movie dna



anonymous asked:

Be honest, what do you prefer Guardians versions the most? DnA's or MCU/Gunn's

DnA’s but I can still appreciate Gunn’s and I see a little bit of the DnA characters in his some of his interpretation of said characters (he did base his movie off DnA’s GotG and had Abnett and Lanning read the script for the first movie).

I might say I probably prefer Gunn’s Groot over DnA’s (who was mostly just there) but if I had to chose my Groot I would choose Giffen’s over both of theirs because I liked his proud prince personality.

Heck even with Gamora I liked Starlin’s Gamora better than both Giffen’s, DnA’s and Gunn’s Gamora (and I don’t hate any of those Gamoras).

Also I already saw vol. 2, writing my thoughts on it but it’s long and I’ve been lazy. I will say that vol 2 kind of felt like it could have been a DnA GotG story (they fight a big cosmic threat, it’s more than the Guardians can chew and they barely make it, high stake, there are grave consequences, characters learn and grow) and the Ego and Peter story had a lot of emotion and it showed Pratt can do more than just comedy (he does anger, anguish and pain very well).

After Shah Rukh and Aamir, Salman to have 2 heroines in his upcoming dance movie; who are they?

Shah Rukh Khan and Aamir Khan’s upcoming movies have two heroines and now, Salman Khan follows their path. The Sultan actor will reportedly romance two Bollywood actresses in his upcoming dance-centred movie, which will be directed by Remo D'Souza.

While SRK will be seen with Anushka Sharma and Katrina Kaif in Aanand L Rai’s movie, Aamir will share screen space with Fatima Sana Shaikh and Katrina in Thugs of Hindostan.

More from IBTimes India: ICC Champions Trophy 2017: Pakistan vs Sri Lanka team news and confirmed playing XI

The recent buzz is that Salman will appear alongside his Kick partner Jacqueline Fernandez and Jai Ho co-star Daisy Shah in the dance movie. According to DNA, Jacqueline has already been signed up and Daisy is being considered for the other leading actress’ role.

It looks like Salman has decided to work with the actresses who he mentored to build their Bollywood careers. He will be seen with Katrina Kaif in Tiger Zinda Hai and then, Jacqueline and Daisy in his upcoming film.

More from IBTimes India: Formula One live streaming: Watch Canadian Grand Prix 2017 live online and on TV

In Remo D'Souza’s movie (which is not ABCD 3), Salman will play a father to a 13-year-old. A source had earlier told DNA: “Salman and his daughter need to compete for a dance championship. Jackie plays the role of their dance teacher who helps them learn the ropes of different styles of dance forms.”

Jackie’s presence in the movie has not been confirmed yet, but her response to whether she is a part of the flick clears the air. When asked if the Kick actress is actually going to be in Salman’s movie, Jacqueline told Press Trust of India: “Fingers crossed. Pray for me.”

Meanwhile, Jacqueline is shooting for David Dhawan’s Judwaa 2, which is a remake of Salman’s Judwaa. She will feature in the remake along with Varun Dhawan and Taapsee Pannu.

Watch Salman Khan’s upcoming movie Tubelight’s trailer:

Related Articles

It’s funny because in Jurassic World, the in-universe explanation for why they need an Indominus Rex is pretty much the exact same failing Jurassic World had in real life. They address how people are bored of the same old dinosaurs they’ve been exposed to for the past 20-some years, they want to make a new dinosaur to show the people something exciting, but they make something that looks like more of the same old thing they’ve been giving them forever but TO THE MAX. I mean lets be real, if iRex didn’t break out the plot of the movie would have been “new exciting dinosaur turns out to be less exciting than original dinosaurs, ticket sales fail to improve. New attraction receives a 59 metascore on Internet Theme Park Database”.

Whenever someone brings up feathered dinos (even without mentioning Jurassic Park) you inevitably run into two distinct disciplines of Jurassic Park defenders. 1) the school of “they aren’t supposed to have feathers because in the movie they designed the DNA to not have feathers because that’s what the people want to see” and 2) the school of “The only reason we know dinosaurs have feathers now is because the Jurassic Park franchise generated so much interest in paleontology that they made all these new discoveries and as such it’s above criticism”. But when you think about it, 1, no in their universe this is not what the people want to see, the who plot is based on people being bored with the same old dinosaurs. From what we gather, people’s understanding of dinosaurs in JP world has advanced along to reflect real life, the scientists are aware what they are building is based on obsolete preconceptions and are basically just splicing whatever animals they’ve been told will make a marketable attraction at this point and 2, this always strikes me as such a marker of selfish thinking. Like, it always comes from people who loved dinosaurs as kids and want the JP designs to exist like some kind of time capsule for them personally. Like, okay, cool, 20 years ago they took what they knew about dinosaurs at the time, peppered in some artistic liberties, and made something that got people excited about science. If your position is that Jurassic Park movies get people interested in dino science, why do you insist it reverts to YOUR 20-year-old childhood dino imaginings? The Jurassic Park franchise doesn’t need to exist like the portrait of Dino-rian Grey, aging terribly to keep the field of paleontology fresh and youthful.

Anyway, the more I think about it the more I feel like they kind of… Wasted an opportunity to tell a way better story that could have made everyone happy. Like, the script was full of apologies for how dated the dinos look that barely had anything to do with the story. We know THEY know dinosaurs didn’t look like this, we know they choose what they want the dinosaurs to look like based on marketing, and we know the world thinks their dinosaurs are boring and dated. The Indominus Rex was a throwback to an early draft of the story where the military was going to be building human-dinosaur hybrid supersoldiers, but it probably should have just been scrapped all together. They could have EASILY run with the issue they raised about patrons being bored of stale 20-year-old obsolete dinosaurs and the scientists trying to develop more accurate ones. They’d could roll out these new, agile, colourful, plumed feathersaurs to awe the public and then just make the story out of the park being unprepared for how much faster and smarter bird dinosaurs are compared to frog dinosaurs, with the perfunctory all hell breaking loose. You could even keep the whole Chris Pratt raptor squad storyline, say he’s spent so much longer working with the oldschool raptors that he thinks he can use them to reign in the new ones. Basically any scene involving Indominus Rex could be flat out replaced with new dinos VS 20-years-ago dinos. You’d make the people who just want their childhood Jurassic Park monsters on screen happy and bring the audience something fresh and unique that they haven’t seen in a big Hollywood movie before at the same time. Ease the naysayers into the modern world gently and give a new generation their own new dinosaurs to get excited about.

As it was, Indominus Rex was such a weird meta disappointing creature. She pretty accurately reflects how way too many entertainment companies try to freshen up an idea by doing it the same as always, but TO THE EXTREME. Like “hey people are tired of these obsolete old lizard dinos? Well give them the MOST MAXIMUM old lizard looking dino. Get a load of this, it’s not like anything you’ve ever seen before except it’s exactly what you were getting bored of in the first place”.

tldr; the characters in Jurassic World were bored of the dinosaurs in Jurassic World for the exact same reason the audience of Jurassic World was bored of the dinosaurs in Jurassic World.