Well, what the fuck did he see?
AYYYY WEED LMAO
>>68050269
Fuck off retard.
I imagine he saw himself sitting on the throne.
>movie's title begins with The
>>68050213
the what?
>>68050729
The dick
>Movies's title uses the "_____ of the ______" format
What the hell is this douchebag's problem ? I've watched the LOTR special features, and he starts going on about how great it is that there is no God in Lord of the Rings and that people find morality for themselves. I mean, first of all, the book is mythology, it's about as religious as you can get. But more importantly, what he said had nothing to do with anything anyone was even talking about. There was no context whatsoever. Then a couple minutes of google finds
>McKellan stated, “I wouldn't say there's an appeal in this story to any particular set of beliefs… I note with delight that Hobbiton is a community without a church. … There is no set of beliefs in this story, no credo.”
See, this is why everyone hates atheist. Look, you can believe whatever you want, but when you won't shut up about it, it's starts to get pretty annoying. I can only imagine what this guy is like at parties.
>Person A (talking to Person B): So I finally got around to reading that book you lent me, and-
>Ian McKellen (showing up out of no where): Was it a fiction novel ? I always thought the Bible should be listed in the fiction section.
>Person A: . . .
>Person B: No, it was a book about the history of imaginary numbers throughout...
>Ian McKellen: You know what the best part about numbers are ? They don't believe in God.
>Person A: That doesn't even make sense.
>Ian McKellen: I do enjoy parties. There are no churches at parties.
there are gods in the LOTR world
eru illuvitar and that hunter guy
>>68049901
wew
As much as a fedora tipper he is, I still felt sorry for him in hobbit.
Why isn't it funny anymore?
>>68049796
>Something, something joke about your mom being a whore.
Fuck off it's hilarious.
notice how cheryl doesn't get turned on anymore when she is hit?
Flanderization and the joke got old
Can we all agree now that being iconic has nothing to do with box office success?
Yeah, I think Civil War will have the same fate, but worse.
What's happening to superheroes?
>>68049716
I thought we all knew that since Guardians of the Galaxy was a massive success.
Casuals don't care about iconic characters.
>Box office discussion
>On /co/
MODS MODS
So I take it snyder is fired?
Well he eats his wife's asshole really good
>>68049353
>there are people who actually "think" that ratings have any significance at all
Not to mention the irony of that picture should say it all.
You might dislike BvS, but a worse movie than PBMC?
Pathetic.
>>68049450
well PBMC is objectively better than BvS
ROLEPLAYING
>>68049061
FOR YOU
IT'S A QUESTION
>breaking the curse meant making her an ugly ogre 24/7 instead of just at night
Was this a Twilight Zone movie?
Wasn't the Curse actually that She turned into an Ogre at night?
So they didn't break the curse just made it permanent
>>68048871
Thought she was hotter as an orge. She was kinda bland as a human.
>>68048871
I thought she consciously decided not to break the curse by the time limit? And since she went past the time limit it was perma ogre for her.
Go fuck yourself
>>68048847
What did he mean by this?
>>68048847
>pow you're gay now, enjoy all that penis in your butt, guy who likes penisin his butt
>>68048860
Cameo done right
>“Batman v Superman,” one of the most expensive films ever made, is on pace to produce a $278 million profit for Warner Bros. once home video, TV and merchandise proceeds are tallied, according to SNL Kagan analyst Wade Holden. That’s less than the estimated $300 million the studio earned from “Man Of Steel.” It’s also evidence that Warner Bros. has more work to do to make its DC Comics division the unbreakable superhero movie business it needs.
>“I’m sure that it’s a bit of a disappointment,” Holden said. “They were probably hoping for box-office numbers similar to ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron,’ since ‘Batman v Superman’ had DC’s three most well-known comic book heroes together in the same movie” -- Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-08/-batman-v-superman-seen-earning-less-profit-than-superman-alone
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA
Oh god the text on the poster
>>68048840
DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DINGDING DING DING DING
Do you agree with Ingmar Bergman?
>Jean-Luc Godard
“I’ve never gotten anything out of his movies. They have felt constructed, faux intellectual, and completely dead. Cinematographically uninteresting and infinitely boring. Godard is a fucking bore. He’s made his films for the critics. One of the movies, Masculin, Féminin, was shot here in Sweden. It was mind-numbingly boring.”
>Michelangelo Antonioni
"He never properly learnt his craft. He’s an aesthete. If, for example, he needs a certain kind of road for The Red Desert, then he gets the houses repainted on the damned street. That is the attitude of an aesthete. He took great care over a single shot, but didn’t understand that a film is a rhythmic stream of images, a living, moving process; for him, on the contrary, it was such a shot, then another shot, then yet another. So, sure, there are some brilliant bits in his films… but I can’t understand why Antonioni is held in such high esteem. Fellini, Kurosawa, and Bunuel move in the same field as Tarkovsky. Antonioni was on his way, but expired, suffocated by his own tediousness.”
>Alfred Hitchcock
"A very good technician. And he has something in Psycho, he had some moments. Psycho is one of his most interesting pictures because he had to make the picture very fast, with very primitive means. He had little money, and this picture tells very much about him. Not very good things. He is completely infantile, and I would like to know more — no, I don’t want to know — about his behaviour with, or, rather, against women. But this picture is very interesting.”
>Orson Welles
“For me he’s just a hoax. It’s empty. It’s not interesting. It’s dead. Citizen Kane, which I have a copy of — is all the critics’ darling, always at the top of every poll taken, but I think it’s a total bore. Above all, the performances are worthless. The amount of respect that movie’s got is absolutely unbelievable.”
did filmmakers back then have any sort of consensus on anything
I really dislike Godard, Hitchcock (and de Palma) and I'm not particularly fond of Welles but I think Bergman was wrong in his statement about Antonioni.
Even he changed his mind on Antonioni in later interviews. He admitted that he hadn't really understood the man before meeting him and that his movies made a lot more sense. He also called Blow Up and La Notte masterpieces.
On Hitchcock though, I just see all of his movies (all that I've seen) as too blatantly artificial. When you compare something like Les Diaboliques to any of the so called golden age Hitchcock film I think Hitchcock looks comical by comparison. I think "infantile" is a decent description. De Palma is also infantile. I've seen three of his movies, Body Double (which is just about the most ham fisted and absurd Hitchcock clone I've ever seen.), Blow Out (which really just feels cheap and empty in comparison to the Conversation and Blow Up), and Mission Impossible which I haven't seen in years. I also saw scarface a long time ago but I consider it more an Oliver Stone movie than De Palma.
>>68048707
>pay attention to meeeeeeee
he has a point in every case but was deliberately using hyperbole to get people to talk about him. he acknowledges as much in The Magic Lantern.
>>68048705
>>68048722
>>68048741
The Dead Faggots.
How many times have you watched this trailer? Me - about 20 times.
>>68048675
Fucking manchildren
>>68048675
I'm going to see this kinó 12 times in the cinéma!
Why is /tv/ fully invested in trailer culture? I find making hype threads for a teaser for the trailer absolutely absurd, but it happens.
What is the SMiLE of cinema?
>>68048655
Has there ever been a movie released way after the fact?
>>68048655
Love and Mercy is as close as you're going to get.
seriously, will the be better thanThe Force Awakens?
>>68048446
Is that a picture from a cosplay convention?
>ARGHH HELP ME GUYS TONYS GOING TO GET ME
>>68048446
Yeah because it's been built on a franchise for years all it has to do is adapt the comics a little bit and it will be entertaining
Starwars with the extended canon removed is new tread they have no idea what to do and now that a souless corporate reference movie worked it is all we are gonna get from Disneys starwars
