I was in AP English in the first semester of 9th grade and we saw this after reading R&J. AP didn’t work for me, so I switched to regular English second semester. Regular English read R&J in the second semester, so I got to do it again, but when regular English showed the movie, that version didn’t include the nude…

“I just keep chiseling away.”

If he writes a screenplay, it’s just one of thousands. If he stirs up media attention beforehand, it’s marketable. Same logic behind endless franchise reboots and casting by Insta followers.

Possibly the weirdest, alright, one of the weirdest, things here is that... you can write screenplays about things that didn’t happen? Why does he need to make the lawsuit actually happen to write a fictionalised version of it? Tarantino didn’t actually need to put a gang of crooks together to carry out a diamond…

One can question whether it’s morally acceptable, but the film itself is strong evidence that this kind of nudity is legally above board. Romeo and Juliet was a wildly popular and critically acclaimed film released by a major studio that has been shown in high school classrooms for the past half century. It’s simply…

Well, 7th graders are well-known for their trenchant observations about the inappropriate behind-the-scenes activities from film versions of Shakespeare.

“I would have assumed that pretty much any level of nudity from a minor on screen was not legal but I guess things were different in the 60s on that front?”

He’s a Michelangelo guy. What do you expect from a party dude?

Regency isn’t a subsidiary of 20th/Disney, it’s Arnon Milchan’s company which finances films that 20th distributes.

I would watch a 2-hour explanation of why a Robot became a Buddhist monk rather than what looks like the actual plot of this movie.

Where’d I say I hate it? Where’d I say I wouldn’t see it in theater? Just curious how you came to that conclusion. I was making a point about how the article’s whole thesis is based on conjecture and speculation, whereas from everything that exists (generic trailer, review embargo, which is widely a bad sign,…

The trailer was not good. And by not good, I mean it resulted in me having no interest in seeing the movie. It felt like it was going to be a cheap knockoff of AI, District 9, and Children of Men.

It’s original in that it isn’t tied to an existing IP, but at least from the trailers, the plot is far from original. “Jaded hero finds his humanity again by escorting special child through many dangers” is a tried and true trope, with several examples from just this past year. 

That’s my problem with this movie (at least from what I’ve seen). Nothing makes it seem to stand out from your usual bleak future humans vs. robots fare.

I appreciate Edwards’s ambition, but I might more interested if it didn’t have yet another ‘man escorts not-daughter across apocaypltic wasteland to save the world or something’ that I’m already getting pretty tired of.

Daily reminder that just because something is original that doth not inherently make it good.

I mean, the premise “I’ve been sent to aid in the destruction of a dangerous secret, and oh no it turns out it’s a cute child and I’ve taken it upon myself to protect it” immediately brings to mind The Mandalorian and Star Wars.

The trailers make it seem like very generic SF - “Lone Wolf and Cub” + “War of Machine and Men” + “The Maguffin that Could Save Everyone or Doom Everyone”. Perhaps it’s much better in the execution, but it’s hard to sell that.

Those who don’t follow Hollywood closely may find the effusive praise surprising.

The commercial we keep seeing on tv tells us how good the movie is without showing us how good the movie is. It’s not a great way to go.