Current Events > trailer for new Mean Girls movie

(+) Yeah! (+)

They really used the "this isn't your mother's ____" line huh

Fetch

It's an adaptation of the Broadway version, and the trailer almost seems ashamed to tell people that it's really a musical.

Why? The original still holds up.

It's an adaptation of the Broadway version, and the trailer almost seems ashamed to tell people that it's really a musical.

Why? The original still holds up.

This has ruined my day.

Why? The original still holds up.

When's the last time a movie came out that was not a sequel, remake, reboot, continuation, or contain some semblance of the phrase, "based on true events?"

Creativity is dead. It's easier to just repackage old shit for nostalgia over actually creating new stories. People will watch it regardless.

When's the last time a movie came out that was not a sequel, remake, reboot, continuation, or contain some semblance of the phrase, "based on true events?"

Creativity is dead. It's easier to just repackage old shit for nostalgia over actually creating new stories. People will watch it regardless.

Barbie? Oppenheimer? Literally to name two off the top of my head?

Sheesh. No, the universe isn't just remakes and reboots. I saw A Haunting in Venice recently and enjoyed it a lot.

Not good examples based on the comment you responded to.

Barbie was none of those, and Oppenheimer was loosely at least based on real events, so it does though? There's also Killers of the Flower Moon which is also loosely based on real events.

A Haunting In Venice is also not a remake of other Agatha Christie movies done previously.

Please reread his post. He wanted creativity NOT based on real events (Oppenheimer) or any form of sequel (Haunting) and you can infer that he meant anything franchised or trademarked (Barbie).

I am NOT saying I agree with him lumping all those together, but you literally gave examples of what he complained about.

Is Lindsay Lohan in it? Is she the new mean girl?

No, you are misreading. They said when was the last time a movie was either (not a remake, reboot, continuation) OR (does contain the phrase). It's poorly lumped together but while Oppenheimer might not be exactly that, it clearly is based on it

Unless I'm the one misreading. But considering the previous two Poroit movies were remakes and the new one is fully original I would include it

wiki is saying that this one is going to be a musical, so I'm assuming it's referring to that.

besides a couple of scenes, the trailer hides that pretty well.

Creativity is dead. It's easier to just repackage old shit for nostalgia over actually creating new stories. People will watch it regardless.

For some reason, the 90's and onward generations struggle to accept perfectly reasonable remakes.

Imagine if The Thing or Little Shop of Horrors (a musical remake), both iconic remakes that outdid their original counterparts (and the originals were considered good for their time) came out today? People would cry about it and say Hollywood has ran out of ideas and that the original was good and didn't need a remake.

He clearly is stating he wants creativity and not things based on ANYTHING existing. Admit you misread. C'mon.

I agree he is wrong though.

No?

When's the last time a movie came out that was not a sequel, remake, reboot, continuation, or [doesn't] contain some semblance of the phrase, "based on true events?"

That's what you think it reads as. I don't read it as that, as I read it as one negative and one affirmative.

When's the last time a movie came out that was not a sequel, remake, reboot, continuation, or contain some semblance of the phrase, "based on true events?"

That comma and or after continuation insinuates it is a different portion of the sentence, thus that not does NOT apply to it. No need to get so upset about this. We can get it answered by @Matzo Tov but they don't allow tags.

The Regina George actress looks like she's in her late 20's - early 30s.

Is she the lesbian character from Sex Lives of College Girls? I'm not sure.

Not upset. Just baffled you don't get it. Especially because he followed it up with the creativity comment, which true events are not. I can see how it could go either way, but it doesn't follow his logic regarding creativity. And why would he single out true events as what he is looking for? That is not a "new story" as he stated. Context is important vs focusing on a comma that people are inconsistent with using in a long statement.

That said both Oppenheimer and Barbie are immensely creative, regardless of his rules.

When's the last time a movie came out that was not a sequel, remake, reboot, continuation, or contain some semblance of the phrase, "based on true events?"

Creativity is dead. It's easier to just repackage old shit for nostalgia over actually creating new stories. People will watch it regardless.

When's the last time a movie came out that was not a sequel, remake, reboot, continuation, or contain some semblance of the phrase, "based on true events?"

Creativity is dead. It's easier to just repackage old shit for nostalgia over actually creating new stories. People will watch it regardless.

Is this supposed to empower women or mock them?

Do you also ask this every time there is a movie starring men

Hokay boss whatever you like. I can say the same about your interpretation but honestly, I don't care anymore.

No because I know when it's trying to mock or empower men.

The Regina George actress looks like she's in her late 20's - early 30s.

Is she the lesbian character from Sex Lives of College Girls? I'm not sure.

She actually played Regina in the Broadway version too