Wanted

So, What did you think?

  • Total voters
    11
Langsta said:
I don't see what's so stupid about a loom of fate. Christians, Muslims, and Jews today draw all of their beliefs from BOOKS, all right?

If you didn't find this movie entertaining, then there is something wrong with you. Forget that it has nothing to do with the comic - it's still a badass ****ing movie.

I can definitely relate to Wesley. He's surrounded by people who treat him like crap and he eventually just lets go and tells the world to **** off....and when he told his boss to "shut the **** up," and then smacked his best friend in the face with his keyboard, I got chills it was so awesome.

This movie isn't ****ing meant to make that much sense. It's just a kickass action movie.

It's called WANTED. They're not going to change the ****ing title, so get over it.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion man, but saying that there's something wrong with someone because they weren't entertained by a movies not ok. Sometimes it's not someone's cup of tea so let people voice their own opinions. So just calm down a little dude.
 
Actually, I recently reread Wanted and I'm pretty sure there is no way they could have made an exact adaptation of the book. Why?

  • The main character is an ******* who rapes and kills innocent people.
  • There is a clone of Superman with Down's Syndrome.
  • There is a guy made out of ****.
  • Mister Rictus. Seriously.
  • Costumes everywhere. It would look ridiculous.

There are a bunch of other things that would make a perfect adaptation of the book suck. Maybe it is better that they went this route. I'll have to wait and see.
 
Also: The Original Wanted isn't that great either, but the changes they made were idiotic.

As for a fun action film? The only decent action sequence was the one man raid on the fraternity at the end of the film. Aside from that it was all pretty standard post-Matrix slow-motion action snippets.

I'm still surprised at how whiney I found McAvoy in this movie, especially since imho he is a GREAT actor... But there wasn't a single moment of the movie that I didn't find him absolutely obnoxious.
 
Dr.Strangefate said:
Also: The Original Wanted isn't that great either, but the changes they made were idiotic.

As for a fun action film? The only decent action sequence was the one man raid on the fraternity at the end of the film. Aside from that it was all pretty standard post-Matrix slow-motion action snippets.

I'm still surprised at how whiney I found McAvoy in this movie, especially since imho he is a GREAT actor... But there wasn't a single moment of the movie that I didn't find him absolutely obnoxious.
Click to expand...

He took superhero acting advice from Tobey McGuire.
 
Dr.Strangefate said:
There is a LOOM of Fate.

This is a group of Assassins based on Weaving! It is one of the most incredibly stupid plot devices I have ever run into, ESPECIALLY since it was completely made up for the movie. It's not like "oh yes, there is a silly thing from continuity, but we will make it work", they looked at a story about an extreme male power fantasy and decided to justify the actions of the characters with WEAVING. Let that sink in for a minute. WEEEEAVING. There is a SECRET CODE within the weaved fabrics that magically tell these people who need to die!!!
Click to expand...
Wow, that sounds insanely retarded.
ProjectX2 said:
Actually, I recently reread Wanted and I'm pretty sure there is no way they could have made an exact adaptation of the book. Why?

  • The main character is an ******* who rapes and kills innocent people.
  • There is a clone of Superman with Down's Syndrome.
  • There is a guy made out of ****.
  • Mister Rictus. Seriously.
  • Costumes everywhere. It would look ridiculous.

There are a bunch of other things that would make a perfect adaptation of the book suck. Maybe it is better that they went this route. I'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
I think it could be done, but Hollywood doesn't have the balls to make a big summer action movie about a bunch of violent, gleefully unrepentant supervillains. That's probably what pisses me off most about this.
 
moonmaster said:
Wow, that sounds insanely retarded.

I think it could be done, but Hollywood doesn't have the balls to make a big summer action movie about a bunch of violent, gleefully unrepentant supervillains. That's probably what pisses me off most about this.
Click to expand...

There very few things that can't be seen in an R-rated, having a main character who rapes people is one of them.

So unless you want a movie version version of Wanted rated tripe X and thus not seen by anyone, a direct adaption is not a good idea.

Again something aimed at comic book nerds, isn't always something you can pitch to the general public and a direct adaption would be universally condemned as overly mean spirited and would thus bomb.

So want Hollywood to make a movie, that could never make money? Good luck.
 
I'm not saying the movie needs to be a massive rapefest, what I'm complaining about is that Hollywood is apparently too scared to make a movie where the protagonist is villain who never redeems himself and never "sees the light".

It has to be that they're killing people "2 serv fate or sumthing!"
 
The Overlord said:
There very few things that can't be seen in an R-rated, having a main character who rapes people is one of them.
Click to expand...

What about A Clockwork Orange? Or was that NC-17?

Waitaminute, Clockwork Orange was in the '70s, but Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was in the '80s, and I heard that Temple of Doom was the movie that caused the MPAA to form (A Clockwork Orange is waaaay more racy than Temple of Doom)?

Or is Clockwork different because it's British?
 
Last edited:
moonmaster said:
I'm not saying the movie needs to be a massive rapefest, what I'm complaining about is that Hollywood is apparently too scared to make a movie where the protagonist is villain who never redeems himself and never "sees the light".

It has to be that they're killing people "2 serv fate or sumthing!"
Click to expand...

Look you can't have a main character who rapes people, not even once. That's non starter, so that has to be cut out.

You may be right, but then again, that may be more the general audience than the Hollywood suits, it would be hard to sell a movie with no likable characters to the general audience.

Again comic book nerds like things, that have no traction with the general audience and again Hollywood is not going to make movies that won't make money.

Is that being cowardly or just being smart?
 
Last edited:
Langsta said:
What about A Clockwork Orange? Or was that NC-17?

Waitaminute, Clockwork Orange was in the '70s, but Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was in the '80s, and I heard that Temple of Doom was the movie that caused the MPAA to form (A Clockwork Orange is waaaay more racy than Temple of Doom)?

Or is Clockwork different because it's British?
Click to expand...

Actually Temple of Doom just pushed the idea for the MPAA to make a rating in the grey area between PG and R, and thus PG-13 was born.
 
Langsta said:
What about A Clockwork Orange? Or was that NC-17?
Click to expand...
The movie originally received an X rating, which was equivalent to an NC-17. (No one under 17 allowed.) However, the X rating didn't carry the stigma and the penalties that NC-17 has been given today, hence why it was more popular and A Clockwork Orange might've received an R by today's standards.
Waitaminute, Clockwork Orange was in the '70s, but Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was in the '80s, and I heard that Temple of Doom was the movie that caused the MPAA to form (A Clockwork Orange is waaaay more racy than Temple of Doom)?

Or is Clockwork different because it's British?
Click to expand...
The MPAA has been around in some form since the earliest days of Hollywood, they just didn't start imposing ratings until the 60s.

By the 80s, there was no rating between PG and R, which created a problem for movies like Temple of Doom, Gremlins, and Poltergeist, which weren't R material but weren't suited for small children. So they invented the PG-13 rating.
The Overlord said:
Look you can't have a main character who rapes people, not even once. That's non starter, so that has to be cut out.
Click to expand...
I know. I never said they should've included that.
You may be right, but then again, that may be more the general audience than the Hollywood suits, it would be hard to sell a movie with no likable characters to the general audience.

Again comic book nerds like things, that have no traction with the general audience and again Hollywood is not going to make movies that won't make money.

Is that being cowardly or just being smart?
Click to expand...
You're right, I wouldn't expect them to invest money in a movie that might turn people off so much. (It's not that "comic nerds" like stuff like that, I think plenty of people were turned off by the comic.) I just wish they wouldn't title it "WANTED" and pretend that it's based off of a comic book when they've completely betrayed everything that the comic is about. I'm fine when Hollywood makes superficial changes to adapt something to the screen, it's what's necessary when you're doing an adaptation, but I can't stand it when they get rid of what the story is actually about. That's why the V for Vendetta movie pissed me off.
 
Last edited:
moonmaster said:
I just wish they wouldn't title it "WANTED" and pretend that it's based off of a comic book when they've completely betrayed everything that the comic is about. I'm fine when Hollywood makes superficial changes to adapt something to the screen, it's what's necessary when you're doing an adaptation, but I can't stand it when they get rid of what the story is actually about. That's why the V for Vendetta movie pissed me off.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.
 
Interesting review from a UK paper..

Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian said, "It looks as if it has been written by a committee of 13-year-old boys for whom penetrative sex is still only a rumour, and the resulting movie plays like a party political broadcast on behalf of the misogynist party", concluding, "In an ideal world, the title would have the word 'Not' tacked on to the front"
Click to expand...
 
Langsta is totally gonna smack that guy in the face with a keyboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top