Chronicles of Riddick

[Jerico]

USA mates.
Riddick opens tomorrow.
Let's all go see it and talk about it here!

Let's avoid posting spoilers for our friends
around the world!

NO SPOILERS. SPOILERS BAD!

[Bob]

I'll be sure to read no more than whether or not you liked it! Damn UK cinemas...

[Jerico]

I try to not write spoilers when I talk about movies, Bob.

[Bob]

Just being tongue in cheek :)

[Jerico]

How long does it typically take
for new US movies to reach UK cinemas?

[Bob]

Normally seems to be a couple of months, although it depends on the title. The bigger the film, the quicker we tend to get it... still, it seems to take forever.

It sucks :(

[Jerico]

I feel yer pain, mate!

It's ok. Riddick's not as good as the Elric movie.
Hope that helps.

[DeeCrowSeer]

Normally seems to be a couple of months, although it depends on the title. The bigger the film, the quicker we tend to get it... still, it seems to take forever.

It sucks :(

It surely does. Next week I'm hoping to go and see The Station Agent. I can't remember how long ago an American friend told me about that film, but it's been over a year since it was released in the States! It's almost as if the cinema big-wigs don't think there's much of a market for films about dwarves sitting next to train tracks talking about how lonely they are... er... okay, maybe they have a point.

D...

[Numazel]

ya i can't wait, chronicles of riddick looks awesome. I rented pitch black the other day (i never really did see the whole movie before) and i thought it was pretty good, but chronicles of riddick looks awesome! if it's no good i'm going to be pretty upset though lol. then i remember, at least i'm not seeing harry potter (i apologize to any harry potter fans but *shudders*)

[Paul]

I'm going to see it, but I'm hoping its going to be good. I can't believe how much tickets are these days, last film I saw cost me آ£6.50!

[krunky]

Well, I was hoping to see it tomorrow since it is a lonely Krunky writing to you on one of the days when his SO is out of town...so it's just me, the two bunnies and four fucking cats!

But I was scanning the IMDB boards for the "word" on the movie and a lot of people seem quite confused about the nature of the Riddick character. Everyone seems to think he is going against his bad ass, loner nature by being more heroic in this movie - but to my mind that was the whole lesson the character learned in the first movie. He learned that success was perhaps only possible through cooperation, and that he himself survives because of the sacrifice of another character - a sacrifice for which he feels himself the undeserving beneficiary. That's why at the end of the first movie he is shouting something like "Not for me! Not for me!"

So if he is more heroic this time around, it is because he knows he is on borrowed time already and has some karmic payout to make good on.

What the hell are people thinking - do I have this all wrong? I see an unbroken line of character development from the first movie to the second - of course, I have yet to see the second movie, but I opine from what I have understood...

This isn't exactly a revisionist issue like whether or not Han Solo shoots first! ::snicker:: Man, I fucking hate star wars...

[ghost]

I cannot confirm but an earlier report rumoured that both sides of the conflict are messed up and probably worst than Riddick is. The appraoch being that Riddick may be bad but both of sides are worst in their own ways. Not sure if this is the case anymore.

Riddick really made Pitch Black. He is a great character (anti-hero) who is tough and cunning. Anyone who has not seen Pitch Black should go out and rent it.

[krunky]

I'm probably going to go see this in a handful of hours, but it is being hammered by viewers and critics alike - not good. The most common opinion seems to be that the movie is awful but looks really good. One brilliant picture caption I saw read: "This movie brought to you by the color blue." Funny.

[Jerico]

And now for my 666th post....

I saw a clip on MTV last night.
It has these CG "hell hounds."
They look similar to the Van Helsing
creatures, which means they don't look
real. They look like computer generated
hell hounds. In other words, they look fake.

This is probably the 4th or 5th time
I've said it on here, but I'm not a fan of CGI.
Don't these movie makers realize that it
doesn't look real?
Spiderman, Hulk, Van Helsing, etc. etc...
Why not just make a cartoon if those
effects are considered adequate?

I know Mike doesn't like LOTR, but let's
be objective. Look at the creatures in
LOTR and compare them to Van Helsing
and Riddick also (if you see it this weekend).
The creatures in LOTR look light years improved.
Could it be the Kiwis are better than Americans
in CGI? If so, I say hire Weta Workshop for
Elric. The technology and/or techniques used by
Weta should be considered. If not, just find anyone
who can do a better job than
what's seen in Van H., Hulk, etc...

I will disappointed if Moorcock's Monsters end up
looking similar to what Universal has been doing recently.

I would now like my title changed to Eternal Champion of the Beast!
:twisted:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...09111309990001
________________________________
Margaret Thatcher: "Millions of men and women... live in freedom today because of the policies [Ronald Reagan] pursued." :?: :!: :?: [::woot! woot!:: I.B.D.alarm]

[Numazel]

I wrote:

ya i can't wait, chronicles of riddick looks awesome. I rented pitch black the other day (i never really did see the whole movie before) and i thought it was pretty good, but chronicles of riddick looks awesome! if it's no good i'm going to be pretty upset though lol. then i remember, at least i'm not seeing harry potter (i apologize to any harry potter fans but *shudders*)

Oh bitter irony! I made plans to see chronicles of riddick today, and have been looking forward to it, then a couple minutes ago i got a call, my cousins (who i was going to go with) have decided we should see harry potter instead... *sighs* theres always next weekend i guess...