE" was Wes Craven's decision and work though, This wouldn't be.
Besides, it sounds just based on Neve Campbell's comments that the Directors of the 5th Movie do indeed plan to honor Wes Craven's work and what he brought to the franchise which to me is the most important thing if they are going to make a 5th Movie.
2-6 were not his work. Likewise, it wasn't Gene Roddenberry's decision to reboot Star Trek. I don't see you falling on the sword for that one. And again, at the end of the day, Craven was a director for hire here. It was Williamson's baby, and two of those three sequels were usurped out from under him. You're not honoring Craven, but rather the work of the Weinstein brothers who manipulated Craven into making movies without the original creator's involvement. Good for you.
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 on May 15, 2020 7:39:30 GMT
"NEW NIGHTMARE" was Wes Craven's decision and work though, This wouldn't be.
Besides, it sounds just based on Neve Campbell's comments that the Directors of the 5th Movie do indeed plan to honor Wes Craven's work and what he brought to the franchise which to me is the most important thing if they are going to make a 5th Movie.
2-6 were not his work. Likewise, it wasn't Gene Roddenberry's decision to reboot Star Trek. I don't see you falling on the sword for that one. And again, at the end of the day, Craven was a director for hire here. It was Williamson's baby, and two of those three sequels were usurped out from under him. You're not honoring Craven, but rather the work of the Weinstein brothers who manipulated Craven into making movies without the original creator's involvement. Good for you.
"it wasn't Gene Roddenberry's decision to reboot Star Trek. I don't see you falling on the sword for that one." ---------------------------------------------
I don't need to do that, They did a Great Job doing it with the 2009 Movie (it wasn't just a reboot, it was also a Prequel and a Sequel all in 1 as well) and it was totally respectful to Gene Roddenberry's vision of what "STAR TREK" should be.
Plus, Leonard Nimoy was involved with it and even he thought that it honored Roddenberry's vision.
When it comes to "SCREAM", That is totally BS right there.
Wes Craven and the Cast made those Movies because they had fun and enjoyed making them (they weren't manipulated into making them, That is Total BS).
Also, Kevin Williamson was involved with 3 of the 4 Movies and Yes he did have some of his work in them changed but only because it did not work well with test audiences or within the story. A Majority of Williamson's work in each of the 3 Movies that he did work on though was still in them.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 15, 2020 8:45:49 GMT
2-6 were not his work. Likewise, it wasn't Gene Roddenberry's decision to reboot Star Trek. I don't see you falling on the sword for that one. And again, at the end of the day, Craven was a director for hire here. It was Williamson's baby, and two of those three sequels were usurped out from under him. You're not honoring Craven, but rather the work of the Weinstein brothers who manipulated Craven into making movies without the original creator's involvement. Good for you.
"it wasn't Gene Roddenberry's decision to reboot Star Trek. I don't see you falling on the sword for that one." ---------------------------------------------
I don't need to do that, They did a Great Job doing it with the 2009 Movie (it wasn't just a reboot, it was also a Prequel and a Sequel all in 1 as well) and it was totally respectful to Gene Roddenberry's vision of what "STAR TREK" should be.
Plus, Leonard Nimoy was involved with it and even he thought that it honored Roddenberry's vision.
When it comes to "SCREAM", That is totally BS right there.
Wes Craven and the Cast made those Movies because they had fun and enjoyed making them (they weren't manipulated into making them, That is Total BS).
Also, Kevin Williamson was involved with 3 of the 4 Movies and Yes he did have some of his work in them changed but only because it did not work well with test audiences or within the story. A Majority of Williamson's work in each of the 3 Movies that he did work on though was still in them.
You're making a grave error when it comes to challenging me on Scream facts. You already did it once by trying to correct me on how Scream 3 was originally going to end and proved you didn't know what you were talking about. Craven did Scream 3 in return to do Music of the Heart with Meryl Streep. He, and most of the cast, have gone on to say 3 sucked, thanks largely to a lack of Kevin Williamson. He did Scream 4 based on Kevin Williamson's script, who was then forced out by the Weinstein's who had the script heavily rewritten by Ehren Krueger. "I signed up to do a script by Kevin and *unfortunately* that didn't go all the way through the shooting" - doesn't sound too pleased to me. Kevin's version of Scream 4 wasn't filmed, let alone changed based on test audiences. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. As for Star Trek...so it's okay they rebooted it without Gene's approval or oversight because you personally liked it? So if you like a Scream reboot, is it suddenly not disrespectful? And no, Gene Roddenberry was all about ideas over action. Have you seen The Motion Picture? He would HATE the reboot.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 15, 2020 12:12:35 GMT
What if they did a twist in the 5th Movie where the Mastermind Killer was indeed Deputy Judy (from "SCREAM 4") but it is also revealed that she was actually Billy and Stu's 3rd partner in the murders from the First Movie, that she was the Ghostface that killed Drew Barrymore's character at the beginning of the First Movie (they could do a flashback to that moment when Barrymore pulled off the Ghostface Mask and it would then show Deputy Judy's face behind it when she does), that she was also Stu's 'real' girlfriend and the only reason why she wasn't at Stu's house the night that Sidney killed both Stu and Billy was because Stu wanted her out of harm's way (1 of the main parts of the plan was for Billy and Stu to stab each other repeatedly to make each other look like victims that survived) ?
Problem is, that wouldn’t come off as inevitable, and a good twist both has to be surprising and feel inevitable. It’d be a huge surprise if, say, Gale Weathers were actually Ghostface the entire time, and she hypnotized the other movies’ killers to confess to the crimes, but it also wouldn’t feel like the next logical part of the series. Similarly, having a deputy only introduced in the last entry be involved from the beginning would feel tacked-on — because it is tacked-on. Same flaw as Spectre, matter of fact. Again, if we’re following canon and want to have a previously-introduced character as killer, Judy’s a good idea — but my preference is for a direct, canon-busting sequel to the original. I definitely agree with Brad that the series has been more Williamson’s baby than it was Craven’s.
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 on May 15, 2020 12:57:21 GMT
"it wasn't Gene Roddenberry's decision to reboot Star Trek. I don't see you falling on the sword for that one." ---------------------------------------------
I don't need to do that, They did a Great Job doing it with the 2009 Movie (it wasn't just a reboot, it was also a Prequel and a Sequel all in 1 as well) and it was totally respectful to Gene Roddenberry's vision of what "STAR TREK" should be.
Plus, Leonard Nimoy was involved with it and even he thought that it honored Roddenberry's vision.
When it comes to "SCREAM", That is totally BS right there.
Wes Craven and the Cast made those Movies because they had fun and enjoyed making them (they weren't manipulated into making them, That is Total BS).
Also, Kevin Williamson was involved with 3 of the 4 Movies and Yes he did have some of his work in them changed but only because it did not work well with test audiences or within the story. A Majority of Williamson's work in each of the 3 Movies that he did work on though was still in them.
You're making a grave error when it comes to challenging me on Scream facts. You already did it once by trying to correct me on how Scream 3 was originally going to end and proved you didn't know what you were talking about. Craven did Scream 3 in return to do Music of the Heart with Meryl Streep. He, and most of the cast, have gone on to say 3 sucked, thanks largely to a lack of Kevin Williamson. He did Scream 4 based on Kevin Williamson's script, who was then forced out by the Weinstein's who had the script heavily rewritten by Ehren Krueger. "I signed up to do a script by Kevin and *unfortunately* that didn't go all the way through the shooting" - doesn't sound too pleased to me. Kevin's version of Scream 4 wasn't filmed, let alone changed based on test audiences. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. As for Star Trek...so it's okay they rebooted it without Gene's approval or oversight because you personally liked it? So if you like a Scream reboot, is it suddenly not disrespectful? And no, Gene Roddenberry was all about ideas over action. Have you seen The Motion Picture? He would HATE the reboot.
"As for Star Trek...so it's okay they rebooted it without Gene's approval or oversight because you personally liked it? So if you like a Scream reboot, is it suddenly not disrespectful? And no, Gene Roddenberry was all about ideas over action. Have you seen The Motion Picture? He would HATE the reboot." ------------------------------------------------
Don't you dare challenge me on "STAR TREK" Facts!
Leonard Nimoy knew Gene Roddenberry, You didn't!
Nimoy said that it respected Roddenberry's vision for what "STAR TREK" was supposed to be which was to seek out new life forms, new civilizations, and boldly go where no man has gone before and the 2009 movie does all of those things.
The 2009 Reboot/Prequel/Sequel did not wash away anything that came before it, It completely respected it by having it take place in an alternate reality and don't tell me that Roddenberry wouldn't have approved of that because he approved of the Mirror Universe which is also an alternate reality.
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 on May 15, 2020 13:01:47 GMT
What if they did a twist in the 5th Movie where the Mastermind Killer was indeed Deputy Judy (from "SCREAM 4") but it is also revealed that she was actually Billy and Stu's 3rd partner in the murders from the First Movie, that she was the Ghostface that killed Drew Barrymore's character at the beginning of the First Movie (they could do a flashback to that moment when Barrymore pulled off the Ghostface Mask and it would then show Deputy Judy's face behind it when she does), that she was also Stu's 'real' girlfriend and the only reason why she wasn't at Stu's house the night that Sidney killed both Stu and Billy was because Stu wanted her out of harm's way (1 of the main parts of the plan was for Billy and Stu to stab each other repeatedly to make each other look like victims that survived) ?
Problem is, that wouldn’t come off as inevitable, and a good twist both has to be surprising and feel inevitable. It’d be a huge surprise if, say, Gale Weathers were actually Ghostface the entire time, and she hypnotized the other movies’ killers to confess to the crimes, but it also wouldn’t feel like the next logical part of the series. Similarly, having a deputy only introduced in the last entry be involved from the beginning would feel tacked-on — because it is tacked-on. Same flaw as Spectre, matter of fact. Again, if we’re following canon and want to have a previously-introduced character as killer, Judy’s a good idea — but my preference is for a direct, canon-busting sequel to the original. I definitely agree with Brad that the series has been more Williamson’s baby than it was Craven’s.
"Judy’s a good idea" -------------------------------
Alright then, let me ask you this since we are in a bit of an agreement on this one , If the 5th Movie did indeed have Deputy Judy as the Main Killer then how would you yourself like to see it be done with her when it comes to how and why she is the Killer ?
You already know my answers when it comes to that question for her.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 15, 2020 13:49:34 GMT
"Judy’s a good idea" -------------------------------
Alright then, let me ask you this since we are in a bit of an agreement on this one , If the 5th Movie did indeed have Deputy Judy as the Main Killer then how would you yourself like to see it be done with her when it comes to how and why she is the Killer ?
You already know my answers when it comes to that question for her.
Well, “how” I explained above with what I wrote about making her not too least-likely. The “Sidney’s boyfriend” example and all that. IMO one of the best culprits in all of fiction, in all seriousness, is Mad-Eye Moody in the 4th Harry Potter book because the guy’s not too friendly, which would make him suspicious, but also not too untrustworthy, which would also make him suspicious. As one blogger whose work I really like wrote, we like him, despite his cantankerousness, because Dumbledore likes him and because he turns Draco into a ferret, endearing himself to us and thus letting Rowling slip a huge number of clues to his guilt past the reader. That’s one of the best kinds of whodunit culprits (and really, at the end of the day, the Scream movies are whodunits, which the Halloween, Friday, and Nightmare movies are not). “Why” is a bit trickier. I can’t remember that much about her except for wondering if she were the killer for a half-second, so I’m not the best person to ask… Williamson, of course, could figure out something clever, but again my preference would be for that direct-sequel-to-original concept.
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 on May 15, 2020 13:52:21 GMT
"Judy’s a good idea" -------------------------------
Alright then, let me ask you this since we are in a bit of an agreement on this one , If the 5th Movie did indeed have Deputy Judy as the Main Killer then how would you yourself like to see it be done with her when it comes to how and why she is the Killer ?
You already know my answers when it comes to that question for her.
Well, “how” I explained above with what I wrote about making her not too least-likely. The “Sidney’s boyfriend” example and all that. IMO one of the best culprits in all of fiction, in all seriousness, is Mad-Eye Moody in the 4th Harry Potter book because the guy’s not too friendly, which would make him suspicious, but also not too untrustworthy, which would also make him suspicious. As one blogger whose work I really like wrote, we like him, despite his cantankerousness, because Dumbledore likes him and because he turns Draco into a ferret, endearing himself to us and thus letting Rowling slip a huge number of clues to his guilt past the reader. That’s one of the best kinds of whodunit culprits (and really, at the end of the day, the Scream movies are whodunits, which the Halloween, Friday, and Nightmare movies are not). “Why” is a bit trickier. I can’t remember that much about her except for wondering if she were the killer for a half-second, so I’m not the best person to ask… Williamson, of course, could figure out something clever, but again my preference would be for that direct-sequel-to-original concept.
Uh, I think the Original 1980 "FRIDAY THE 13th" Movie was (in a small way) indeed a "whodunit" Movie.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 15, 2020 13:58:17 GMT
If they really wanted to go full Christie, they’d have two people who seemingly hate each other but are actually in love as the killers. That’s probably the most Christiean thing ever. Heh, apparently this was Williamson’s plan (or one of his multiple plans) for the second one. Had known about the MotOE takeoff for 3 but didn’t know this. Think I actually would have preferred this to what we got. (The mother is too minor a character to be a satisfying surprise murderer.)
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on May 15, 2020 14:02:59 GMT
Uh, I think the Original 1980 "FRIDAY THE 13th" Movie was (in a small way) indeed a "whodunit" Movie.
Heh, touché. It’s not, maybe, a “proper” whodunit — no clues, Mrs. V doesn’t appear before the end, we have basically no suspects — but you’re right, we have a series of murders and don’t know who the killer is till the end, so it counts. I guess. Other than Scream, the best slasher-whodunit I’ve seen is the original April Fool’s Day. That’s a lot of fun and an imaginative takeoff on Ten Little Indians.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 15, 2020 22:31:06 GMT
You're making a grave error when it comes to challenging me on Scream facts. You already did it once by trying to correct me on how Scream 3 was originally going to end and proved you didn't know what you were talking about. Craven did Scream 3 in return to do Music of the Heart with Meryl Streep. He, and most of the cast, have gone on to say 3 sucked, thanks largely to a lack of Kevin Williamson. He did Scream 4 based on Kevin Williamson's script, who was then forced out by the Weinstein's who had the script heavily rewritten by Ehren Krueger. "I signed up to do a script by Kevin and *unfortunately* that didn't go all the way through the shooting" - doesn't sound too pleased to me. Kevin's version of Scream 4 wasn't filmed, let alone changed based on test audiences. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. As for Star Trek...so it's okay they rebooted it without Gene's approval or oversight because you personally liked it? So if you like a Scream reboot, is it suddenly not disrespectful? And no, Gene Roddenberry was all about ideas over action. Have you seen The Motion Picture? He would HATE the reboot.
"As for Star Trek...so it's okay they rebooted it without Gene's approval or oversight because you personally liked it? So if you like a Scream reboot, is it suddenly not disrespectful? And no, Gene Roddenberry was all about ideas over action. Have you seen The Motion Picture? He would HATE the reboot." ------------------------------------------------
Don't you dare challenge me on "STAR TREK" Facts!
Leonard Nimoy knew Gene Roddenberry, You didn't!
Nimoy said that it respected Roddenberry's vision for what "STAR TREK" was supposed to be which was to seek out new life forms, new civilizations, and boldly go where no man has gone before and the 2009 movie does all of those things.
The 2009 Reboot/Prequel/Sequel did not wash away anything that came before it, It completely respected it by having it take place in an alternate reality and don't tell me that Roddenberry wouldn't have approved of that because he approved of the Mirror Universe which is also an alternate reality.
What new lifeforms, new civilizations, and bold goings never gone before did Trek 09 do? There isn't a single scientific or philosophical idea in it. It's a straight action movie, which Gene didn't want Trek to be. He didn't even like Wrath of Khan. And Leonard Nimoy is a *paid* *actor*. A direct sequel to Scream 1 would also be an alternative reality. 2-4 aren't going to cease to exist. You know who really liked reboots? Wes Craven. He produced all the reboots of his own movies.
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 on May 15, 2020 23:31:30 GMT
"As for Star Trek...so it's okay they rebooted it without Gene's approval or oversight because you personally liked it? So if you like a Scream reboot, is it suddenly not disrespectful? And no, Gene Roddenberry was all about ideas over action. Have you seen The Motion Picture? He would HATE the reboot." ------------------------------------------------
Don't you dare challenge me on "STAR TREK" Facts!
Leonard Nimoy knew Gene Roddenberry, You didn't!
Nimoy said that it respected Roddenberry's vision for what "STAR TREK" was supposed to be which was to seek out new life forms, new civilizations, and boldly go where no man has gone before and the 2009 movie does all of those things.
The 2009 Reboot/Prequel/Sequel did not wash away anything that came before it, It completely respected it by having it take place in an alternate reality and don't tell me that Roddenberry wouldn't have approved of that because he approved of the Mirror Universe which is also an alternate reality.
What new lifeforms, new civilizations, and bold goings never gone before did Trek 09 do? There isn't a single scientific or philosophical idea in it. It's a straight action movie, which Gene didn't want Trek to be. He didn't even like Wrath of Khan. And Leonard Nimoy is a *paid* *actor*. A direct sequel to Scream 1 would also be an alternative reality. 2-4 aren't going to cease to exist. You know who really liked reboots? Wes Craven. He produced all the reboots of his own movies.
"And Leonard Nimoy is a *paid* *actor*." ---------------------------------------------------
If you are saying that Leonard Nimoy only said that because he was paid to say that then that is Absolutely Insulting and Disrespectful on an EPIC Level towards him!
He never would have done that Movie if it both didn't stay true to Gene Roddenberry's vision and it also didn't do a good job telling the characters back stories (including his own character's back story) which it did.
Heck, He even said that it did a good job telling the characters stories in these interviews below.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 16, 2020 0:11:12 GMT
What new lifeforms, new civilizations, and bold goings never gone before did Trek 09 do? There isn't a single scientific or philosophical idea in it. It's a straight action movie, which Gene didn't want Trek to be. He didn't even like Wrath of Khan. And Leonard Nimoy is a *paid* *actor*. A direct sequel to Scream 1 would also be an alternative reality. 2-4 aren't going to cease to exist. You know who really liked reboots? Wes Craven. He produced all the reboots of his own movies.
"And Leonard Nimoy is a *paid* *actor*." ---------------------------------------------------
If you are saying that Leonard Nimoy only said that because he was paid to say that then that is Absolutely Insulting and Disrespectful on an EPIC Level towards him!
He never would have done that Movie if it both didn't stay true to Gene Roddenberry's vision and it also didn't do a good job telling the characters back stories (including his own character's back story) which it did.
Heck, He even said that it did a good job telling the characters stories in these interviews below.
You're saying he couldn't be bought when literally the first thing he says in that video is that he's on his way to a BURGER KING event because they sponsored the movie. LMAO. Don't worry, Gene Roddenberry wrote Spock to be a whopper fan! Use your brain. Gene Roddenberry hated mindless action and wanted ST to be a meditative sci-fi. That's not the 2009 movie. He wanted Starfleet to be Utopian. In Into Darkness, they're false flag terrorists. The reboots aren't true to their backstories by definition. Kirk was a dork when he went to Starfleet in the original show. Spock wasn't a violent psychopath. Bones didn't get his name from a mean nickname about his wife leaving him. Come on now. And if all it takes for you to say a reboot is respectful is an actor defending it/you enjoy it, you're obviously being a hypocrite with this Scream reboot idea.
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 on May 16, 2020 1:32:40 GMT
"And Leonard Nimoy is a *paid* *actor*." ---------------------------------------------------
If you are saying that Leonard Nimoy only said that because he was paid to say that then that is Absolutely Insulting and Disrespectful on an EPIC Level towards him!
He never would have done that Movie if it both didn't stay true to Gene Roddenberry's vision and it also didn't do a good job telling the characters back stories (including his own character's back story) which it did.
Heck, He even said that it did a good job telling the characters stories in these interviews below.
You're saying he couldn't be bought when literally the first thing he says in that video is that he's on his way to a BURGER KING event because they sponsored the movie. LMAO. Don't worry, Gene Roddenberry wrote Spock to be a whopper fan! Use your brain. Gene Roddenberry hated mindless action and wanted ST to be a meditative sci-fi. That's not the 2009 movie. He wanted Starfleet to be Utopian. In Into Darkness, they're false flag terrorists. The reboots aren't true to their backstories by definition. Kirk was a dork when he went to Starfleet in the original show. Spock wasn't a violent psychopath. Bones didn't get his name from a mean nickname about his wife leaving him. Come on now. And if all it takes for you to say a reboot is respectful is an actor defending it/you enjoy it, you're obviously being a hypocrite with this Scream reboot idea.
I believe Leonard Nimoy, I don't believe you.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 16, 2020 4:59:47 GMT
You're saying he couldn't be bought when literally the first thing he says in that video is that he's on his way to a BURGER KING event because they sponsored the movie. LMAO. Don't worry, Gene Roddenberry wrote Spock to be a whopper fan! Use your brain. Gene Roddenberry hated mindless action and wanted ST to be a meditative sci-fi. That's not the 2009 movie. He wanted Starfleet to be Utopian. In Into Darkness, they're false flag terrorists. The reboots aren't true to their backstories by definition. Kirk was a dork when he went to Starfleet in the original show. Spock wasn't a violent psychopath. Bones didn't get his name from a mean nickname about his wife leaving him. Come on now. And if all it takes for you to say a reboot is respectful is an actor defending it/you enjoy it, you're obviously being a hypocrite with this Scream reboot idea.
I believe Leonard Nimoy, I don't believe you.
Don't believe me or Leonard Nimoy. Believe Gene Roddenberry. "A brilliant job? In making Star Trek work in a motion picture, possibly yes. In finding a way to stay true to Star Trek values, definitely not." He's talking about Wrath of Khan there. If he didn't think that film stayed true to Star Trek values, how the hell would he think the JJ Abrams films do? Roddenberry was fired off of WoK, btw. Does that make WoK a bad film? And regardless, WoK proves that Nimoy would still appear in a movie with or without Roddenberry's approval.
|
|