Live-action movie trailer

JAPPO · Post by **JAPPO** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:16 pm

Remix wrote:Hey, JAPPO. Just so we're clear, I'm not as against as this movie as I seemed on your forum. I was drinking and I felt like trolling.

My apologies. Still kinda funny though...

As long as you continue to talk about Piccolo's dingaling we are cool.

MajinVejitaXV · Post by **MajinVejitaXV** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:23 pm

JAPPO wrote:Yet you think you won't pay 10 dollars to see a $100 million dollar live-action movie adaptation supported by a major movie studio

Nope! Thanks for asking though!

-Corey

SSJ2bardock · Post by **SSJ2bardock** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:26 pm

I said earlier that deep down we're all looking forward to this movie and some of you guys said you weren't. What I meant was people are looking forward to it for different reasons, not necassarily only because they think it's going to be good. Some people could be looking forward to it just to get a laugh out of it or to flame everything in it for fun

Can you dig it?

JAPPO · Post by **JAPPO** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:28 pm

I don't know guys...I just read an interview with Tom Rothman who basically said "I agree, all of our movies this year really sucked, which is why we didn't make any money this summer. That's one reason why we moved Wolverine to next year, so it would have the time it deserved."

Seems to me they wouldn't have even moved Dragonball if they just wanted a quick buck.

SSJ2bardock · Post by **SSJ2bardock** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:30 pm

Did you happen to record and/or save this interview?

JAPPO · Post by **JAPPO** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:33 pm

It's on IESB.net

JulieYBM · Post by **JulieYBM** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:35 pm

Last I checked the films done and they don't seem to care to go back and scrap 16.666% of a 90 minute film.

Code: Select all

JAPPO · Post by **JAPPO** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:47 pm

JulieYBM wrote:Last I checked the films done and they don't seem to care to go back and scrap 16.666% of a 90 minute film.
Code: Select all

Huh.. the films done? Then why did IGN, who is owned by Fox, say they are still working on special effects?

Super Ghost Kamikaze · Post by **Super Ghost Kamikaze** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:01 pm

Also, just for the sake of argument, I bought my Season One set for $19.94.

$20 for 39 episodes.

It factors to about $0.50 per episode. Let's say four episodes equals the length of the film.

Get me a $2 Dragonball Live Action movie ticket, and I'll go see it no matter what. Promise. =)

MajinVejitaXV · Post by **MajinVejitaXV** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:04 pm

JAPPO wrote:Huh.. the films done? Then why did IGN, who is owned by Fox, say they are still working on special effects?

Uh, IGN is owned by News Corp. So is Fox, but that doesn't mean IGN is owned by Fox, it simply means they're both holdings of a bigger corporation.

-Corey

Rocketman · Post by **Rocketman** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:24 pm

Super Ghost Kamikaze wrote:Also, just for the sake of argument, I bought my Season One set for $19.94.

$20 for 39 episodes.

It factors to about $0.50 per episode. Let's say four episodes equals the length of the film.

Get me a $2 Dragonball Live Action movie ticket, and I'll go see it no matter what. Promise. =)

You have to take into account that the movie will have the action of fifteen episodes, though.

JAPPO · Post by **JAPPO** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:24 pm

MajinVejitaXV wrote:
JAPPO wrote:Huh.. the films done? Then why did IGN, who is owned by Fox, say they are still working on special effects?
Uh, IGN is owned by News Corp. So is Fox, but that doesn't mean IGN is owned by Fox, it simply means they're both holdings of a bigger corporation.

-Corey

In 2005 News Corp.'s Fox Interactive Media acquired IGN Entertainment for $650 million.

-JAPPO

JulieYBM · Post by **JulieYBM** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:26 pm

JAPPO wrote:
MajinVejitaXV wrote:
JAPPO wrote:Huh.. the films done? Then why did IGN, who is owned by Fox, say they are still working on special effects?
Uh, IGN is owned by News Corp. So is Fox, but that doesn't mean IGN is owned by Fox, it simply means they're both holdings of a bigger corporation.

-Corey
In 2005 News Corp.'s Fox Interactive Media acquired IGN Entertainment for $650 million.

-JAPPO

You said IESB.net, not IGN.

Code: Select all

JAPPO · Post by **JAPPO** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:28 pm

JulieYBM wrote:
JAPPO wrote:
MajinVejitaXV wrote: Uh, IGN is owned by News Corp. So is Fox, but that doesn't mean IGN is owned by Fox, it simply means they're both holdings of a bigger corporation.

-Corey
In 2005 News Corp.'s Fox Interactive Media acquired IGN Entertainment for $650 million.

-JAPPO
You said IESB.net, not IGN.
Code: Select all

Um... no. No I did not.

JulieYBM · Post by **JulieYBM** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:31 pm

JAPPO wrote:It's on IESB.net

Um... no. No I did not.
Code: Select all

omegacwa · Post by **omegacwa** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:32 pm

I don't understand why people are saying they wont see it. Movies really don't cost that much, and this is a movie "based" on something we all love. Giving Fox money, whether the movie is good or bad, is better than not giving them money. If we want a better movie, then we have to show that we are interested in it. If the movie bombs, then there is no chance they will make anymore, ever, unless another company picks it up, which would be unlikely, especially if the first one bombs completely. I say, go see it, it's not like it's going to effect your life on a personal level, just go, have fun, and then complain if it is awful. Send Fox letters or whatever and let them know we want a more faithful sequel, or a redo in 5-8 years. Not they will listen, but otherwise it has no chance of happening, at all, unless one of us becomes super famous and makes it happen.

JAPPO · Post by **JAPPO** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:33 pm

JulieYBM wrote:
JAPPO wrote:It's on IESB.net
Um... no. No I did not.
Code: Select all

Congrats on taking what I said out of context.

Those were both totally different things. I was talking about a Tom Rothman interview on IESB, and about IGN saying the special effects aren't done. Then some guy had to argue about who owns IGN.

Onikage725 · Post by **Onikage725** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:34 pm

Haha thanks Rocketman.

Olivier Hague wrote:
Rocketman wrote:Putting the characters in highschool? - Gohan
Yes.
Having the main character be unpopular? - Gohan
Bullied by jocks? - Filler Gohan?
Later involved with the popular chick? - Gohan
Who used to date one of the jocks (if I keep track of this thing, and maybe I don't)? -Videl?
A prophecy out of a bad Tolkien fanfiction? - The Super Saiyan.
A shapeshifting female right hand for the main bad guy? - Puar?
Leather, leather, leather? - ChiChi. Mmm...
No.

Well he wasn't "bullied," but wasn't Gohan ribbed for being the weird kid from the sticks? I haven't watched that saga in years, but I thought Gohan kinda stuck out.
And he did get involved with the popular chick. Videl was a local celebrity, what with her dad owning the city and her running around town fighting crime. So we've got the ass-kicking chick and the popular chick rolled into one. Hell, she even gets to henshin into Great Saiyaman 2 later.
We may not have a *Tolkien* prophecy... but what is the prophecy in this movie again? I havent heard anything about casting artifacts into lakes of fire. But Dragon Ball has plenty of cheesy fantasy stuff. We get the whole "collect the artifacts and the magic dragon will grant your wish" thing. As Rocketman pointed out, we did get plenty of "chosen one" rhetoric regarding the emergence of the Super Saiyan. Coming back to the Buu Saga, we get a wizard and his pet demon trying to syphon off energy to awaken an evil genie (using broad terms, but you see my point).

Kid Trunks · Post by **Kid Trunks** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:43 pm

omegacwa wrote:I don't understand why people are saying they wont see it. Movies really don't cost that much, and this is a movie "based" on something we all love. Giving Fox money, whether the movie is good or bad, is better than not giving them money. If we want a better movie, then we have to show that we are interested in it. If the movie bombs, then there is no chance they will make anymore, ever, unless another company picks it up, which would be unlikely, especially if the first one bombs completely. I say, go see it, it's not like it's going to effect your life on a personal level, just go, have fun, and then complain if it is awful. Send Fox letters or whatever and let them know we want a more faithful sequel, or a redo in 5-8 years. Not they will listen, but otherwise it has no chance of happening, at all, unless one of us becomes super famous and makes it happen.

I think you can rest assured that everyone here will go see the movie. Anyone who says they won't is either lying or deluding themselves.

JAPPO · Post by **JAPPO** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:44 pm

Kid Trunks wrote:
omegacwa wrote:I don't understand why people are saying they wont see it. Movies really don't cost that much, and this is a movie "based" on something we all love. Giving Fox money, whether the movie is good or bad, is better than not giving them money. If we want a better movie, then we have to show that we are interested in it. If the movie bombs, then there is no chance they will make anymore, ever, unless another company picks it up, which would be unlikely, especially if the first one bombs completely. I say, go see it, it's not like it's going to effect your life on a personal level, just go, have fun, and then complain if it is awful. Send Fox letters or whatever and let them know we want a more faithful sequel, or a redo in 5-8 years. Not they will listen, but otherwise it has no chance of happening, at all, unless one of us becomes super famous and makes it happen.
I think you can rest assured that everyone here will go see the movie. Anyone who says they won't is either lying or deluding themselves.

THANK YOU...