Jump to content

Upcoming Films


Quintus

Recommended Posts

And what is the point of this movie? There was already a book and musical -- Wicked -- that tells how the Wicked Witch of the West becomes so evil growing up in Oz. I fail to see how Maleficent plans to tell any different of a story.

Did Snow White need another updated "cool" version? Does Superman need yet another reboot?

Modern Hollywood mantra: When in doubt or lost for new ideas, you can always rip off or recycle old ones. Just find that new angle.

They should do a LOTR remake, like right now!

Yeah with David Cronenberg at the helm. We could get another round of Howard Shore scores!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what is the point of this movie? There was already a book and musical -- Wicked -- that tells how the Wicked Witch of the West becomes so evil growing up in Oz. I fail to see how Maleficent plans to tell any different of a story.

Did Snow White need another updated "cool" version? Does Superman need yet another reboot?

Modern Hollywood mantra: When in doubt or lost for new ideas, you can always rip off or recycle old ones. Just find that new angle.

They should do a LOTR remake, like right now!

Yeah with David Cronenberg at the helm. We could get another round of Howard Shore scores!

You mean Aragorn being either a drug addict or a sex maniac? Hmm...I think they should Nolanize LotR. I mean darker is the new better! Looking at deep identity crises and daddy issues is soooo in right now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what is the point of this movie? There was already a book and musical -- Wicked -- that tells how the Wicked Witch of the West becomes so evil growing up in Oz. I fail to see how Maleficent plans to tell any different of a story.

Did Snow White need another updated "cool" version? Does Superman need yet another reboot?

Modern Hollywood mantra: When in doubt or lost for new ideas, you can always rip off or recycle old ones. Just find that new angle.

They should do a LOTR remake, like right now!

Yeah with David Cronenberg at the helm. We could get another round of Howard Shore scores!

You mean Aragorn being either a drug addict or a sex maniac? Hmm...I think they should Nolanize LotR. I mean darker is the new better! Looking at deep identity crises and daddy issues is soooo in right now!

Aragorn would get his kicks from seeing people unhorsed in accidents, have a secret past as a hitman for Gondorian mob which would then blow to his family's face and he would also work as an undercover agent to subvert the Mordorian mafia and would be played again by Viggo Mortensen. Also he would dabble in teleporting and transform into a half-king half-fly during RotK.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what is the point of this movie? There was already a book and musical -- Wicked -- that tells how the Wicked Witch of the West becomes so evil growing up in Oz. I fail to see how Maleficent plans to tell any different of a story.

Did Snow White need another updated "cool" version? Does Superman need yet another reboot?

Modern Hollywood mantra: When in doubt or lost for new ideas, you can always rip off or recycle old ones. Just find that new angle.

They should do a LOTR remake, like right now!

Yeah with David Cronenberg at the helm. We could get another round of Howard Shore scores!

You mean Aragorn being either a drug addict or a sex maniac? Hmm...I think they should Nolanize LotR. I mean darker is the new better! Looking at deep identity crises and daddy issues is soooo in right now!

Aragorn would get his kicks from seeing people unhorsed in accidents, have a secret past as a hitman for Gondorian mob which would then blow to his family's face and he would also work as an undercover agent to subvert the Mordorian mafia and would be played again by Viggo Mortensen. Also he would dabble in teleporting and transform into a half-king half-fly during RotK.

And in an inevitable sequel, Arwen would be the lamenting widow. She gave up immortality and an eternal life full of bliss in the Undying Lands to end up with THAT? Poor Arwen... :nopity:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Verhoeven is going to make a film about Jesus of Nazareth. Must see.

When it turns out that isn't even going to follow the myth it becomes even more of a must see. I can't wait.

Messa wanna see thisa filmsa.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, I didn't know they were remaking Robocop 2

Seriously though, that looks really, rally terrible. Unoriginal and cliched and kinda silly. Too bad the trailer didn't tell us the names of the 3 leads, because I didn't recognize any of them. Dredd looked ridiculous in that helmet that was way too big for him, and him doing Bale's Batman voice was laughable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Verhoeven is going to make a film about Jesus of Nazareth. Must see.

When it turns out that isn't even going to follow the myth it becomes even more of a must see. I can't wait.

Messa wanna see thisa filmsa.

Darren Aronofsky will do a film about Noah.

Ridley Scott will do a film about Moses.

Paul Verhoeven will do a film about Jesus.

Who will win? Place your bets here.

I'm not even going to rent that Judge Dredd movie. Not that the previous one was any good either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goldsmith? Dredd? What?

Jerry Goldsmith was originally hired to score Judge Dredd. He only scored the teaser trailer before leaving the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as great as Silvestri's score is I would have loved to hear Goldsmith's take on this, especially based on that teaser trailer music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad the trailer didn't tell us the names of the 3 leads, because I didn't recognize any of them. Dredd looked ridiculous in that helmet that was way too big for him, and him doing Bale's Batman voice was laughable

That man is not Batman....he is Eomer!

Eomer_133.jpg

And Ma-ma was none other than...Cersei Lannister!

Cersei-Baratheon-cersei-lannister-30082347-300-450.jpg

And yes, this film looks like a total piece of garbage that I will probably not bother to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the first one is that it sucked. Now all that suckage is going to extend all over three more unnecesary films.

no it did not. you're wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe we're getting three sequels for this, while John Carter, which was a much more enjoyable film in every way, probably won't even have one sequel. This makes me sick.

I only have to look at the overall design of the film to prefer John Carter over Avatar, and I haven't even seen John Carter. The Tharks are different to the book Tharks but cooler. Quite possible the best Thark designs I've ever seen.

I remember, seeing Avatar, that I wanted to see the blue things anhilated and their place burned to the ground and sowed with salt. I couldn't side with the "villains" either since they were kind of idiotic. So I tried to side with individual characters and then barely found any particular point to take hold. I hated everything. With the exception of the spaceship, I hated everything.

The audience besides me didn't seem to have such problems, though. It was the first day, full of mindless enthusiasm. I guess if I had gone to a different screening I would have seen a different reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe we're getting three sequels for this, while John Carter, which was a much more enjoyable film in every way, probably won't even have one sequel. This makes me sick.

John Carter, while enjoyable is no where near as good a film or movie experience as Avatar.

Not in story, not in action, not in setting, not in technical aspects, direction, art design, film scoring, special effects, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while I have been wrong before this time I am not. especially in the technical aspects. John Carter doesn't even come close.

you should work on being clever instead of trying to be clever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, being mean would be like saying your avatar is ugly.

which by the way it is! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I'll take John Carter sequels over Avatar sequels any day, I do think that, if anything, the latter stand a solid chance of trumping their predecessor. One of my major beefs with Avatar was that, in telling a painfully derivative story, the most unique and intriguing element of the film (placing a human consciousness into an alien body), with all of its potential ethical dilemmas and thematic usage, was used merely as a device to get the stale plot moving.

We've already missed out on a good use of the concept this time around, but now that the rehashed plot is out of the way, perhaps we can at least see something more unique done with the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avatar's success is paper-thin. It will be remembered for being "the event movie" that ushered in a new era of 3D movie-making that brought a roller coaster experience into the theater, by immersing the viewers in a super-realistic alien world complete with extravagant flora and fauna.

That's it.

It did not push the envelope with its plot, which was recycled from superior movies, its message of environmentalism, which was lifted directly from any number of tree-hugging propaganda, or its characters, which were woefully two-dimensional.

I don't see Cameron pushing any more boundaries with his storytelling in the sequels. So he filmed scenes in the deepest trench of the world, big deal. That can be duplicated on a soundstage or with CGI.

Now if he wants to incorporate full-motion seats into the theaters, scratch-and-sniff cards to simulate the smells of Pandora's jungles and copulating Na'vi, and maybe even incorporate theatrics where two people from every theater are killed and eaten by Pandoran animals as a way to create sympathy for their plight --- THEN I might be impressed. Until then, the sequels are pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while I have been wrong before this time I am not. especially in the technical aspects. John Carter doesn't even come close.

What do you exactly mean with "technical aspects"? Its special effects were already outdated last year, Weta has said so. I doubt they're superior to the ones in John Carter.

Besides, discussion of special effects in Avatar is pointless since it sucks so much in other areas anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avatar was a better film than John Carter. But these sequels shouldn't be made and God knows Weaver is being resurrected for them.

Years from now, Avatar will be remembered for its visuals and popularizing 3D. But nothing much other than that. It's a film that won't stand the test of time and be remembered amongst its superiors as classics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And even then its naysayers won't have tired of telling anyone who'll listen that they think it sucks. A trendy view that's an even bigger broken record than overdone 3D itself, but that doesn't stop them from thinking they're being so very original in their critique and oh so insightful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never claimed to be original in my critique or insight. I never wanted to be. In fact, when I woke up this morning, I said, "self...don't be original. Do what others have done, be safe, be boring, and you will be home soon."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avatar's success is paper-thin. It will be remembered for being "the event movie" that ushered in a new era of 3D movie-making that brought a roller coaster experience into the theater, by immersing the viewers in a super-realistic alien world complete with extravagant flora and fauna.

That's it.

It did not push the envelope with its plot, which was recycled from superior movies, its message of environmentalism, which was lifted directly from any number of tree-hugging propaganda, or its characters, which were woefully two-dimensional.

I don't see Cameron pushing any more boundaries with his storytelling in the sequels. So he filmed scenes in the deepest trench of the world, big deal. That can be duplicated on a soundstage or with CGI.

Now if he wants to incorporate full-motion seats into the theaters, scratch-and-sniff cards to simulate the smells of Pandora's jungles and copulating Na'vi, and maybe even incorporate theatrics where two people from every theater are killed and eaten by Pandoran animals as a way to create sympathy for their plight --- THEN I might be impressed. Until then, the sequels are pointless.

I agree. People were dazzled by the 3D effect, the kitsch and the bling. But ask those same people in ten years why they liked it and they won't remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avatar's success is paper-thin. It will be remembered for being "the event movie" that ushered in a new era of 3D movie-making that brought a roller coaster experience into the theater, by immersing the viewers in a super-realistic alien world complete with extravagant flora and fauna.

That's it.

It did not push the envelope with its plot, which was recycled from superior movies, its message of environmentalism, which was lifted directly from any number of tree-hugging propaganda, or its characters, which were woefully two-dimensional.

I don't see Cameron pushing any more boundaries with his storytelling in the sequels. So he filmed scenes in the deepest trench of the world, big deal. That can be duplicated on a soundstage or with CGI.

Now if he wants to incorporate full-motion seats into the theaters, scratch-and-sniff cards to simulate the smells of Pandora's jungles and copulating Na'vi, and maybe even incorporate theatrics where two people from every theater are killed and eaten by Pandoran animals as a way to create sympathy for their plight --- THEN I might be impressed. Until then, the sequels are pointless.

I agree. People were dazzled by the 3D effect, the kitsch and the bling. But ask those same people in ten years why they liked it and they won't remember.

Yeah, in sharp contrast to all the countless other movies released in the last 6 years people cherish super-fond memories of. AVATAR is certainly as memorable than DARK KNIGHT, AVENGERS and all those other 'big' movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were many more successful artists than Van Gogh, who only sold one painting at the time. Where are they now? Financial success doesn't define a classic or greatness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And more people have seen (and liked) RASHOMON than FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF? You argue yourself into a scholarly corner. Popular successes like John-Hughes-movies or PRETTY WOMAN may not make waves in academic papers, but to the general public, they deliver...and they aren't easily forgotten, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I just don't believe success (or lack of it) has anything to do with becoming a standard, a classic or an evergreen. Having success doesn't mean it will stand the test of time. There are a lot of very successful movies from the past that have lost their meaning and relevance today.The Golden Child made more money than Ferris Bueller. I'd say, The Golden Child is pretty much forgotten while Ferris and Pretty Woman are comedy classics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.