|
|
| Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) (795768) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (798922) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 21 12:57:24 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Broadway Buffer on Sat Jun 13 23:45:07 2009. They did the same thing in 1975 when the system was full of grafitti. There were no grafittied trains in the original. The TA would not allow it. |
|
|
| (803724) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 09:31:57 2009, in response to Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 2009. It also went past Shea Stadium on the way to CI.Hahahaha, I saw that, I thought that was hysterical! As for all the other "inconsistencies", I agree to a "railfan", they would be quite noticable, but the truth is, the film is geared to the general public, and they are not going to begin to notice if a "R32" passes on the 6 line..... The truth is, no one cares, and with Hollywood you will always have that stuff. If it was 100% consistent with reality, it would probably be a complete bore to the general public. Just be happy they didn't film it on a soundstage in California somewhere, and have the closing scene on the Golden Gate bridge or something.... :) |
|
|
| (803731) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 09:50:55 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jun 14 19:19:30 2009. This is one big circle....their thread is linked to us, and this thread is linked back to them.... |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (803732) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 09:52:47 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Easy on Sun Jun 14 01:07:22 2009. I saw it the other night, and the theater was over half full, on a weekday night.....and the movie has been out quite a few weeks already, so it seemed about as busy as any other movie. How did it do at the box office? At this point it's probably on it's way out of the theater, it's been out a while |
|
|
| (803733) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 09:53:38 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 21 12:25:36 2009. No, anyone know? it sounds interesting. |
|
|
| (803735) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by d_mind on Thu Jul 2 09:56:56 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 09:50:55 2009. I'm surprised this one didn't turn into a shit-show. |
|
|
| (803745) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 10:14:43 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jun 14 00:57:43 2009. Yeah, looks like 1575 did a cameo there. Heh. Travolta was an embarassment.Yeah, I don't think he was all that good in it. Denzel was great, but I always enjoy his movies. As to the foamy stuff, my own attitude was that it wasn't shot on the LA red line nor in Toronto ... good enough. Yeah, I agree.....that is a HUGE improvement from the 2nd one. I don't personally care if it isn't "true to life", it's a movie for god's sake. The whole premise is unrealistic in real life, even forgetting what trains run on what lines and to where and through where. I don't personally care that you don't "pass Shea Stadium" on your way to Coney Island via the 6 line.... :) I actually kinda like picking out the stations disguised... "Hey, that's Hoyt", "Hey that's Chambers St", etc. And I think they did a good job at the fake abandoned "Roosevelt" station under the Waldorf Astoria. I guess that's a play on that platform under the hotel that the History Channel brought up.... :) The mosaic was well done, but hey, the IND "Roose-velt" signs weren't correct..... The one I own looks like this:  Theirs said: Roos- evelt :) Personally I liked the movie....but I had to throw my railfan thoughts totally to the side to enjoy it.... :) |
|
|
| (803779) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jul 2 11:50:03 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by 1/9 broadway local on Sat Jun 13 00:20:34 2009. B7 yu0 l0z3r |
|
|
| (803781) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jul 2 11:52:43 2009, in response to Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 2009. Pelham "Bay" 1-2-3?Next you'll be telling us that there's really no monorail in Gotham City (from "Batman Begins") and point out all the problems with Spider-Man on the "L" (in Spider-Man II). How dare you spoil it for us . . . |
|
|
| (803799) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 2 12:22:44 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jun 14 00:41:09 2009. I don't think even NYC people would notice stuff like that. Unless the 6 is your train, most people probably wouldn't know. For the most part, most subway riders are only familiar with the lines they take, and have no idea where other lines go.Heck, I rode the A so infrequently that it took me a few years to notice it had cars of two different lengths. |
|
|
| (804281) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Jul 3 17:06:19 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jul 2 09:53:38 2009. I'm pretty sure I bookmarked it but I still can't find it. I'll continue to look.Found this site instead: Don't know if you've seen it. Also may be intersting: http://newyorksubway.blogspot.com/ Also an interesting site: New York in Legos. http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=102673 |
|
|
| (808952) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Jul 14 20:56:16 2009, in response to Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 2009. I didn't mind the transit inaccuracies, since it is, after all, just a movie. What I didn't like was the thin plot, absence of suspense and chemistry between characters, lack of memorable lines, and the fact that Denzel and James Gandolfini were the only actors with anything to do. Oh, and the John Woo camera spinning thing.Did anyone else catch the "6 to Main St Flushing" sign at Grand Central? |
|
|
| (808977) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 14 22:39:09 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Jul 14 20:56:16 2009. I also was disappointed in the movie. It was "okay". Not bad....but certainly nothing great either. If I wasn't "into" the subway, it was an easily forgettable movie. |
|
|
| (808980) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Jul 14 22:44:42 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 14 22:39:09 2009. I also was disappointed in the movie. It was "okay". Not bad....but certainly nothing great either. If I wasn't "into" the subway, it was an easily forgettable movie.If I wasn't into the subway, I probably would have skipped it altogether. I'll buy it just for the foamer value (like Luc Besson's i>Métro) but won't watch it a thousand times like I do the original. |
|
|
| (808982) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Jul 14 22:46:46 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 14 22:39:09 2009. I felt much the same way. I might even have liked it more than you, but it wasn't a movie that left me with lots of memories. I enjoyed it while watching it and agree that it was forgettable.I disagree with the people that hated it. It wasn't bad by any means, but not great either. |
|
|
| (809007) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jul 15 00:07:22 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by Easy on Tue Jul 14 22:46:46 2009. I might even have liked it more than youDon't get me wrong, I far from "disliked" it, but it's just as you said, it wasn't bad by any means, but not great either....it was sort of forgettable, and I probably would have if I didn't "like trains". It's not a movie that makes you leave the theater thinking you had some sort of "experience", and saying "holy crap that was a good movie". It was just a "Ah, that was nice"....and we went to get something to eat and hardly even talked about it.... |
|
|
| (809014) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed Jul 15 00:19:31 2009, in response to Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jul 15 00:07:22 2009. Exactly my sentiments. |
|
|
| (878193) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Dec 26 11:30:15 2009, in response to Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 2009. I got to see a chunk of it on Christmas Eve. As mentioned above, so many inconsistencies to list, but they've been listed already.Then again, the swear words were as frequent as rush hour service on the 6 train. If they took all the violence out of that film, I think it would still have an R rating just for the language. Yes, I'm aware that there's language and violence in the original, but the 2009 remake uses S-, F-, and MF-bombs excessively. I can pretty much take a good guess as to when that final scene with Garber on the train heading home was filmed. April 20, 2008. 
|
|
|
| (923463) | |
Re: Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009) |
|
|
Posted by B1bus on Tue Apr 13 02:26:53 2010, in response to Taking Of Pelham Bay 1-2-3 (2009), posted by peppertree5706 on Fri Jun 12 16:50:06 2009. The Blockbuster store on 86 st /Bay Ridge (next to Nathans) is going out of business, and they had about 10 used copies on sale for $4 a piece. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
