I had the same viewpoint Rick and was saying so to my wife the other day when she pointed something out to me. As far as I know there doesnt seem to be any other movies coming out at that time that would appeal to a female audience. She was talking with female co-workers and she said at least a dozen from her place of employment are planning on going to go see it. I don't know if this is an isolated case but if that holds up around the country Stepford may end doing better than either you and I expected. The wife and I are going this weekend so I'll let ya know what the theater capacity was. Here's to hoping for a good flick.
KingJeremy
Stepford Update
-
tully
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 7:28 am
- x 10
- x 3
- Contact:
-
noidguy
- Retired staff member
- Posts: 1257
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 6:32 pm
- Location: Michigan
- x 5
- Contact:
-
kb7rky
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 11:38 am
- Location: Lewiston, Idaho
- Contact:
My guess:
"Pilot to Bombardier...target acquired...open bomb bay doors...release bombs..."
Shot down in flames...critics are gonna be saying "Told ya so"...it'll be rushed to DVD in three months...
...while the gynophiles of the world buy up every spare copy "we" can lay our hands on, and sell the rest on eBay.
Hate to be so forward, but my gut's telling me this is gonna blow more than chunks...chunks as big as asteroids, folks...
Doug
"Pilot to Bombardier...target acquired...open bomb bay doors...release bombs..."
Shot down in flames...critics are gonna be saying "Told ya so"...it'll be rushed to DVD in three months...
...while the gynophiles of the world buy up every spare copy "we" can lay our hands on, and sell the rest on eBay.
Hate to be so forward, but my gut's telling me this is gonna blow more than chunks...chunks as big as asteroids, folks...
Doug
-
rickdrat
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am
- Location: Location, Location
- x 2
- x 4
- Contact:
TV appearances
Here's another update on cast members hawking the film;
Wednesday; Nicole Kidman on Today Show
Faith Hill on On Air with Ryan Seacrest
Friday; Entire cast on The View
Some of this is from http://www.faithhill.com which has proven to be 100% wrong so far, so bear that in mind.
Wednesday; Nicole Kidman on Today Show
Faith Hill on On Air with Ryan Seacrest
Friday; Entire cast on The View
Some of this is from http://www.faithhill.com which has proven to be 100% wrong so far, so bear that in mind.
-
ButchyBoy
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 7:32 pm
- Contact:
-
rickdrat
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am
- Location: Location, Location
- x 2
- x 4
- Contact:
-
kb7rky
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 11:38 am
- Location: Lewiston, Idaho
- Contact:
Re: Wow!!!
With the lack of advertising (in my area, at least...I've seen maybe one ad, and that was about it), it just makes me wonder if it's going to do well at all.droidlvr wrote:Wow!!!!!! I couln't agree more with kb7rky. Although I can't believe he has that opinon of TSW. I simply don't expect it to measure up. We'll just have to see.
Don't get me wrong, folks...
The original was pretty good, and I would like to see the remake. But, from reading about the problems they've had thus far in post-production...we're in for a damn bumpy ride at least.
Doug
-
ehy
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 3:41 pm
- Technosexuality: Built and Transformation
- Identification: Human
- Gender: Male
- Contact:
-
droidlvr
- Banned
- Posts: 904
- Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 5:40 pm
- x 2
Yes, the original....
Yes, the original WAS pretty good, that's why I'd like to see a remake OF THE ORIGINAL, not some "smarter than you" assed director's revision
of TSW bearing the same name. One recent trailer shows C. Walken in a scientist's get-up,showing the required attributes of a Stepford Wife: you start with an attractive wife, then you remove her brain. I don't know who,while watching this movie,will not tire out from the one line joke of a story line this movie seems to have all of it aimed at "looser" men.
of TSW bearing the same name. One recent trailer shows C. Walken in a scientist's get-up,showing the required attributes of a Stepford Wife: you start with an attractive wife, then you remove her brain. I don't know who,while watching this movie,will not tire out from the one line joke of a story line this movie seems to have all of it aimed at "looser" men.
-
ButchyBoy
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 7:32 pm
- Contact:
-
1001011001
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 6:55 pm
- Contact:
Fresh off the NY Times website
This is one of the first review of TSW from the NY Times:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"The Stepford Wives," Frank Oz's madcap re-engineering of a
dusty, second-rate thriller from 1975, opens with a montage
of happy housewives and their household gadgets. Making fun
of images like these - smiling women in Eisenhower-era
perms and evening gowns swooning over their automated
kitchen cabinets - has become such a tiresome pop-culture
staple that you may wonder if the movie, which opens today
nationwide, has anything new to say about feminism,
suburbia or consumer society. The answer is not really, but
it does manage to fire off a handful of decent jokes and a
few sneaky insights before losing its nerve and collapsing
into incoherence.
The source for both this film and the earlier one, which
starred Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss, is a slim,
efficient novel by Ira Levin that uses the conventions of
suspense fiction as a vehicle for allegory and social
satire. Mr. Levin's Stepford, Conn., was a pleasant
middle-class suburb whose menfolk, threatened by the rather
mild feminism of their wives, killed them off and replaced
them with subservient, sexually compliant robots.
The first "Stepford Wives" exploited the horror-movie
implications of this premise, rather than its comic
possibilities. Mr. Oz and Paul Rudnick, the screenwriter,
swerve maniacally in the opposite direction, whipping up a
gaudy, noisy farce that perpetually threatens to spin out
of control and eventually does. The music, by David Arnold,
is full of overdone, campy melodrama, like an Elmer
Bernstein score for a Three Stooges picture. The
performances - in particular that of Glenn Close as
Stepford's robot matriarch - are both sly and overstated,
giving Mr. Rudnick's sneaky one-liners a chance to be heard
amid the cacophonous silliness.
Needless to say, a lot has changed in 30 years: now,
Stepford is a gated subdivision full of late-model S.U.V.'s
and sprawling stone McMansions, where a gay couple is
welcomed and where everyone is white. (In Mr. Levin's novel
a black family had just come to town, but I guess they've
moved away.) Sexual politics have also come a long way.
Joanna Eberhart, who dabbled in photography when she was
played by Ms. Ross, is now, in the person of Nicole Kidman,
the ruthless, ambitious head of a television network. Fired
in the wake of a reality-show disaster, Joanna has a quick
nervous breakdown and is then spirited off to Stepford by
her nebbishy, beta-male husband, Walter (Matthew
Broderick).
In the earlier "Stepford," the flight from New York was
implicitly motivated by fear of urban chaos and social
collapse. This time, though, the Eberharts are fleeing from
the soul-emptying consequences of their own ambition,
seeking out the cozy simplicity of an affluent world in
which no one seems to have, or to need, a job. The
husbands, a collection of lumpy, khaki-wearing dweebs (with
the exception of Christopher Walken, their guru of
old-school masculinity), congregate in the clubby
headquarters of the Men's Association, which is also where
their robot workshop is housed. The wives, meanwhile,
cheerfully perform their household and bedroom duties,
steered by personalized brass remote-control devices
wielded by their owners - er, mates.
Though Joanna is repelled by the empty-headed obedience of
the Stepford wives, she also wants to repair the damage
that her career has inflicted on her husband and children.
This damage is mentioned rather than shown, and the repair
work is highly theoretical, since children in Stepford are
only slightly more visible than black people. There is,
however, a schticky pair of token Jews, played by Jon
Lovitz and Bette Midler, whose character, until she is
robotized, is a slovenly, loud-mouthed novelist and one of
Joanna's few friends.
Mr. Rudnick is best at forging tiny verbal darts that
tickle more than they sting. (Late in the game, Joanna
discovers that one of the robot-designers once worked for
AOL. "Is that why the women are so slow?" she asks.)
Occasionally, as in the film's clever, cautionary view of
gay marriage, you might intuit a crackle of genuine satire,
but for the most part "The Stepford Wives" is as cheerful
and inoffensive as its title characters. Every time you
think it might be venturing toward social criticism, it
pulls back into homily and reassurance, refusing to tell
anyone in the audience anything she - or he - might not
want to hear.
There are, of course, some real tensions and resentments
embedded in this story - the hard choices facing ambitious
women, the immaturity and misogyny that surge through so
much popular culture, a rampaging materialism that makes
the Stepford of 1975 look like a kibbutz - but the movie,
especially in its disastrous and nonsensical final act,
works as hard as it can to suppress them.
"The Stepford Wives" is, in other words, the opposite of
satire. It is intended not to provoke but to soothe, to
tell us, once again, that we can have it all, that nobody's
perfect, and that if there is trouble in the world, or in
our own homes, it's nothing we need to worry our pretty
little heads about.
"The Stepford Wives" is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly
cautioned). It has some strong language and sexual
references.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"The Stepford Wives," Frank Oz's madcap re-engineering of a
dusty, second-rate thriller from 1975, opens with a montage
of happy housewives and their household gadgets. Making fun
of images like these - smiling women in Eisenhower-era
perms and evening gowns swooning over their automated
kitchen cabinets - has become such a tiresome pop-culture
staple that you may wonder if the movie, which opens today
nationwide, has anything new to say about feminism,
suburbia or consumer society. The answer is not really, but
it does manage to fire off a handful of decent jokes and a
few sneaky insights before losing its nerve and collapsing
into incoherence.
The source for both this film and the earlier one, which
starred Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss, is a slim,
efficient novel by Ira Levin that uses the conventions of
suspense fiction as a vehicle for allegory and social
satire. Mr. Levin's Stepford, Conn., was a pleasant
middle-class suburb whose menfolk, threatened by the rather
mild feminism of their wives, killed them off and replaced
them with subservient, sexually compliant robots.
The first "Stepford Wives" exploited the horror-movie
implications of this premise, rather than its comic
possibilities. Mr. Oz and Paul Rudnick, the screenwriter,
swerve maniacally in the opposite direction, whipping up a
gaudy, noisy farce that perpetually threatens to spin out
of control and eventually does. The music, by David Arnold,
is full of overdone, campy melodrama, like an Elmer
Bernstein score for a Three Stooges picture. The
performances - in particular that of Glenn Close as
Stepford's robot matriarch - are both sly and overstated,
giving Mr. Rudnick's sneaky one-liners a chance to be heard
amid the cacophonous silliness.
Needless to say, a lot has changed in 30 years: now,
Stepford is a gated subdivision full of late-model S.U.V.'s
and sprawling stone McMansions, where a gay couple is
welcomed and where everyone is white. (In Mr. Levin's novel
a black family had just come to town, but I guess they've
moved away.) Sexual politics have also come a long way.
Joanna Eberhart, who dabbled in photography when she was
played by Ms. Ross, is now, in the person of Nicole Kidman,
the ruthless, ambitious head of a television network. Fired
in the wake of a reality-show disaster, Joanna has a quick
nervous breakdown and is then spirited off to Stepford by
her nebbishy, beta-male husband, Walter (Matthew
Broderick).
In the earlier "Stepford," the flight from New York was
implicitly motivated by fear of urban chaos and social
collapse. This time, though, the Eberharts are fleeing from
the soul-emptying consequences of their own ambition,
seeking out the cozy simplicity of an affluent world in
which no one seems to have, or to need, a job. The
husbands, a collection of lumpy, khaki-wearing dweebs (with
the exception of Christopher Walken, their guru of
old-school masculinity), congregate in the clubby
headquarters of the Men's Association, which is also where
their robot workshop is housed. The wives, meanwhile,
cheerfully perform their household and bedroom duties,
steered by personalized brass remote-control devices
wielded by their owners - er, mates.
Though Joanna is repelled by the empty-headed obedience of
the Stepford wives, she also wants to repair the damage
that her career has inflicted on her husband and children.
This damage is mentioned rather than shown, and the repair
work is highly theoretical, since children in Stepford are
only slightly more visible than black people. There is,
however, a schticky pair of token Jews, played by Jon
Lovitz and Bette Midler, whose character, until she is
robotized, is a slovenly, loud-mouthed novelist and one of
Joanna's few friends.
Mr. Rudnick is best at forging tiny verbal darts that
tickle more than they sting. (Late in the game, Joanna
discovers that one of the robot-designers once worked for
AOL. "Is that why the women are so slow?" she asks.)
Occasionally, as in the film's clever, cautionary view of
gay marriage, you might intuit a crackle of genuine satire,
but for the most part "The Stepford Wives" is as cheerful
and inoffensive as its title characters. Every time you
think it might be venturing toward social criticism, it
pulls back into homily and reassurance, refusing to tell
anyone in the audience anything she - or he - might not
want to hear.
There are, of course, some real tensions and resentments
embedded in this story - the hard choices facing ambitious
women, the immaturity and misogyny that surge through so
much popular culture, a rampaging materialism that makes
the Stepford of 1975 look like a kibbutz - but the movie,
especially in its disastrous and nonsensical final act,
works as hard as it can to suppress them.
"The Stepford Wives" is, in other words, the opposite of
satire. It is intended not to provoke but to soothe, to
tell us, once again, that we can have it all, that nobody's
perfect, and that if there is trouble in the world, or in
our own homes, it's nothing we need to worry our pretty
little heads about.
"The Stepford Wives" is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly
cautioned). It has some strong language and sexual
references.
-
noidguy
- Retired staff member
- Posts: 1257
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 6:32 pm
- Location: Michigan
- x 5
- Contact:
Box office revision
Earlier I wrote this...
The article I read on the Scifi Wire about Frank Oz was the most disappointing. The director says they downplay the robot element and emphasize the emotional side of things. Well that just.....sucks.
I'll be seeing this film in about 4 hours and all of a sudden I'm not very optimistic.
After all the negative reviews I've read online I'd like to change my estimates. How about $22 million opening weekend, $10 million second weekend, cumulative $48 million.noidguy wrote:My guess - $28 million the first weekend, $12 million the second. Cumulative $60 million. On dvd by Halloween.
The article I read on the Scifi Wire about Frank Oz was the most disappointing. The director says they downplay the robot element and emphasize the emotional side of things. Well that just.....sucks.
I'll be seeing this film in about 4 hours and all of a sudden I'm not very optimistic.
-
rickdrat
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am
- Location: Location, Location
- x 2
- x 4
- Contact:
Box office success?
Contrary to Noid's feelings I think I might want to revise my estimate upwards a bit based on two bits of information.
First, some of the "professional" reviews I've read in the last 24 hours (still waiting to see the Ebert & Roeper feed today) indicate that, in spite of all the rewrites and reshoots, Stepford may actually be funny. While this is not what I wanted to see in this film, it might make it bearable to watch.
The second point is that one of the women I work with is just this side of being a militant feminist. Yesterday she mentioned that she wanted to see it too. So there may be a whole built in audience for this thing that I just didn't forsee.
So I'll say opening weekend about $35 million. Total gross somewhere between $90-$100 mil, and it may make it though the end of July. Not a blockbuster, but not a stinker either. I plan on donating to the take sometime tomorrow, but I'll be waiting for Noid's detailed review
tonight.
First, some of the "professional" reviews I've read in the last 24 hours (still waiting to see the Ebert & Roeper feed today) indicate that, in spite of all the rewrites and reshoots, Stepford may actually be funny. While this is not what I wanted to see in this film, it might make it bearable to watch.
The second point is that one of the women I work with is just this side of being a militant feminist. Yesterday she mentioned that she wanted to see it too. So there may be a whole built in audience for this thing that I just didn't forsee.
So I'll say opening weekend about $35 million. Total gross somewhere between $90-$100 mil, and it may make it though the end of July. Not a blockbuster, but not a stinker either. I plan on donating to the take sometime tomorrow, but I'll be waiting for Noid's detailed review
tonight.-
hypero2
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue May 28, 2002 9:21 am
- Technosexuality: Transformation
- Identification: Human
- Gender: Male
- x 1
- Contact:
Plot twist (?)
I realize this is a bit off topic of what the movie will gross, but there has been mention of a plot twist and that the endings of this Stepford and the classic are different (or perhaps I just dreamed that). Nevertheless, here's my take on the plot twist.. we'll see if I'm right.
All of the wives were high powered successful executives. Perhaps the new plot twist is that they WANT to be Stepford wives, to get away from the pressure of their lives to a more simple time. Perhaps Clare (Glenn Close) is actually the one in charge, telling the women that they will always be beautiful and always have the men fawning over them. Perhaps THIS could be the secret that the Stepford wiveshave (not the husbands) have. Sure, they know, but perhaps it's NOT the husband's decision and the women are in control?
I know it's a stretch, but hopefully the 'twist' will be more of a WOW than a 'what the F*(<?!'. Fingers crossed!
All of the wives were high powered successful executives. Perhaps the new plot twist is that they WANT to be Stepford wives, to get away from the pressure of their lives to a more simple time. Perhaps Clare (Glenn Close) is actually the one in charge, telling the women that they will always be beautiful and always have the men fawning over them. Perhaps THIS could be the secret that the Stepford wiveshave (not the husbands) have. Sure, they know, but perhaps it's NOT the husband's decision and the women are in control?
I know it's a stretch, but hopefully the 'twist' will be more of a WOW than a 'what the F*(<?!'. Fingers crossed!
-
noidguy
- Retired staff member
- Posts: 1257
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 6:32 pm
- Location: Michigan
- x 5
- Contact:
*^%^%^
Son of a b*%$^
I just spent 20 minutes writing a review and the stupid bbs script timed me out! Submit.....nothing.
grrrrrrr
Maybe I'll review again later, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
I just spent 20 minutes writing a review and the stupid bbs script timed me out! Submit.....nothing.
grrrrrrr
Maybe I'll review again later, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
-
Svengli
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 3:47 pm
- x 30
- x 8
- Contact:
OK,
Well, naturally before I saw thing, I prepared myself for dispointment.
And I got a fair amount. I suppose that I'm an eternal optimist.
Anyway,
My main complaint about the movie is that it is too short. Although this is big complaint, it's the way modern movies work. All the scenes fly by without really strongly making their point. I miss the slow tracking shots that the original had of the women walking or doing little chores.
The film also lacks in logical development. There's a book club and a panic scene and you don't find out how either of them happen. There are black women in a first scene but they are then not visible for the rest of the movie.
With all this, you don't really get a feel for the robot women as robot women. And I get the feeling that many of parts of scenes were cut.
And the same time, the robot women are much close to phantasy sex slaves than the original stepford women and that's cool.
There are lots of scenes of women being controlled or being robotic. But these are pretty truncated. I almost felt like I really had seen the movie by watching the trailer.
There are a fair number of scenes of the robot women doing menial tasks for the men. But the golf scene, for example, is no longer in the movie than it is in the trailer. Remote control fans will be happy to know that the women have remote controls - they show up a couple of times. The main malfunction scene happens in the square dancing scene - I'm not really big on malfunctions but I think that this was excellent.
The roboticization is some unexplained process of transformation.
The ending is indeed the forced happy ending, with "the chips melting" or something (you can't really tell from the movie). It only takes up a short time in the time. Kidman "only pretends" to be robotized. Still, while she's pretending, she makes a damn hot robot (and given that the whole thing is done haphazardly, you might just stop future DVD where robot Joanna and Mike go off into the garden).
The "Good bye, Good bye, Good bye, See you" scene was cut from the movie, as were a number of small scenes in the trailer.
It is a shame that someone more attractive than Bette Midler didn't play Bobbie. I didn't mind the gay guy but another woman to transform naturally would have been much more appealing.
It will excellent to have the DVD of this but I won't be seeing this one again and again - though I might watch in a couple months if it's still in theaters.
What it will gross? I don't give a XXXX.
Anyway, hope this is useful for you gynoid-phile out there.
Best,
S
Well, naturally before I saw thing, I prepared myself for dispointment.
And I got a fair amount. I suppose that I'm an eternal optimist.
Anyway,
My main complaint about the movie is that it is too short. Although this is big complaint, it's the way modern movies work. All the scenes fly by without really strongly making their point. I miss the slow tracking shots that the original had of the women walking or doing little chores.
The film also lacks in logical development. There's a book club and a panic scene and you don't find out how either of them happen. There are black women in a first scene but they are then not visible for the rest of the movie.
With all this, you don't really get a feel for the robot women as robot women. And I get the feeling that many of parts of scenes were cut.
And the same time, the robot women are much close to phantasy sex slaves than the original stepford women and that's cool.
There are lots of scenes of women being controlled or being robotic. But these are pretty truncated. I almost felt like I really had seen the movie by watching the trailer.
There are a fair number of scenes of the robot women doing menial tasks for the men. But the golf scene, for example, is no longer in the movie than it is in the trailer. Remote control fans will be happy to know that the women have remote controls - they show up a couple of times. The main malfunction scene happens in the square dancing scene - I'm not really big on malfunctions but I think that this was excellent.
The roboticization is some unexplained process of transformation.
The ending is indeed the forced happy ending, with "the chips melting" or something (you can't really tell from the movie). It only takes up a short time in the time. Kidman "only pretends" to be robotized. Still, while she's pretending, she makes a damn hot robot (and given that the whole thing is done haphazardly, you might just stop future DVD where robot Joanna and Mike go off into the garden).
The "Good bye, Good bye, Good bye, See you" scene was cut from the movie, as were a number of small scenes in the trailer.
It is a shame that someone more attractive than Bette Midler didn't play Bobbie. I didn't mind the gay guy but another woman to transform naturally would have been much more appealing.
It will excellent to have the DVD of this but I won't be seeing this one again and again - though I might watch in a couple months if it's still in theaters.
What it will gross? I don't give a XXXX.
Anyway, hope this is useful for you gynoid-phile out there.
Best,
S
-
droidlvr
- Banned
- Posts: 904
- Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 5:40 pm
- x 2
In the words of a "Simpsons" character....
In the words of a "Simpsons" character and Bart's bully, Ah hah!!!
-
noidguy
- Retired staff member
- Posts: 1257
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 6:32 pm
- Location: Michigan
- x 5
- Contact:
Lots of scenes not included
Yeah, I can think of several shots that were shown in trailers or stills that never made it to the big screen.
1. The aforementioned "Good-bye good-bye" scene with Bette Midler.
2. The bit where a cooking utensil sprouts from Bette's finger.
3. A quick shot with the new improved Bette and Jon Lovitz standing in a hallway. John turns his back to the camera and scratches the back of his head.
4. Joanna asks Walter "If you could change something about me by flipping a switch would you?"
5. The scene in the car with Walter, Joanna and kids. The kids ask "Why are we moving to Stepford?" Walter's answer in the trailer differs slightly from what he says in the released film.
6. Walter in tuxedo views the see-through cgi image of a robot's innards. In the final film the image is altered so as not to show any distinctive mechanical bits.
7. Sarah's (Faith Hill) squaredancing malfunction does not involve sparking until she's 'fixed' by Mike while lying on the floor. One trailer showed her sparking while on her feet.
8. Many more small examples, I'm sure.
Also, Walter makes a reference in a later scene to Joanna having embarassed him at the picnic. No such thing happened, so they must have cut that scene also.
What a mess. Like a lot of the reviews have said this film is just a mish-mash of chopped together scenes. You could almost take all the trailers, splice them together, and skip seeing the finished product. It seemed to me like 80% of the first half of the film is covered in the various trailers.
1. The aforementioned "Good-bye good-bye" scene with Bette Midler.
2. The bit where a cooking utensil sprouts from Bette's finger.
3. A quick shot with the new improved Bette and Jon Lovitz standing in a hallway. John turns his back to the camera and scratches the back of his head.
4. Joanna asks Walter "If you could change something about me by flipping a switch would you?"
5. The scene in the car with Walter, Joanna and kids. The kids ask "Why are we moving to Stepford?" Walter's answer in the trailer differs slightly from what he says in the released film.
6. Walter in tuxedo views the see-through cgi image of a robot's innards. In the final film the image is altered so as not to show any distinctive mechanical bits.
7. Sarah's (Faith Hill) squaredancing malfunction does not involve sparking until she's 'fixed' by Mike while lying on the floor. One trailer showed her sparking while on her feet.
8. Many more small examples, I'm sure.
Also, Walter makes a reference in a later scene to Joanna having embarassed him at the picnic. No such thing happened, so they must have cut that scene also.
What a mess. Like a lot of the reviews have said this film is just a mish-mash of chopped together scenes. You could almost take all the trailers, splice them together, and skip seeing the finished product. It seemed to me like 80% of the first half of the film is covered in the various trailers.
-
Trace Venom
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 7:21 pm
- Technosexuality: Built
- Identification: Android
- Gender: Male
- Location: Shangri-la dee da
- x 26
- x 6
- Contact:
Ouch
Noid...
I haven't seen the movie, but from what I've read so far, this thing was cut and recut to high hell.
I'm perplexed at how much footage that was in their publicity was left out of the actual movie. That has to mean that they were still cutting and pasting film maniacally until VERY recent, desperately trying to find the right tone for this flick.
And to think this might give me away to my girlfriend
...
I'm a cinema geek, and my girlfriend isn't quite as much as I (which is odd, because she has a minor in film studies) so she was a bit perplexed that I didn't complain when she said she wanted to see the movie. I just brushed it of saying "Uh... I know it'll suck, but I'll go see it anyway, 'cause you know, I'd like to compare it to the original film"
Riiight...
I haven't seen the movie, but from what I've read so far, this thing was cut and recut to high hell.
I'm perplexed at how much footage that was in their publicity was left out of the actual movie. That has to mean that they were still cutting and pasting film maniacally until VERY recent, desperately trying to find the right tone for this flick.
And to think this might give me away to my girlfriend
...I'm a cinema geek, and my girlfriend isn't quite as much as I (which is odd, because she has a minor in film studies) so she was a bit perplexed that I didn't complain when she said she wanted to see the movie. I just brushed it of saying "Uh... I know it'll suck, but I'll go see it anyway, 'cause you know, I'd like to compare it to the original film"
Riiight...
-
kb7rky
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 11:38 am
- Location: Lewiston, Idaho
- Contact:
-
Cybernetique
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 12:29 am
- x 1
- Contact:
I thought the movie wildly swung from being really great (when it was firmly set in satire/comedy mode) to one of the worst movies of the year (when it was firmly set in drama mode), which just made it a bizarre movie to watch.
Gynoid content-wise, I wasn't disappointed, but that's just because I'm a Faith Hill fan. Faith's "dosey-do" malfunction was fairly good, and made even better when she was having difficulties walking around afterwards. Her appearance in lingerie later on is great, but it gets muddled by Oz's herky-jerky almost-cartoon approach to animating how the women act when they're controlled. Regardless, she was very hot in this one.
The bad news is that the movie could potentially paint members of this community in a really poor light. After all, the people who want to transform their wives in this movie are snivelling, cowardly programmer nerds, which doesn't exactly reflect well on the ASFR fans out there. If I were to "come out" with my fetish to my significant other, I'd likely draw an immediate comparison to those idiots, and that's not exactly what I'm looking for.
Gynoid content-wise, I wasn't disappointed, but that's just because I'm a Faith Hill fan. Faith's "dosey-do" malfunction was fairly good, and made even better when she was having difficulties walking around afterwards. Her appearance in lingerie later on is great, but it gets muddled by Oz's herky-jerky almost-cartoon approach to animating how the women act when they're controlled. Regardless, she was very hot in this one.
The bad news is that the movie could potentially paint members of this community in a really poor light. After all, the people who want to transform their wives in this movie are snivelling, cowardly programmer nerds, which doesn't exactly reflect well on the ASFR fans out there. If I were to "come out" with my fetish to my significant other, I'd likely draw an immediate comparison to those idiots, and that's not exactly what I'm looking for.
-
Baron
- Posts: 594
- Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 7:01 pm
- Location: Latos Manor
- x 8
- x 14
- Contact:
Sigh. Prescience can be an albatross.......... 
All the speculation, all the tidbits of information, all the wishful thinking / hoping / praying; a good 16 months of anticipation, discussion, suggestion, rejection; not to mention 25 pages, nearly 20,000 hits, and hundreds of replies for this very humble thread - it all ends up as a disappointing embarassment.
But hey - THAT'S HOLLYWOOD!!!
And Hollywood is the BIGGEST problem ASFR has - just put this new TSW up against the recent Basement Jaxx video; it says in 4 minutes what TSW avoids for the duration: "Female Robots are cool! (and sexy, and fun to play with, and they make compelling entertainment, if handled properly)"
I resolutely refuse to contribute one blessed cent to TSW's initial gross - I'll wait a little while longer for the "home" issuance - but I won't expect much in the way of extras - do you really think the corporate "geniuses" behind the scenes would put out something that might eclipse the original hype? Then again, considering the low-key initial marketing (no doubt because the final product was so flawed), maybe the home release WILL be more "interesting," if only to milk the cow dry.
My gut reaction to the ultimate destiny of this project can be fairly summed up by observing that some pinhead probably got a nice fat paycheck for his "subliminal" insert into one of the trailers, even though his "work" can be (and has been) easily eclipsed by more than a few of us here on this board!!! The underlying subtext being "it's pretty hard to generate a mountain of controversy (publicity), with only a molehill of subject material." This goes for both that little insert, as well as the finished film.
TSW will vanish quickly once the first "summer blockbuster" appears (the last week in June - surely by the week after July 4*); initial gross is anybody's guess, but I'll cautiously say that it won't equal the production costs by a comfortable margin - and the home version(s) will hit the stores by October 15.
Say - whatever happened to the remake of WESTWORLD?????
* - please post here if you come across any "held over for X # of weeks " notices - I'm curious to see how long the powers-that-be are willing to stretch the already thin material (by that I mean their product, not the original - film or book), before trying to recoup enough to eventually break into a modest profit once it hits the home market...........
All the speculation, all the tidbits of information, all the wishful thinking / hoping / praying; a good 16 months of anticipation, discussion, suggestion, rejection; not to mention 25 pages, nearly 20,000 hits, and hundreds of replies for this very humble thread - it all ends up as a disappointing embarassment.
But hey - THAT'S HOLLYWOOD!!!
And Hollywood is the BIGGEST problem ASFR has - just put this new TSW up against the recent Basement Jaxx video; it says in 4 minutes what TSW avoids for the duration: "Female Robots are cool! (and sexy, and fun to play with, and they make compelling entertainment, if handled properly)"
I resolutely refuse to contribute one blessed cent to TSW's initial gross - I'll wait a little while longer for the "home" issuance - but I won't expect much in the way of extras - do you really think the corporate "geniuses" behind the scenes would put out something that might eclipse the original hype? Then again, considering the low-key initial marketing (no doubt because the final product was so flawed), maybe the home release WILL be more "interesting," if only to milk the cow dry.
My gut reaction to the ultimate destiny of this project can be fairly summed up by observing that some pinhead probably got a nice fat paycheck for his "subliminal" insert into one of the trailers, even though his "work" can be (and has been) easily eclipsed by more than a few of us here on this board!!! The underlying subtext being "it's pretty hard to generate a mountain of controversy (publicity), with only a molehill of subject material." This goes for both that little insert, as well as the finished film.
TSW will vanish quickly once the first "summer blockbuster" appears (the last week in June - surely by the week after July 4*); initial gross is anybody's guess, but I'll cautiously say that it won't equal the production costs by a comfortable margin - and the home version(s) will hit the stores by October 15.
Say - whatever happened to the remake of WESTWORLD?????
* - please post here if you come across any "held over for X # of weeks " notices - I'm curious to see how long the powers-that-be are willing to stretch the already thin material (by that I mean their product, not the original - film or book), before trying to recoup enough to eventually break into a modest profit once it hits the home market...........
Assemble the ladies? I didn't know that they were broken......
-
ButchyBoy
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 7:32 pm
- Contact:
No new sci-fi series for 2004-2005. Perhaps Basement Jaxx will do a sequel to Plug It In. 
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests