Chill everybody, it's Howard The Duck. No need to try and change anybodys mind about it. There are people out there that think a recent best picture winner like "Crash" is probably the worst movie ever made. Or any movie that has ever won a best picture Oscar. They may not truly mean it, but there are people like that.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=235044 ;)

But the Skeleton Man can single handedly take out helicopters with his trusty bow and arrow. :hscratch:

:lol:

Maybe because this is a Howard the Duck thread. :rolleyes:

thing-fish24, this is a classic example of a threadcrap. I'd highly suggest that you step out of this thread and stay out of it. Additional posts like this may result in administrative action.

It's been so long since I've seen this movie, I think I was a kid at the time. The main thing I remember is Lea Thompson back when she was hot climbing onto the bed with Howard in her underwear. I'd buy it just for that!

Deleting my last post is a classic example of assholeism. Did you actually take a look at what I said before you censored my post? I made a very valid point (are we going to demonize posters for saying that Ed Wood movies are bad?).

It's tough to use a message board when moderators make ridiculous decisions like this. I was stating a valid opinion. This is different from going into a Citizen Kane thread and calling it "cinema's biggest mistake" (especially since this is Howard the Duck).

In my The Little Shop of Horrors thread, there were several posts that could be considered threadcraps, yet no one responded to them. However, when I attack Howard the Duck, the censors are called in to 'sanitize' the thread? Did I miss something?

:goodbye:

Are my posts too intelligent for you? :rolleyes:

Let's see... Original post:

Your response:

Yep, that is too intelligent for everyone.

It's "your," not "you're."

Thank you. I have corrected my mistake.

Well, on the bright side, you're not going to need to worry about your posts getting deleted anymore, methinks.

My only memories of Howard the Duck from when I saw it in the theater as a child: A guy in a terrifying "duck" costume (possibly off-yellow?) looking at pictures of a girl in an only slightly less terrifying naked duck costume. Did he fight a dragon or something? Man, my memories of this movie are freakin' weird.

Since someone mentioned Harry and the Hendersons, my memory of that involves Chewbacca running through the woods.

Man, to be a kid again, when nothing made sense, but in a good way...

I second that one. Pretty much every post I've seen this guy make is just saying how much something sucks.

You still don't get it.

You are talking about the quality (or lack of) of a MOVIE. We have the Movie Talk forum for discussions of the merits of a MOVIE.

This forum (and thread) is discussing the DVD of a movie. Now if you had said "I really don't like this movie, so I would probably not be interested in a DVD release" would have been fine.

The only thing I remember about this movie is Jeffrey Jones talking like he has something in his throat, and Howard has a duckie condom in his wallet. I'd always cringe at that part when watching it, because my Mom might come in the room.

Of the cheesy movies I enjoyed as a kid, most of those do not hold up very well. Battle Beyond the Stars is a classic example of this (great to a kid, but horrible to an adult). Howard the Duck wasn't terrible, nor was it great. I do feel they should have stuck with more what the original comics were about rather than trying to make it like ET in the end (where he "dies" then comes back to life). Did Steve Gerber have any input at all in this movie? Of all the 80's movies that need a genuine "reimagining," I'd list this at the top, because Howard the Duck could be great. It'd have to be at least pg-13, if not R to be truly great, but great nonetheless.

That said, there is no reason this should not come to DVD, and with a healthy dose of bonus features. If Supergirl can get a two disc special edition, we need one here as well. I recall so many specials on TV about this movie (yes, it was over hyped), not to mention the music video, and I am sure there are other things in the vault they could put on the DVD.

It's just Howard, it's a completely harmless film. It's up to Universal.

Does anyone know why they had to use something like 6 or 7 actors to portray the duck? It seems odd. Obviously they hired someone to do the voice, but why not just one guy in the suit?

I don't know the real answer but is it possible they used children because of their size? If so, there are labor laws regarding how long they can work.

Harmless except for the fact that talking animals go against what God says in the bible.

That's exactly what the movie was like. That wasn't your twisted kid imagination.

BTW, some moron suspended my account. Who did I offend, other than people who do not think in a rational and intelligent manner?

You haven't seen a single one of my posts!