Open Discussion – October 22, 2012

Published 3 years ago by

sr open discussion Open Discussion   October 22, 2012

As usual – talk about whatever you like as long as it’s related to movies, TV or Screen Rant itself – just remember to play nice. simple smile Open Discussion   October 22, 2012

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Since the article is not up yet, what did everybody think of last nights Walking Dead episode? I thought it was great. Not to completely rag on season 2 but I thought the first two episodes of season 3 were better than all of season 2.

    • I didn’t see s3 e2 yet but i loved the first episode.
      spoiler alert.
      Without realizing it, they helped free those guys at the end. Or so it seemed, I didn’t read the comics. I like the new direction, I think they killed more zombies in ep 1 than in the whole second season.

    • Season 2 was obvious filler.

    • Last nights episode of TWD was awesome.

  2. Watched Van Helsing last night and that could have been a good movie. I really liked the opening black and white sequence but it was all downhill from there. I get that they were going for a cheesy fun ride, but it could have been done better. :-(

  3. When did it become a thing to have hour long shows? Do you think there are shows that would benefit from a downgrade into a 30 minute show?

    • 30 minutes isn’t long enough, not for dramas, what needs to change is the way network shows force 22+ episodes in a season. 12-16 episodes works much better as a format.

    • 30 minute shows (21 minutes without adds) are way too short IMO – even most sitcoms could benefit from being a bit longer, but I doubt that’ll ever happen.

      I guess there are shows that could be downgraded to 30 minutes, but the shows I’m currently watching (last season of House, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Arrow and Homeland to name a few) wouldn’t work if each episode was only 21 minutes long.

    • Well, eventually we will get there. Episodes used to be 45 minutes long 10-15 years ago, these days some shows barely hit the 40 minute mark, and that’s with the recap already included). Give it a few more years with even more advertising and we are down to 35 and eventually 30 minutes. Not to mention the ever increasing product placement within the actual episodes that takes away yet more screentime for non-sensical product scenes, that already take on the dimension of mini ads with the characters as spokespersons. Warehouse 13 was especially terrible in that regard this and last season (Prius!).

  4. I watched Chernobyl diaries last night and it was Bleh. Not a great movie and didn’t really keep me entertained. I went into it thinking it was more bout te paranormal side of the city and was a little let down when it was the people never left side. The acting was just okay. The suspense wasn’t all there. Had potential to be such a great film I think but idk it lost itself after the first night they spent there. I think Id give it 2.5/5

  5. Also sinister got bumped down the box office pretty hard, darn you paranormal activity.

    Also Hotel Transylvania is still doing weirdly well.

    • I saw Hotel Transylvania on Saturday and thought it was quite good.

    • Hotel Transylvania is doing well because it’s a Halloween movie marketed towards young kids. I know my daughter showed no interest in Frankweenie (in fact she seemed frightened by it), but she saw the trailers for Hotel Transylvania and laughed so much. So I took her to it and now she’s on a monster kick (she’s almost 4) and I’m loving it. I guarantee we will be buying this for home viewing.

  6. Just saw all of Tera Nova on Netflix. Really enjoyed it. Sad that it won’t have a second season. Would have actually watch it weekly. It would be nice though if they could of at least finish it with a movie. Kind of like serenity did for firefly

    • I hope this happens. That show ended on such an interesting cliff hanger.

  7. So there are reports (rumors?) saying that Marvel is forcing Natalie Portman to reprise her role as Jane Foster.
    Apparently she’s still upset that Marvel fired Patty Jenkins from the director’s chair.

    I’m hoping this isn’t true… IMO Portman wasn’t that great in ‘THOR’ and if she doesn’t even want to do it anymore, I can’t imagine her performance being better this time round.

    • Can’t have a good performance if you don’t have a good script. Her Jane Foster was a floozy who practically threw herself at Thor. She should have been written as much stronger character forcing Thor to actually earn her affection. Which would of helped with the whole story about Thor learning to be humble.

      • I agree that she could have been written better, and again, a longer run-time for the movie would have given more room for development, but I just think the way she carried herself was all wrong…
        Her performance did not convince me that she’s a scientist.

        • The run time wasn’t the issue, It was that she was a floozy. Which is a girl who is easily infatuated/attracted to guys. Portman could have pulled a knock out performance if Jane Foster was more than a one-dimensional character. I wouldn’t want to play that character if I was her either.

          • Of course the run-time in ‘THOR’ was an issue.
            If there was more time to focus on Thor’s evolution to becoming humble and his relationship with Jane (and less time spent on facebook jokes and trying to “modernize” the movie) Jane could have come across as more than just Thor’s love interest/a shallow floozie.

            I agree that she was one dimensional and not that well written, but that’s partly due to the actress as well – you can’t put all the blame on the script.
            Sif and Frigga didn’t have much screen time and I think it’s safe to say the script wasn’t focused on making them shine either, but Jamie Alexander and Rene Russo’s performance helped a lot in establishing those two as strong, independent and important female cahracters.

            The Jane Foster character from the comics certainly isn’t one-dimensional or a “floozie” (I kinda get the feeling that’s what you’re saying based on your comment), but IMO, due to the script as well as Portman’s performance that’s pretty much what she became.

            • Not really. If the screen time in ‘Thor’ was used efficiently for character development instead of being used to tell facebook jokes and such, ‘Thor’ would not have been such an underdeveloped film. 114 min is enough time to tell a good story if time isn’t wasted. Another 20 min could have helped, but ‘Thor’ still needed a stronger story, especially when he went to Earth.

              • “Another 20 min could have helped” – *sigh* That’s exactly what I’m saying.
                A longer run-time could have helped flesh out the story and flesh out the characters. The movie had a solid plot, but time restrictions (as well as time WASTED with stupid jokes and unnecessary characters *cough*Darcy*cough) caused it to become less solid.

                If you watched the director’s commentary of ‘THOR’, you’ll know that Brannagh talked about the (IMO great) deleted scenes that had to be cut due to said time restrictions.

                • What he means is that if the time given was used properly, not wasted trying to find humor than the 114 min run time would have been enough. Cut the pointless joke scenes and insert the meaningful character development scenes and you would of had a much better film. Jane Foster would still have been wasted as a “floozie/floozy” though.

    • I can imagine it’s true for several reasons, this might come out the wrong way but I’m not sure how else to phrase it, maybe she thinks comic book films are beyond her now, she’s moved on to bigger and better things. Not my opinion obviously.

      Portman only signed onto Thor because Brannagh was directing and his creative voice was fairly stifled in the film if you ask me, and maybe she felt the same, Foster was a very weak character on paper so she didn’t have much to work with in the role.
      And now the director she had been expecting to work with, was replaced, so from her point of view, things weren’t looking so good.

      Also, it seems to me, that Marvel might burn bridges with certain actors, Hugo Weaving certainly isn’t in any mood to return to the Marvel universe.
      She was never a great fit for the role in the first place, and honestly, I expected something like this to happen. I wonder what really goes on behind the scenes, how much money changes hands, what breaking contractual obligations might mean in the long term.
      Likely we’ll never know the truth.

      • I’m suspicious of most of Marvel Casting choices. If you know Kenneth Branagh’s track record as a director and actor, you know ‘Thor’ was not the type of film he wanted to make. There was def some heavy Marvel Studios interference. He’s just professional enough to not talk s*** in the public like Rourke did.

    • They got rid of Patty Jenkins for good reason. She wouldn’t have made a good Thor movie PERIOD. Portman just likes her for political reasons, which is a stupid way to pick who directs a movie. I’m glad they didn’t stick to that. When I first heard they wanted her for Thor 2, I was already getting ready to not watch it, and I watch EVERY comic book movie normally. But if Patty Jenkins, Kathryn Bigelow, John Woo, Ang Lee, or Oliver Stone is making the movie, I’ll just have to skip it, at least from theaters, maybe I’ll get a pirated version, but I’ll never support any movies from those people…

      • isn´t portman a big feminist(women fascists),maybe that was the reason.

        • Did you really just write “Women Fascists”?

          Really? Is that really an accurate and intelligent thing to say?

          “a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism”

          But you can blame your poor English if you like.

          • if i say it so,than i mean it so. feminists-groups are ultra-radical.

            • That simply isn’t true. There are plenty of feminist groups that have very balanced views and who don’t consider feminism a means to reverse the long ruling patriarchy into a matriarchy that has the goal to suppress men. Instead they want real equality where men and women are truly the same. Are there very radical exceptions that would love to suppress men? Sure, but that doesn’t mean that you can call all feminist groups “fascists”, which is a pretty dumb statement at any rate. I suggest you look up what “fascism” and “feminism” actually are before you dig an even deeper hole for yourself.

              • it was just a f….n joke ! calm down everybody . what for words you use: ´before you dig an even deeper hole´. but, if a comedian makes a tasteless joke,everybody is amused. i´ve got the right to put some dry humour in my comments. we call here many things -fascistic- if a group of persons does have too radical ideas or if a group of non-cigarette smokers are attacking smokers with the argument that passiv-smokers get unhealthy too,if they must stand behind a smoker or must walk behind a smoker. the most important for me is live and let live.

          • oh,man what´s your problem. i can write my opinion about it. but, about the racism problem on this site,nobody gives a f..k. i know that you remember the -rihanna- discussion where i was a member from your f.b. site screenranters.

          • sounds like my wife alright…oh! did i just say that out loud?!?

            • and it´s fun heeh, to jump on the spotting-train. are you proud now ? clap on your shoulder.

        • Tu dir selbst (und uns) einen Gefallen und hör auf so einen Blödsinn zu schreiben. Vielleicht solltest du auch nach dem Unterschied zwischen Faschist und Feministin googeln.

          Sorry for the german post guys, but he wouldn’t get it if I’d written it in english. Hope you don’t mind.

          • wir beide brauchen uns gar nicht unterhalten,und du hast mir gar nichts vorzuschreiben. ich kenn die unterschiede schon.

            • Ich will mich auch gar nicht mit dir unterhalten. Du bist doch derjenige, der ständig auf meine Kommentare antwortet.

              Again guys, sorry for the german.

                • Your “jokes” aren’t charming. And not funny either.

      • Ok, so my post just got hijacked, lol.

  8. What’s your favourite scary movie that isn’t traditionally considered to be a horror film? I ask because it’s Halloween and because I named black swan as my favourite horror of the past few years, which one or two peeps considered a strange choice. Does anyone else have a non-horror that freaks them out?

    • yes, -27 dresses-.

    • I absolutely consider Black Swan to be a horror film. I couldn’t think of any other way to describe it.

      • I think so too. I got called out for it being a psychogical thriller. I’ll go you one further then and ask where we stand on Se7en. saw began as a sort off ripoff of it.

        • Se7en is a horror film in many ways I think, it certainly ticks all the boxes, but it’s disguised in a psychological police thriller, but the elements are definitely there. It’s certainly a scary film.

          I’d class Silence Of The Lambs as horror, so by that classification, Se7En must also be.

          • me,too. and this movies have also made a new genre horror-thriller.

          • silence of the lambs is too silly to be horror.

            • yes, – silence of the lambs- is silly,of course,if you say that,then it must be so …pppfftt ! go watch the second part -hannibal- that´s horror pure. horror are not just monsters,ghosts and that stuff,it has a deeper meaning.

              • “deeper meaning” pleasssse……lecter is one of the most overrated characters of all time.
                He does gross stuff to humans like an animal and preaches psycho babble to seem deeper than he is. Hes no better than michael myers, actually worse.

                  • Troll

            • Hannibal’s ending is REALLY silly (and I mean that in the best possible way)! I actually really like Hannibal though it’s a completely different tone to lambs. Despite that, both movies deffo have there fair share of intentional and unintentional black comedy moments. ‘it rubs the lotion on it’s skin!’

    • I think this movie is labeled Sci-Fi, but when I was younger it scared the crap out of me. It’s a tad cheesy today, but I love Event Horizon.

    • I consider “American Beauty” to be a horror film without peer.

      AHHHHHHHH! Suburbia!!!

      • This should have been in response to Mark’s question above…

        • And you just immediately made me think of blue velvet for that very reason!

    • A scary movie that isn’t considered a horror movie…a lot of documentaries fit into that category because the reality of real life psychopaths, disasters, and whatnot is way more terrifying to me than some fictional account. But, I wouldn’t call any of those “my favorite.” I’m not psychotic. So I’ll stick with Se7en because that movie is one of my favorites…SPOILER ***** The bad guy wins! But yet he loses. GENIUS!

      • Yeah Werner herzog’s grizzly man documentary is pretty messed up!

    • The Seventh Seal

  9. Did anybody see the new Halo Launch Trailer? It was pretty sweet. Look for the extended cut version.

    • I saw the Halo 4 trailer with all the fish and the phrase “camouflage gives you the edge.” I thought it was pretty hilarious! (in a good way)

  10. I could do without Portman in Thor 2, and the rest of the sequels as well, she was just blah in Thor.

    • I think it could be cool if instead of making a movie about one of the games, make the movie part of the current AC continuity and have it set in England (post Ezio era and pre Connor era).
      Although I guess that would depend on AC3’s story line…

      • That’s an excellent idea actually, keep it within the continuity of the games but tell a new story with a new assassin. The general themes would certainly allow for that.
        And make it Victorian England, which would always have been a wonderful setting for a future game, gothic spires, Jack the Ripper, a whole lot of cool stuff to do.

        • Exactly.

      • Nice idea.

    • I hope it doesn’t turn out like Prince of Persia.

  11. Got a chance to watch the second episode of Arrow over the weekend, and WOW. Very good. This Stephan Amell guy seems to have it going on as an actor, it’s funny nobody’s pick up on him before.

    • He manages to play all the requisite aspects of the character, he can be serious, deadly, but also personable, charming and funny. The whole reason the show works as well as it does is because of him. I suspect he might do very well for himself in the future.

      • @dr Sam

        I fully agree, he is the show. His future seems to be very bright. I look forward to seeing working on the big screen one day.

        • There are a few other good actors on the show (and some not so good, the guy who plays Merlyn is terrible, which is a real shame considering the inevitable collision course he and Ollie are on) but as you say, Amell is the key to making the show a hit.

  12. I got a chance to watch Drive over the weekend as well, and I must say, I was extremely disappointed. I just wasn’t very good IMO.

    • @Stark

      I’ll have to agree. I find the movie to be very overrated. Everyone acts as if it was a great movie, but honestly, it was OK in my opinion, that’s about it… The most ironic thing about the movie is that it’s called “Drive” yet the one car chase in the movie was so poorly done it really was a let-down…

      • That’s the problem when you take everything at face value. But of course the word “drive” has more than one meaning, one of which is “motivation”. Drive is about what keeps the unnamed Driver going, why he does what he does. Also, “to drive” is verb, while the “drive” that’s I’m talking about is a noun, which makes much more sense for a movie title.

        I agree that the trailer for Drive was very misleading and made it look like a dumb Fast & Furious clone, while the actual movie was so much more. Of course you get disappointed when you expect an action thriller and you get a crime drama instead. But that doesn’t make the movie bad. For me it’s definitely a great movie, otherwise I wouldn’t have watched it three times inside a month, and I also wouldn’t have ordered the Blu-ray right after coming home from the theater.

        • *is a verb
          **that I’m talking about

        • @TheLostWinchester

          I understand that, and no, I’m not one of those idiots that were expecting fast and furious. I just mean that they didn’t represent the way cars really move and behave correctly in their one set-piece car chase, and for me to take a movie seriously, I expect them to at least try to be believable in what they are showing. And even regarding the rest of the movie, I just found it to be very underwhelming. I mean, you talk about drive as in motivation, but to me, he didn’t really seem to have that passion, that anger, or at least he didn’t really convey it well enough. He just seemed to have gone after the people but didn’t really seem that driven about it…

          And I guess it’s peronal preference, but to me I’m never too impressed with the whole artsy long cuts where nothing happens set to music thing that movies like that one loves to do…

        • @TheLostWinchester

          Sorry for when my other comment is posted and this becomes a double post. But I’ve seen them “awaiting moderation” for a very long time, so I’m reposting, editing out the word that set it off:

          I understand that, and no, I’m not one of those dummies that were expecting fast and furious. I just mean that they didn’t represent the way cars really move and behave correctly in their one set-piece car chase, and for me to take a movie seriously, I expect them to at least try to be believable in what they are showing. And even regarding the rest of the movie, I just found it to be very underwhelming. I mean, you talk about drive as in motivation, but to me, he didn’t really seem to have that passion, that anger, or at least he didn’t really convey it well enough. He just seemed to have gone after the people but didn’t really seem that driven about it…

          And I guess it’s peronal preference, but to me I’m never too impressed with the whole artsy long cuts where nothing happens set to music thing that movies like that one loves to do…

    • I agree completely. Watched it on Netflix a few weeks ago and I couldn’t understand what the hype was about. It just felt like it was going in too many directions without really reaching a finish line.

    • i’m glad i’m not the only one on here who is not a big fan of that movie. i thought it was ok as a character study-type of film, but really, people were acting like it was some kind of life-changing movie, and i just didn’t see it that way. i got called a twilight-fan for not liking drive. smh.

      • @jeffro

        The thing is, the movie tried to be very “artsy” and for some people, they think for them to be “sophisticated” they have to “appreciate” anything like that. And part of that is putting down people who dislike it, or in their terms “don’t get it.”

  13. I just started reading A Feast for Crows, but Storm of Swords was simply amazing. Loved it. Best of The song of ice and fire so far.

    Without giving anything away, that scene halfway through storm… that scene… oh the blood, the humanity! some of you know what I’m talking about. I was floored.

    • oh good, no need to wait another week till -screenrant- gets the pics.

      • screenrant already put up the pics, so yeah, you dont have to wait a week.

  14. saw several new movies recently:

    The Ugly Truth: 7/10
    Role Models: 7.5/10
    One for the Money: 5.5/10
    Push: 6.5/10
    A Few Good Men: 7.5/10

    and I also just recently finished the third season of Fringe.

    • i wouldn´t watch those movies,even if they were thelast movies on earth.

    • YAY!!!

  15. So I finally saw Sinister yesterday and was a bit disappointed with how scary it turned out not to be. It had its moments for sure but I felt there were way too few. There were also some sillier moments that took me right out of the suspense and that was due to the creepy kids angle. Kids are just too awkward and funny looking to be legitimately frightening. I felt more fear from Cid in Looper, haha. However, I did think the directing and main acting was well enough to put it above your typical horror film. But overall I was disappointed after hearing how scary this movie was supposed to be and it just didn’t do it for me. 2 stars for me!

    • @boogoo

      I don’t know, I don’t find ANY horror movie scary really, at least nothing in the last 10-20 years… I know they are fake, so all of the scare attempts are yawn-inducing for me… I don’t really get how you can actually get “scared” by something on the screen anyway… But that’s just me…

      • Same here. And that kinda sucks because horror movies scared the daylights out of me as a kid, and i grew to love that about the horror genre. Now im so desensitized that anything new is just blah to me. Been there, seen that.

  16. Oh, i forgot i also saw Ted this weekend. 6.8/10. It was pretty good, better than i thought coming from the guy who does family guy. one thing i couldnt get past though was mark’s stupid accent. it was really distracting. but, not complaining to much, got to see mila kunis!