Jump to content

Dynaman

Members
  • Content Count

    3,019
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

114 Excellent

About Dynaman

  • Rank
    SMS Squadron Leader

Recent Profile Visitors

9,001 profile views
  1. > Its worth pointing out that the term "Unidentified Flying Object" does not have to mean the same as "Flying Saucer" Just this kind of thing is what aggravates me the most about the UFO types - they are worse then a certain company saying they have full rights to "Robotech" when asked what rights they have to Macross - means just as much.
  2. I've personally seen a UFO. Just because I don't know what it was doesn't mean squat.
  3. I looked for a Honey I Shrunk the Kids thread to put this under but nothing obvious came up. It seems that the movie originally had a different title when being written (like most do) but in this case the network guy (Katzenberg in this case) hit the nail on the head... "I remember at the lunch, Katzenberg said, 'But we got to change the title. [Teeny Weenies] sounds like a low budget porn movie,'" Yuzna says. from https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/behind-the-scenes-of-honey-i-shrunk-the-kids-a-surprise-smash-horror-movie-for-kids
  4. Those changes might be near unrecognizable from the look of the ship though. Usually having to do with more AA guns and more reliable engines or internals or a slightly elongated hull.
  5. Just saw this on Netflix and I'm very glad I waited. At best I would give it an OK rating. The Princesses were a nice touch and some of the cameos but the main story was just boring.
  6. That was how it was SUPPOSED to look but Gene singed his OK on it upside down.
  7. That thing is as bad as the FASA designs for STtRPG.
  8. > At first blush, it may appear that they're repeating a bunch of story lines from the previous films. But they change it just enough to make it interesting and different. Just like they did with films 2 and 3 then. I'm not knocking it. Film 3 was good and film 2 knocked it out of the park.
  9. To this day it is the only film that has done 3d right. Since it is still not possible for a TV to replicated the 3d as it needs to be Avatar was a theater only experience. Since the plot of Avatar was nothing special it makes seeing it in a theater for the spectacle the only selling point. Side note - Luckily this latest 3d fad seems to be sputtering out again. A couple years back it was near impossible to see an Imax movie in 2d, so far every one I have wanted to see this year was either 2d only or the option existed.
  10. 2 stores is hardly worth worth the time it took to write the article. A different format of store too - much smaller. This is TRU in name only, kinda like Atari when whoever bought it revised the brand name.
  11. > I'm just coming from the stance that not everything is inherently evil I just want to state that I do not equate "cash grab" with "evil". Grabbing Cash maybe but not a cash grab. I'm still going to re-up my annual pass to Disney (though I am on the plan that only went up 10% instead of 25%) so certain cash grabs I put up with while others I do not.
  12. There is a massive difference between rereleasing years later and a couple months later with "new" footage. Maybe I'm just old and remember second run theaters doing rereleases as a matter of course.
  13. Agree with you about the older Cameo laced show. Part of the problem with the older ones were it happened when SD was losing focus, I'm guessing due to a ratings slide, so they brought in those celebrity guests and that kind of thing never works out - it just overshadows the original heart of the show. If they get the balance right with this new show it might work out well. The trailer at least looks like they might have done so.
  14. I want to say one of my usual snarky bits but this might actually work.
×
×
  • Create New...