#LIONSGATE IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN

[atelierlili]

Look me in the eye and say there isn’t a social commentary going on when Suzanne makes 3/4 district 12 QQ tributes dark skin/dark haired with tattered clothing and malnutrition, vs the pale skin fair haired, relatively clean and healthy female tribute.

[hinasho]

I'll tell you what people's problem with The Crow 2024 is — I'm a longtime fan by the way, I own the comics, I watched all the movies, so on.

The Crow 1994 managed to get the soul of the source material (comics). The Crow is a story about overcoming grief and acceptance of death — the author wrote Eric's story during his darkest periods of grief after his girlfriend was killed. So the story of Eric and Shelley have meaning, they are meaningful characters to a lot of people. Brandon's movie, while with some differences from the original story, still carried the same themes beautifully and the tragedy that happened during the filming made people (me included) turn protective over the memory of The Crow and it’s meaning.

There were three other movies after The Crow 1994 but they never dared to touch on Eric's character, instead they created new ones like Ashe Corven, Jimmy Cuervo and Alex Corvis. And those movies suck, don’t get me wrong, but people don’t have a problem with them because they didn't touch on Brandon's Lee legacy and di their best to stay on theme — grief and acceptance. They are their own thing, and that's that.

So did the comics. Eric story is the first main one, but no one took him and tried to continue it, he's pretty much untouchable, he has his beginning and his end. Instead, they created new Crows for their stories: Joshua, Iris Shaw, Mark Leung...There's a long list of existing Crows with their own stories.

The problem with 2024 The Crow is mostly that they called it a remake and took Eric's names to a character that doesn’t even resembles the original Eric — and I'm not saying in physical appearance, I'm saying his essence because the original Eric is a killer of bad guys, but he's also pretty charismatic; he loved life, he was gentle with the little girl Sarah he was friends with, he was kind, he was thoughtful, he even jokes around! Which, to many people, Bill's Eric does not resembles even a little bit of Eric's other than his name and neither does his story matches the themes and soul behind The Crow franchise.

The main gripe The Crow community has with the 2024 version is them taking Eric's and Shelley story, then changing it so much and losing it's soul when the easiest thing to avoid all this controversy and review bombing would've been just be like "Hey, we're making a new Crow movie, but we have created our own original protagonists for it!" just like people have been doing for years, because that's what 2024 Shelley and Eric feel like to people — original characters who just happen to share the names of the OG's.

Anyway, I watched the 2024 version and while Bill did a phenomenal job as always with what he was given and he looks so damn good, the story just...Didn't get me at all. There's not one bit of The Crow essence in there for me.

Hello, thank you for sharing your thoughts! 💞 I finally watched The Crow 1994 and City of Angels today (still need to watch Salvation & Wicked Prayer) so fortunately I now have a bit more context.

The problem with 2024 The Crow is mostly that they called it a remake

So to begin my breakdown: The 2024 isn't a remake of the 1994 movie. This seems to be a widespread misconception. But in all of the clips and trailers Lionsgate has released, they clarify that it's a "modern re-imagining of the original graphic novel". The movie never claims to be a remake of the 1994 film.

Now a fair debate could be how closely tied (or not) the '24 movie is to the graphic novel, which the two are remarkably different, but based on the reviews and comments I've seen, fans seem more inclined to keep comparing it to the 1994 adaptation despite Lionsgate never claiming they were trying to remake that specific film.

So basically, comparisons between '94 Eric and '24 Eric don't really hold up as valid criticisms in my opinion, because the director had no intention of adapting the '24 film from the '94 movie in the first place.

the original Eric is a killer of bad guys, but he's also pretty charismatic; he loved life, he was gentle with the little girl Sarah he was friends with, he was kind, he was thoughtful, he even jokes around! Which, to many people, Bill's Eric does not resembles even a little bit

'24 Eric is still a killer of killers. He only kills those that attack him first or had something to do with his and Shelly's deaths. He never kills needlessly.

In regards to him loving life, 2024 Eric does in droves! He actively hates having to kill so many people and takes no enjoyment out of it. The opera scene, while fantastic, wasn't a fun moment for him. Since her death, you can tangibly feel that all he wants to do is get back to his simple life with Shelly. He loves her and he loves the life they had.

As for him being charismatic, I can see your point there. In the graphic novels (from summaries I've read), GN Eric does have a morbid sense of humor and at times played around with his kills before finishing the job. His relationship with Sherri was brief but sweet and he gets a cute cat!! He continues to form relationships even after Shelly's death because of his charisma and kindness.

From a writing perspective, I believe all of these moments are intended to humanize Eric given the GN begins with him as The Crow pretty much immediately. We are introduced to him already in the throes of his grief and seeking vengeance.

In contrast, the '24 film paces the transition MUCH slower with the first act being about how Shelly and Eric meet, and the growth of their romance. I believe Director Rupert Sanders used those scenes to humanize the characters instead, which he accomplishes as both Eric and Shelly feel like they're just normal people dealt a shitty hand who only want to live their lives together. You can see the love they shared and how pure it was.

Basically, the core of the characters remain the same, just told in different ways throughout the story. In the graphic novel, James O'Barr humanizes Eric & adds levity in the midst of the carnage, while Rupert Sanders adds it before the carnage. Despite the timeline differences, both succeed in showing that Eric isn't a mindless murdering machine, and is just a regular guy who's been driven to the point of madness.

(It still would've been a nice touch for '24 Eric to adopt a cat for Shelly in the movie though.)

Bill's Eric does not resembles even a little bit of Eric's other than his name and neither does his story matches the themes and soul behind The Crow franchise.

From my understanding, the main themes behind the franchise are grief, the difficulty to move past it, and divine justice.

All three Erics suffer from visions of Shelly, who's memory plays on a feedback loop as they go about their spree. Something both the '94 and '24 films don't do, however, is touch on GN Eric's self harm tendencies. Which isn't a criticism! I'm merely discussing the different ways they show Eric's state of mourning.

The inability to move on is also still prevalent in the '24 movie. It's an active choice Eric makes when Kronos gives him the option to get his life back, and instead Eric submerges deeper and signs away his soul. He steps into it with his eyes wide open knowing he's damning himself forever.

Meanwhile in the graphic novel, Eric is already submerged. He is already a walking corpse, the embodiment of a heart so broken the only way to put himself back together is to weaponize the shards of his loss. I believe this is who '24 Eric develops into after the second act when he signs away his soul.

In the first act, he is human. In the second act, he is transitioning, and in the third act, he has truly become The Crow. Too deep in grief to escape it. The main difference between the '24 version and the GN version is that we see '24 Eric's journey to reach that final stage. It's the difference between character-focused narratives vs parable-like storytelling. Neither is inherently better than the other, just different.

And when it comes to divine justice, hmmm.....

In the GN, Eric and Shelly are killed and brutalized due to a completely random act of evil. The gang that killed them and assaulted Shelly had zero connections to the couple and were just some cruel, awful randos off the street. Based on what I've read, Eric nearly kills all of them without difficulty. Most of his hardship comes from his own bouts of depression and misery.

(By the way, by having the villains all be mediocre average goons, and majority of Eric's troubles be psychological, the GN focuses more on the danger of all-consuming grief, highly likely because of the trauma James O'Barr was experiencing when he wrote it. Meanwhile both the '94 and '24 films have Eric struggle a lot more during his fight scenes, elevating the danger of his physical opponents. But this is a tangent, back to what I was talking about!)

By all of them being average goons, the story gets across that: yes normal everyday people can and are capable of atrocious acts of evil, and yes they deserve to face the brunt of their crimes and divine punishment.

However in both the '94 and '24 movies, Eric and Shelly's deaths are not random and are planned crimes to silence Shelly. And both come up with a "big bad" for Eric to face off against. In the '94 movie, it was Top Dollar, a criminal kingpin, and in the '24 movie it's Vincent Roeg, a rich executive who's also a crimelord.

BUT what the '24 film does differently is that Roeg is also a supernatural being himself, who's made a pact with the devil to trade innocent souls for immortality.

This is probably the only area in which I agree with OG fans on that a central theme was changed. Because by making the main antagonist "unnatural", it's no longer about everyday, normal people committing horrible evils. It's about a supernatural entity on par with The Crow.

I think Rupert Sanders wanted to focus more on the supernatural aspect of The Crow universe. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing and definitely made for a fun movie, but I do agree with OG fans that the "grounded" nature of casual human cruelty was lost in that regard.

By implementing this change, the weight of Eric's vengeance is also changed. Because now it's no longer just personal. As the character of Kronos says in the movie, they need Eric to kill Roeg because he and all the deaths he's caused are unnatural and they essentially need Eric to tip the scales back into balance. While Eric's primary motive is still about doing right by Shelly, there's now an element of saving the world from an unnaturally superpowered tyrant, rather than the everyday cruelties of man.

So in this aspect, I do agree that a core theme was changed between the graphic novel and the 2024 movie. This still doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad story, just that Rupert Sanders had different intentions.

Because this still connects to the previous theme, the inability to move on and cope with death. Except now it's portrayed in the antagonist as well. His power is completely about his refusal to accept his own mortality. However, this does, like I said, detract from the normality of evil theme. So it's basically a gain and a loss 😅

(Plus, as I was writing this, I thought about how Eric's motivation is changed as well. In the '24 movie, Eric's goal is still to do right by Shelly, but it's to save her. Because if he succeeds, Shelly will be resurrected. This adds a noble spin to his killing spree, whereas the GN and the '94 film are solely about overwhelming rage at the loss of a loved one. There is no resurrecting Shelly. It's about enacting divine justice against their killers before traveling to the afterlife together. They're already dead and there's nothing GN Eric can do to change that, unlike 2024 Eric.

On the flip side, while this "nobler" take may feel like a negative change, I think it's countered by the fact that Eric succeeds in saving her, but is still dissatisfied because he's unable to actually be with her. GN and '94 Eric were able to find peace and reunite with their loves. '24 Eric only gets about 5 minutes before she's resurrected and he's stuck in purgatory forever.

At the end of the '24 film, both Eric and Shelly are dissatisfied as they can no longer be together. It's a bittersweet ending that feels more bitter than sweet. So while there is a "nobler" cause behind Eric's actions, the tone of the story is still very grim.

This is also why I believe the way the 2024 movie ended was with the intentions of a sequel where Eric does achieve his own peace. But that's a different conversation!)

...the easiest thing to avoid all this controversy and review bombing would've been just be like "Hey, we're making a new Crow movie, but we have created our own original protagonists for it!" just like people have been doing for years, because that's what 2024 Shelley and Eric feel like to people — original characters who just happen to share the names of the OG's.

Sure! I don't disagree. Well, I don't really think anything deserves to be review bombed unless it's content that's actively harmful. But I don't disagree with the original protagonists angle. Changing the names couldn't have hurt.

That said though, and I say this as gently as I can, Eric's character existed before '94 Eric and does not need to end with the '94 movie. I think it'd be one thing if the 1994 movie created the story of The Crow and that was the first iteration of Eric's character. But... it's not.

Multiple re-imaginings and adaptations of books / comics have been around since forever. The show Smallville and Man of Steel both adapt Superman in wildly different ways. Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew has had five different adaptations, and yet no one shits on 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) or Deliver Us From Eva (2003) for being modern re-imaginings. Awhile ago, me and my friend were discussing our favorite adaptations of the Little Women novel. Her favorite is the 1994 film while my favorite is the 2022 modern Kdrama!

I bring up all of these examples to say that there is REALLY nothing wrong with doing modern re-imaginings of older works, and tweaking characters and plotlines to reflect the changed style of the story and time period.

What's most important is that the heart of the story is kept. At the end of the day, The Crow is about an innocent man who enacts divine justice against he and his lover's murderers, while struggling to cope with her loss. Based on the graphic novel and what I've seen of the 1994 movie and the City of Angels sequel, the world of The Crow says that life can be fair and that no matter how high, or low, or cruel, or spineless, someone is, that karma is a bitch and it IS possible for them to reap what they sow.

I truly think the 2024 adaptation captured that feeling, even if it may look different than what people might be used to or expected.

Instead of being upset about how unexpected it is, try going in with an open mind and seeing the story Rupert, Bill, and FKA Twigs wanted to tell. I've read and seen a few interviews by now, and these three were genuinely passionate about the characters & story, and you can feel that in the movie.

And even if you still have no interest, the other parts of the franchise you do enjoy aren't going anywhere. The 2024 adaptation doesn't effect them in any capacity. The stories you love still exist and the new addition can't harm or take them away from you.

[joannanora]

.

In need of a TV series to fill those chilly autumn evenings? The Couple Next Door is here to heat things up.

Drama! Suspense! Sex! The Couple Next Door sounds right up our street. Add in some of our favourite actors in leading roles, and we’re firmly on board.

We don’t know yet exactly when this TV series will land on our screens (other than sometime in autumn), but what we do have is enough details to convince you to add The Couple Next Door to your ‘ooh, I’ll definitely tune into that’ list for future reference. Oh, and some exclusive first-look images.

Let’s talk you through everything you need to know to get thoroughly excited about this show.

What is The Couple Next Door about?

The Couple Next Door is a dark psychological drama that’s all about desire.

When Evie and Pete move into a fancy new neighbourhood, they’re surrounded by gossip, anxiety and curtain twitching. But thankfully they find some pals to help them navigate their environment: the couple next door (like the title of the show, get it?), traffic cop Danny and his wife, Becka, a glamorous yoga instructor.

The two couples get closer together, then… something happens. As the show’s description says: “One fateful night, [they] become sexually entangled in a way that will change their lives forever.”

Who stars in The Couple Next Door?

We’ve got some great names playing the pair of couples. Eleanor Tomlinson (Poldark, The Outlaws) plays Evie, and Alfred Enoch (Tigers, How To Get Away With Murder) is her husband, Pete. The couple next door are played by Sam Heughan (Outlander, Suspect) and Jessica De Gouw (Pennyworth, Our Man From Jersey).

What are people saying about The Couple Next Door?

The show is described as “a deliciously dark, psychological drama, exploring the claustrophobia of suburbia and the fallout of chasing your deepest desires”. Sounds fun to us.

And Caroline Hollick, head of drama at Channel 4 declared the series “an addictive, emotional roller-coaster with something to say about modern sexual mores, with an electrifying cast that will set our screens on fire”.

Of playing lead role Evie, Eleanor Tomlinson said: “Evie is an exciting challenge for me – a girl whose world is turned upside down as she navigates devastating trauma, which isn’t helped by unresolved issues from her past. We have an excellent team on board, and I am looking forward to exploring this dark and complicated world alongside Sam and our director Dries.”

“At the heart of this series are two couples who get increasingly close to each other, and one fateful night become sexually entangled in a way that will change the rest of their lives forever,” added Jo McGrath, executive producer. “You never really know what goes on behind closed doors but this series sets out to make you wonder.”

Juicy, right?

How can we watch The Couple Next Door?

No word yet on an exact release date, but we do know The Couple Next Door will be out at some point this autumn. The series will premiere on Channel 4 in the UK and will be available on Starz in the US and Canada, as well as Lionsgate+ in Latin America, including Brazil.

[cinematicendevaourz]

As far comic book films go, there isn't many where you'll get curb stomping violence and the gripping of thong covered mulatto cheeks by caucazoid hands set to a soundtrack that has Depeche Mode in the tracklist.

Nah, usually to achieve that I'd have to read a Crow comic book, throw on a Depeche Mode album and watch Team Skeet after a re-viewing of "American History X" to achieve such gravitas.

That's all in a day's work. James O' Barr was able to achieve that in one script that Rupert Sanders has captured in the gritty dankness of the 2024 iteration of "The Crow".

Yet again FKA Twigs portrays a bedwench, but at least she gets a larger role than her efforts in Shia La Beouf's "Honey Boy".

She's sexy here, but then those teeth? A UK thing at best.

Danny Huston is a familiarly villainous face in cinema and delivers as the sniveling, elitist villain, Roeg.

Watching Skarsgard's Eric get vengeance on him was a joy, and that leaves me with Skarsgard who plays the relatable love-stricken Romeo who would do anything to save his lover.

It all checks out here : girl falls for bad boy, girl has a checkered past, they get killed over it. Boy comes back from the dead and trades his soul to become immortal and resurrect his dead lover after killing their would-be murderers.

Worked for me.

Fairly simple plot with sexy scenes from jump starting with Twigs and Isabella Wei in torso-bearing crop tops to Twigs having a bag put over her head and getting asphyxiated to death, all the way to the end with Twigs being resuciated with her nipples visible under her dress in the river.

So no, the film's sexiness doesn't just serve teenage girls into six pack abs and gang tattoos.

But that's there too, and with the majority of the film being a love story, this is the best romance movie of 2024.

Perfect cannon fodder for those still attending the movie theater for date night. And yes, that still happens, I've seen it - though less of it now as the U.S. economy continues to worsen.

What better film than "The Crow" to mirror what hell the Westernized world has turned the idea of romantic love into?

I like how Skarsgard was able to follow up his performance in "Boy Kills World" by turning up the angst with every painful bullet he took in "The Crow".

Skarsgard could give Hugh Jackman a run for his money with displaying the pain of being immortal, and Jackman has made a silver screen career out of that with silver claws.

Twigs is still sexy, Huston is still devious, and Lionsgate still makes comic book movies better than Disney can. Not every comic book film needs to break the mold, but breaking faces and breaking hearts can go a long way in entertaining cinema.

-

C.V.R. The Bard

25th/Aug. 2k24

[thecarnivorousmuffinmeta]

what are your expectations for the twilight reboot?

i don't know if i can envision a version of twilight that isn't cringe so i have zero expectations.

I have none either. I can make a few guesses but they could end up entirely wrong.

I believe the studio in charge of the reboot is Lionsgate Television, which among other things has co-produced shows like Mad Men, Dear White People, and several others. Notably, the parent company Lionsgate films produced the Hunger Games films.

What I'm getting at here is that this is a large subsidiary studio of a large well-established studio who has gotten their hands on a well-known IP that is primarily targeted to teenage/young women.

Specifically, they're not going to rock the boat. I expect the show to be marketed towards the audience of the books (young women/teenage girls) and not to a broader adult audience (see Mad Men).

More, given the books were so popular, they'll generally follow the plotline and try to tie into book moments they think audience members will like, but they will tone it down a lot. Much like the movies did.

Twilight will probably be kept entirely intact. We'll have the meadow, we'll have Bella nearly be crushed by a van, the blood testing in Biology, the Italian restaurant scene, the James subplot, etc.

However, details like Edward methodically planning the massacre of his biology classroom, will more than likely be dropped or else glossed over.

We're probably going to get an Edward who's palatable. He still has an aura of mysterious darkness, of course, but the audience can rest assured he's their sweet nerd and cinnamon roll and that the vampirism is just an unfortunate, if sexy, affliction.

We'll also likely get a Bella who's more talkative and takes more initiative. Not only does this address common complaints about the character, but it's very difficult to write a show where one of your main character rarely expresses herself out loud. (If you read the books, what Bella narrates versus what she says are two very different things.)

The movies addressed this in part by keeping the voice over narration for Bella with... uh... effect (I personally thought it was very poorly done and mostly hokey).

They might go the same route in the show, maybe Bella will intro each episode and outtro with a diary she writes in, "Dear Diary, today Edward stared at me, he was hot", or we'll get her voice over in pivotal scenes, or she's going to have to start talking to somebody about what she's feeling and thinking.

However, we'll probably get all the major plot points.

After Twilight, is where we might get changes.

It will probably take the film route and blame Edward's religious nature on his dad. They can't remove it, as Edward needs some reason to deny Bella becoming a vampire even when he and his family eat animals, and it can't be the spicy 'you'll probably eat humans anyway'. In the books what he said was Bella would lose her soul, Carlisle disagreed with this in a conversation with Bella. In the movies, they had Carlisle go all in as it ah--makes Edward look like the misguided product of his parents than it being him being religious himself.

Even though New Moon is hilarious in that the romantic lead disappears for an entire novel and Bella spends that novel hallucinating Edward, they're not going to drop it because of the importance of the Quileute characters as well as Jacob being the secondary love interest.

What they might try to do is spice it up and tone it down at the same time. Rather than be a complete depressed blob the entire novel, we might see Bella make significant recoveries to feed the Jacob/Bella side of the love triangle. We'll also probably spend a lot more time on the tribe both to flesh out the characters and to distract from the giant amount of nothing that happens in New Moon.

Bella may or may not hallucinate Edward. It was a large part of the novel, but it was weird, and never to be mentioned again when Eclipse happened. It's also not too fondly remembered by fans, even fans of the Edward/Bella ship. People remember the meadow and the wedding, not the time Bella rode a motorcycle with Edward saying "Don't dooooo iiiiiiiiit". It's entirely possible the producers would find it too spicy.

On the other hand, it's all we see of Edward of what could be half if not an entire season. Given he's the romantic lead that Bella ultimately ends up with, you can't have him on vacation for a fourth of the show.

So, 50/50 on Hallucination Edward.

Eclipse will probably remain mostly intact as well, as we get an exciting love triangle there, but they'll probably tone down Edward again. No longer will Edward kidnap Bella to his house, too spicy, instead he'll look sad and cuckolded as his girlfriend flirts with Jacob. The tent scene will probably be toned down quite a bit as well to remove some of Edward's more alarming statements.

Actually...

I expect all of Edward to always be toned down in every moment. I'm not sure what the hell they'll have him say, but it won't typically be what he says in the books in his more "WHOA" moments.

Now, Breaking Dawn is... interesting. On the one hand, they can squeeze a season out of it and if they're three seasons in and haven't been canceled yet then why not? On the other hand, it doesn't fit in with a typical teenage story that they want to draw people in for.

Bella's suddenly married??? And pregnant??? With a demon??? Their protagonists are out of high school, Bella's pregnant with a demon and dying, there's a war on and all these weird non-teenage people are showing up.

They could choose to end the show with the wedding. Bella and Edward get married, he promises to turn her, they ride off into the sunset.

On the other hand, there are fans who would murder them and cry tears of blood if they don't get the honeymoon/the rest of breaking dawn (even though fans simultaneously hate breaking dawn).

We could get a Breaking Dawn sans Renesmee. The Volturi instead accuse the Cullens of some crime they very clearly have not committed. Irina narks on them for a crime they didn't commit because she was secretly in love with Edward (her character having been merged with Tanya's) or else becuase she seeks revenge for Laurent and didn't act until now. Bella gets her wedding and honeymoon but has to be summoned back because shenanigans are happening again!

However, in that case, they have to figure out how to turn Bella since one of Edward's primary character traits (and one they can't really change as it would alter the entire plot) is that Edward doesn't want to turn her.) And they're going to want Edward to have to do it versus any other character, as it validates that Edward truly does wish to be with Bella forever.

There could be a subplot where Edward tries to hide Bella in the mountains when the Volturi are coming but Bella tells him, "No, Edward, this time we cannot run" despite, you know, the tent debacle weeks earlier where she said "Edward, we absolutely can run"

But again, I really don't know. I'm in the same boat as the rest of you.

[its-moopoint]

I am confident the reveal will happen soon. S&C were forced to hide their love because of the Starz and Lionsgate merger, after all. Now that the two companies are parting ways, they can finally be free. Especially with the end of OL in sight.

The lovebirds can finally provide for their five boos with shilling alcohol or worry about landing high profile roles. They can sell their story for big bucks and Caitriona will play herself, obviously, because best of both worlds for her. She can finally control the real narrative of her life and get paid for it. She’ll tearfully trot out all 5 boos on talk shows and people who never heard of Outlander before will feel bad for her. She’ll thank the loyal shippers and release a sex tape of her and Sam creating boo #3 in an attempt to apologize for calling them crazy. But it will only be available to the shippers of tumblrs who were sent a private code to see it so everyone else still has to take their word on for “proof”.

2024 is definitely going to be the year this happens! Or maybe 2025 when the last season airs. Actually, more like 2026 because they will still have their promotional obligations to OL in 2025. Or maybe 2030. They might need money then, so maybe they’ll wait.

LMFAO I love you Anon!!!

[popsicle-parfait]

Unfortunately I ended up losing interest in this draft and with the drama that keeps happening at Nijisanji I also lost the same likability in the streamers I once did. So if anyone wants to pick this up or just read it I'm going to leave it here.

It's a reader x Ike Eveland.

You have been playing video games for a couple of years now, and while you're not the best at them you do have a lot of fun while doing so. You've gone from gaming noob to posting professional tutorials for others like you on your blog. If you can't play a game you'll just watch streamers and analyze it so you can at least be aware of certain mechanics if you do end up buying said unobtainable game. The streamer you've spent the most money on was probably Ike Eveland, you weren't too interested in vtubers but something about his eloquence and how he engaged with his audience caught your eye. 

You've been watching him for a few months now so you can properly say you're a part of the quildren, as the fans put it. Apparently a new game came out and it was on everybody's wish list, but luckily you pre ordered it a long time ago, all that was left to do was boot it up and start playing. It was a classic mmo game and like the person you were, you decided to pick the female avatar since they have more cosmetic choices. You were a mage class so you'd have an easier time grinding and upgrading your skills compared to other classes, plus who doesn't like to buff yourself every now and again? 

You were in the middle of farming for a new armor set when someone sent you a group invite, who could this be? Their username was "TheNovelist" and they already seemed to be 5x higher than you in levels, so what could they possibly want with you? You decided to bite the bullet and clicked join, there were three people already active; one of them being the party owner in question. 

You took a quick look at their character profiles and the other two party members were a gunslinger called "Lionsgate" and a healer named "PotassiumFighter12", only one of those made your sweat drop. TheNovelist looked to be a swordsman, carrying a heavy greatsword and what looks to be a really OP armor set that got released. You all typed your hellos in chat before the forsaken conversation of 'Why' began to circle. 

Bellflower: Wow! You guys are stacked, are you about to do a raid? 

Lionsgate: Hell yeah! We're gonna defeat the newest mini boss! ∩( ✧Д✧)∩

PotassiumFight… : Unfortunately, we don't have enough potions to cover our stats so we asked our friend here to find someone who'll help

TheNovelist: It's ok if you're not a high level, we'll share the exp anyway! (^_^♪)

Bellflower: Oh alright! If you need anything from me just yell, my attention span is kinda bad lol

Lionsgate: Don't you worry your head Milady! We'll go in guns blazing! ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

TheNovelist: Starting now

Honestly you've never been carried so hard in your entire life, but you can't deny the princess treatment isn't nice every now and again. The milady comment was odd considering you were sure you placed your gender as male in your profile but you'll take what you can get. After a few waves of monsters and drops to last you a few days, you were actually really enjoying yourself. The guys were funny and they all had such different personalities from what you could tell, plus they all seemed to know each other irl since the inside jokes were a bit odd. What the heck is a Shubert anyway? 

You were a bit confused but overall these guys really warmed your heart up! Afterwards you all parted ways and not even an hour later, you got a friend request from TheNovelist! The next day you decided to take a break for a bit since your hands were cramping and opened up YouTube to watch Ike's daily stream. It looks like he was playing that game you downloaded yesterday too, which you guess is pretty expected considering it was new and all.

[thefirsthogokage]

Oh fuck. And ONCE YET AGAIN, FUCK RYAN MURPHY

(link to article)

A WGA leadership memo notes the threatened litigation prompted showrunner Warren Leight to step back from captaining duties and also implored members: "Our foe in this fight is not other members, it is the AMPTP. If we turn on each other, the AMPTP wins."

I do remember John Rogers tweet that as a WGA board member, it wouldn't be right to comment on certain things at this time, so he hoped other members would do it. I can't remember the specifics, but I know Google doesn't pick up Twitter anymore, so, 🙃. I should have saved it. But I don't 100% remember the timing of it and it was vague enough it could have applied to a few things.

Anywho, it's perfectly fair - in my opinion - to turn on scabs like Ryan Murphy who feel they're above everything because they know that networks will keep hiring him.

The article has a lot of stuff in it about the lawsuit. But I just want to say, I remember seeing Warren's work on Twitter...

Leight, an outspoken New York-based WGA member, had been dubbed as the East Coast’s “Air Traffic Controller” for his efforts leading the so-called Rapid Response Team that directs striking writers to filming locations. Leight declined to comment for this story.

...he did a HELL of a job. It sucks that this is happening because he's work was definitely needed. Like, I might not like the guy, and he got himself into this position by tweeting what he did even though he was the co-chair of the Strike Rules Compliance Committee, there must have been some rules about this.

So one of the things that pisses me off here is that he should have known better, had to bench himself, and the strike may suffer because he's not doing what he was, and it's on him not keeping his fingers from typing things he knew shouldn't have. Things other people were already saying.

According to the memo, Leight has stepped back from his duties as co-chair of the Strike Rules Compliance Committee and as a captain.

Sources say the WGA’s letter followed a regularly scheduled strategy meeting with WGA East leadership, including Michael Winship, Lisa Takeuchi Cullen and Chris Kyle, and strike captains that turned contentious. “We were talking about themed pickets. Nobody discussed Warren and everyone was like, ‘When is someone going to talk about Ryan Murphy?’” says one East Coast strike captain. “People were pissed. We wanted an explanation and answer about why Warren lost his captain’s hat and what happened. He was our leader.”

🙃🙃🙃 He was doing SUCH AN amazing job. It really, really sucks that he stepped down. And he's partially to blame. I mean, who the fuck would have thought being a guy in his position as a Captain that it would be a good idea to go after giant bastard Ryan Murphy?

Again, this is just frustrating from both angles: Warren Leight pulling a dumb as a Captain, and the loss of Warren Leight as a strike captain.

Multiple sources tell THR that only four scripted TV series remain in production on the East Coast — with three of them produced by Murphy: American Horror Story, American Sports Story and the episodic anthology American Horror Stories (the fourth is Lionsgate/Starz’s Power Book 2: Ghost). In addition to being a member of the WGA West, Murphy is a producer and director and is permitted to continue working provided he is not rendering services performed by writers. Multiple sources say Murphy was spotted twice last week in New York crossing WGA picket lines. Sources close to Murphy say he has not been in New York for the past month.

Those last two statements contradict each other, but I would take anything from Murphy's circle with a huge, huge, grain of salt. Still wish people took pictures. Writers crossing the picket lines need to be named and shamed.

“He is following the letter of the law and going to set as a producer/showrunner/director and says he’s not doing writing — and no guild can convict somebody of conjecture,” says another East Coast captain. “A million of us would love to see it, but there’s no proof that he’s scabbing; he’s doing scripts that were done before strike started.”

Bullshit. No way even "The Great Ryan Murphy" can predict all the problems that would come up beforehand and have everything written out. No fucking way.

The WGA, meanwhile, said in its memo that we will “continue to picket [Murphy’s] shows,” and that the Strike Rules Compliance Committee will investigate all leads concerning potential violations. (If Murphy is found in violation of the strike rules, he can be suspended or expelled from membership, hit with monetary fines or censured. After the 2007-08 writers strike, the WGA brought members alleged to have violated strike rules before a trial committee, as in the case of Jay Leno, who was cleared of wrongdoing).

HE BETTER BE FUCKING EXPELLED!

The internal squabbling comes as news leaked June 20 that Murphy, one of the industry’s most powerful showrunners, has been negotiating with Disney to return to the studio with a rich overall deal after his $300 million Netflix pact expired. In the memo to captains, the WGA officers implored them to stay focused on the fight at hand, noting, “Our foe in this fight is not other members, it is the AMPTP. If we turn on each other, the AMPTP wins.”

How is this not expulsion worthy? HOW?! Your foe is ALSO PEOPLE WILLINGLY PULLING THIS BULLSHIT!

From the letter:

Losing Warren as a strike captain is the last thing any of us wanted, but he understood that his actions on this particular issue exposed the Guild to potential liability, especially as co-chair of the very committee investigating Murphy. His tweet was also in direct contradiction with instructions he had received multiple times from WGAE and WGAW leadership and staff about his use of social media.

LIKE I SAID, WARREN WAS A GODDAMN DUMBASS!

• We will not quit on Ryan Murphy. We continue to picket his shows, and the Strike Rules Compliance Committee continues to investigate all leads. Send. Us. Leads.

This kind of sounds like they're looking for any and all reason to give that son of a bitch Murphy the boot. I hope they find it.

Fuck Ryan Murphy!

No way someone hasn't had to make at least one edit this far into strike with THREE shows in production. No way. Someone has to have proof.

Fuck Ryan Murphy, his ass needs to kicked from the Guild.

[therealvinelle]

Apparently Lionsgate is making a new Twilight TV series. Remain to be seen what's it about, whether it'll be a remake of the movies or something new. Say they went with something new, and they somehow choose an idea that you've already done in a fic. Which fic idea do you: a) just really want to see adapted on screen? And b) thinks that they will do justice the most?

(Muffin can also answer this if they want and if their answer's different than yours)

Well, the trouble is I don't really have any particular fics I want to see on screen. More importantly, I don't imagine they would appeal much to any studios. You want something you can sell to producers, but "The romantic male lead commits cold blooded murder because his quasi-brother was too weak. His quasi-brother killed his wife back in the day, the romantic lead is fine with that and the quasi-brother recruits the murdered man's parents into his harem. Then half the cast goes to Egypt without really accomplishing anything. Please give me millions of dollars so I can make this." would not fly.

(The above, for the record, is The Less Than Immaculate Conception by myself and @theoriginalcarnivorousmuffin.

Painting Red Madonnas by Muffin wouldn't fare much better, "No the male and female lead don't get together. The loveable goof is really homophobic, and the closest thing we have to a love interest murders a toddler and his own son in front of his horrified wife. Help me get in touch with investors.")

The Bleach in the Brain (by me) miniseries and its sequel miniseries, Leech in the Rain (by @theoriginalcarnivorousmuffin and me) would require somebody saying, not only "I want to focus on child abuse and grooming where the white girl protagonist is attacked by a Native American man and disabled at the end", but "I want to depict a bisexual male character whose male former lover, a gay man, is falsely accused of rape, and then he gets sexually assaulted by his son" as well. Also the really hot chick protagonist who looks twenty-five is actually six years old so she can't be marketed as a sexy female character. And then getting funding for all of this.

(They might decide to make a show inspired by Jessica Stanley in those fics, but... god they'd change everything.)

And Then There Were None, same problem. "Please give us money to produce Bella Swan murdering her family for no reason."

Dark Fantasies/Writhing Coils, maybe if I got Guillermo del Toro extremely drunk and called him a coward. Except it would still need funding, so no.

The Invitation, only if the ending is completely changed. Too much of a downer otherwise.

Nebuchadnezzar's Dream would have the producers nodding along until I get to the part where the big battle happens entirely off screen, instead the audience gets to see a gay sex scene. "Full penetration," I say, tapping my powerpoint slide with a stick for emphasis.

"Let's limit her involvement," they whisper to one another, and then I don't sell them the rights so Nebuchadnezzar's Dream is condemned to development hell.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to London is too out there, and How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bacchanals even more so.

The Man Who Would Be King bonus, since Muffin and I got talking about it: might fly, if briefly. It's more viable than the Twilight ideas (we've got an attractive, young, and sympathetic protagonist, an enemies-to-lovers slow burn, and our male romantic lead hasn't actually murdered anybody on screen so viewers can pull a Damon Salvatore and insist he's alright), trouble is it's not going to stay that way. For now, it's shockingly viable and gets my nomination.

My vote for Twilight fic to be televised, however, assuming I win a billion dollar and nobody can stop me...

For the Love of a Woman.

Everybody loses.

[krissielee]

Hey! How did you get access to watch the March RW&RB screener? I want to sign up for that, if I can. :)

I got lucky--a friend of mine down in LA got the offer and immediately sent it to me. She didn't/doesn't care about it, but she knows I'm obsessed and had made sure to let all my Hollywood-connected friends know that if they saw anything come up, let me know IMMEDIATELY because I needed it like air to breathe.

But there are a lot of websites to sign up for early screeners (or even just "barely before opening but it's free and free things are awesome so yay" screeners)--note that these are in no particular order; just whatever ones I happened to think of first:

Preview Free Movies is the one I got RWRB through, as well as tickets for Rocketman way back in the day. These are ostensibly the hardest to get into because they're usually only held in very specific movie-centric places and often tickets are handed out literally in person at local malls. It takes luck to get a location you can get to, but if you can ... totally worth it. They do sometimes do early online screeners, too: I saw Spinning Gold back in 2020, unfinished, and it was awesome. Found out later that a friend's cousin wrote the movie about their uncle! Small world, there. Also, I now can't listen to Love to Love You Baby without wanting to kill myself, but they changed that for the final release lol. Everyone in that early screener was like PLEASE DON'T PLAY THAT FOR TEN MINUTES EVER AGAIN.

Gofobo does a lot of early ones as well, but those are more like press screenings just before wide release, not in production ones.

1iota sometimes has screeners, even though they usually do tickets to talk shows (I have seen Taron Egerton at a bunch of those, though, including for Jimmy Kimmel where my [clothed!!!] boobs are on display for an awkward amount of time because Jimmy was talking to the people sitting directly in front of me lol)

Advance Screenings offers a lot of press screenings, but also sometimes contests to see special movie screenings. I "won" passes to a special Hunger Games screening through this site.

Amazon Screenings is really neat because it also does a lot of early virtual screenings. I've seen so many movies sitting at home in my jammies this way. And often they'll have special things to go along with it, like talks with the cast and crew, or for their Halloween set a few years back, virtual dance parties with DJs. Jason Blum was in the chat with all of us and it was kind of epic.

Searchlight Screenings is for Fox films. Same as the others; you sign up and hope to get lucky with a screening in your area.

Lionsgate Screenings are for, well. Lionsgate films.

WB also does screenings sometimes.

iScreeningRoom is great for online indie films. I've seen some really great movies that I can't wait for them to get wide releases. Some of them are weird as hell, as expected from indie films, but I've never hated anything I've seen. I know Nomad is pushing for a release soon, and I can't wait to watch that one again.

Many of these are US-centric, for anyone who comes across this post. I don't know much about other countries 'cause, you know. 'Murica, or whatever.

The other thing to remember is, for any of these screenings that are in person, you have to get there early. Like, stupid early. Multiple hours early. They always overbook the theatre. Yeah, you have a ticket? So do 500 other people for that 100 seat theatre. There are no guarantees for early screenings. I was almost the last person in for RWRB, and about the only people in after me were Matthew Lopez and some other people in his group. I only got a good seat because @machtaholic got there earlier than I did and saved one for me, which, had I not made it in, would have gone to someone else. The workers were going to try to sneak me in regardless because I was freaking out about having driven 8 hours only for the movie and if I'd missed it I was gonna cry, lol. Also, the hotel next to the theatre is where the munchkins from the Wizard of Oz were housed during film, so. Learned something while there, ha.

But also, there was no notice on it. Like, I found out on Tuesday that the screener was on Wednesday and I had to get myself to LA immediately if I had any hope of making it. For the really early ones, if you don't live in the city it's held in, you have to be ready to get up and go. Immediately. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, and hope your boss is really cool with you just not coming in.

Caveat: a lot of those super early ones, they won't even advertise those films to you as you're "out of market" for their research purposes. If it hadn't been for my friend living in the proper market, I'd have never known. It's the same way I was invited to a crazy early screening of Argylle (but from a different friend), even though I couldn't make it to that one because the timing just didn't work. So if you live in Boise and the movie's screening in Seattle, you're not going to even know about it.

Also also, there are age and gender limits on some of these. The woman and her daughter behind me in line, mom couldn't get into RWRB because she was one year past the age cutoff. Conversely, some movies you need to have children of a certain age. Keep that in mind when signing up for the really early ones. The press screeners are rarely that picky, though they did actually ID check for Kingsman (no others, not even other R rated films).

The more you sign up for, the more you redeem, the more you get invited to others. There have been many times where I have to choose which screening I feel like seeing because I've got offers for two or three films on the same night. Conversely, there have been times where I'm a greedy brat and go see the same movie across multiple screeners, but that's only happened like ... twice, because it was Eddie the Eagle, and three of my friends wanted to go but never on the same night, so I took them different times lol, and then the other was for The Wedding Ringer, which was never full so it didn't matter.

And I know there are other sites out there, but these are the ones I'm signed up on that I can recall. I get a lot of emails from these ones, and thus more chances to see films early.

Also sorry if my links are broken. I'm pretty sure I did them right but who even knows anymore lol.

[momokodaisy]

Like yeah, I know John had a wife, but sex still played no role in his films, just pure love. So it was disappointing for the first episode of ‘The Continental’ to have three sex scenes — one happening off to the side in the most lifeless 1970s New Year’s Party I’ve ever seen (people looked more shuffling than dancing), then young Winston has one mostly kept offscreen, so I though ‘okay, that’s a little better’, but then they have two detectives outright naked, showing their backsides and doing the act onscreen for a solid minute, and I was like WHY. This is the ‘John Wick’ franchise. You’re appealing to the wrong people here, we really don’t need to see that. It literally had nothing to do with the plot. And my non-asexual friend hated it too, so I know it’s not just an ace thought in this case. The opening fight was pretty good though.

So I have not seen any part of the Continental TV show, nor will I ever watch it, so I can't give my 100% Verified Critic TM opinions, and thus I will be going off your testimony, Anon. And uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeah. It sounds exactly as bad as I expected it to be.

First, just for context for others who maybe haven't seen the films - sex is not at all a thing in JW quadriology. There are no sex scenes, John has no love interests, I don't even think there's an instance where a character catcalls or makes a reference to getting laid. The most sexually charged scene, arguably, is a quick shot of Ares touching John's butt during a patdown. Even the scene where a woman removes all her clothes is written and shot intentionally un-sexually charged as possible and is instead far more sad and tragic. So yeah, throwing sex scenes and sexually-charged nudity into a """""John Wick"""" tv series is. fuckin stupid.

The real problem here, though, isn't that the creators are making unnecessary sex scenes, that's a symptom of a bigger issue. The issue is that the show is not at all interested in what made the John Wick movies work. The John Wick movies are pure action camp, they are over-the-top depictions of guys fighting each other in brutal and violent ways, just done artistically. Rule of Cool is law, and that makes for some of the most stunningly gorgeous visual cinema to date. The JW films can be summarized as "pretty man in suit do murder" and as long as it looks good, that's all that it needs to be. Sure, Kolstad and Stahelski added some crazy worldbuilding that gets more and more ridiculous as the movies go, but again, this is just an excuse for Keanu Reeves to get in a black suit and pretend to shoot a fuckton of stunt guys. None of this needs to make sense. The world John lives in does not need to be logical or realistic, it just needs to service the next action scene. Because, let's face it, this is a classic Greek tragedy unfolding before our eyes, John nor anyone else is gonna have a character arc, there aren't subplots that need to be tied up by the end. We're just here for the spectacle. And that's ok.

However, we live in a disgusting timeline where studios feel the need to a make cinematic universe out of everything, so instead of just fuckin…. giving Kolstad or Stahelski or literally anyone the money and resources to make more projects, they try to come up with shit from an IP. And all Lionsgate really has going for it right now is The Hunger Games and John Wick, so they want something with JW franchise names we know. Hence, a backstory about Winston and the Continental, which literally?? no one asked for?? ever????? If anyone actually cares about Winston's original rise to power, or what John did to hide Sofia's daughter, or what exactly happened in the three-men-in-a-bar-with-a-pencil story, we fanfic writers have already gotten to work on that, I don't need a panel of executives doing that for me. And a part of the appeal of the John Wick underworld is that it's there, it exists, it's just how the world works, and we do not question it. The moment we start asking questions about how it works proves that we've lost the point, which is YO BRO JOHN'S SWORDFIGHTING THE IRON CHEF GUY WITH KATANA IN A GLASS ROOM THIS IS SO SICK

So. yeah. doesn't surprise me at all the sex scenes felt out of place and don't work for a John Wick spin off. Nothing about this premise works as a John Wick spin off. Put shit in, get shit out.

[okcomputeroknotok19972017]

attempting to write an actual response to the problem of saw but... im actually getting so fucking bewildered reading this that i can barely type up a response. every sentence of this paper is SATURATED with hatred for the series, right from the beginning. sharrett is slinging mud at a made-up version of the saw franchise, distorting the actual text and framing of each movie until it becomes something it never was. he is writing this for an audience who already disapproves of these movies without ever having seen them.

in what world can a film critic not understand the idea of an unreliable narrator? the concept of self-deception? "john kramer is the most active character in (nearly) every movie, and he fully believes in his flawed worldview and acts confidently according to it... so is he being framed as the good guy?! and some people online sure seem to like him, too!"

the way that sharrett spends the majority of the article waffling about other movies which he seems to have an extreme distaste for as well only serves to distract the reader and to suggest that he's making some kind of intelligent point by wandering aimlessly and using some big words. it's smoke and mirrors. none of it has anything to do with the supposed problem of saw, which sharrett cannot actually confront in detail because it is not there. it does not exist the way he wants it to exist. he is arguing with a made-up version of the series.

if you want to argue that john kramer is framed as a hero, then you have to ignore every time that the series points out his hypocrisy or general fucked up-edness, through text or through subtext. it's truly astounding to me that a professional film critic would need to have his hand held through a movie to figure out who's the bad guy. in the first movie, adam is tested because he does not appreciate his life. by the end, he is screaming that he wants to live. his death was rigged. you can't see that the movie is framing that as something fucked up? as something tragic? in the second movie, we see the extent to which john has manipulated and ruined amanda's life. do you have such little faith in the average moviegoer that you think they'd see that as a noble thing of him to do? do you think the movie is honestly justifying daniel's psychological and physical torment? if this is all too subtle for you, what does amanda's confrontation with john in the third movie mean to you? what does it mean to you?

this is all ignoring the behind-the-scenes context of saw. while the increasingly sensational gore of the later movies reflect societal trends, it's important to understand how and why this happened. saw was made by two broke australian film students, leigh whannell (writer/actor) and james wan (director). the idea of a slowly unraveling mystery set in a single room came about from budget constraints--they wanted a film to shoot in just one location. leigh's anxieties about health inspired the "hey, wouldnt it be crazy if..." idea of a serial killer with cancer who tortures others to vicariously make them "appreciate their lives." from the get-go, john is portrayed as a hypocritical monster--again, see the way adam's trap was shown to be unbeatable from the start through no fault of his own.

neither leigh nor james expected saw to get big, and its success was unprecedented. the one shocking scene at the end of lawrence severing his foot (a rather bloodless scene, mind you) amidst an extremely high-energy ending created lots of buzz, and saw was a very unique film for the time. the more intense second film was co-written by leigh, as it began as a script someone else wrote that was reworked into a saw movie. lionsgate, as any other corporation would, wanted to include more of the stuff that made people talk about their movie: gore. and so, it was ramped up. rinse and repeat for the rest of the movies, remove the original creators after the third movie, and insert a soap opera storyline of succession, family ties, and betrayal for the more dedicated fans to follow along with and feel rewarded for keeping up with ... and here you are.

(it is interesting that sharrett seems to think john kramer's complete dedication to his ideology must mean he is being framed as smart or correct. i, for one, can understand the difference between someone acting and talking like they're right versus actually being right. it's why i disagree with this article instead of blindly lapping it up because sharrett speaks with conviction.)

this paper is not about saw. not only does the author misrepresent the film series, but 85% of the actual text is about other fucking movies with no tie-in back to saw. the point sharrett is trying to make is shrouded in unrelated pompous bullshit about how he had some problems with that one jodie foster movie's portrayal of sexuality and blah blah blah blah fucking blah. this article only serves to affirm the biases of people who have never seen saw but have already made up their minds about it. it misrepresents the plot, narrative framing, and especially the portrayal of john kramer. also he calls billy ugly which is by far the worst.

[lovebvni]

Happy Lionsgate!

Hello, earthlings! Today is 8.8.2023 and it happens to be the opening of the Lionsgate portal!

Today I suggest and pray you all meditate, opening your heart and solar plexus chakras and focusing on what they want. Focusing on them during this time is very important, as it opens new experiences and beginnings in love. I also recommend fixing your third eye and realigning it - as this will help your judgement and will help you hear all you need to.

Focus on you hearts desires, manifest them, and act on them. They will come.

Some affirmations for you to focus on:

my life is perfect.

i am beautiful.

i attract everything i want.

everything falls into my hands.

i am blessed by the universe.

my heart is open to new experiences.

love is abundant in my life.

i am loved by the universe.

i am blessed by the universe.

my guides are with me.

everything i manifest happens.

all is coming to me this week.

i will be blessed during the opening of the lionsgate portal.

blessings are coming to me.

my life is perfect.

love is coming to me.

i pray this week is wonderful for everyone currently breathing and existing right now.

i love you all.

may the gods bless.

[usagirotten]

Movie Review: The Crow tries hard to be and is not

Cinematically speaking, the comic book character adaptation genre has been very complicated. Not everything is about superheroes saving the world. Having a good representation must be as close to the vignettes as possible, which, along with its story, is something that lives up to the expectations of the creators. Films like Sin City (2005) and 300 (2006) have been the best that have been presented to date. We see moving vignettes that, along with their plot, have taken this subgenre to a level that very few have been able to reach. The creation and first adaptation of the work done by James O. Barr in 1994 surprised everyone. The Crow was perhaps one of the most complicated films in the history of cinema. The sudden death of its protagonist Brandon Lee in the middle of everything made its director Alex Proyas use a different filming technique to finish it. The Crow is already a classic and cult film that perfectly represents O. Barr's material on film, surpassing or matching this was a difficult challenge that unfortunately did not have the best results. Four independent sequels and a television series were not enough to tell the story of this character. In 2024, it is director Rupert Sanders' turn to bring a new adaptation to the big screen and tell this supernatural love story.

What is The Crow 2024 about?

The love that Eric (Skarsgård) and Shelly (FKA twigs) have for each other is interrupted when they are brutally murdered and the demons of their past become present. When one of them has the opportunity to save his true love, Eric returns from the dead and takes merciless revenge on his murderers, crossing the barrier between the world of the living and the dead. For several years there were rumors of a reboot of this franchise, given what happened in its first adaptation to the cinema things were not easy at all, the studios as well as the directors did not have a clear idea of ​​how to do it without having the inevitable comparisons with its predecessor, the director Rupert Sanders and the scriptwriter Zach Baylin and Will Schneider were chosen by Lionsgate together with Sony Pictures to bring back this character telling and modernizing his controversial story. Here we can ask ourselves: was it necessary to make a new adaptation? How good or how bad is it to do it in these times? The answers to these questions have caused controversy among friends and strangers, while some say no, others are in favor and defend the final product, the truth is that these divided opinions have made this film not exempt from comparisons. You don't need to be a film expert to know that good films always have the same integrity that makes them a cult classic and the same goes for those that aren't. The Crow may seem to have a simple plot, a man who is murdered along with his girlfriend who is the love of his life, and returns from the dead to exact revenge, modernizing it includes having more scenes and sequences of even more explicit violence which makes it difficult to narrate something timeless that they want to forcefully modernize.

This work has many elements that don't work, including those recurring flashbacks loaded with symbolism about a childhood trauma that led the protagonist to a mental institution, and as viewers, we simply have to accept the fact that the love story that is the axis of everything is more important than its action simply because the film needs it and because the characters were created to tell it. In these times and giving a name to all this that is now known as a remake, it is much more likely that its correct name is a well-made reboot, but here even that is not taken into account, it desperately tries to adapt the original work using completely new methods, so far things are going fairly well, what it intends is to have its personality and style breaking with everything that came before and starting from scratch. Saying this sounds and reads very easy to do, the base material is already in cartoons and it only needs to be made up so that it seems like something new with its current problems and a moral discourse that tells us once again that love can do everything, even bringing a man back from the dead to take revenge on his murderers, what could be something that is compared to a gothic love with supernatural overtones must be treated as it should be if you want the results to be good and even more so to be to the liking and taste of the public. To understand this story even more, we must know that all this happens in a world where dark fantasy exists, where everything is possible from deep love to the most extraordinary things, every detail and everything is made to help the plot to be credible, to transport us to another place where we are made to believe that dreams and impossible things can happen, that the desire for revenge is as valid as love and that in the name of the latter anything that is done is justified. In this new adaptation, that previous dystopian world of dark gothic fantasy is replaced by a realistic atmosphere, this time the antagonists have also been modernized, they do not kill just for fun but have a fixed objective that is based on the actions and conduct of current mafia gangs, we understand from the first moment that Eric deeply loves his girlfriend Shelly and that he has to face his murderers, turning this into personal revenge in which his girlfriend will now play a very important role, a decision that is not entirely good. The result of all of the above is due to a series of difficult decisions that lead to this not fulfilling either what was promised or expectations, the question we now ask ourselves can be very divisive: is this a film that advocates a lot for nostalgia and relies on its predecessor to be in the taste of the new generations? The answer can be a resounding no, some things should no longer be re-adapted and modernized for such a weak generation that does not care about anything at all, but this is not the case, violence sells and it is believed to sell very well.

It is very difficult to continue to see the positive side of all this, anything that can be even slightly highlighted is accompanied by a but... this whole visual world that the film has would have been beautiful if they had also respected its timelessness and its dark and gothic tone, modernizing this environment and this line is one of its biggest flaws, at times what we see does not become depressing as it should be and it is not because we want it that way, it is because it is already established as an important part of its story, another of its flaws is the poor handling of CGI throughout the entire film, unfortunately, everything that should look spectacular and credible looks very poor and very clumsy. The pretentious violent scenes are very well done, with good choreography, good camera handling, good shots, and good work with the masks, and here too there is a but... it would have been much better if the filmmakers had committed themselves more and had prolonged the violent and explicit episodes more, and then we would justify a little better that this revenge took up more time in the film, which at times goes from love to supernatural to action and then to violence but then to love and then it does not have an effective narrative line that unites all this symmetrically instead of guessing whether it is or is not. Another flaw is undoubtedly its script, written by Zach Baylin, which never manages to have the necessary strength to make us, as an audience, believe that everything we see is strategically thought out to work, that this revenge becomes the central axis of everything, that everything happens and is resolved by chance and in favor of the same, that its poorly stated and even more so, terribly executed moral discourse tells us that true love must be avenged however it may be and against whomever it may be because love is love and everything else doesn't matter simply because it is love. We won't get them out of this bullshit. The structure of its characters is not the best either and it is another of its flaws, for example, the antagonist, villain, and bad guy of this movie, Roeg (Danny Huston) is not just a common human criminal oh no no no, he is a vile and powerful creature that according to his description has existed for a long time and can corrupt mortals and their souls, that is, a twisted version of the devil, the demon, Lucifer or something similar, unlike what we know and saw before this work goes completely to the supernatural side beyond resurrecting a dead protagonist to take revenge, it is rather a poorly made horror movie about devils, demons, monsters, and stolen souls, here evil is portrayed as a power that can very easily be turned into a weapon, transforming and stripping others of their goodness and this "Crow" spends most of its metaphysical development scenes in an intermediate space between the living and the dead or simply a purgatory. Despite all its errors and flaws, including of course the lack of originality in its imaginative compositions, the film has something, perhaps a good intention that should inoculate it against all those claims that say this is a remake to make money, it is not a film that cares about having a detailed and concrete cosmology that puts the motivations of the characters in a correct context and lets the film build a plot that goes beyond the bad guys killing the hero's girl and the hero returning to kill the bad guys, it pretends to be deep and fails and falls into absurd laughter. Proyas' version is infinitely better than what we see here, we see the clumsiness of his script that tries at every moment to be convincing, they probably thought that all this was going to end up being an example of a film in which style is a fundamental part of all its substance and that adopts that aesthetic with much more force to justify all the violence, which can be seen separately and absolutely nothing would happen. The cast is made up of Bill Skarsgård, FKA twigs, Danny Huston, Isabella Wei, Laura Birn, Sami Bouajila, and Jordan Bolger who do what they can with what they have, in the case of Skarsgård his performance feels like very apart from everything and everyone, an actor who has outgrown the character and who could give much more and be more authentic. The music composed by Volker Bertelmann has good moments and at times reminds us of what Graeme Revell did but in a more subtle and modern metallic tone, if anything it helped its predecessor, and being the 90s, the music was also something important, bands like The Cure, Stone Temple Pilots, Nine Inch Nails, Pantera and Medicine are far above Joy Division, Traitrs, Cascadeur and Enya herself. In conclusion, The Crow 2024 is a failed reboot that tries hard to be and isn't, a clear example that there are things that shouldn't be touched simply because they are already classics and not for studios to try to make money, an opportunity that is more than wasted in wanting to modernize and attract new generations, a job that could have been somewhat better and the filler for some streaming platform but that didn't work. The Crow is now in theaters in our country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djSKp_pwmOA Read the full article

[anothersebastianblog]

Don't forget he needs money to campaign for those major awards.>>

He won't pay for his campaign, it's the studios, in his case A24. Some big celebrities pay for their campaigns when the films belong to smaller studios that don't have money for campaigns, as happened with Jennifer Aniston. A24 has money for the campaign, as do Neon, Sony pictures, Lionsgate, etc. Seb doesn't need to stay in the MCU forever with a character they don't care about. He would make more money doing a blockbuster than in the MCU.

Sooner or later he will do another blockbuster i am sure, just like Paul Rudd with ghostbusters

[dxsturbia]

Boy

No it’s really that innocent

Like I don’t care that you can see me??

I would love to work and I’m not gonna lie if an opportunity presents itself yes I’m going to take it

But right now having beliefs having a voice and the platform is going to get evicted 

I have the support of absolutely no one one and will probably never get the kind of help that I need and I am still willing to stand on the original square I get it I got caught up in the disease I wasn’t at first really bothering anyone and then it got to a point where yes I was

But I’m starting to remember what really happened and reacting to subtext aside I can stand by my decision because whatever your plan was you’re open to someone seeing it

And I get it

You were probably hoping they would keep it quiet if I recognized it and I can’t because I’m not cole

I’m not Nick or Jim

I’m birdie

 and I know this all sounds like a fucking Grey’s Anatomy monologue but really sometimes these things are that important like when you make art without the intention of selling it and someone fucking steals your ideas and shit and your graphics

You sold it to Lionsgate before they ever ask for that pilot am I correct or did the pilot come with the sale

You sold it they distributed it they paid you your fees whatever I don’t necessarily know how it works

But as a writer producer and star you get every bit of accolade for your story and up to this point in 2018 it is your story

Now I have a question for you did you read this book