Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Fast & Furious 9

245

Comments



  • Looks like Fast 10 could have 2 parts according to Vin Diesel who in the most recent publication of Total Film said the following.

    “I started planning for Fast 10 before we started filming Fast 9. Very much so. The universe is so robust and so rich with talent and rich with story that, on one level, it’s totally feasible to have spinoffs, and I think that’s something that is inevitable. Universal deserves it because of how much they’ve invested in this little saga, and it’d be good to give back to Universal. And for the fans, should Fast 10 parts one and two be the conclusion, it would be nice for this world to continue for generations to come.”




  • Just call it Fast 11! If they end an 11 film franchise with Fast Ten parts 1 & 2, it will be the stupidest thing this franchise has ever done!




  • FunLover18 wrote: »
    Just call it Fast 11! If they end an 11 film franchise with Fast Ten parts 1 & 2, it will be the stupidest thing this franchise has ever done!

    Exactly, I think they are just trying to copy what Marvel did with Infinity War and Endgame




  • Exactly, I think they are just trying to copy what Marvel did with Infinity War and Endgame

    Everyone seems to do it with everything these days. So many TV series are splitting their final series into two parts. Even Bojack Horseman did it and it's a f*cking cartoon.




  • Penn wrote: »
    Everyone seems to do it with everything these days. So many TV series are splitting their final series into two parts. Even Bojack Horseman did it and it's a f*cking cartoon.

    I don't mind it so much with series because with network shows there's usually a mid season break, with bingeable shows like Bojack it also spreads out the series. I don't see the MCU as a traditional numeric franchise and things like Hunger Games and Harry Potter, they actually split source material into two parts but the Fast franchise is just a series of films, there's no predetermined reason why they have to stop at 10. I don't mind telling a story across to sequels but call them 10 and 11, don't do 10 Parts 1 and 2, it's completely idiotic.


  • Advertisement


  • Wow a whole year release delay




  • 11 movies. And still no one has been brought to justice for stealing those VCRs.




  • I still don't get why he named the kid after the guy sleeping with his sister.


  • Advertisement






  • Did that car intentionally go on its side through a building, into a truck?




  • CastorTroy wrote: »
    Did that car intentionally go on its side through a building, into a truck?
    I would guess it was somehow hooked and reeled in in fulfillment of some ludicrously intricate plan. It seems difficult to explain it otherwise even with movie physics.




  • I haven't watched the trailer but how many times does someone mention "family"?




  • pixelburp wrote: »
    I haven't watched the trailer but how many times does someone mention "family"?

    Surprisingly nobody does. Fast Family is mentioned in text though




  • Surprisingly nobody does. Fast Family is mentioned in text though

    Yeah, watched it there now; 9 movies in it feels redundant to even pass comment on the production at this stage ... but I'm always a little taken aback at how lazy and CGI-ridden the stuntwork is. Fadó fadó in ancient Hollywood, that car smashing through the store-fronts would either have been a (big)miniature or a real, practical stunt using compressed air or whatnot.

    But like I said, it's one of the most successful blockbuster franchises on the planet so what do I know :D




  • Just watched the trailer for this and I pissed myself laughing the whole way through, I would love to go see it in the cinema and laugh the whole way through it. Between the acting, the stunts, the plot its so bad its hilarious.




  • pixelburp wrote: »
    Yeah, watched it there now; 9 movies in it feels redundant to even pass comment on the production at this stage ... but I'm always a little taken aback at how lazy and CGI-ridden the stuntwork is. Fadó fadó in ancient Hollywood, that car smashing through the store-fronts would either have been a (big)miniature or a real, practical stunt using compressed air or whatnot.

    But like I said, it's one of the most successful blockbuster franchises on the planet so what do I know :D
    Funnily enough, I just saw a clip from Justin Lin on that stunt and it is, in fact, practical. Just touched up (badly) with CGI.




  • Tazzimus wrote: »
    Funnily enough, I just saw a clip from Justin Lin on that stunt and it is, in fact, practical. Just touched up (badly) with CGI.

    That's ... actually kind of amazing. Notwithstanding the fact trailer CGI can be work-in-progress, the entire moment looked utterly fake. Do you have the clip, cos I kinda don't believe you :D;)




  • pixelburp wrote: »
    That's ... actually kind of amazing. Notwithstanding the fact trailer CGI can be work-in-progress, the entire moment looked utterly fake. Do you have the clip, cos I kinda don't believe you :D;)
    I had to watch it a few times to believe they actually did it :pac:
    The CGI is very noticeable so you'd hope it gets refined a bit for the film.

    https://twitter.com/justinlin/status/1358563199948230656


  • Advertisement


  • It's mad to think the first movie was about street racing and heisting trucks full of VCR's, and it somehow it evolved into "people who are good at driving cars save the world from nuclear apocalypse".

    I enjoy them, but they are almost in the territory of being so absurdly bad they're good.




  • Tazzimus wrote: »
    I had to watch it a few times to believe they actually did it :pac:
    The CGI is very noticeable so you'd hope it gets refined a bit for the film.

    https://twitter.com/justinlin/status/1358563199948230656

    Ah, that's interesting. If I'm right, and having watched it a couple of times: looks like during the first phase of the stunt, the car flops back down as its pulled through the shop. Whereas the actual crash into the truck is done with another prop already on a track. The CGI then must be stitching those two phases together - but the car is reduced to a full CGI creation 'cos the real ones don't match up. Was wondering why the car looked so fake, yet apparently real in situ...

    It's funny 'cos Fury Road had hundreds of CGI shots in the final feature, but mostly either colour grading or removing wires & tracks. The CGI cars in F&F have always looked super fake though, so not that convinced things will be any better in the final film...




  • pixelburp wrote: »
    Ah, that's interesting. If I'm right, and having watched it a couple of times: looks like during the first phase of the stunt, the car flops back down as its pulled through the shop. Whereas the actual crash into the truck is done with another prop already on a track. The CGI then must be stitching those two phases together - but the car is reduced to a full CGI creation 'cos the real ones don't match up. Was wondering why the car looked so fake, yet apparently real in situ...

    It's funny 'cos Fury Road had hundreds of CGI shots in the final feature, but mostly either colour grading or removing wires & tracks. The CGI cars in F&F have always looked super fake though, so not that convinced things will be any better in the final film...
    They also used CGI on the truck to make it move more with the impact of the car.
    It's actually probably 60/40 going by how heavy handed they are with the CGI.




  • Homelander wrote: »
    It's mad to think the first movie was about street racing and heisting trucks full of VCR's, and it somehow it evolved into "people who are good at driving cars save the world from nuclear apocalypse".

    I enjoy them, but they are almost in the territory of being so absurdly bad they're good.

    Ah the original isn't that old and was a bit more high tech. They were dvd players, not VCRs. :pac:




  • They actually were VCR's! This is a still from the movie.

    06d87vM.jpg




  • The script says both. I guess that makes sense, given when it was made.




  • My bad. It's been a while but was sure I heard them say DVD players. Or maybe just heard/read ones saying the same about going from stealing dvd players to superspies.






  • Advertisement


  • It looks bonkers and I am sad there is basically no chance I will get to see this in the cinema when it comes out.


Advertisement