Live Action Movie Thread

[Chrono Trigger]

Pain said : http://www.daizex.com/general/feature/p ... fool.shtml

He actually did that !? That's crazy! Did people actually fall for it ?

[Pain]

Pain said : http://www.daizex.com/general/feature/p ... fool.shtml

He actually did that !? That's crazy! Did people actually fall for it ?

I think I just answered that question for you.

[Chrono Trigger]

Ok. That's still an obvious trick. It was April 1st for crying out loud!

[Herms]

Apparently some people are still falling for it. Mike has mentioned on the podcast that the "AF" logo he created for the prank still pops up in various "AF is real!" discussions.

[Chrono Trigger]

I wish I was around on that day. Well why would this woman go to IMDB for attention ? If she really wanted to stir some shit, she should have came here. As unforgiving and relentless as some people here are this could have been solved all at once.

[JAPPO]

Well no offense but this forum is hidden from the public. Takes hours to agree to the rules and then typing the url is a chore.

[Acid_Reign]

If all that were true, considering how much effort Fox has put into keeping details of this movie under wraps, wouldn't they have taken that down by now?
I can't help but notice that it's all just elaborating on stuff we've already heard or could have guessed at.
I really have no clue since I hadn't even heard the movie was getting pre-screened already but this has my suspicion radar going crazy, especially considering this user only registered with IMBD 2 weeks ago.
Kind of smells like a troll to me.

Somehow I don’t think regulating IMDb comments is much of a priority, or even the authority of FOX. On somewhere like YouTube, where there’s actual copyright infringement, there’s a case for it, but when it’s just words, well, IMDb is US-based so there’s freedom of speech. Regardless, even if what she’s saying is true, by taking it down they’d just be giving credence to her claims.

You do raise a good point, though. If they’ve worked so hard to keep things under wraps up until now, why would they go and screen the movie this far in advance of the actual release date? There are a few potential reasons I can think of, which I will explore below.

The only ways this person could have seen the movie before its debut:

1. She helped edit the movie personally
2. She attended a private screening
3. She obtained a screener copy

She helped edit the movie personally
If you read further into the thread, the poster identifies herself as “Zoe.” Easy check here.

Editorial Department
Angela Gerardo .... post-production coordinator
Justin C. Green .... first assistant editor

No-go.

She attended a private screening
Sometimes, movies in Hollywood are screened for test audiences before they’re shown to anyone else, including critics. They do this specifically to gauge the audience’s reactions, and obtain feedback about their experience, usually via comment cards. Depending on their responses, the studio may decide to make changes to the final cut of the film, so that it will do better when it’s actually released. If you’ve ever watched an alternate ending on a DVD, those are often the original endings that didn’t test well.

These test screenings can be shown months in advance of the actual release. Speaking of Tropic Thunder, that was tested six months prior to its August release date, back in February. And April, Dragonball’s proposed release date, is a little under seven months from now. So, that much is plausible (assuming filming really did end in March, as was reported by dbthemovie.com, and they’ve had all this time to edit it—IMDb [the free version anyway] doesn’t indicate when the change from “in-” to “post-” production occurred).

But the audiences for these test screenings are chosen completely at random from the public. They actually hand out fliers on the street. So, if we’re to believe her story, then an industry insider probably wouldn’t even qualify for such a screening, unless she were helping to organize it. Fogdark says this is the case but she doesn’t actually say so herself in the thread; rather she claims she is a marketer for FOX. (She also claims she is going to see Watchmen next month. Another poster points out that Watchmen is produced by WB, which would contradict her statement of working for FOX. But she could be an employee at an independent marketing firm that was contracted by both FOX and WB, so unless it can be proven that this action was not taken by one or both of the companies, then we can’t regard it as a refutation.)

Marketers do actually attend private screenings themselves, but they’re shown separately from test audiences. Either way she would probably be required to keep the details of the movie to herself. And yet, she divulges her name, which would directly jeopardize her career. That doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility of her seeing the movie, as she could merely be miswording, exaggerating, or deliberately changing the details of how she saw it to protect herself. Which leaves only one more possibility, in my opinion.

She obtained a screener copy
Screeners are advanced DVD copies of a movie sent to critics, Academy members, etc.—essentially, “industry insiders”—before the film’s release. And she does imply in the OP that the movie was shown to her before it was shown to critics. But that doesn’t quite hold up either because the delivery of the screeners would be timed to go out shortly before the film actually arrived in theaters. Otherwise, critics would be expected to write their reviews half a year in advance, or recall their reactions from half a year ago. I’m not a professional critic but neither option makes much sense.

So, after exhausting every sensible scenario, nothing really adds up here. To compound the issue, we have an individual who registered two weeks ago, seemingly for the sole purpose of informing people, on IMDb of all places, about very broad, generic details regarding the movie, without any proof whatsoever.

And if her intent was, as she alleges, to “inform the fans” of what the movie is like, why would she choose the IMDb message boards as her point of divulgence, rather than a more respectable media outlet? She seems shocked at the fans’ belligerence toward her, when, as an “industry insider;” a privileged marketer least of all, she likely would have visited IMDb many times already, and could be expected to be at least vaguely familiar with the atmosphere of the forum, which a sampling of threads from any major movie would reveal to be of the same nature.

She also states that she doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone, and yet if that were the case, why clamor about all of the negativity she received? She cites this as the reason she stopped revealing details about the movie, but it seems to be quite a convenient cover to avoid increasingly tougher questioning from the other posters.

While her legitimacy can’t be conclusively determined, I think it’s safe to assume she’s full of shit.

[Chrono Trigger]

See what I mean ? Cutthroat and relentless.

[MisterFlashdude]

While her legitimacy can’t be conclusively determined, I think it’s safe to assume she’s full of shit.

I think I'll just jump back on the /b/andwagon and say...

Obvious troll is obvious.

She joins a forum days before pulling her move.
She makes bold claims with no proof.
She reacts with indignation and shock when proof is demanded, classic behavior of the common troll.
She'll claim that it's because of said demands or negative reception to her obviously far-fetched claims that she's decided to leave said forum high and dry in retribution, while in reality it's either because the troll has run out of convincing material or can't continue with the lie due to the lack of a receptive audience.

Is there really any reason what so ever to actually think she's telling the truth?

[Velasa]

Is there really any reason what so ever to actually think she's telling the truth?

..........

...... > > We really really really want it to be?

That's about it so far. It lets us think we can sleep at night.

[Acid_Reign]

I think I'll just jump back on the /b/andwagon and say...

Obvious troll is obvious.

She joins a forum days before pulling her move.
She makes bold claims with no proof.
She reacts with indignation and shock when proof is demanded, classic behavior of the common troll.
She'll claim that it's because of said demands or negative reception to her obviously far-fetched claims that she's decided to leave said forum high and dry in retribution, while in reality it's either because the troll has run out of convincing material or can't continue with the lie due to the lack of a receptive audience.

I think there is a difference between a troll and a general attention-seeker. A troll deliberately makes offending or stupid comments to incite angry responses from an individual or community. An attention-seeker or compulsive liar makes controversial comments to derive a sense of self-worth from the drama it creates, or to see if/how far they can stretch the truth and get away with it. This person strikes me as the latter, for the simple reason that a troll would keep fanning the flames for as long as people responded to it, whereas she’s just letting it die.

Is there really any reason what so ever to actually think she's telling the truth?

No. Which is why I tried to lay any lingering assumptions to rest with my post. It seems some people here were taking her comments as proof that the movie actually won’t be as corrupted as most of us think it will be.

[MisterFlashdude]

I think there is a difference between a troll and a general attention-seeker.

A troll is always an attention seeker, but an attention seeker isn't always a troll. Y'kno, square and rectangle kind of thing...

To put it more eloquently, from Wikipedia no less...

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

And kudos to her for a job well done, methinks.

[Remix]

I like trolls. They almost always achieve their goal.

I admire successful people.

[Acid_Reign]

A troll is always an attention seeker, but an attention seeker isn't always a troll. Y'kno, square and rectangle kind of thing...

This was essentially my point. Hence the “normal” modifier.

To put it more eloquently, from Wikipedia no less...

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

And kudos to her for a job well done, methinks.

Well we can’t really judge her intent based on those posts alone. But I know how forum trolls typically behave and she just doesn’t strike me as the type. Unless that’s just the genius of her technique.

[Snail]

I like trolls. They almost always achieve their goal.

I admire successful people.

I admire your avatars. LAWL!

So in the end, everything we've been told by this girl is fraud? Eh well.

[JAPPO]

Oh my god. Everything this girl said is most likely TRUE

edit- I am no good at keeping secrets

[Herms]

Oh my god. Everything this girl said is most likely TRUE

edit- I am no good at keeping secrets

What exactly are you basing this conclusion on?

[Acid_Reign]

What exactly are you basing this conclusion on?

More “inside sources,” I’m guessing…

[Onikage725]

Destructive Wave.

Destructive Wave.

Not 'Super' Destructive Wave, but 'Destructive Wave'.

Was the attack ever even named in the comic or series? I don't know.

But if that technique is in the film it gains one point. Pure awesome.


By the way, which move is Destructive Wave again?

That would be the Bakurikimaha. If I recall, it means "Exploding powerful demon wave." So, minus demon for censorship, "Destructive Wave" is fine. I don't believe it was named in the dub. I think dub info insinuates that it is a the "Masenkoha" that they say he and Gohan share. We got the "Destructive Wave" name from the video games, since anything that wasn't given a name in the dub had to be adapted from the japanese version. Many of the attacks in the modern games are this mix of direct english takes on the japanese attack list (which is, in Japan, conistent from game to game) and dub attack names.

It was Daimao's strongest attack. The younger Piccolo uses it too (quickest visual I can reference is when he blasts Raditz) but it isn't his strongest move. I ddunno if this is ever confirmed, but I've always thought it was the move Gohan used on 3rd form Freeza.

[GI_Judd2287]

Whoever made that post on IMDB is obviously lying. It's not hard to pull stuff out of your ass and pass it off as the truth.

Didja know that Robin's gonna be in the third Bale Batman movie?