[top] [bottom]
You are now browsing the old version of Chlomo, an archive of the old site. Click here when you want to go the new version.
[ chloe ] [ photoshoots / photo sets / movies ] [ offtopic ] [ site ]

/old/ - bigger or more important threads

Welcome to chlomo.org, the best Chloe Grace Moretz fan site™. We have all the Chloe news, pictures,
photoshoots, videos, fan art, original content, GIFs and discussions you could ever want.
If you're new, read this or give your honest thoughts on this place
posting Chloe fakes, disrespectful comments about her or her family will get you banned
if you want the latest Chloe updates (news, photoshoots and so on) you can find them here
report bugs, posting problems or feature requests here or contact support@chlomo.org
back to index

If you are new here DO NOT make a new thread (read why)
Name
Subject
Comment
Image
max. 10Mb / 10000px
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Flags
01download the chlomo pack02see the image gallery03join #chloe4starwars04are you new here?

File: 1365118471512_1x1.jpg (1.1 KB, 1x1)

 Chloe Grace Moretz in Carrie trailer !a3dKSVA5Rc 17027

 ThatGuy!!RbMiik.X5M 17028

holy fucking shit. This looks beyond fantastic.

  17029

File: 1365122912410_chloe-moretz-julianne-moore-first-carrie-footage.jpg (22.82 KB, 300x300)

I totally love it!

Chloe is such an amazing actress ♥

 Anonymous (5c4f) 17030

i teared up.

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17031


 anonymoose (ba68) 17032

0:44 aw yea

 Chlomoron (ba68) 17033

File: 1365129069330_crying.gif (1.98 MB, 259x221)

I called the phone number at the end and honestly thought it was her for a second

 Anonymous (bd7a) 17034

>>17033
You're really living up to your name.

 ThatGuy!!RbMiik.X5M 17035

don't know if i'll be able to handle all the laughter and bullying of chloe in the movie.

i'm sure she'll fucking kill them all anyway.

 Lili Johnson !!eGMakPsOug 17036

File: 1365131882345.jpg (135.07 KB, 1280x720)

I for one am happy the shower scene is actually going to be in the movie. I cheered when I saw Chloë in the bloodied up towel (weird, I know) And my eyes lit up as the tampon hit Choë's face! October can't come soon enough!

 Pixel!!P6VCghJWrM 17037

File: 1365132422427_so-much-want.jpg (58.85 KB, 337x390)

This trailer exceeded any expectations I had. It looks intense. Those bullying scenes make me cringe with heartbreak. I can't wait.

 Anonymous (80ef) 17038

>>17036
I'm glad they left it in too. I liked how she looked in it too, like she was ashamed of her body.

 Lili Johnson !!eGMakPsOug 17039

>>17038
yes, me too.
makes me feel for her even more. I'll probably be on the verge of tears while seeing this scene fully played out in theaters.

This version of Carrie seems like it'll be much more emotionally convincing, and it'll have more depth. can't wait!

 Edward Raffingfield (749f) 17040

File: 1365137453219_077.png (208.21 KB, 280x346)

Why was this delaaaaayed?!?!
This trailer was so well done. I can't wait for Chloë to fuck shit up at the prom.
mfw watching this

 carrie 17041

WOW, I thought that she might be too hot for this but as usual I thought wrong….I knew this would be good…but from what I've seen this is off the effing charts….
In the book there is a part where she gets pissed at her mom and it rains rocks on her house…that may just make it to the bigscreen…..the first movie did not do the book justice at all……

 Anonymous (1d5b) 17042

Yet another remake/reimagining to ignore. This is for all the mainstream horror fans who like the "Twilight" and "Scream" franchises. Oh, and Chloe is completely wrong for the part. They could have easily picked someone else (and better). Chloe can act but she's not made for this.

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17043

>>17042
>This is for all the mainstream horror fans who like the "Twilight" and "Scream" franchises.
I hate both franchises yet this looks interesting

>Oh, and Chloë is completely wrong for the part. They could have easily picked someone else (and better).

She's not creepy enough but just because you're pretty doesn't mean you can't be bullied.

>Chloë can act but she's not made for this.

we'll see once the movie comes out

 tvshaman!lhWKbMXRXI 17044

File: 1365150439299_haters.jpg (432.85 KB, 605x1222)

>>17042
This has fucking NOTHING to do with twilight!

 Calc !ukn9NKc/7Y 17045

File: 1365153238526.gif (2.44 MB, 327x360)

>>17043
>She's not creepy enough but just because you're pretty doesn't mean you can't be bullied.

Agreed, but from the trailer I just don't really buy it at all.

One weird thing about the trailer that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the movie itself is that it shows the whole damn thing, I mean what the hell, yeah most people has seen it before but that's a bit silly.

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17046

>>17045
And the trailer for the original did pretty much the same

 Anonymous (80ef) 17047

>>17042
She looks fine to me. Maybe you should stop looking at glamour shots of her so much?

 Anonymous (80ef) 17048

File: 1365165305731_Untitled.png (37.87 KB, 142x101)


 Anonymous (80ef) 17049

>>17042
Because it has girls in it and as the main character it's made for twilight fans? And have scream films been anything but jump/cheap scares or have they somehow changed drastically in recent versions?

 ineverrun (a284) 17050

shall..not..watch shall not look at screens.. shall wait to go in theater unknowing anythng so i can have best experience of all time.. all time

 Sexy-Pretty-Gurl!!CFXJeNQ26E 17051

File: 1365166098561_ooo.jpg (25.66 KB, 332x369)

This is fucking Epic

 PompLeMoose!1HFSrtFsSI 17052

File: 1365167819552_beiberfeiber.gif (6.95 MB, 450x253)

>>17036

>my eyes lit up as the tampon hit Choë's face!


poetic

But yea, so glad the shower scene is in there.

I'm really excited for this. I'm not sure if I'm going to like it as much as the original. It's hard to say because Sissy pulled off Carrie so well. That said, this trailer has got me pumped.

  17053

File: 1365172997471_Fuck_Yeah_2.jpg (95.82 KB, 357x360)

Holy fucking shit, this is awesome. I've watched it over 10 times.
Can't wait.

 Anonymous (0083) 17054

>>17052
yeah
she did pull it off well, but don't you think that this one will be even better at making you emotionally involved considering it's Chloë (someone we've all become…attached to, or have falling in love with) playing Carrie this time. I think she'll knock this one out the park, and will be just as good as Sissy was. ANd yeah Sissy had that impact at the end with her blinkless stare(that shit still haunts me), but in the new trailer I saw something in Chloë's eyes, (a reflection of the fire)
and all we saw was a snippets of the movie so there's still a possibility for some creepy C
>>17041

 forgot to put my name down Lili Johnson !!eGMakPsOug 17055

File: 1365176569112_vlcsnap-2013-01-11-12h42m10s63.png (112.92 KB, 284x305)

>>17054
creepy Chloë
>>17041
I hope the the reign of fire scene is in the movie too!

 WoherWins (7d99) 17056

File: 1365177014261.jpg (490.61 KB, 1100x1100)

cannot wait!!

 Drew!!5delXN.1Cw 17057

File: 1365179724461_humds.jpg (20.56 KB, 275x261)

didn't really like the trailer, looks like a 6/10 movie

 PompLeMoose!1HFSrtFsSI 17058

File: 1365179770497_powerofyouthwow.jpg (939.63 KB, 2030x3000)

>>17054

>don't you think that this one will be even better at making you emotionally involved considering it's Chloë


I'm not sure. I think it could go both ways. I could feel very attached because it's Chloe, or it could feel unrealistic because it's Chloe. I know how she is, and she has a very confident air to her.

>I think she'll knock this one out the park, and will be just as good as Sissy was.


I hope so. And I like hearing this considering you're reading the book.

>I saw something in Chloë's eyes, (a reflection of the fire)


Yea, she did look pretty fucked at the end. I hope there's some Creepy C. I would love that. To me, Carrie should be creepy, but then again, I'm basing this off of Sissy's amazing performance, having not read the book myself.

Either way, I'm super pumped to see this.

 PompLeMoose!1HFSrtFsSI 17059

File: 1365179840517_spain2.jpg (734.55 KB, 2251x3000)

>>17057

Yea, I got the same sort of impression

unfortunately

 Drew!!5delXN.1Cw 17060

File: 1365179906212_Hick_80.jpg (135.4 KB, 1920x800)

>>17059
dem popular kid clichés

 Anonymous (80ef) 17061

>>17059
Coming from the guy that liked Hick

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17062

Dismissing a movie before ever seeing it? If you are this way about many other things, then It must be a miserable existence to be that pessimistic.

The trailer blew me away. I seriously got chills from watching it and my skin crawled. It was so intense and still has the same impact watching it multiple times. The only way I can describe the feeling is it's very similar to watching Let Me In. I never even came close to having this reaction while watching the original Carrie.

I understand hollywood is full of remakes, and many are bad, but some movies are worth remaking if done right. Also the original just didn't follow the book at closely as it should have. This is really what's going to set the new Carrie apart from it I think.

Carrie clutching a towel in the shower scene isn't believable? You can see she's shy and timid so that's exactly the reaction I would expect from her character.

I think the studio execs got a good look at what the final cut was looking like and decided to rearrange the release date. I think they know they have a real gem on their hands and want to time it's release more appropriately for maximum profits. With it's release fresh on the minds of viewers and critics, I'm bracing for successful awards season following afterwards. I think this is also playing into the reasoning behind the new release date as awards will drive additional sales with dvds and blurays etc.

I expect the regular "remake snobs" to bash it regardless, but for those of us that can watch it and enjoy it without trying to find things not to like hurr the original is perfect (not even close imho) so this one sucks, I suspect this is going to be very well received indeed.

 Drew!!5delXN.1Cw 17063

File: 1365180778549_opinions_duh.jpg (95.42 KB, 321x361)

ITT

 Anonymous (80ef) 17064

>>17062
This. Watch the movie, don't be cynical, don't go in being stubborn about how things should go, don;'t think about posting on an image board after the movie, and it should be good.

 Anonymous (80ef) 17065

Anyone else notice the pool scene?

Compared to the leaked video months ago, this was much better.

I didn't get an exaggerated West Side Story' feel with snapping fingers when she told her to wipe the smile off her face in the trailer.

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17066

>>17065
Probably because the leaked footage was from a cut-away camera which is a completely different angle than main one.

 Anonymous (80ef) 17067

>>17066
Not only that, but the way she said it. Much meaner.

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17068

>>17067
Yeah we saw one of probably many takes for that scene and they decided to use a different take so that's probably why.

  17069

File: 1365183625454_omg_that_mouth.png (109.83 KB, 244x269)

I'm touched!!! OMG absolutely impressing trailer!
I can't wait!!! This movie will be EPIC!!!!
The intensity in her expression is… spechless…
Julianne Moore looks terrific too!!!
WOWOWOWOWOWOW

 Lili Johnson !!eGMakPsOug 17070

File: 1365186643991.png (1.21 MB, 1348x648)

>>17065
yea I noticed that too. and I was so happy when I saw it in the trailer!

 PompLeMoose!1HFSrtFsSI 17071

File: 1365193047981_pink1.jpg (32.9 KB, 440x660)

>>17063

so many people have a hard time understanding this simple concept

 tvshaman!lhWKbMXRXI 17072

File: 1365196271143_I_support.jpg (287.43 KB, 1109x800)


 WoherWins (a20e) 17073

when is the premiere?

 Anonymous (1155) 17074

>>17073
i'm inclined to think such a thing woudn't have been settled upon as of yet

 WoherWins (a20e) 17075

>>17074
just asking

 Anonymous (1155) 17076

>>17075
sorry if my answer made you feel bad in any way for having asked a question, i just replied with what i thought on the matter
>just answering
why do ask anyway?

 WoherWins (a20e) 17077

File: 1365200147089_chloemhr069.jpg (744.97 KB, 2815x4023)

>>17076
because i wonder :)

 Anonymous (1155) 17078

File: 1365200382084.jpg (142.16 KB, 1280x720)

>>17077
can't wait like the rest of us i suspect

 Mastër Bëan!QMOd.BeanU 17079

File: 1365204268633.gif (603.95 KB, 420x350)


 Anonymous (1d5b) 17080

Wow, you blokes really need to accept the fact that some - actually, a LOT - of people simply have grown tired of remakes and reimaginings. I don't care who was to be picked for this. It belongs in those two categories, and so it's a pass for me. I'd rather see something, uh, original. Relax, lighten the fuck up, and stop taking all of this so seriously.

This is being marketed for teenagers primarily, and yes, I lumped it in with the "Twilight" and "Scream" franchises because that is what it consists of: no-talent actors (aside from the exceptions like Chloe) who were/are only hired for their looks, lump in "hip" dialogue that is only spoken by people living in Beverly Hills - or in desolate countrysides, slap on a pop soundtrack, then try and pass it off as something everyone will want to see. Wrong.

It's my choice not to see it and to not support out of ideas Hollyweird, and that's that. It's got nothing to do with being some film snob. It's all about choosing movies that haven't been made thousands of times before.

This is but another piece of visual flatulence and will never be as good as the original. And don't give me the bit about it being another approach from the book. It was done once, done good, the first remake was shit, ditto the sequel, and now this. Same shit, different release date these days.

 Anonymous (1155) 17081

File: 1365210954879.png (141.07 KB, 332x245)

>>17080
yeah but this one has chloe in it
muh remakes

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17082

>>17080
>. Relax, lighten the fuck up, and stop taking all of this so seriously.
To me this is funny as shit because the people who are uptight about this are those like you crying about remakes and the original

>This is being marketed for teenagers primarily, and yes, I lumped it in with the "Twilight" and "Scream" franchises because that is what it consists of: no-talent actors (aside from the exceptions like Chloë) who were/are only hired for their looks,

and juliane moore
the lead actresses are very talented (and so is the director) so it seems to me like they went for talented people, not "pretty ones"


>This is but another piece of visual flatulence and will never be as good as the original. And don't give me the bit about it being another approach from the book. It was done once, done good, the first remake was shit, ditto the sequel, and now this.

Again, you're the one doing the complaining. No one came to you and pulled your sleeve "heeeey, will you be seeing this? Will you? Huh? Will you? "


>Same shit, different release date these days.

I doubt the other ones had such talented people and production valiue behind them
so it's not the same shit at all

 Anonymous (1d5b) 17083

> To me this is funny as shit because the people who are uptight about this are those like you crying about remakes and the original

Wrong, kid. It's called thinking for yourself instead of following in with the sheeple. I no longer put frustration into it. I simply point out the absurdity of these useless remakes which lose more and more money with each release.

> and juliane moore

the lead actresses are very talented (and so is the director) so it seems to me like they went for talented people, not "pretty ones"

Don't delude yourself; it's all about big names must equate big success, and we have seen that that's not the case before and in the times to come. If Hollyweird wasn't shallow, they would have picked an actress who is more convincing and right for the part, instead of a big name.

> Again, you're the one doing the complaining. No one came to you and pulled your sleeve "heeeey, will you be seeing this? Will you? Huh? Will you? "


I actually could give a fuck if you're going to see this or not. LOL Seriously, don't give yourself any credit into believing you're somehow significant in the outcome of a pre-packaged marketing device like the Hollyweird Machine. Go see it by all means. I on the other hand will be watching something worth my time and money that isn't geared toward tweens and teens - and anyyou fanboys on here.

> I doubt the other ones had such talented people and production valiue behind them

so it's not the same shit at all

Yeah, it IS the same shit, different release date. That's how marketing works, and you're obeying it all rather well. Do cease with assuming this and that about someone. Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups after all.

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17084

File: 1365215834263.gif (3.83 MB, 250x366)

>>17080
>have not seen it
>will not see it
>it's definitely shit though
>all remakes are shit
>all originals are superior in every way
at least you went full retard like a baws

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17085

>>17083
>Wrong, kid.
Uh oh we got an internet tough guy over here.

>and anyyou fanboys on here.

More name calling, such a bad ass.
Hmmm..if you're not a chloe fanboy then what are you doing on this site? I smell something…familiar.

 Anonymous (1d5b) 17086

> at least you went full retard like a baws

Typical and predicable reaction from a cocksucker. Get back to your video games, son.

> Uh oh we got an internet tough guy over here.


No, actually it's a difference of opinion that you hate and anti-intellectualism IS your bag, However, I AM not the type to cross in person, and your comfort zone is the safety of anonymity. You know in person you wouldn't be able to be such an obnoxious little prick without having your head bashed in, and sent to the local ER with broken bones. Silly little fanboy who wants to shag Chloe is all you are, fucking loser shitbag with too much time on his hands - when he's not preoccupied wiping cum from it due to all those fap sessions given you can't get laid by any real woman. Kids today; no brains. just arrogance and stupidity worshiped like a god.

> More name calling, such a bad ass.

Hmmm..if you're not a chloe fanboy then what are you doing on this site? I smell something…familiar.

A badass is what I can be if need be however I don't resort to violence unless need be, and that hasn't been a necessity for years. ONLY ONLINE do I ever encounter mouthy little pricks such as yourself stuck in a dead end mediocre existence, wishing things were different, playing paper tiger. That's the only reason why you do it. In person people would laugh at you, mock, tell you to fuck off, and if you were stupid enough to make a physical mistake - and you DO seem like the type, you would only end up brutally beaten into submission, or worse, killed by someone who unlike me doesn't give a fuck about his or her own life, and wouldn't think of putting a bullet in your head.

Also, don't forget that MANY people have been tracked down and confronted or murdered online simply for words they posted. Yes, some people take it that far - and it very well could be YOU next.

Don't think for one moment that you're exempt. I wouldn't bother given I've a blessed fortunate life which I wouldn't want to be deprived of all on account of some listless genetic defective online who has a major possible obsession for a 16 year old girl who would never ever give him the time of day.

Drunken Mastur….you live up to that name, son. Just remember that all of this could have easily been avoided had your sperm donor shot his wad all over the whore of of cunt who is your mum.

Also, I'm sure Chloe is aware of this site and so it should be NO surprise that her brothers and friends keep a close eye on her. Then again, other actresses her age or older never have kith and kin around, and get by VERY well. Jodelle Ferland comes to mind.

Very level-headed young woman who has more talent than Chloe, and yet has no overbearing creepy older brother watching her every move. Then again, with creepy fucks like you, I don't blame him.

Spend a LOT less time fucking up online and more on being productive elsewhere. You never know; it might help…or not.

"When you look at the average American, you realize there's nothing nature enjoys more than a good joke." - George Carlin

 Anonymous (808c) 17087

>>17086
Pls leave

 Anonymous (1d5b) 17088

No. I'm no troll; difference of opinion and facts is what and why you want that. I like Chloe as an actress but she's no goddess, not right for certain roles such as "Carrie" - and people WILL see that, and you're just another fuckwit who has a problem with someone who thinks, feels, and speaks differently than you. I suggest moving to the Middle East or North Korea. You will fit right in.

You can post all the oral defecation online all you want. Yet you know in real life you cannot and will not do it. There are consequences to be faced…

 Anonymous (808c) 17089

>>17088
This thread is to discuss the trailer. Either do that or leave the thread, or even the whole chan for that matter if all you're going to do is stir shit.

 Anonymous (1d5b) 17090

I did come to say what I had to about it like anyone else. If it bothers you then perhaps YOU should leave. I love how you trolls and shitstains think it;'s only your opinions and thoughts that matter. That's NOT the reality of things, especially out in the real world where no one would tolerate such arrogance and little man talk.

The movie will be shit, there's NO saving it from being bashed globally, and people have decided not to support redundancy. What are you going to do? Go and track down each and every post and comment about the movie that you don't agree with, and go on a virtual witch hunt? Yeah, good luck with that. LOL

Most - most - of what I observe on this site is blatant ass-kissing of Chloe, undersexed and lonely fanboys venting their fantasies which are better kept to themselves, and people speculating and wanting to know each and every detail of a 16 year old girl.

It's fucking pathetic! You're NEVER going to know her every desire, let alone know her. I've met her twice at conventions and she's what you would expect: down to earth, appreciative of her fans…and VERY guarded of her personal life, one thing many of you want every piece of, but will not get.

Fuck remakes; they're all shit and it's all about money from Hollyweird who make less and less which each attempt. Yet they have no learning curve - just like you and the others on here who fit the would-be stalker type.

Let it go and move on, kid.

 Anonymous (bc80) 17091

File: 1365232215823_1963876-zomg_you_ve_won_internet.gif (50.58 KB, 300x400)


 Anonymous (1d5b) 17092

Funny kid in the pic. Was that you before you fell into a coma and became terminally retarded? Nice. LOL

 ChloëAcolyte!rXbSz/sifM 17093

File: 1365232962905_Cant_Tell_If_Troll_Or_Plain_Stupid.jpg (110.02 KB, 600x541)

> I love how you trolls and shitstains think it;'s only your opinions and thoughts that matter.
Everyone's opinions matters, except some of us have different opinions than the others.
>The movie will be shit
Have you even seen the movie? you are just judging it from the trailer.
>Most - most - of what I observe on this site is blatant ass-kissing of Chloe, undersexed and lonely fanboys venting their fantasies which are better kept to themselves, and people speculating and wanting to know each and every detail of a 16 year old girl.
Not all of us like that.

 Anonymous (1d5b) 17094

> Everyone's opinions matters, except some of us have different opinions than the others.

No shit, Sherlock. What continues to make me laugh is how some people online - bigoted fucks especially - feel their own opinions matter more than others. They don't - but no one can tell them that. However, it is a cruel reality which they have to live with out in the real world. Oh, and I'm no troll, son. These others though, I think they spend entirely too much time obsessing over a girl who they don't even know, and never will.

> Not all of us like that.


No, just 99.99% so far from what I've observed. No wonder Chloe makes it a point to avoid most - most - people while in public. Some of these twits on here would have Chris Hansen kicking their door in! LOL

 ChloëAcolyte!rXbSz/sifM 17095

File: 1365234513479_Bitch_Please.jpg (134.12 KB, 515x485)

>>17094
>What continues to make me laugh is how some people online - bigoted fucks especially - feel their own opinions matter more than others.
>some people online
Some… you said it by yourself.
No, just 99.99% so far from what I've observed.
You must be blind.

 Anonymous (1d5b) 17096

> Some… you said it by yourself.
No, just 99.99% so far from what I've observed.
You must be blind.

On this site it's most. Some -some - manage to keep it at a semi-obsessive level. The rest, well, they take it way too far. It makes me even more grateful that these fruitcake fucks will never have the pleasure - or in many of their cases the perversity - to meet her. Read more carefully.

 Anonymous (808c) 17097

Again, this thread is to discuss the trailer. Lets keep it on topic.

 ChloëAcolyte!rXbSz/sifM 17098

File: 1365236049730_Lol_Why_U_Mad_Tho.jpg (96.23 KB, 500x509)

>>17096
Clearly you are not here to discuss about the movie, you are here because your frustrated by some pervert anons.
>It makes me even more grateful that these fruitcake fucks will never have the pleasure
And continuing to debate about how these perverts will never get her will not actually change and/or stop them.

 Anonymous (1d5b) 17099

> Clearly you are not here to discuss about the movie, you are here because your frustrated by some pervert anons.

Wrong. I stated my own opinion about yet another needless remake, and it got some people's knickers all up in a bind. That's too fucking bad. In the real world people DO say things like that. What the fuck are they going to do about it? Try and have a go at each and every person who does? That's NOT going to work in their favor. At all.

> And continuing to debate about how these perverts will never get her will not actually change and/or stop them.


There is NO debate whatsoever about these jagoffs ever getting close to her. She is accessible at conventions and the like where I've met her, BUT the more, uh, eccentric and perverted halfwit losers on here constantly fantasizing and desiring her, a 16 year old, it.simply.IS.NOT.going.to.happen. Not if they act like that.

They WILL be stopped - be it by security or her family and friends. Or real fans. They will NOT have their way with her like they want to believe in their fucked up, twisted hollow heads. I reckon regular online porn simply isn't satiating them anymore. o.O

 ChloëAcolyte!rXbSz/sifM 17100

>>17099
You act like you're some kind of a savior or something. Bro, you can't force people to be or think the way you want, the world doesn't revolve around you.
If you want to continue your worthless talk you can go here >>120 , I'm pretty sure you'll have fun there.

 ChloëAcolyte!rXbSz/sifM 17101

>>17100
>>>/bros/

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17102

>>17083
>Wrong, kid. It's called thinking for yourself instead of following in with the sheeple. I no longer put frustration into it. I simply point out the absurdity of these useless remakes which lose more and more money with each release.
LOL. You're in no position to be condescending.
If they lost money they wouldn't keep making them and even if they to, that's entirely THEIR problem.

That 'thinking for yourtself part' works better when you can actually do the thinking

>Don't delude yourself; it's all about big names must equate big success, and we have seen that that's not the case before and in the times to come. If Hollyweird wasn't shallow, they would have picked an actress who is more convincing and right for the part, instead of a big name.


Neither Chloë nor juliane moore are such big names. They're not some A-listers who can put buts in the sit simply by having their name on the poster

Who is more convinving and right for the part? Juliane Moore IS right for the part and there were other actresses in the race before they settled on Chloë so it's not like they went with the pretty girl from the get-go. Their original choice was Shailene Woodley whcih apprently is a good actress (haven't seen her movies), is NOT a big name and she looks more plain / is less convetionally pretty.

So that argument of your is shit

>I actually could give a fuck if you're going to see this or not.

I never said anything about me. I was talking about you who came here whining as if someone was forcing him into seeing it

>LOL Seriously, don't give yourself any credit into believing you're somehow significant in the outcome of a pre-packaged marketing device like the Hollyweird Machine.

I don't thik you could spout more played out cliches if you tried. You forgot to tmention the jews btw

>Go see it by all means. I on the other hand will be watching something worth my time and money that isn't geared toward tweens and teens - and anyyou fanboys on here.

I don't need your approval to watch whatever I want to watch and I couldn't care less what you do

>Yeah, it IS the same shit, different release date. That's how marketing works, and you're obeying it all rather well. Do cease with assuming this and that about someone. >Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups after all.

I already pointed out why it is NOT the same shit, and it's not an assumption it's a god damn fact (such as the director and lead actresses being talented) which clealry flew over your head

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17103

File: 1365239050887_13157783404101.gif (1.59 MB, 317x250)

>>17090
>The movie will be shit, there's NO saving it from being bashed globally, and people have decided not to support redundancy.

TEH POEPLE HAZ SPOKAN

 Anonymous (f1f2) 17104

File: 1365241742012_folder.jpg (30.27 KB, 482x448)

Dunno if this has been already posted but here is the song from the trailer :

Lykke Li - Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow

 Goose!!X0ir0LwuE2 17105

File: 1365246846528_2013-03-10_002.jpg (32.54 KB, 612x612)

Does anyone else get an awkward feeling seeing Chloë in a new film?

 Anonymous (6757) 17106

File: 1365247071835.jpg (57.22 KB, 363x279)

>>17105
Depends on the film but yeah it happens

 Goose!!X0ir0LwuE2 17107

File: 1365247334866_hitgirl-x-large.jpg (134.26 KB, 489x368)

>>17106
The feeling was strong with this trailer. Kick Ass 2 on the other hand…

 Goose!!X0ir0LwuE2 17108

File: 1365247511578_Chloe-Moretz-picture.jpg (1.3 MB, 2756x4134)

Do you think it's because we think we know Chloë on another level?

 Anonymous (6757) 17109

File: 1365247745948.jpg (24.52 KB, 219x276)

>>17108
Probably.
>>17107
same.

 IchiTheKiller !3XEZrAveNs 17110

File: 1365250741441_09.jpg (124.37 KB, 1024x483)

The Carrie trailer impresses me more and more each time I've seen it, which is only about 15 times.
I have a feeling I'm going to be watching this movie literally every single day when it comes out on Bluray just like I did with Let ME In.
>>17094
>>17096
>>17099
Do you live in New York by any chance? Becuz, I think I know you.

 IchiTheKiller !3XEZrAveNs 17111

File: 1365251007912_121.jpg (94.72 KB, 1024x379)

>>17104
Yeah, I figured out how to play it on the geetar this morning. I hope they maybe put it in the movie. It sounds quite haunting and appropriate the way Lykke Li sings it with all that reverb.

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17112

>>17110
>I have a feeling I'm going to be watching this movie literally every single day when it comes out on Bluray
I know that feel bro.

 Anonymous (db5e) 17113

>>17110
You think he is Mordensen?

 IchiTheKiller !3XEZrAveNs 17114

>>17113
Maybe yes

 Anonymous (80ef) 17115

>>17080
You can go to /tv/ if you want to be overly negative with your opinions. If you want to criticize the trailer that's great, but saying hyperbole like 'it's just like Twilight'? Not the place for it.

Personally, some remakes are great. The American Dragon Tattoo greatly improves upon the old one. Let Me In, also wasn't bad.

Just as some people are tired of remakes, there are people who haven't seen every single movie in existence, or keep them in mind every single waking moment of their life such that they are unable to enjoy a re-adaptation. Keep that in mind.

 Anonymous (1d5b) 17116

Look, it's not the fault of others that today's spoiled generation want everything remake/reimagined/re this/re that. Some classics will never be butchered all due to legalities as well as other elements such as the criminal sects of organized crime within Hollyweird who have actually prevented certain movies from such a fate.

They belong to us and they are part of our childhood memories, and it's not our fault that they were born a generation later with self-entitlement delusions, and detachment from reality via sites such as this - and many on here seriously need immediate psychiatric help with the level of obsession they show.

I posted the same opinions and facts on Facebook and no one got mouthy, and on the threads related to this movie, one cannot and will not be banned simply because others disagree with them. So, they can do that on here but that's it. They're as limited as their mentalities.

These mentally unstable fanboys assume way too much, and they think anything Chloe was/is in turns to gold. Well, wrong because out of all her movies so far, only a small handful were successful, both critically and financially. Even if this one is, it still doesn't matter.

There are more people against it than for it. So, these losers can play ban delusion on here all they like. Out in the real world that simply cannot be done. Toodles.

Oh, by the way, this site has been reported numerous times for its content and other things, and so do not be surprised if/when one day/night you come here only to find it gone. Hey, it has happened to plenty of other sites, and this one is NOT exempt from such a consequence.

P.S. to the trolls, badgers, and pricks alike: as I mentioned you cannot ban anyone on other sites, Facebook especially. So, enjoy your illusory sense of power on here, because it cannot happen elsewhere. Too bad. Oh, and next time I see Chloe herself at a local convention or out and about - because she does frequent this city (NYC) quite a bit!, I am going to mention this site, what is on it, she will more than likely object to it all along with her family - especially her mum Teri, and hopefully her disgust and contempt will result in it being shut down - and do not think it can't happen. I've seen countless sites disappear over time, and I won't be surprised if this one bites the dust as well.

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17117

>>17116
>here are more people against it than for it. So, these losers can play ban delusion on here all they like. Out in the real world that simply cannot be done. Toodles.
Based on what? Twitter is a very good judge for this and more people seem excited for it than they don't

>Oh, by the way, this site has been reported numerous times for its content and other things, and so do not be surprised if/when one day/night you come here only to find it gone.

NO! NO! NOT THE CYBERPOLICE!!

 ThatGuy!!RbMiik.X5M 17118

File: 1365283221431_2.jpg (27.35 KB, 245x350)

>>17116

>site reported


to who? the cyber police?

did you backtrace is troll boy?

 ThatGuy!!RbMiik.X5M 17119


 Anonymous (1d5b) 17120

@GG: Okay, one more since this is both laughable and absurd…

> Based on what? Twitter is a very good judge for this and more people seem excited for it than they don't


Based on this thing called word of mouth as well as what people say IN PERSON. I have not met one individual who is going to waste their time and money on this. Remake/reimaginings are becoming increasingly unpopular, something even full of shit Hollyweird is aware of - yet they insist on wasting even more money.

And just by mentioning Twitter you show ignorance. Are you aware of how highly faulty that thing is? I don't use it at all but I am aware that there's tons of spambots and fake profiles on it. Very unreliable and very much pathetic.

> NO! NO! NOT THE CYBERPOLICE!!


Who said anything about them, numbnuts? I'm talking about people who can and do shut sites down if they find reason to do so, and this site has about, oh, thousands of reasons for it. And I meant what I said about informing Chloe herself of this site the next time I either see her here out and about, or at a convention. Knowing how tight-knit, protective, and grounded her family is - especially her mum, this site stands a VERY high chance of being shut down at the behest of the entire Moretz clan.

@ThatGuy: trolls tend to accuse people who have something legitimate and relevant as being what they are, and that's nothing new. Keep obsessing over a girl who is waaay out of your league, and waste your time. That's all you trolls do.

Oh, and remember: trolling doesn't work in one's favor out in the real world. I can assure you of that. Try it and find out why you should keep your mouth shut to begin with.

Now, get back to your World of Warcraft, stale cheese puffs, room temperature beer, six-pack of Vaseline and spatula, have a go at Bobbi Sue the blow-up doll with the built-in vibrating vagina, then call it a night. Bye. :)

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17121

File: 1365284127289.jpg (12.62 KB, 206x242)

>>17120
>Based on this thing called word of mouth as well as what people say IN PERSON. I have not met one individual who is going to waste their time and money on this.
I'm sure you made a survey on 100+ persons to have som representative data. Right?

>Remake/reimaginings are becoming increasingly unpopular, something even full of shit Hollyweird is aware of - yet they insist on wasting even more money.

if they weren't popular they wouldn't be making them
the new evil dead came out and it seems pretty successful

>I don't use it at all but I am aware that there's tons of spambots and fake profiles on it. >

So basically you don't have a clue what you're talking about. And I can distingusih the bots pretty easily

>Who said anything about them, numbnuts? I'm talking about people who can and do shut sites down if they find reason to do so, and this site has about, oh, thousands of reasons for it.

Who is that? The FBI?

 Anonymous (1155) 17122

>>17120
>I am aware that there's tons of spambots and fake profiles on it
which chloe movie should i watch today before art class

 ThatGuy!!RbMiik.X5M 17123

File: 1365284338124.jpg (88.79 KB, 604x604)

>>17120

>GB2 IMDb

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17124

>>17122
exactly

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17125

trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls

 WoherWins (d8d1) 17126

File: 1365285298809.jpg (1.06 MB, 3000x2304)

what's going on?

 Anonymous (18f5) 17127

File: 1365285545510_trolling_hit_girl.jpg (247.85 KB, 618x503)

>>17126
I'm expressing muh opinions

 WoherWins (d8d1) 17128

File: 1365286569255_250.jpg (232.88 KB, 792x702)

>>17127
you have come to the right place

  17129

File: 1365326920179_oh_yeaaaah5.jpg (19.69 KB, 342x357)

Troll has gone out already?

 tvshaman!lhWKbMXRXI 17130

File: 1365327162541_1.jpg (324.95 KB, 1366x764)

Oh boy oh boy

 IchiTheKiller !3XEZrAveNs 17131

File: 1365332138998_Clipboard013.jpg (87.42 KB, 1577x799)

>>17116
>>17120
We get it Mordensen, you think all remakes are shit. You should definitely tell that to Chloe when you see her at her next convention or when you randomly bump into her strolling around NYC. In the meantime, try spewing your ill gotten propaganda somewhere where they actually give a fuck becuz you're not changing anyone's opinion here.
I for one, am really excited to see this despite being wary at first about it being a "remake."

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17132

I'm really wondering if she can pull off the bullied part. She seems very, very confident in real life and I don't know if she can shed that armor off

 tvshaman!lhWKbMXRXI 17133

File: 1365335582541_124538160-actress-chloe-moretz-arrives-at-hick-gettyimages.jpg (80.27 KB, 395x594)

>>17132
She nailed it in Hick, imo, so she can do it again

 Anonymous (6757) 17134

File: 1365337933832.jpg (30.89 KB, 300x366)

>>17133
Lolno she didn't
Apples and oranges

 tvshaman!lhWKbMXRXI 17135

File: 1365353966981_126229176-actress-chloe-moretz-is-photographed-for-gettyimages.jpg (117.66 KB, 396x594)

>>17134
I meant that she was convincing as an uncertain girl, who just swims with the current. So if she can do that, despite her real life persona, she can do what's required to be a convincing Carrie

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17136

>>17135
>I meant that she was convincing as an uncertain girl
I'm talking about her being [emotionally] broken down, being a victim.

 Anonymous (1155) 17137

>>17136
she was kind of portrayed as a victim in hick, albeit not for the entirety of the films runtime and not for long enough given what happened to her
plus as soon as carrie starts unleashing those powers she probably shouldn't be oozing 'victimised' anymore but rather we should start to see her gain some strength of character
we shall see

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17138

>>17132
>>17136
>Doubting Chloë's acting abilities
You'll never achieve top chlobro status like that you filthy casual.

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17139

>>17138
I know she has a lot of range but I don't think she's mastered them all. There are two scenes in the trailer that rub me the wrong way
the bed levitating and the one at 00:35

And yes, I'll worry until I've seen the movies and all my worries would be confirmed or infirmed.

 Minner Burris (b92b) 17140

The bed levitating scene is admittedly weak. All the books are spinning as if hung on strings, they have no independent motion, (it's a CGI challenge to do that). And it is too bad Jodi Foster didn't take the job. Julianne Moore replaced Jodi when she turned down 'Hannibal' and in 1 other film too (I forgot its name). I think Jodi can be more convincingly "rough" or haggard, and I think would have been a better teaching experience to Chloë. Never-the-less, I will be there for the Thursday Midnight show.

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17141

>>17140
>The bed levitating scene is admittedly weak
I'm talking about Chloë's expresson during that scene, not the CGI. And I thought juliane moore was brilliant in the trailer.

 tvshaman!lhWKbMXRXI 17142

File: 1365360452124_hurrrr5.jpg (74 KB, 343x624)

>>17140
So Jodi Foster is a better actress than Julianne Moore? And what the hell is this "Julianna replaced Jodi in Hannibal" wtf?

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17143

>>17139
Well if you really need convincing that she can play a "broken down victim" you might be forgetting her performance in TKF, and albeit brief, I believe she really nailed it and was very convincing. As I'm sure you'll also remember, she also spent time in a women's shelter as part of her character research for that project. I personally don't need convincing in her abilities, but since you are having some doubt, then TKF is a good example that it is possible for her range to go there.

The bed levitating scene is more goofy because of the books being on strings. I'm not sure what's up with that, but it stands out as odd because of the much more polished effects in the other scenes. Trailers sometimes she things that never make it into the final cut, this could be one of those OR it could be still a work in progress and will be polished for the final cut. The take we saw may also not make it in, there's probably several takes with altering expressions from Chloe. The director will be paying attention to feedback on the trailer and either it won't make the cut or might be modified.

 Solar!!JaE3DH33zQ 17144

>>17142

>And what the hell is this "Julianna replaced Jodi in Hannibal" wtf?


Jodi Foster didn't want to reprise her role as Agent Starling in "Hannibal" (sequel to Silence of the Lambs) so Julianne Moore replaced her.

 Anonymous (1155) 17145

>>17143
i think her expression in the levitating bed scene is almost tantamount in naffness as her teen angst moment in tkf
i never even notic e the cgi or the books that much, just the expression on her face really stands out, whatever it is she's trying to portray

 Minner Burris (b92b) 17146

Julianne Moore replaced Jodi Foster in Hannibal after considering it. You've heard the thing about A List and B list actors? It has nothing to do with skill, it's box office. Julianne Moore is a fine actress. And Chloe herself has done non-glam work. I'll admit, because it was Chloe and Chloe can act, I was hoping for a little darker tone. But, we'll see. Remember, the director Kimberly Peirce did "Boys don't Cry." She's not a candyass at all.

 Anonymous (1155) 17147

>>17145
it's almost as if she tried to cram too much mixed/coinciding.varying emotion into one moment and it ended up looking like nothing but badly feigned surprise
it's hard to say

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17148

>>17145
This is the "game of cocksuckers" debate all over again. I'm sure there's several takes of the scene. The scene may not even make it into the final cut of the movie. It's also very very difficult to see one tiny glimpse of a scene and complain about the expression, because you have not seen what leads you up to it. In proper context it may be very appropriate and you or I will never know until seeing the final cut. In case you're not getting what I'm saying, this entire debate is rather pointless at this point (1st trailer, final movie 6 months away)

 tvshaman!lhWKbMXRXI 17149

File: 1365361112378_ChloFish1.jpg (87 KB, 820x432)

>>17145
>tantamount in naffness
What big words. I can't even understand them
>>17144
Thank ye. I confused Hannibal with Silence of the Lambs. My bad

 Minner Burris (b92b) 17150

> The scene may not even make it into the final cut of the movie.

That is a good point. The Van Scene i the first Kick Ass 2 trailer didn't look so hot to me, but the Van Scene in the second trailer rocked.

 Anonymous (1155) 17151

File: 1365361250650.gif (6.63 MB, 349x250)

>In case you're not getting what I'm saying
>this entire debate is rather pointless at this point (1st trailer, final movie 6 months away)
>
it's hardly a debate i'm merely voicing my concern on the matter and if you take issue with that i'll stop

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17152

>>17147
yeah, that one is bad, no two ways about it

>>17148
I really hope you're right and they'll use a different cut

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17153

>>17151
No, by all means voice your concerns, and make sure to do it in forums that are more likely to get view from the Director as well. Directors put things in trailers early on to get this type of feedback. Don't think for a second that if couch warriors like us are uneasy about the quality of a scene that a Director hasn't had the same concerns…yes, it still amazing me how many "internet professionals" come out of the woodwork every single time. My point is this is the "game on cocksuckers" debate all over again on here. Some of you (and you know who you are), actually started doubting Chloe's acting abilities because of that single take of a scene that was clearly very rough in the final cut process. I see that's happening all over again (just at a different degree) this time. My point it, that's very poor form and you should have learned your lesson from "game on cocksuckers". Chloe is an actress, and she's being directed towards certain facial expressions as well. She's not the only one in charge of this. The director is going to continue taking cuts of the scene until SHE gets what she was looking for. Don't ever forget that. Kimberly will take the feedback and either cut the scene entirely, or use a different take from it. Just have confidence in how this process works and don't by so cynical all the time (not you in particular, but others again know who they are).

 Anonymous (1155) 17154

>>17153
>My point is this is the "game on cocksuckers" debate all over again on here
i wasn't here for that so i wouldn't know
again sorry
i'll keep my cocerns to myself in the future and just enjoy the trailer for what it is and enjoy the movie when that comes out

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17155

>>17153
typos everywhere, oh well you should still be able to get the point, and again most of it wasn't pointed at you in particular in case you didn't notice, so don't take personally please.

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17156

>No, by all means voice your concerns
>sorry i'll keep my cocerns to myself in the future
face palms everywhere. okay bro

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17157

>>17153
Just because it's a bad line / facial expression is not a guarantee it will be removed in the final version. Take a look at that horrible scene in TKF.

I would voice my concerns on kimberly perice's FB page but I can't comment for some reason.
I don't into FB

 Anonymous (1155) 17158

File: 1365362734423_chloe_moretz_david_lavene_photoshoot_33.jpg (3.16 MB, 2756x4134)

>>17156
i'm glad we've reached an understanding on the matter

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17159

>>17157
Please refresh my memory on which "horrible" scene you are referring to in TKF?

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17160

>>17159
the one in the police station ("what did I do?")
that stood out to some people (I've read a review that mentioned it, paddy did too, so did I)

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17161

>>17160
I don't remember it bothering me, but I'll re-watch later and see. That scene wasn't in the trailer though so there wasn't an outlet for feedback in that regard. My point is voice your concerns, but ffs 1 bad scene out of 100 should not turn a chlobro into a raving madness questioning if Chloe is indeed a good actress. She's giving the director what they want #1 (the should have some blame in it too) so knowing what she's capable of from, you know, all the other great stuff she's put out, should be enough to keep your confidence in HER abilities at very high levels I would think.

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17162

>>17161
I have plenty of confidence in her abilities. I know she can play strong, witty, charming, menacing, cunning, powerful, witty characters. But I don't know if she can play subtle, more introvert ones.

Here's what I also know (or am more than certain of): her level of self confidennce is through the roof. Ever since kick-ass and let me in her career skyrocketed. She has been in movies with world renowed directors, she has been on magazine covers and photoshoots, people tell her left and right just how beautiful and talented she is. How could that not give her a tremendous amount of confidence? And that is usually great, except that for this role she has to lose that and I don't know if she can. It's pretty much a part of who she is.

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17163

>>17162
>except that for this role she has to lose that and I don't know if she can. It's pretty much a part of who she is.
Any actor who can't isn't a very good actor, quite honestly…She's an outstanding actress, and I know it's possible. I gave you an example of TKF as proof she can, you countered by complaining about a single scene that I wasn't even referring to when making that example. I'm sorry, but I don't know where else to go with this because it's beyond pointless now.

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17164

>>17163
> I gave you an example of TKF as proof she can
where? I missed it

>you countered by complaining about a single scene that I wasn't even referring to when making that example.

I did what?
I just gave an example of a bad delivery that still made it in the movie, as proof that just because it's bad, doesn't mean we will get cut off and replaced by a different take

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17165

>>17164
>where? I missed it
>>17143

tfw you don't even read my replies -_-

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17166

>>17165
I thought you were talking about a scene in particular. I'll giver her scenes in TKF another look but I don't think any of them required her to be as emotionally vulnerable as carrie.

Like I said two scenes in the current trailer look pretty poor but maybe the new one will improve things, just like with kick-ass 2

 Anonymous (1155) 17167

>>17166
i actually really like the scene at 0:35 i feel it captures a complete innocence / pure benignity that if reflected in other scenes to could really elicite greater ammounts of sympathy from the audience
i think it almost appears like she's too simple, unassuming or benign to take a great deal of offense from what happened which could possible further hammer home that she really does not deserve to be treated as she is]but fuck it they'll probs just remove that moment too

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17168

>except that for this role she has to lose that and I don't know if she can. It's pretty much a part of who she is.
IF this is the case as you say it could be, She will never be an Oscar worthy actress. She will be destined to becoming another Dave Vecsio playing similar characters that he creates from real-life experiences. There's nothing wrong with that type of acting, but hollyweird see what i did thar? is full of them and the ability to break out of this is what sets the greatest actors apart from the rest. That's why I'm so at odds with what you are suggesting, because I believe this is NOT the case with Chloe. She's shown the ability and the desire to chose characters that do NOT mimic her life experiences and she's done very good at them so far. There's even glimpses of a very broken girl in Let Me In, followed by blind killing rage when her "monster" is unleashed kinda similar to what happens to carrie no? so even if you can't see it in TKF you should at least be able to see it in LMI. There's no 1 for 1 example, but there's enough evidence to prove it's possible if you are a skeptic.

 Anonymous (1155) 17169

>>17167
although then again she does need to take some degree of offense / hurt on board to warrant the whole tipping point and revenge aspect of her character

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17170

>>17168
>IF this is the case as you say it could be, She will never be an Oscar worthy actress.
Well there's this little thing called experience or getting better with time which I'm sure you're familar with so even though she might not be able to play a very vulnerable character now (and I'm not saying she can't, I'm just saying that to me, it's a possibility) she could be able to do so down the line
>There's no 1 for 1 example, but there's enough evidence to prove it's possible if you are a skeptic.

I guess I should give LMI another watch too.
All I know is that I see what I see in the trailer and I really hope that's not representative for the full movie. I really look forward to a second trailer to shed some of the worries away

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17171

>>17167
Thanks, it's kinda what I gathered too. The look of bewilderment and surprise suggested it was probably early on in her discovering these abilities she has. That goes back to me suggesting that because we only see a glimpse of this and we have no idea where in the movie it occurs and what leads up to it that without proper context it's hard to judge her reaction alone.

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17172

>>17167
>>17171
I'm curious what the other people here think about that scene (in a very objective manner if possible)

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17173

>>17170
and that epic deleted lmi scene too… all of that sorrow and regret from what she has been forced to become…brb crying in a pillow nao ;_;

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17174

>>17173
I know she can do the "loud" type of horrified (as evident in the locker room too)
I'm worried about the more subtle ones

 Anonymous (1155) 17175

>>17171
0:35 isn't the bed scene ( assuming you thought it was )
it's when she forgets to bring her fav poem to class or some shit
but what you say about surprise does kind of pertain to the 0:35 moment too

also i was thinking about what you said in regard of them putting a certain cut in the trailer to test the waters on it
why bother doing this at all if they do in fact have better takes of the scene, surely they wouldn't leave it in if they saw it as bad and had superior takes just because no one passed a remark on the trailer to confirm their thoughts on the scene
just put the best take in everytime surely, they have eyes and ears too

 tvshaman!lhWKbMXRXI 17176

File: 1365368846875_hurrrrr6.jpg (68.48 KB, 450x614)

You guys should go to Never Ending Debate thread

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17177

>>17174
I'm talking about the moments before and after the "flashback" that owen sees… look at her eyes LOOK and die inside ;_;
Watch her eyes as she visits her dying father at the hospital. When she first arrives and peers in the window and places her hands on the glass. Watch her eyes and they fill with tears and tell me that doesn't move you. Watch the moments before that when she visits the lobby of the hospital with concern for her "father" as she speaks with the nurse, watch her eyes. Observe her quiet broken look in TKF when she stands off in the corner as the police officer questions the girl in the orphanage. You want to see subtle moments like that, but you seem to overlook them. I can't get those moments out of my head, it's during all of those moments that Chloe has moved me so much. She has a magical ability to act through her eyes in a way that I have seen few are able to do.

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17178

>>17175
You're assuming Kimberly didn't think it's the best of the takes…it happens, you prefer one, but everyone else prefers another. Just like the the "game on cocksuckers" that got bitched about. And again, the entire thing about context since we don't know where in the movie it happens are the moments leading up to it. You can't judge fully without those details either. She might see the feedback and say the same thing: well they don't know the context so this is the best take and we are going with it anyway, they will understand after they see the entire thing, BUT I get what they are saying about the books so let's fix that before we finalize it.

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17179

>>17176
Sorry sir, I know you're lonely so I'll come circle jerk with you in the # thread shortly xD

 Anonymous (1b4a) 17180

File: 1365369940199.jpg (790.47 KB, 3080x2053)

>>17177
Those exact moments you described and a few others are what made me love Chloe. She plays so many different characters and does them all so well. Abby still has to be my favorite though.

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17181

>>17180
Yes, Abby is a very multilayered character. I often observe people missing this when they describe her as this monster that uses people. I know when I hear this that they missed the most subtle parts of Chloe's performance in that roll. Abby has a demonic side that is very strong and in your face when you see it, but watch closely at other times and you will witness the broken sad hopeless Abby that was forced to be such a creature so early in life. She was robbed of a childhood, robbed of falling in love and growing old with someone, robbed of living the life she deserved. 'She does it because she has to, to survive.' …to survive. Abby survives, she doesn't "live". Just like the moment in Wall-E where the captain said "but I don't what to survive, I want to LIVE". Abby was robbed of that, she will never have it. That's a crushing reality of her character and she's as much a victim as the people she feeds from.

 Anonymous (80ef) 17182

>>17162
You might find yourself able to believe her to be an introvert if you just stop thinking of her as 'strong etc etc' before watching the movie.

 Anonymous (80ef) 17183

>>17182
And by that I mean, just not looking at her enough to clear your preconceptions of her.

 canabel (a4ce) 17184

so basically i don't have to go watch it in theatres anymore..

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17185

>>17182
it's no preconception
I see her not being that vulnerable / broken down in some of the scenes and I'm guessing it could be caused by what I said

I'll keep my worries until a new trailer will hopefully clear them

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17186

>>17185
>I see her not being that vulnerable / broken down in some of the scenes
Sorry bro, but this is kinda like a duh moment here: They have said they are going back and bringing Carrie closer to the source material how many times? lots of times Chloe is playing the 'book' Carrie, and I think you are spending too much time comparing what you saw to the 'Sissy' Carrie from the original movie which was a much more meager and weak version than in the book. The book Carrie starts becoming more confident as her abilities grow and she begins to enjoy her powers more and more in what could be described as rather sinister even.

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17187

>>17186
I get what you're saying but
"I'll keep my worries until a new trailer will hopefully clear them"

And yes, I worry about this. She has two movies coming up and it will be make or break time for her to a certain extent.

She will be compared to spacek who got an oscar for her performance so she already has big shoes to fill. Not only that but she doesn't have that creepy factor or doesn't look weird or plain so she's starting with a handicap.

It's her first [major] leading role and if she doesn't shine in this then her career that has been constantly growing since kick-ass might not grow to the next level, like we were all hoping

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17188

>but "I'll keep my worries until a new trailer will hopefully clear them"

So you are comparing her to Spacec already, well like I said, it's a major mistake to compare the rolls 1 for 1. There are not using that as inspiration for this reprisal thankfully. You are spending all your time worrying about WHY the new movie doesn't feel the same as the first movie when it's been very clear for months now that they are not using the first movie as source material at all. I'm pretty confident in saying that Chloe's Carrie didn't even use much of the Sissy performance as inspiration either. They are going back and using the book. The first movie is flawed in many ways because of the liberties that were taken in spite of the book and the book as a different Carrie than the first movie. The first movie won awards, but I don't think if it were released that way today that it would have. It got critical acclaim at the time because it broke away from what was expected in the horror genre at the time. Let me repeat this a different way: I believe the first movie's success was more about timing than it was about
it being something truly spectacular. The original book is a masterpiece, and there was too many liberties taken with the first movie that went against it in ways I find unacceptable.

But yes, keep doubting all you want, because I know you will regardless until you decide on your own.

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17189

>>17188
Chloe's Carrie needs to be better than the original. It needs to do the book version of the character justice this time around. You are making major mistakes by continuing to compare the two movies, I'll repeat that until I am blue in the face. I don't care about the awards of the first movie. This is a new take on the BOOK, not on that movie. Go read the book if reading books is your thing, but for the love of gob stop comparing this to the old movie. There will be people that can't see past this, don't be one of those fools. This movie needs to stand on it's own, and I think it will.

 Anonymous (1d5b) 17190

Yes, she will be compared to Sissy Spacek which is like comparing David Spade to Al Pacino. From the countless comments I've seen on other sites, that's the main issue. And it doesn't matter that this is closet to the book than the original,

I, too, had a problem with that initially. Face it, a lot of people just can't and won't be able to take Chloe's portrayal serious. I know you don't like that I've said so just because you don't like other people's opinions, however, this is coming from a sincere point of view. No trolling; there's already enough of those on here and I'm not part of that ratio.

You will see for yourself; when the movie is released both fans young and older will be making said comparisons, and they will criticize Chloe's performance with seething scrutiny.

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17191

>There will be people that can't see past this, don't be one of those fools
>don't be one of those fools

 Minner Burris (ea5e) 17192

First set aside the first film as a film. It was handsomely mounted in a film fan of Hitchcock sense, but disjointed, jumping in tone from 'Grease' to Tennessee Williams and then back to' West Side Story' and then to 'The Exorcism'. It was great fun but uneven. The Thing was Those 2 Women. Wow.

Then, there is a problem here. If you say "Don't compare the actresses as actresses" then you must compare Chloe to Carrie in the book.

If you compare Chloe as we have seen here as Carrie, she, for all her set-upon sadness, is physically really lovely. Carrie in the book was unlovely. Not ugly, but blotched and ungainly. Surprising her mom in the book was originally really pretty, but like a lot of sexually assaulted people, she had retreated into fat.

Chloë isn't being the Carrie of the book, she is, as is rightful, the Carrie of the film. This film.

But instead of saying "This Carrie is closer to the book" we should be really saying ""This Carrie focuses on the important battle of female wills with her mother"

This may be a chick movie in the best sense. It may have even more depth than the King novel in this sense. But that would be a challenge because the book was a compact marvel to getting both sides of everyone. But it won't be "closer to the book" in the depiction of the women as he saw them.

If that is the case, the good stuff would never make it to a trailer, it wouldn't be "oh wow" unless you were following the story. As they say… it remains to be seen.

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17193

>>17192
When I say closer to Carrie from the book, I am talking about not her physical character look, but in the sense of how she acts and reacts to situations, her personality, etc.. The Sissy Carrie also didn't look anything like the book Carrie either btw, but she also was characterized very differently too. My point being that I don't think they used the Sissy performance as a study guide on how Chloe should develop her character. I think we see from that trailer that they wiped the slate clean and went right back to the book and developed it from there. I think that shows in the trailer. Let's not get into the debate again about how beautiful girls can't be bullied. This is a modern take on the story, read above you if don't believe it's possible and see the video with a girls take on that very subject. Pretty girls get bullied all the time these days, it's very believable and it's not uncommon. Her looks will not be an issue.

 GG!a3dKSVA5Rc 17194

>>17190
>Yes, she will be compared to Sissy Spacek which is like comparing David Spade to Al Pacino.
Except no one ever said david spade is a good actor while she received a lot of praise for her performances

>I know you don't like that I've said so just because you don't like other people's opinions, however, this is coming from a sincere point of view. No trolling; there's already enough of those on here and I'm not part of that ratio.

you've done nothing but troll the entire thread so it's absolutely hilarious that's you're trying to come across as "sincere"

 ChloPal!9tIubau9Co 17195

File: 1365615041580_3.jpg (61.88 KB, 480x270)

UUUuuuu yeah

 Drunkën Mastür!No.7//JDvE 17196

File: 1365639230358_vlcsnap-2013-04-10-20h04m22s151.png (1.49 MB, 1920x816)

For those that want the best quality available..

Apple Trailers 1080p Carrie Trailer
- Higher quality than yahoo trailer I shared earlier
- No 'Yahoo! Trailers' watermark! or any watermarks

https://mega.co.nz/#!EU0iGaRJ!HzOtFHvFAxY05FgJD2YDNFdG6GBihN72bdD0-TY6Ay4

 Anonymous (0577) 17197

File: 1365980246647_s1.reutersmedia.jpg (19.15 KB, 320x320)

To make the 'cute girls Can't be BUULLLIED' crowd shut up forever:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/13/us-usa-california-suicide-idUSBRE93C01M20130413

 Anonymous (1b4a) 17198

>>17197
Having pictures of your sexual assault circulated don't really apply to Carrie. It's just as likely, more likely, that girl was very popular.

 Anonymous (0577) 17199

>>17198
The point is, she's pretty and isn't spared-unlike what people say otherwise (She is so pretty she would never be bullied).

 Anonymous (1b4a) 17200

>>17199
I think you're using "bullied," too broadly. She wasn't "bullied," at all in any traditional sense, just in the "We're concerned mothers and we're going to call any bad thing that happens bullying because it's a term we can rally behind," sense. She killed herself out of embarrassment and frustration. It's not even an applicable example.

 Anonymous (0577) 17201

>>17200
I consider circulation of images and the subsequent 'humorous' remarks made toward her forms of bullying. I'm using the term aptly.

Why even bring up 'traditional bullying' whatever that's supposed to be? The world is different and as such human interaction changes as well.

I can't really stand people that shift blame like this, especially when the crux of the argument is that the bullying wasn't 'old style' like you remember back in the day.

 Anonymous (0577) 17202

>>17200
Also, she killed herself out of frustration and embarassment… What do you think caused it? It's not like she did something that no one knew or talked about, but then decided to kill herself shortly after.

 Anonymous (0577) 17203

>>17200
God, this thread is seriously a retard magnet.

 Anonymous (1b4a) 17204

File: 1366048574728.jpg (181.92 KB, 500x680)

>>17203
I know what you mean. Trying to talk about Carrie and then people like this guy >>17201 show up.

 HouseEunuch (fcf1) 17205

>>17200
Bullying does not necessarily have to be physical in nature; most often the goal is to taunt, embarrass and humiliate the victim, which is exactly what was intended by spreading those images via social media. In several recent cases - Audrie Pott and Rehtaeh Parsons to name two - the humiliation of having the images of their rapes uploaded to social media by the animals who assaulted them was compounded by then having girls join in by mocking them, accusing them of being sluts, and laughing at their pain and suffering. The definition of bullying has been broadened since social media has made it more pervasive, insidious, and widespread than ever. In the past once you got home from school you were safe from your tormentors, at least for the evenings and weekends; now with Facebook, twitter, etc. the abuse and cruelty can continue nonstop 24/7 - their is no escape or safe, neutral ground.

And as these poor girls clearlyshow the notion that only ugly girls are bullied is counterintuitive and absurd; teenage girls will not target a fellow classmate DESPITE the fact that she is pretty - they will specifically target her BECAUSE she is pretty, and hence competition that thing that teenage girls think about only once, and that is continuously….boys. A girl who is a socially awkward loner and unattractive need not fear the wrath of the ''tribe" beyond the occasional taunt because she is not regarded as competition for the available males and hence not a threat - her punishment is simply to be ostracized from the "in crowd" and left to function on the outskirts of the social scene as a barely noticed outcast. But Chloe Grace's Carrie is something quite different - the perfect storm to drive the other girls into a frenzy; an outsider with no allegiance to the group dynamic and social order who is so beautiful that even the plainest of clothes and no makeup cannot detract from her - in fact her shy awkwardness and unique appearance would likely draw the boys to her, especially when compared to the cabal of snooty, narcissistic "fashionistas" who rule the roost. The idea that girls will viciously target a classmate for being fat or having acne is a quaint fanciful notion; the kind of hate Carrie engenders is because her beauty and offbeat charm is potential competition. I know if I was sitting in class with a group of insufferable bitches and suddenly saw an awkward, meek Chloe Grace look up at me, bless me with a warm gentle smile, and then look shyly away - I would be absolutely smitten. This potential scenario is why the other girls would target, abuse and bully her, and if you don't believe it take the time to check out the news - girl on girl bullying is an epidemic with a tragic list of victims that grows by the week. If there was ever a film remake that was timely and spoke to current worries and concerns then Carrie is that movie; with its themes of bullying (especially girl on girl), religious fundamentalism run amok, and teens spewing out violent retribution to their school ground tormentors this story is, sadly, far more relevant today than it was in the 70es, speaking directly to this generations worst fears and shared weaknesses…..can't wait for October.

 Anonymous (0577) 17206

>>17204
I'm actually talking about you… Jesus. Confirmed the point at least.

 Anonymous (1b4a) 17207

>>17206
What, why?

 Anonymous (0577) 17208

>>17207
All of this.

I think you're using "bullied," too broadly. She wasn't "bullied," at all in any traditional sense, just in the "We're concerned mothers and we're going to call any bad thing that happens bullying because it's a term we can rally behind," sense. She killed herself out of embarrassment and frustration. It's not even an applicable example.

I already wrote what I felt.

The point is that there isn't some kind of easy category for who gets bullied. And there are plenty of real life examples with much diversity. That's it.

 Anonymous (1b4a) 17209

>>17208
A reasonable response is retarded? What's with the name calling at people trying to talk with you?

That's bullying.

 Anonymous (0577) 17210

>>17209
Your response consisted of :

>"That's not traditional bullying!"


>"She just couldn't handle it! Her fault for being assaulted, then being mad about it."


You don't even bother responding in an intelligent way and instead try to twist the meaning of the key word here.

Obviously the bullying in the article is in the form of harassment to the point of emotional distress. If I traced your IP, got your facebook, then proceeded to get loads of people to harass you, then yeah that would be more closely related to the bullying in the article. I can't believe I have to spell out the difference.

Again, confirming the point. Expecting something like "why so mad" very soon. Don't bother.

 Anonymous (1b4a) 17211

>>17210
It seems like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing here. Pictures circulate because that's the nature of scandalous pictures. It isn't necessary for any bullying to be involved. And never said it was her fault either, I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Your hostility is really confusing.

The story is that she was sexually assaulted then pictures of the assault got around. She killed herself because she was embarrassed and frustrated that nothing was being done. The entire school knew about it and she said herself she felt her life was ruined. So she committed suicide.

All irrelevant anyway since the point was there is no connection between the article posted and what happens with Carrie. It's a Carrie thread, remember?

 Pretty Piranhas Minner Burris (d808) 17212

The (hard for me) to understand heartlessness teen girls have towards their own and the obliviousness to the feeling of others or respect for girls on the part of boys both reflect a kind of sociopathic mode teens can get into. The "shower scene" and "mean girls" situation for Chloe's characters and this girl's tragedy all have that in the background. Looks issues and whatever your definition of "bullying" is all stem from that. I don't remember kids being generally that unfeeling in High School. But one girl was obese and pig faced, a true genetic cruel joke. She was officially open season for all attacks all through high school. Do kids naturally pick one at the attack object of all their anxiety? I think looks are only 1 "permission trigger". Any stupid thing can hang the "hit me" sign on your back. I be jealousy can make Chloe a target with girls her age. Carrie's big "hit back- hit back harder than you think you can" scene will always satisfy a need in both boys and girls.


Delete Post []
This site is for a more mature audience
That doesn’t mean you have to be over 18 to post here, it just means that some of the jokes and language here might not be suitable to a more prude or young crowd.
back to index
[ chloe ] [ photoshoots / photo sets / movies ] [ offtopic ] [ site ]