Hocus Pocus 2 being discussion

[newfan]

Originally Posted by ranger_scout

The movie will debut on Disney+ in 2022. Anne Fletcher will serve as director and Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kathy Najimy will all reprise their roles.

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/s...el-1234977728/

Oh, I thought the idea for this had been written off, guess that changed.

[ranger_scout]

Some plot details on the sequel have been revealed.

https://www.theilluminerdi.com/2021/...cus-2-details/

[Andrew NDB]

Seeking extras in Rhode Island.

https://komonews.com/news/entertainm...n-rhode-island

[ranger_scout]

Hannah Waddingham, Sam, Richardson, and Tony Hale are the newest additions to the cast. Doug Jones is also reprising the role of Billy Butcherson.

https://deadline.com/2021/10/hocus-p...ey-1234865489/

[ranger_scout]

Here is the first look at the three women back in character.



https://deadline.com/2021/11/hocus-p...my-1234872574/

[Mayhem]

Midler doesn't look like she's aged in character there heh.

[ranger_scout]

Filming has wrapped.

https://thedisinsider.com/2022/01/27...wraps-filming/

The movie will premiere on Disney+ this Halloween.

https://deadline.com/2022/01/hocus-p...te-1234872574/

[ranger_scout]

Here is the trailer.

[ranger_scout]

The movie will be released on Disney+ tomorrow. Here are interviews with Midler, Najimy, and Parker.

[oldmanwinters]

I never really thought the original was more than something to toss into a holiday movie marathon but some 30/40 somethings are really into it. I had no idea, but glad they could get their sequel fix 30 years later.

[mrmaczaps]

Pretty terrible over all with a few moderately funny bits... the 3 bitc...witches look well past due... just a cash grab but a woke company peddling kids trying desperately to stay afloat.... nothing to write home about.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

I never really thought the original was more than something to toss into a holiday movie marathon but some 30/40 somethings are really into it. I had no idea, but glad they could get their sequel fix 30 years later.

Yeah, I wasn't a 10-year old girl when the original came out, and so I think it's "okay I guess" but genuinely never understood the obsession some people have over it. And I never for a moment thought there was anything left to ever justify a sequel, other than "Well, nowadays every movie gets a 30 Years Too Late follow-up and that alone seems to be enough to get some people excited for things."

I gotta be honest, I don't hate it or anything but the only thing I ever gave a sh*t about in the original was whatsername with the sweater bags. Who apparently isn't in the new one and so I officially have no reason to care at all.

My wife is one of those SUPER obsessed people, though, so I'm sure she'll force me to see the new one eventually. I have no interest, but I should probably just go along. I once said the first movie was "Eh" and that started a legit "WHY DO YOU HATE EVERYTHING?" fight.

[oldmanwinters]

Other than Bette Midler’s fake teeth, the one song, and SMG’s “amuck,” what makes the first movie especially memorable? Most cult classics have to be at least “quotable” to earn their fanbase.

[Leo656]

The one girl's tits in that sweater were pretty memorable.

Maybe not AS memorable as the fact that they managed to make Sarah Jessica Parker look reasonably attractive for five minutes. That, I must say, must have taken a lot of spackle and duct tape.

Otherwise yeah I got nothin', I really think people do just remember the big musical number and that's that. I know I come off as an elitist dick about 93% of the time but sometimes I truly just don't get how or why some people are so easily amused by some things. It's their business, glad they're happy, I just don't understand it in the slightest. Liking that song or the movie itself is Fine, it's just the obsession I don't get, or how people trip over themselves to illustrate that obsession on social media.

And I do find it maybe more than a little pathetic that a bunch of people who are about to be AARP-eligible are all over social media every October, but this October in particular, gushing loudly about their unironic love of a mediocre children's movie from the Clinton Administration era.

But then October just seems to drive white women nuts in general.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Leo656

The one girl's tits in that sweater were pretty memorable.

Maybe not AS memorable as the fact that they managed to make Sarah Jessica Parker look reasonably attractive for five minutes. That, I must say, must have taken a lot of spackle and duct tape.

Otherwise yeah I got nothin', I really think people do just remember the big musical number and that's that. I know I come off as an elitist dick about 93% of the time but sometimes I truly just don't get how or why some people are so easily amused by some things. It's their business, glad they're happy, I just don't understand it in the slightest. Liking that song or the movie itself is Fine, it's just the obsession I don't get, or how people trip over themselves to illustrate that obsession on social media.

And I do find it maybe more than a little pathetic that a bunch of people who are about to be AARP-eligible are all over social media every October, but this October in particular, gushing loudly about their unironic love of a mediocre children's movie from the Clinton Administration era.

But then October just seems to drive white women nuts in general.

Dang I already forgot it was SJP not SMG.

[Leo656]

I'm pretty sure that the slang insult term "(Woman's Name) looks like a foot" was 100% started by that Family Guy joke about Sarah Jessica Parker, and I gotta say, that's about as accurate of an insult as I've ever heard. It's barely even an exaggeration, draw eyeballs on the sole of someone's foot and stick a blonde wig on there, you have Sarah Jessica Parker, right down to wrinkle placement and skin texture. It's pretty uncanny, actually.

You can tell that the writer/producer of Sex and the City had a weird crush on her, somehow, because that's the only explanation for why she'd ever be portrayed as some kind of sex symbol, especially on any show where Kim Cattrall was like right over there.

[Coola Yagami]

From what I heard, other than overwhelming praise for the movie, I heard a brave few say they ruined the witched by being sympathetic. Even when they literally eat children, women just can't be allowed to be villains because they're ****ing evil anymore.

[Leo656]

To be fair that's true of every villain nowadays, not just female villains. Bad Guys simply are not "allowed" to be bad guys. Everyone has some kind of tragic backstory or are simply "misunderstood", even though in real life Sociopaths and Psychopaths exist and that's the reality.

I blame "Wicked" and its partly why I have no patience for THAT thing, either. That was what started the "every villain is just a Misunderstood Hero" trope, which is not only provably false but a very dangerous message to send to people, especially impressionable young people.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Leo656

To be fair that's true of every villain nowadays, not just female villains. Bad Guys simply are not "allowed" to be bad guys. Everyone has some kind of tragic backstory or are simply "misunderstood", even though in real life Sociopaths and Psychopaths exist and that's the reality.

I blame "Wicked" and its partly why I have no patience for THAT thing, either. That was what started the "every villain is just a Misunderstood Hero" trope, which is not only provably false but a very dangerous message to send to people, especially impressionable young people.

Ahhh but only if the villain isn't white. Then they're just evil cause they're evil and flaunt their misogynistic white privilege and toxic masculinity in your face while mansplaining and manspreading just because.

I remember one of the reasons the Joker movie got 'woke backlash' was because how they dare they make a white villain sympathetic and misunderstood?

[Leo656]

Ehhhh they've been trying to do it with Lex Luthor since "Smallville", too, with the "Daddy didn't love me and that's why I'm a bad person" stuff. Which is a pretty far cry from the Classic Coke flavor "I murdered my parents for the insurance money, not because they were abusive but because I'm selfish, greedy, impatient, and they were simply in my way" Lex Luthor.

Like, in real life MOST of the biggest assholes are simply assholes for no reason, or that they perceive compassion and charity as weakness. Yes, abuse turns good people rotten and it happens often, but the worst people humanity has ever known were always bad. For example, I have traits of a sociopath, but I'm not literally A Sociopath, because I do occasionally have sincere feelings of compassion and empathy. A sociopath can't feel those things at all, ever, as they were not born with the mental capacity to feel them. To them, NOT stealing, raping, or killing makes no sense, because "I want to, so I should be allowed to if I can get away with it."

A character like Lex - at least Evil Businessman Lex - works so much better as a textbook sociopath than as an ignored or abused Daddy's Boy. The latter would actually come by his acts of charity and goodwill honestly, because having been a "less fortunate" he would still have an inkling of compassion for those people and would sincerely want to help them. However we all know that Lex actually only does good things for PR reasons and to puff up his public image. He has zero actual empathy and that's been established. Therefore, he's simply a True Sociopath and just plain bad person, not someone who "broke bad". Joker, too, if you really want to get into it.

This is where I run into a huge disconnect with a lot of Liberals. They will loudly advocate - rightly - for more resources devoted to mental health. But they will ALSO very aggressively deny the notion that "some people are just plain bad people." But this makes no sense, as it is BECAUSE we have more resources than ever before to study and understand mental health that we know, for a fact, that Sociopathy and Psychopathy are real and untreatable conditions, that some people are REALLY bad and all you can do is lock them up or kill them. So they try and have it both ways, push for better understanding of mental health BUT then refute the findings when it turns out those findings are "mean". They will insist that there's no such thing as a "bad person" and that people only do bad things because they were picked on or downtrodden. Even though the mental health resources that they themselves have advocated for prove the exact opposite. It's very strange.

But yeah, can't have Actual Villains in movies and TV shows anymore, even though some people really are villains and don't need any reason beyond they're wired like that. This is why so many women think they're gonna "fix" the boyfriend who cheats on them and gets drunk and hits them, for example. "He's just misunderstood, he's not REALLY a bad person! I saw in a movie how Cruella de Ville is actually a misunderstood super-hero and now I think Real Life works like that." It's very dangerous and irresponsible to put that kind of thing out into the world, frankly. It gets people into real trouble when they think every sociopath they meet is only like that because someone spanked them as a kid or stole their bike or whatever.