|
Post by SleepawayCamp661 on Jan 7, 2013 21:54:08 GMT -5
I saw this on the 4th but haven't had the time to post my thoughts until now. I personally loved it, Dan played a incredible Leatherface in my opinion the best since Gunnar Hansen dawned the mask in '74. The cast was alright Alexandra Daddario being the best holding a well performance throughout the film. It's not a great film in any aspects but it was entertaining and a fun addition to the franchise. Good to see horror 1# at the box office again. Overall I liked it alot 4/5
|
|
|
Post by Drayton Sawyer on Jan 7, 2013 23:42:31 GMT -5
I love how most of the people bashing it havent even seen it. They are just copying and pasting facts about it. Ding Ding Ding we have a winner. An enormous amount of the horror "fans" I've seen saying negative things say they don't plan on seeing it and then parrot the reviews that were negative. I don't think a person should post "facts" and other crap unless they can do so from an informed position. Hence actually having seen the film in question. I'll give a good analogy. I have no interest in seeing Django Unchained. It doesn't look interesting to me. Now should I go on the internet to different sites like Twitter/FB/or even a thread on here and start posting "facts" about the historical inaccuracies? Or compare each film in Tarantino's career and talk about how his films aren't the same quality as when he made Pulp Fiction? Even better. I could post how a certain percentage of the fans only went to see it because Jamie Foxx is in it. In fact if he wasn't in it a percentage of this weekends box office take wouldn't exist because Foxx's fans only saw the film because he was in it. ;D No I shouldn't do any of that. Because fans of Tarantino or his films would find me doing that annoying. Especially if it's clear I haven't actually watched Django Unchained. This is what happens at the end of the credits if you left too early Thanks for sharing that. I know a lot of the earlier viewers like myself missed this scene. I like it. Those 2 have a well earned appointment with the saw. Especially the guy.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Jan 8, 2013 0:40:39 GMT -5
There was a post credits scene. Luckily, it's on youtube.
|
|
|
Post by Drayton Sawyer on Jan 8, 2013 1:03:32 GMT -5
Thanks. I don't know why it didn't work in my post.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Jan 8, 2013 1:19:19 GMT -5
DJango doesn't interest me either since I am getting burned out on remakes. Plus, i don't really care much for Tarantino.
|
|
|
Post by d3M0n on Jan 8, 2013 6:27:35 GMT -5
There was a post credits scene. Luckily, it's on youtube. I just posted that, it's on the bottom of page 3. That's what Kyle was thanking me for right above this post LMAO
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Jan 8, 2013 11:05:42 GMT -5
I didn't notice until the other night, lol my bad.
|
|
|
Post by Stinger on Jan 8, 2013 11:48:21 GMT -5
I was reading on another site and they said in the script, Trey's death is completely different. When the van is flipped over, he gets stuck in the driver's seat and Leatherface uses the chainsaw to slice through the seat and through his back and out his chest. A ton of blood and his intestine spill out. I think this death would have been better, I hope its included on the DVD/Blu Ray. Did you guys know that the guy who played Carl is Clint Eastwood's son? The guy who played the hitchhiker is one hot tomale!
|
|
|
Post by Drayton Sawyer on Jan 8, 2013 15:20:22 GMT -5
That was the way he died in the script I read. But the script I read was dated from five months before the shooting started. I've seen an interview with Songz that certain agreements had to be worked out in order for Songz to agree to do the film. He said "Guys like me, we don't really last long in these kind of films." and that he got past the hurdles of that problem. I think that meant he didn't want his character to die first and that he didn't want to be killed by LF. Which as we know he didn't and wasn't. He died by the van flipping over causing the windshield to break which cut his throat causing him to bleed out. I think it made his character look kind of weak. The van wasn't going very fast when it crashed. I know if I was going to die in a TCM I'd prefer it was death by LF rather than a slow crash that made my character look weak. ;D So I don't think they filmed his character dying the way the earlier script said he was to die. Like you I would have preferred to see the earlier death. It would have been a much more brutal and personal way for his character to die. Yep. Scott Eastwood. You can sort of see a little family resemblance. Though he's more of a pretty boy than his dad ever was. He played a deceitful little prick. ;D Pretty good acting on his part. Yeah Daryll the hitchhiker was attractive. Especially his body.
|
|
|
Post by stalker on Jan 9, 2013 10:13:34 GMT -5
Th hitchhikere didn't seem to be terribly injured after the " accident".
I've read somewhere wher Scott Eastwood should get a different agent because of him being in this film.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Jan 9, 2013 13:34:30 GMT -5
I'm sure they said the same thing about Johnny Depp back in 1984, and Kevin Bacon in 1980, and Jamie Lee Curtis back in 1978...not like they don't have careers.
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on Jan 9, 2013 17:00:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by d3M0n on Jan 9, 2013 17:10:21 GMT -5
They must be considering it this way....
TCM 2003 (1) The Beginning 2006 (2) Texas Chainsaw 2013 (3) Texas Chainsaw 2014? (4)
That's my only guess.
|
|
|
Post by Drayton Sawyer on Jan 9, 2013 18:42:11 GMT -5
That would work if they were in the same continuity. The remake and prequel were the Hewitt's these are the original family The Sawyers. I would hope the studio knows the continuity better than that. I think it's just a placeholder title and was likely just a mistake on their part. Technically this film was the new Part 2. So the next one should be TCM 3. Or TCM 3D 2 maybe. TCM 4 doesn't work at all. Hopefully we learn more soon.
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on Jan 9, 2013 19:08:45 GMT -5
Yeah, the story was apparently released on Deadline.com and they probably wouldn't know much of the franchise continuity.
|
|
|
Post by d3M0n on Jan 9, 2013 19:40:12 GMT -5
That would work if they were in the same continuity. The remake and prequel were the Hewitt's these are the original family The Sawyers. I know, I am just saying that that must be their thought process. Its the only logical explanation for calling it TCM4. There is no other reason why besides what I listed. I never thought they we all part of the same continuity.
|
|
|
Post by Drayton Sawyer on Jan 9, 2013 20:13:19 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I made you feel like I thought you didn't. I know you know the chronology. I was just explaining why that would be ridiculous for them to think that way. LOL I understand the logic in the reasoning you used. I just hope no one working on these films is that out of touch with continuity. If it's being spread around due to a news site. Then it's on that site that misinformation is out there now.
EDIT
I just edited my original post. To word it the way I should have. LOL I never intended to make it look like I thought you didn't know the continuity.
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Jan 9, 2013 20:24:22 GMT -5
Then again, TCM has a very flimsy at best continuity
|
|
|
Post by Drayton Sawyer on Jan 9, 2013 20:32:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by d3M0n on Jan 9, 2013 20:45:28 GMT -5
Oh thanks lol I was like, these guys dont think Im a dumbass who thinks it SHOULD be part 4 do they? Just wanted to clear that up. Yea its strange but thats the least of my concern. Im more concerned about how good the next will be. The quality of this one was shaky. I can see how people liked it and I can see how people thought it was shit. So Id like the next to lean more towards just being good
|
|