Jump to content

Makeshift Python

Members
  • Posts

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Makeshift Python

  1. Glad to see this get that treatment. I always dug PSYCHO II, especially the score by Goldsmith.
  2. Yeah, a lot of the story was from the original X-MEN ORIGINS: MAGNETO project, likely scrapped because of how badly The first one with Wolverine turned out.
  3. I'm on board for a soft-reboot. Not eliminating all continuity, but going back to the 1930s/1940s era with Indy during his prime. There's no need to go for a total reboot, since the films were mainly episodic and not all that connected, aside from CRYSTAL SKULL. I don't think continuing the series is sacrilege, since I don't think the franchise itself was all that sacred. It was one great film followed by sequels that were either hit or miss, and a TV series. Heck if they did the Bond thing back in the 90s instead of 20 years later, I think Dennis Quaid would have made an ideal successor. As it is now, I don't think Cooper will work. I think he's only being touted as the one the studio wants because he's a big name now that had a few hits and two Oscar noms. IMO, Josh Holloway would be the best choice you could possibly make as he has the right sensibilities for Indy and that this kind of casting is no different from how EON looks into Bond actors, finding a name that is well known but not someone that has already become a movie star with hits. It's safer to go with an actor on his level than trying to find a high profile film actor.
  4. From what I understand, Marvel/Disney can use characters that are a part of The Avengers, which is why Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are being used. It'll be interesting to see how far they'll take that loophole. Spider-Man at one point was part of the Avengers, so they could actually go there unless the agreement with Sony says otherwise?
  5. I still haven't got a mobile phone that also acts as a taser. But yeah, I'd like to see more practical gadgets that are clever and make sense for Bond to have, rather than being too convenient like that inflatable jacket that couldn't have been useful for anything other than that avalanche.
  6. What I meant is that DOFP will take place well after the scene that took place two years after THE WOLVERINE. They're at least allowing some wiggle room for these events to take place.
  7. Which likely means that the future events seen in DOFP are taking place well after that last bit we saw in THE WOLVERINE, as opposed to straight after. That ending was kind of fun, not giving away too much on what will come, only that something was big enough to make Xavier and Magneto join forces.
  8. I think it's fine as long as they don't try making her Bond's sidekick, which is what the rumors have mainly been about. I'm fine with her being able to kick ass and such, because wouldn't you want the head of MI6 to be aided by a secretary that can also function as an agent? I would have loved to see Lois Maxwell do something fun on occasion besides flirt with Bond, if done right. One of the highlights of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER is seeing Moneypenny on the field. It's such a nice twist for the Bond formula, I'm surprised EON didn't try doing that again in the films afterward.
  9. IMDB updated the title http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2379713/ Dumb internet. He wasn't available to score those flicks for various reasons, ranging from tax issues or in LTK's case having throat surgery.
  10. It's easily Bay's best film, though I suspect that is only so because as his second feature he didn't have enough reign to really assert himself and his sensibilities. So it's more of a Bruckheimer production than a Bay film. Of those kind of films from the 90s, I like that and CRIMSON TIDE. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  11. "Egon, this reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole through your head. Remember that?" "That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me." Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. I'll take Newman over the most of today's generic blockbuster scores anytime. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  13. Been trying to watch BASIC INSTINCT for over a week. Had to stop the movie two times, once because I was too tired to continue and the other I had errands. On paper this should be my kind of flick. Verhoeven directing, Jan de Bont's photography, Goldsmith score, Douglas as the lead, Sharon Stone flashing her pussy, ect. Still, this isn't really engaging me all that much so I never feel arsed to try finishing it. I'll finish it soon, but so far I'm not totally into it.
  14. It is, it just took longer than five years to get it going. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  15. They've pretty much got back every franchise they licensed to studios back in the 90s and 2000s except those three in particular. In order to get those properties back under their wing, they have to either pay up a ridiculous amount of money or just wait for the studios to not make a film for five years or that the films flop big enough that the studios don't want to make them anymore (PUNISHER and GHOST RIDER being examples). That's why Sony did a reboot of Spidy so soon because they have to make a film within five years or they lose the license. I'm not sure what the deal for THE FANTASTIC FOUR is though because it's been 7 years since the last one.
  16. Except Marvel doesn't have the film rights to X-Men, so it's pretty much Singer/Fox calling the shots for that particular franchise. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  17. I don't think the film being shot on flat 1:85 instead of scope 2:35 is the issue, it's how it's used is where the problems lie. Plenty of great blockbusters were done on flat 1:85 in the past. I actually think the first Raimi Spider-Man looked better at 1:85 than the following sequels that went for the 2:35 scope. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  18. I do mean the latter. However, I do think the effects look fake too, but that's not a negative, I think all effects look fake. What matters is how well they're lit/shot/rendered and if it fits in with the film's style. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  19. Given how there's nothing realistic about THE AVENGERS, I can't understand that reasoning. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  20. I don't see why THE AVENGERS of all things needs to be toned down to create a sense of realism.
  21. Bad Robot had nothing to do with THE AVENGERS. I don't hate Bad Robot, but they're not giving me reasons to love em. Aside from GHOST PROTOCOL (which is the best of the M:I series IMO), I think most of their films are subpar. I also find their nepotism to be pretty obnoxious (be good friends with Abrams, and you'll land a job like Lindelof, Orci, Kurtzman, regardless of talent).
  22. Yeah that's my issue with it. Nothing really "pops". It's worse when they're in the aircraft carrier where they tend to blend in with the bland backgrounds rather than actually stand out. Worse is that there's no point to that toned down style. A better way of using that style is in the upcoming THE WINTER SOLIDER, which actually makes sense for that film as it's going for a vibe akin to a Tom Clancy espionage thriller with lots of shades of gray. Of all the Marvel films so far, THOR is probably the most vibrant looking and something that THE AVENGERS gone for.
  23. I like the look of this one. Sure, maybe it is cartoony, but this is SPIDER-MAN so I kind of see it more as a charm than a disservice. I like seeing a blockbuster daring to be colorful, it's one of the things I wish THE AVENGERS had done instead of going for that desaturated look. The only thing that really makes me doubt this upcoming film is the involvement of Kurtzman and Orci. They're a plague that needs to be rid of along with other Bad Robot cronies like Lindelof, Burk and Abrams.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.