Hancock

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 28 Dec 2007, 09:24

No, not Tony Hancock...

Nor even Toe Knee Hand Cock for that matter.... 8)

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pict ... large.html

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 13 Jun 2008, 11:35

This looks like it will be a lot of fun

Trailer looks pretty damn funny!

Hancock is rated 12A for "moderate violence, strong and aggressive language and crude humour"

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 13 Jun 2008, 12:39

It looks terrible lol

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 13 Jun 2008, 12:53

Maybe thats why its funny, I liked the beached whale scene

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 13 Jun 2008, 14:51

I saw the trailer the other day, agreed it looks awful.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 13 Jun 2008, 16:05

You would probibly like the origanal version that they were suposed to make. It was called "Tonight He Comes"!!

Seriously! and he beat women, raped and killed people, he even killed a woman or two by raping them to death! obviously its changed rather a lot now. Just imagine Will Smith blasting his cum out of the back of the female lead like a shotgun!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 13 Jun 2008, 16:11

Hancock was originally an R film and was cut for PG-13 to please the MPAA. According to the Wikipedia page, despite the comedy elements, the film is darker than has been advertised.
Maybe one day "Hancock: Unrated" will be released

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 13 Jun 2008, 16:17

Wikipedia is bollocks. I added shit to that for you esspecially

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 13 Jun 2008, 16:29

romerojpg wrote:You would probibly like the origanal version that they were suposed to make. It was called "Tonight He Comes"!!

Seriously! and he beat women, raped and killed people, he even killed a woman or two by raping them to death! obviously its changed rather a lot now. Just imagine Will Smith blasting his cum out of the back of the female lead like a shotgun!

You'd call it that rather than "Hand on Cock"?

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 13 Jun 2008, 23:49

romerojpg wrote:You would probibly like the origanal version that they were suposed to make. It was called "Tonight He Comes"!!

Seriously! and he beat women, raped and killed people, he even killed a woman or two by raping them to death! obviously its changed rather a lot now. Just imagine Will Smith blasting his cum out of the back of the female lead like a shotgun!

Where the hell did you read that?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Jun 2008, 00:21

romerojpg wrote:Wikipedia is bollocks.

Like Rewind, it's based on end-user input. You really don't get the concept, do you

.

romerojpg wrote:You would probibly like the origanal version

I was dubious about it's accuracy before I read Shingster's comments, can you really see that getting released? Regardless it doesn't sound like a film I'd like.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 14 Jun 2008, 09:16

Wiki 1 Romero 0

It sounds like Romero is er, yanking a chain

The point I'm making is that though the trailer focuses on comedy etc, the film is apparently darker/more controversial and not just goofy comedy from what I read. Could be interesting....

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Jun 2008, 13:32

If so, that would be hilarious.

Grim 1, Shingster 0

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 14 Jun 2008, 13:55

grim_tales wrote: It sounds like Romero is er, yanking a chain

I am not yanking any chain, that was the origanal scipt. It was called Tonight He Comes and was to be a sick film, as soon as Will Smith got onboard and the director came on it changed a lot.

Its not hard to find stuff on it, hell use Wikipedi and IMDB

or dont.

But main thing I read on it was in Empire last month they did a good article on it, a very diferent screenplay was suposed to be made, but they all chickened out and changed it.

Still from everything the director has said its not exactly the fluufy comedy the trailers make out. There are a few trailers, the newest one is not the comedy one like the others.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 14 Jun 2008, 15:33

Tonight He Comes was a script that had been knocking about Hollwood for about a decade before it evolved into Hancock. Do you really think a script about a super-being that rapes women (which would never come in at the R-rating) would ever be even remotely considered by a single major Hollywood studio, let alone piqué various studios interests (albeit temporarily) throughout the late 90s?

By all accounts (and i'm talking the earlier script reviews I could find online and NOT Wikipedia), Tonight He Comes was originally a much more downbeat social/character piece with superhero action film trappings. I cannot find a single comment about it being some dark NC-17 exploitative "satire".

You really are quite the hypocrite romero. You come on these boards and drone on & on about how anyone who puts their faith in information databases like Wikipedia and film critic reviews are "sheep" and "idiots", yet you yourself are frequently posting un-researched bullshit information and giving your inane opinion on films left right and centre. I think it's time you started to practice what you preach!

I'm beginning to think you have Hancock mixed up with Wanted. Wanted is an extremely toned-down film based on a nihilistic comic series that features anti-heroes who rape and murder people.

bradavon wrote:Grim 1, Shingster 0

Eh?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 14 Jun 2008, 15:44

Nope not mixed up with Wanted at all.

I did not say they shot anything like what was in the origanal vision.

Its not bullshit information at all, its what the director etc.. said.

You even said "Where the hell did you read that?" so obviously you did not know tonnes about it before hand.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Jun 2008, 17:35

Shingster wrote:You really are quite the hypocrite romero. You come on these boards and drone on & on about how anyone who puts their faith in information databases like Wikipedia and film critic reviews are "sheep" and "idiots", yet you yourself are frequently posting un-researched bullshit information and giving your inane opinion on films left right and centre. I think it's time you started to practice what you preach!

Never have truer words been spoken. Well said Mr. Shingster.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 14 Jun 2008, 18:05

Coming from you Brad, well it means nothing haha

Hypocrite whatever you say. I always say a fool is put off by others comments, I dont say listen to me, I say see it and see for your self. Even if I do think its shit.

I dont get paid to influence people (well not often).

When tossers wait for a film for years and look foward to it all that time, it comes out and some fool they dont know on the net say ITS SHIT!!! OOOHNOOOES! so that person does not see it, well they are an idiot. A fucking idiot.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Jun 2008, 18:31

romerojpg wrote:Coming from you Brad, well it means nothing haha

It's interesting how you reply to me, when all I did was say I agreed. It was Shingster who made the actual comment

.

romerojpg wrote:When tossers wait for a film for years and look foward to it all that time, it comes out and some fool they dont know on the net say ITS SHIT!!! OOOHNOOOES! so that person does not see it, well they are an idiot. A fucking idiot.

That must make you an idiot too then

.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 14 Jun 2008, 18:37

Yeah becuase I always read comments and reviews (complete with plot spoilers) and then see or dont see a film becuase of them.

Ohh sorry thats you

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 14 Jun 2008, 19:47

romerojpg wrote:Its not bullshit information at all, its what the director etc.. said.

Let me guess, he told you this in person so naturally this cannot be corroborated by anyone else or any articles online?

romerojpg wrote:You even said "Where the hell did you read that?" so obviously you did not know tonnes about it before hand.

Well I take my previous comment in this post back, obviously if the information is so widespread out there that any old schmuck (such as myself) would've have known about it had he been paying attention to the project, well that means you will have no difficulty whatsoever in backing up your comments with links to interviews or articles or news items!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Jun 2008, 23:30

Shingster wrote:Let me guess, he told you this in person so naturally this cannot be corroborated by anyone else or any articles online?

Of course. Silly you Shingster, for having to ask

.

romerojpg wrote:well that means you will have no difficulty whatsoever in backing up your comments with links to interviews or articles or news items!

I'd pay, to see Romero's links

.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 15 Jun 2008, 13:02

Why do you need a link, read a magazine like the one I spoke of, which are not allowed to make up shit like the net as they are under laws and get taken to court for making shit up, or even worse are not allowed to visit the set next time like the magazine was.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 15 Jun 2008, 13:15

romerojpg wrote:which are not allowed to make up shit like the net as they are under laws and get taken to court for making shit up

Since when did that stop publications?

No link. I wonder why? 8)

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 15 Jun 2008, 16:39

If Empire had stated in an article that the original script of Tonight He Comes featured a superhero who rapes women, it would be all over the internet in just about every article linked to the Tonight He Comes project from thereon in. Not because every bit of news Empire states in-magazine makes it online, but because a major Hollywood studio showing interest in a project that was either about, or previously about a rapist superhero would be big news. Of course, once Will Smith became attached, many internet writers would have loved to talk about how Hancock was originally such an extreme film.

I'm confused that you don't seem to understand that a superhero action film - which would almost certainly require a budget of at least $20-30million upwards (and that's being very conservative) - is not going to feature hard NC-17 themes like casual rape. Any writer who writes a script like that would have to be a naive moron, coz either the script would be rejected in an instant, or they'd be ordered to re-write it in an instant.

Plus, as I have already said, there is widespread information on the internet about Tonight He Comes that state it was originally a rather downbeat character piece, not exploitative in any way.