This got a theatrical release!?

Recommended Videos

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,855
15
43
bartholen said:
Hey, this got a theatrical release too, so no surprises there.
How in the hell do Adam Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer still get funding when every gag (think more of the bodily function, not a joke) they make has been done to death, raped, resurrected and then done to death again by the Internet by the time their piece of shit movies come out?
wha....wha....whaaaa

is this...another one?

NO NO I THOURGHT VAMPIRES SUCK KILLED THEM FOR GOOD NOO!!!!
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,855
15
43
Soviet Heavy said:
I've been without a TV for several months. Now that I've come home, I've seen commercials for... well, this.


Uhhh, okay, I know that The Wizard of Oz's ownership rights have sort of been in limbo in recent years, but this is what comes out? It looks like a straight to DVD bargain shop job, not a full Hollywood production! Then I looked up the Wikipedia article on it.

$70 Million dollars. This movie cost $70 million dollars to make, and it looks horrendous. And it got a theatrical release. This is almost as baffling as that Food Fight movie that JonTron and Nostalgia Critic did reviews on.

How can so much money be funneled into something that looks so rushed and cheap? Where the hell did all that cash go? Who thought this was a good idea!?
ummmmm

I didn't have audio but I honestly don't see the issue here...the animation and effects looks fine to me
 

Strelok

New member
Dec 22, 2012
494
0
0
Vault101 said:
ummmmm

I didn't have audio but I honestly don't see the issue here...the animation and effects looks fine to me
Looked alright to me too, it's got Dan Aykroyd and Patrick Stewart in it... I would at least watch it on NetFlix, same with the Annie movie.
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,766
0
0
bartholen said:
Hey, this got a theatrical release too, so no surprises there.
I feel really really bad for giggling at the first 2 jokes. At first I sort of thought maybe they had done slightly better, but then it all went downhill into the pits of comedic hell.

OT:
I love watching trailers like this for things that just can't be real.
Starring Eric Roberts!
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,978
5,865
118
bartholen said:
How in the hell do Adam Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer still get funding when every gag (think more of the bodily function, not a joke) they make has been done to death, raped, resurrected and then done to death again by the Internet by the time their piece of shit movies come out?
It's like vommit that's been lying around for so long it's become a self sustaining entity. Nothing can stop it now!

SeltzerBerg probably have some pretty big connections in Hollywood.

What I'm wondering is how in the sweet name of Christ are they still finding actors for these movies? You'd think any actor with even one funtctioning brain cell would just go do porn instead.
 

Spambot 3000

New member
Aug 8, 2011
713
0
0
'It looks horrendous' - meaning the dialogue and just general plot right? Because that's really not bad animation. Like, at all. It's not Disney or Pixar level good, sure, but if you're saying that's horrible animation and effect quality you need to get your eyes tested.
 

Akiraking

New member
Jan 7, 2012
134
0
0
Really "The Starving Games", I would ask how they could possibly have found enough jokes to make a film about the Hunger Games but based on that trailer they are just making bad references to anything they can think of. I admit to liking some of their previous bad films like Epic Movie and Super Hero movie but at least they tried to have a consistent theme back then. Epic movie was about making fun of Epic sized films like Narnia and Pirates of the Caribbean, and Super hero movie was able to make jokes at a whole lot of movies due to Super heroes being popular. I am not saying they were good but if your film is not going to just be about the Hunger Games then don't use the title.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
Akiraking said:
Really "The Starving Games", I would ask how they could possibly have found enough jokes to make a film about the Hunger Games but based on that trailer they are just making bad references to anything they can think of. I admit to liking some of their previous bad films like Epic Movie and Super Hero movie but at least they tried to have a consistent theme back then. Epic movie was about making fun of Epic sized films like Narnia and Pirates of the Caribbean, and Super hero movie was able to make jokes at a whole lot of movies due to Super heroes being popular. I am not saying they were good but if your film is not going to just be about the Hunger Games then don't use the title.
Super hero movie wasn't done by them. It was the Zucker brothers.
 

Ham Blitz

New member
May 28, 2009
576
0
0
faefrost said:
I mean no Daddy Warbucks? Regardless of race color or planet of origin?
Apparently there is a Daddy Warbucks in spirit, he's just now called Daddy Stacks... yeah, it sounds weird but I guess they wanted a more "modern" sounding way of saying tons of money.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Literally or not it still comes across as extremely petty and not at all funny.[/quote]

Petty? How so?

Were you excited for this remake of Annie? Do you have some vested interest in its success? Do you know someone involved in the production?

If no to all of those than how can you possibly say I'm being "petty"? Especially in regards to my personal opinion.

You may think I'm being petty, but I think you're being rude.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
FPLOON said:
You know, I remember seeing this trailer in theaters before seeing the trailer the OP is mentioning in the same exact theater showing... Honestly, based on the order I saw them in, the OZ movie looks more out-of-place than the Annie remake... (I mean, at least the Annie remake actually LOOKS like a movie that would be shown in theaters before it reaches Blu-Ray/DVD/Digital in a few months time...)
That's part of what appalls me about this film. It's literally just some studio exec sitting down and deciding, "We need a new movie. We haven't remade Annie yet, so let's do that. Modernize it, but don't do anything original. Kids are stupid. Remove any semblance of character and fill it with pop-culture references no one will remember in five years, make the adults act like children (and be sure to get some good actors to fill those roles), neuter the villain but make everyone hate him anyway, and redo all the original music with contemporary beats and auto-tune."

It's less the film itself that bothers me as much as the perpetual trend of such films continually being made and, for some god-forsaken reason, seeing way too much success. If anything, this Annie remake is just the latest example of that trend.

The Oz film just looks like another 'babysitter in a can' film. Stupid as hell but inoffensive. (to me, anyway)
 

Someone Depressing

New member
Jan 16, 2011
2,416
0
0
I didn't read all of Baum's Oz books, though I'm making a start simply for anti-pop culture issolation's sake, and this... yep. Hollywoodified. Even if it's based on something else, that doesn't give it an excuse.
 

FPLOON

Your #1 Source for the Dino Porn
Jul 10, 2013
12,530
0
0
Vigormortis said:
FPLOON said:
You know, I remember seeing this trailer in theaters before seeing the trailer the OP is mentioning in the same exact theater showing... Honestly, based on the order I saw them in, the OZ movie looks more out-of-place than the Annie remake... (I mean, at least the Annie remake actually LOOKS like a movie that would be shown in theaters before it reaches Blu-Ray/DVD/Digital in a few months time...)
That's part of what appalls me about this film. It's literally just some studio exec sitting down and deciding, "We need a new movie. We haven't remade Annie yet, so let's do that. Modernize it, but don't do anything original. Kids are stupid. Remove any semblance of character and fill it with pop-culture references no one will remember in five years, make the adults act like children (and be sure to get some good actors to fill those roles), neuter the villain but make everyone hate him anyway, and redo all the original music with contemporary beats and auto-tune."

It's less the film itself that bothers me as much as the perpetual trend of such films continually being made and, for some god-forsaken reason, seeing way too much success. If anything, this Annie remake is just the latest example of that trend.

The Oz film just looks like another 'babysitter in a can' film. Stupid as hell but inoffensive. (to me, anyway)
Okay... I see what you mean...

It's not that the movie's getting an updated version one of the main problems in theatrical movies in general (since like hell would kids of the present generation would want to see a movie that's two or three generations old in the first place[footnote]HA! I would point to Disney as the counter-example, but even then you'll find "updated" versions of movies in said example...[/footnote]), but the fact that it's only being done for the sake of making "easy money" makes it a pretty glaring problem... Kids wouldn't care because they would find it enjoyable no matter what, according to the studio execs, and that's good enough for them to keep doing this in the vain disguise of showcasing "source material" from years's past to a "modern audience"...

But, let's face it... It's been done in the past, it's being done today, and it will continue to happen as long as there's "easy money" to be made in the process... Besides, it's not like any of us would actually go out and SEE these movies in theaters in the first place... (unless, for example, your kids beg you to take them to see it in theaters or something like that...)
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
FPLOON said:
Okay... I see what you mean...

It's not that the movie's getting an updated version one of the main problems in theatrical movies in general (since like hell would kids of the present generation would want to see a movie that's two or three generations old in the first place[footnote]HA! I would point to Disney as the counter-example, but even then you'll find "updated" versions of movies in said example...[/footnote]), but the fact that it's only being done for the sake of making "easy money" makes it a pretty glaring problem... Kids wouldn't care because they would find it enjoyable no matter what, according to the studio execs, and that's good enough for them to keep doing this in the vain disguise of showcasing "source material" from years's past to a "modern audience"...

But, let's face it... It's been done in the past, it's being done today, and it will continue to happen as long as there's "easy money" to be made in the process... Besides, it's not like any of us would actually go out and SEE these movies in theaters in the first place... (unless, for example, your kids beg you to take them to see it in theaters or something like that...)
Oh, I don't disagree. I think you and I are of the same general line of thought on the matter. And I know it's been done in the past. Quite a lot, in fact.

My main issue is that the budgets of the modern day versions of these types of remakes are exuberant; at times to the extreme. And that because of aggressive marketing and an increasing acceptance of mediocrity by general audiences these films usually make piles of money. Thus, perpetuating the trend.

It's started to spiral out of control in recent years. To the point that it's almost like a recurrence of the "rip-off/spin-off" trend in the 70's.

Not that I'm saying all modern day movies, or even popular movies, are bad. Not even remotely. God knows I've gone to see my fair share of big budget movies in recent years. Hell, I saw Gravity, The Avengers, Tron Legacy, and Inception at least twice each in theaters. But the deluge of "quick cash grab" garbage is starting to increase again.

Perhaps it's just a cyclical pattern to the industry. Maybe it's as inevitable as Tarantino referencing a blaxsploitation trope in his latest movie or Mel Gibson trying to do a "personal character" film to fix some of his bad image. I don't know. But from my perspective, the Annie remake is more "offensive" to me than the new Oz movie.
 

Childe

New member
Jun 20, 2012
218
0
0
bartholen said:
Hey, this got a theatrical release too, so no surprises there.
How in the hell do Adam Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer still get funding when every gag (think more of the bodily function, not a joke) they make has been done to death, raped, resurrected and then done to death again by the Internet by the time their piece of shit movies come out?
Whats funny is that this is better then the actual hunger games movie....

OT: I died a little on the inside when i saw this. From the trailer it looks like they are destroying everything that made the Wizard of Oz the classic that it is. The animation also looks horrible