Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

2012’s Spoilers Of The Year

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Feedback] >> Empire Online >> 2012’s Spoilers Of The Year Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
2012’s Spoilers Of The Year - 20/12/2012 12:52:14 PM   
Empire Admin

 

Posts: 29827
Joined: 29/6/2005
Post your comments on this article
Post #: 1
M's Career Path - 20/12/2012 12:52:14 PM   
spark1

 

Posts: 6989
Joined: 18/11/2006
kind of sad to see m's career path from GE to SF.
from her no nonsense authority in the brosnan years to being second guessed, intimidated by politicians, methods scrutinized and called into question.

at least she went in style in the field.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 2
- 20/12/2012 1:08:06 PM   
Filmfan 2


Posts: 1049
Joined: 30/9/2005
You forgot Cillian Murphy's cameo as The Scarecrow in TDKR. I had a feeling he'd turn up at some point and it was lovely to see him doing so.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 3
Skyfall - 20/12/2012 1:38:51 PM   
thosemovieguys

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 13/6/2011
Does M die though? It's clearly stated at the beginning that the best way to "leave" the field is to pretend to be dead. She only had a flesh wound and no one seems too upset at the end.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 4
Prometheus Vs Looper - "Call me old man" - 20/12/2012 6:16:17 PM   
sirvolkar

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 27/9/2009
Guy Pierce's appearance in this film may have been a surprise, but it was also one of the many terrible moments of the film. It was just soooo fake looking and completely jarring. If you're going to cast a great actor as an old man, get a great old man who can act. Looper did it the right way, which is pne of its many reasons for being lightyears in superiority to Scott's mess of a movie. One wonders what might have happened if budgets for these two had been switcherooed... :/

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 5
Links on first page - 20/12/2012 6:19:33 PM   
philshepp

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 25/11/2005
Hello Empire! I like the way you've put the links on the first page - that would be handy for all your lists in future as sometimes it would be good to skip some on the list without having to trawl through them all. Just a thought :)

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 6
Links on first page - 20/12/2012 6:20:16 PM   
philshepp

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 25/11/2005
Hello Empire! I like the way you've put the links on the first page - that would be handy for all your lists in future as sometimes it would be good to skip some on the list without having to trawl through them all. Just a thought :)

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 7
Links on first page - 20/12/2012 6:26:10 PM   
philshepp

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 25/11/2005
Hello Empire! I like the way you've put the links on the first page - that would be handy for all your lists in future as sometimes it would be good to skip some on the list without having to trawl through them all. Just a thought :)

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 8
Links on first page - 20/12/2012 6:27:18 PM   
philshepp

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 25/11/2005
Hello Empire! I like the way you've put the links on the first page - that would be handy for all your lists in future as sometimes it would be good to skip some on the list without having to trawl through them all. Just a thought :)

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 9
Links on first page - 20/12/2012 6:27:52 PM   
philshepp

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 25/11/2005
Hello Empire! I like the way you've put the links on the first page - that would be handy for all your lists in future as sometimes it would be good to skip some on the list without having to trawl through them all. Just a thought :)

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 10
Links on first page - 20/12/2012 6:28:38 PM   
philshepp

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 25/11/2005
Hello Empire! I like the way you've put the links on the first page - that would be handy for all your lists in future as sometimes it would be good to skip some on the list without having to trawl through them all. Just a thought :)

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 11
Sorry - 20/12/2012 6:30:05 PM   
philshepp

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 25/11/2005
I only meant to post that once!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 12
RE: Links on first page - 20/12/2012 8:19:54 PM   
7eke


Posts: 158
Joined: 21/7/2007
quote:

that would be handy for all your lists in future as sometimes it would be good to skip some on the list without having to trawl through them all. Just a thought :)


Hello phil, sometimes i like to read the comments without having to trawl through repeated posts. Just a thought :)

_____________________________

I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal. - Ron Burgundy

(in reply to philshepp)
Post #: 13
RE: 2012’s Spoilers Of The Year - 21/12/2012 3:27:47 PM   
Quentin Black

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 2/10/2005
Although the Robin reveal in Dark Knight Rises was some what clunky I thought it worked, considering that (off the top of my head) there has been at least four of them in the comics. Name dropping a specific one would have been more elegant but I think the point was that he wasn't a specific character from the comics but instead a representation of all of them and how Batman inspires others to become something greater. As with the rest of the Dark Knight films, Nolan went for a thematic adaptation as opposed to a more literal one.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 14
Re: BRAVE. - 21/12/2012 4:40:25 PM   
Loosecrew

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 6/1/2009
Sadly I did see it coming thanks to Floyd and Boyd blurting it out on fivelive. In much the same way they spoilt the Zombieland surprise.
Numbskulls of the highest order.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 15
Disagree - 21/12/2012 8:15:11 PM   
owenyunfat

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 2/10/2005
"On the topic of Hunger Games-related words not to mention in the pub, the phrase “It’s a Battle Royale rip-off, basically” should be banned, if only because it may be the most worn-out, over-familiar, facile comment about one film ever made."

This is the easiest way to explain the film to someone who has not seen if they have seen Battle Royale and "facile" or not, it's true. Also the trilogy rips off Battle Royale Requim and to ignore these facts is as ignorant as it is "facile".

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 16
Prometheus Spoiler Alert..... - 23/12/2012 10:38:10 AM   
SCATANA

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 23/12/2012
Mechanics seed planets by sacrificing condemned fellow mechanics.....Humans are farmed for labor and tricked into worshipping mechanics as gods....real god sends Jesus to alert humans on earth and other seeded planets.....mechanics find out and scramble ship to destroy Jesus and earth before news of the real god spreads....something goes wrong (Davine intervention?) and the ship never departs....footage of the doomed mission is seen two thousand years later by the crew of the Prometheus....sole survivor on the warship tries to complete the mission....thus the cross emphasis throughout the movie.

< Message edited by SCATANA -- 23/12/2012 10:46:00 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 17
The Hunger Games article is awful - 28/12/2012 9:34:35 PM   
Ivana2804

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 28/12/2012
Kudos for the comment about the Battle Royale trolling (it's not just the most worn-out facile comment, but it's mostly used by people who probably haven't seen either movie - and other than the premise of kids being forced to kill kids in controlled circumstances, the two movies have very little in common). But other than that, the article is awful (and that's even disregarding the "Katniss and Josh" typo).

Twilight comparisons are even more worn-out, and more absurd, since The Hunger Games don't even share any of the basic premises with Twilight. The movie is not "set up with a Twilight style triangle" and Gale is not Katniss "lover" but her best friend, which is pretty obvious since they never act like a couple. The only sign of other feelings comes from Gale while watching the Games. It's all a very tiny part of the movie, and not the main focus of the trilogy at all, let alone the first book. Katniss defying the Capitol and not letting Peeta die is a huge plot point that has colossal consequences, but, guess what, it is NOT because of a "love triangle". Anyone who thinks that the main importance of this ending is "how to set up a love triangle in the sequel" really hasn't been paying attention. And it's not like the movie hints as to what this story really is about were even that subtle. Katniss' salute and the riot in District 11? Snow's comments about hope? Angry President Snow at the very end of the movie?

And I can't even begin to comment on the "teenage serial killers" moniker. Katniss and Peeta are not serial killers, and I get the impression the author of the article has missed the point by a country mile.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 18
RE: Disagree - 28/12/2012 9:40:58 PM   
Ivana2804

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 28/12/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: owenyunfat

"On the topic of Hunger Games-related words not to mention in the pub, the phrase “It’s a Battle Royale rip-off, basically” should be banned, if only because it may be the most worn-out, over-familiar, facile comment about one film ever made."

This is the easiest way to explain the film to someone who has not seen if they have seen Battle Royale and "facile" or not, it's true. Also the trilogy rips off Battle Royale Requim and to ignore these facts is as ignorant as it is "facile".

It's the laziest way to "explain" the movie, especially since it completely misses the point and doesn't actually explain anything. The only thing that the movies share is the premise of kids being forced to kill kids in controlled circumstances, but how they treat it, the universe in which they take place and the themes The Hunger Games is exploring as opposed to Battle Royale, are completely different.

And as for that premise, I find it pretty hilarious that people actually seem to believe that Battle Royale was the first thing in the history of the Universe to invent death matches, arenas, sacrificing children or forcing them to kill each other... It's not like there were fictional works about kids killing each other before, it's not like there were ever actual gladitorial matches where slaves were forced to kill each other, it's not like there are teenagers as young as 12 who are forced to become soldiers and kill people...? I guess it's such a original concept that nobody could have come up with the idea of "kids being forced to kill each other" unless they've seen Battle Royale, an obscure Japanese splatter movie few people have even heard of before The Hunger Games came out.

(in reply to owenyunfat)
Post #: 19
RE: Disagree - 2/1/2013 8:33:25 PM   
owenyunfat

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 2/10/2005
Firstly Battle Royale is not a Japanese splatter movie, it was first a novel then adapted for screen - the same as the Hunger Games. In response to your first comment I have read The Hunger Games trilogy and the read the Battle Royale novel, as well as seen both movies, so I am not simply making off hand comments.

I could easily list how many connections there are between the two books/movies - unrequited love of main characters Shuyas best friend in love with Noriko. The use of previous winners in matches. Villainous characters letting off protagonists or helping them. Post-apocalyptic settings (again, watch the second Battle Royale if you need clarification). A program introduced to promote authority.

I could go on and on... but maybe watch Battle Royale and Battle Royale Requim then once The Hunger Games are all released watch them, I think you will find how much the same they are.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ivana2804


quote:

ORIGINAL: owenyunfat

"On the topic of Hunger Games-related words not to mention in the pub, the phrase “It’s a Battle Royale rip-off, basically” should be banned, if only because it may be the most worn-out, over-familiar, facile comment about one film ever made."

This is the easiest way to explain the film to someone who has not seen if they have seen Battle Royale and "facile" or not, it's true. Also the trilogy rips off Battle Royale Requim and to ignore these facts is as ignorant as it is "facile".

It's the laziest way to "explain" the movie, especially since it completely misses the point and doesn't actually explain anything. The only thing that the movies share is the premise of kids being forced to kill kids in controlled circumstances, but how they treat it, the universe in which they take place and the themes The Hunger Games is exploring as opposed to Battle Royale, are completely different.

And as for that premise, I find it pretty hilarious that people actually seem to believe that Battle Royale was the first thing in the history of the Universe to invent death matches, arenas, sacrificing children or forcing them to kill each other... It's not like there were fictional works about kids killing each other before, it's not like there were ever actual gladitorial matches where slaves were forced to kill each other, it's not like there are teenagers as young as 12 who are forced to become soldiers and kill people...? I guess it's such a original concept that nobody could have come up with the idea of "kids being forced to kill each other" unless they've seen Battle Royale, an obscure Japanese splatter movie few people have even heard of before The Hunger Games came out.


(in reply to Ivana2804)
Post #: 20
RE: Disagree - 4/1/2013 12:57:38 AM   
Ivana2804

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 28/12/2012
quote:

ORIGINAL: owenyunfat

Firstly Battle Royale is not a Japanese splatter movie, it was first a novel then adapted for screen - the same as the Hunger Games.

I know it's adapted from a book. How does that preclude it from being a Japanese splatter movie? Though I guess you could argue whether it can be called splatter and about its amount of gore and violence, which is relatively mild. But it certainly tries to have a lot of violence and blood, even though it's rather cartoonish, and, for me, not shocking or emotionally affecting. (The decapitation scene was particularly badly done, a few of the deaths were just too "pretty" with dying words and love confessions, and the teacher's death was silly.) The scenes of violence and death in THG were much stronger even though none of them were graphic.


quote:

I could easily list how many connections there are between the two books/movies - unrequited love of main characters Shuyas best friend in love with Noriko. The use of previous winners in matches. Villainous characters letting off protagonists or helping them. Post-apocalyptic settings (again, watch the second Battle Royale if you need clarification). A program introduced to promote authority.

You're listing "someone has unrequited love for someone" as a similarity? That's about 80% of all fiction. You may as well say it's a similarity that there are humans in both stories and that they walk and talk. Villainous characters letting off protagonists or helping them? When did that happen in THG? The use of previous winners? How is that a similarity? In The Hunger Games, they don't use the previous winners. The previous winners win fame and fortune and never have to risk going to the Arena again. Until the 3rd Quarter Quell, which was completely different from any of the previous Games, exactly because the previous Victors were reaped - and only the previous Victors, there was never any mixing of the previous Victors and the new kinds - and that's just because Snow wanted to eliminate Katniss and other Victors who would be powerful political symbols of a rebellion.

Post-apocalyptic settings? Just how many books and movies like that are there?
I find it hard to imagine a "kids being forced to kill kids in a controlled game" premise working in some other kind of setting. It's not exactly something one would imagine happening in the neighborhood in a realistic setting.

I could go on and on... but maybe watch Battle Royale and Battle Royale Requim then once The Hunger
quote:

Games are all released watch them, I think you will find how much the same they are.


I haven't watched Battle Royale Requiem, but I've watched the first Battle Royale movie, and I've seen The Hunger Games movie and read the entire trilogy, and all I can find is how much DIFFERENT they are. Other than the premise of "kids being forced to kill each other", they have almost nothing in common. The only other thing that's similar is that SPOILER more than one person survives in the end, but the reasons and circumstances are completely different.

Battle Royale is about a generational war: the adults are punishing the teenagers by making them kill each other or be killed.
The Hunger Games is about class differences and conflict between the central power and the exploited territories: the Games are used by the Capitol to punish the Districts for the rebellion, showing them that they can take their children from them at random and that they can't do anything about it.

The Hunger Games is about politics of oppression and about poverty, hunger, exploitation and inequalities between the rich and the poor. Battle Royale is not (or at least there's no indication about it at all in the first one).

In the Hunger Games, the other purpose of the Games is entertainment for the citizens of Capitol. The Games are televised in the entire country and everyone has to watch. It's like a widely popular reality show, and the contestants are treated that way. Winning makes you a celebrity and gives you fame and fortune (but even less freedom, as we see in the second and third book). The contestants always knew what the Games are, since everyone in Panem knows it and knows that they (or a child from their family) can be reaped.
In Battle Royale, the contest is secret, the contestants are kidnapped and dragged to a place where they'll compete and it all comes as a complete surpise to them, and the world at large seems to have no idea what is going on. And the winner doesn't get anything except mere survival.

The kids in Battle Royale are all in one school class and all know each other.
The kids in The Hunger Games are of different ages and come from all the 12 different districts and most of them have never met before.

In Battle Royale, each contestant is given bags with water, food and tampons for girls, and they are never in any danger of starvation or dehydration (they couldn't be even if they had no supplies, since the entire thing lasts just 3 days) or wild animals or natural catastrophes; the adults just want to see the kids hacking and killing each other. They even have houses, beds, medicine and computers and can cook dinners.
In The Hunger Games, they aren't given anything, they even have to fight for the bags at the cornucopia and risk getting killed, and bags may not even contain any water or food. The Arena itself may be the harshest enemy, and the Games are as much about survival in the wilderness or in all sorts of tough conditions that the Gamemakers may throw at them, as they are about killing. The contestants are as likely to die from dehydration, starvation, heat, cold, fire, flood, an attack by mutated vicious animals, poisonous fog, electric fields etc.

In BR, the kids are being overheard by the gamemakers but aren't being watched closely and can even do things like hack computers. In THG, their every move is watched and televised across the country and everything that happens to them is much more strictly controlled.

In THG, one of the most important things for the contestants is to get the viewers to like them. They are prepped, made up, dressed up, paraded, interviewed. They have mentors who advise them and court sponsors to be able to send them medicine, food, or weapons into the Arena.
None of that happens in BR.

One of the main themes of THG is the relation between personal and public: the only romantic plot in the first book/movie is really about showmance, about having to play a role in front of the camera (very much as in a reality show), and about the confusion as to how much of the relationship is real and how much is not. It's a comment on the audience's tendency to focus on romance at the expense of everything else. With everything else that's going on, the wide audience and the media are only interested in violence and romance; sounds familiar?
Battle Royale has no such themes; it has a bunch of romantic subplots, almost every character has a crush on someone and those romances are pretty stereotypical and played straight, with kids confessing their love before they die, etc.

Familial love is an extremely important theme in THG. Katniss' love and protectiveness of her sister is one of her major motivations - her volunteering for Prim is what sets the story.
This is not the case in BR.

Female characters in BR are pretty stereotypical. The two most important female characters are: a "good girl" who's a damsel in distress that men are protecting, and a "bad girl" who's vicious, ruthless killer and a seductress.
In THG - do I have to explain?

A lot of kids in BR commit suicide. Nobody in THG does, at least not that we know of, since the Gamemakers would not allow it, plus the kids probably know that whatever they do may have consequences for their families.

Battle Royale is about the relationships between the classmates and how they develop once they have to start killing each other, about the way their old friendships and crushes affect their actions, and about being ready to kill their friends to survive, out of mistrust and because they're panicking.
In The Hunger Games, it's the opposite: they are strangers to each other and they are all prepared for the fact that they'll have to kill to begin with; the development in the story is about preserving humanity and finding a way not to be a piece in the games. Katniss starts off thinking she'll be able to kill anyone, but finds out she can't and won't, and turns that into defiance. (The kids in BR try to find a way around it but fail, while the main duo actually winds up being saved through no doing of their own.)

SPOILERS:



Katniss and Peeta both survive because they defy the rules, refuse to kill each other and force the Gamemaker to make them both winners. The BR trio survives (one of them temporarily) because this was a part of the plan by the sicko teacher/main gamemaker who has an obsession with Noriko.

After the Game is over, Shuya and Noriko are wanted fugitives. Katniss and Peeta are crowned Victors and big celebrities across the country., and a cause of much concern by the President.

The main story of THG is a larger scale one than BR, and it's about the way that Katniss' actions and the humanity and defiance she shows affects the entire country, makes her a symbol and plants the seed of rebellion.
The game in BR only affects the kids in it, their actions don't affect or change anything, and most of the world seems to have no idea what was going on.




< Message edited by Ivana2804 -- 4/1/2013 1:02:28 AM >

(in reply to owenyunfat)
Post #: 21
RE: Disagree - 4/1/2013 2:56:21 PM   
owenyunfat

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 2/10/2005
Firstly, you put your argument across well and I can safely say I will not be replying with the same amount of depth or enthusiasm as I don't have the time or the will. The only reason I responded to start with is because of the sweeping statements you gladly made about people making comments but having not seen the films, books, etc... even though I have seen both Battle Royale films

Secondly, it is obvious you have a disliking for Battle Royale and prefer The Hunger Games, I appreciate and enjoyed both films, THG books are poor and I highly recommend you watch Battle Royale 2, I think you will find the kids have somewhat more of an impact similar to that of Katniss and Peeta.

Thirdly, going back to your Twilight comment on Empires article (sadly I have some knowledge on Twilight), Gale is her friend and companion to start as is Jacob, the emergence of Peeta/Edward make the feelings emerge from Gale/Jacob as events progress.

Lastly, when describing THG to someone who is familiar with Battle Royale but not THG, comparing them works, lazy perhaps, but does everyone want a 5 minute relay of film or a quick summary of what it is? Especially as most of my friends are casual film goers. We won't agree regardless of what we post, but I can certainly say I have enjoyed reading your posts and concede you put your point across better than myself, but as above I don't want to invest the time.


(in reply to Ivana2804)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Feedback] >> Empire Online >> 2012’s Spoilers Of The Year Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109