Friday, August 03, 2012

Still Happening

Entertainment Tonight running a trailer-preview for the "Red Dawn" remake is a geuine two-fer: I didn't think either of those things were still happening.

Chris Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson are not, incidentally, aging backwards - this thing was shot about three years ago and has been shelved largely owing to the MGM crack-up and (reportedly) really, really sucking; then got delayed again to perform a villain-ectomy: Originally the film was about an armed Chinese (replacing the Soviet Union from the original) invasion of the United States; but someone realized that would probably make increasingly vital Chinese distribution/business-relations difficult and decided to digitally re-edit the invaders into North Korea.

The film is now set for a November 21st release date, which will make it only the second stupidest fantasy about expelling imaginary communists from the U.S. that plays out that month.


John said...

What's the first?

Mr. Gone said...

I do trailer surveys in a theater lobby, and one of the trailers we did a couple months back was for "Red Dawn." A grand total of one person was at all familiar with the original.

Anonymous said...

@John I'm 99% sure that was a presidential election joke

Anonymous said...

I didn't want to say Homeland, but that school bus pushed it over the edge.

Anonymous said...

Well I for one welcome our new Brazillian overlords... wait that's a "D".

We're being invaded by people in boring ass military get up and not crazy carnival costumes.

That’s it, I’m out.

Mister Linton said...

@John, he's probably trying to make a snarky comment about Black Ops 2 but just showed he knows little about the actual game and is judging it anyway. Like he's never done that before...

Ralphael said...

Care to report on gay people vandalizing Chick fil A stores? No? Ok then.

MovieBob said...


Oh no. There is some paint. On that wall.

Aiddon said...

I forgot this even existed.

Anonymous said...

Your embed got DMCA'd. I haven't had much luck finding a replacement.

Ralphael said...


Wait. So are you telling me that I was the only one surprised to find out that the peaceful gay community broke the social contract before the gun loving rednecks did?

As soon as I heard of the "Kiss In" retaliation being planned, I prayed that some hothead wouldn't punch a same sex couple because that would...

A. Be wrong to do.

B. Add to the numerous hate crimes against gays, enforcing the "Victim Minority" stereotype so many of them cling to to get their laws passed.

But lo and behold, with my jaw on the floor, I read that it was actually the gay community that threw the first stone.

Just thought this deserved to be mentioned, because in the perfect world, this graffiti would be classified as a hate crime like it should have been.

I expected you to at least bring it up and say "Hey guys, this graffiti stuff, not cool" since you've been very good at shepherding the gaming community from acting like dipshits in the past.

MovieBob said...


In all seriousness, I don't "condone" graffiti as a protest tool in the big-picture "right and wrong" sense... but really, that's pretty small potatoes. If they'd, say, broken a window or something (or even painted something profane), that'd be a different story - but, while wrong/illegal I can't really muster much indignation over something so minor.

The fact is, you can only kick dirt in someone's face for so long before they kick back. The LGBT community has ostracized and kept down, frequently through violent force, by the social majority - often using religion as a justification - for LITERAL centuries. Having, within only the last few decades, FINALLY achieved a measure of acceptance so as for it to no longer be garaunteed that they'll be beaten, imprisoned or murdered for standing up for themselves... do you REALLY expect them not to hit back once in awhile?

People of the same mindset and "beliefs" as some (not ALL but certainly more than a few) of the folks packing Chik-Fil-A on Wednesday have, throughout history, made their myriad displeasures known through pogroms, witch-trials, forced-conversions, inquisitions and the like. If the long, long, LONG overdue "payback" is going to come in the form of some cheeky unsoliticed wall-decorations... frankly, I'd say they're getting off pretty damn easy.

Merrick_HLC said...

I'm half tempted to claim that the graffiti was just some right-winger who hates gays doing it as a false-flag operation to make gays look bad... mostly because I see that claim almost any time someone on the right does something that crosses a line.

Anonymous said...

Wait. So it's okay for a *minor* crime like vandalism in the name of gay rights... But not okay for others to protest or do something of a similar nature?

I'm with Raphael here. This would be called a hate crime if someone had scrawled something similar on a business that supported LGBT, why isn't it the same thing in reverse?

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Merrick_HLC said...

Except spraypaint is never a hate crime.

It's vandalism.

Hate Crime legislation is used when serious crimes are committed, like assault.

Spraypainting the N word isn't going to get you charged with a hate crime in my understanding of the system (if I'm wrong, please do correct me)

Physcially attacking a gay person because they are gay will get a hate crime charge.

So no, no case of simple vandalism is a hate crime.

You can't go "Well, anytime you do something to someone you disagree with is a hate crime"

A Neo-Nazi attacking a black/jewish/gay kid who walks through his neighborhood is a hate crime.

A Neo-Nazi being attacked while walking through Harlem is NOT a hate crime.
Because being a neo-nazi is not, and never will be, comparable to being gay, jewish, black or whatever.

Nor is being a raging homophobe the same as being homosexual.

It's a false equivalency to go "It's exactly the same thing"

Anonymous said...

Eh, I'd highly doubt that they wouldn't classify it as a hate crime for painting racial slurs on, oh say a business that caters near exclusively to black people. I don't know for sure, as I'm not in the business of committing crimes however, so I'll leave that one off the table.

As for your whole, "It's not a hate crime if blah blah nazi." I think that right there is wrong. How is being Jewish ANY different from being a white supremacist? At least fundamentally. You are not forced into either one. As an adult you have the right to choose to leave or accept said belief.

Regardless. Using someone who is a "Neo-nazi" is rather poor arguing. I mean seriously?

Change neo-nazi to white guy. Now tell me the latter wouldn't be classified as a hate crime, while the first wouldn't be. The biggest problem with terms like Hate crime is they seek to make something that is already bad and should be punished, WORSE.

And who is able to say that? I mean right here I view vandalizing a business as bad. Yet you sit on your high horse and say, "No they hate gays you should be allowed to do it!!"

Draw your line in the sand and stand by it. Stop trying to move the line to suit your personal tastes. We don't classify serial rapists as committing hate crimes do we?