Sequels and Prequels and Remakes, Oh My! (Upcoming Films)

[Reply #440 on:]

That poster makes me so much more happy than a poster logically should.

[Reply #441 on:]

I like the poster. What is it about?

[Reply #442 on:]

Good food. Fine ales.
Total Annihilation.

Look it up on IMDB you lazy sod.

[Reply #443 on:]

Maybe Iron Man 3 will be more like Batman Forever.

We can only hope. With Jim Carey as The Mandarin.

[Reply #444 on:]

World War Z!

Silly zombies, Brad Pitt is too handsome to eat!

[Reply #445 on:]

The bird's-eye view CGI zombies look really, really silly. That movie seems like it could turn out to be a travesty.

[Reply #446 on:]

Eh, I wish it had stayed more true to the book's format.  Not saying it should have been the same story, but you could have told it in a similar way.  World War Z just looks like another zombie film.

[Reply #447 on:]

I don't think the book's format would have worked at all for a movie. It would have been a mess. And am I the only one that actually doesn't mind bad/obvious CGI?

[Reply #448 on:]

I'm not so much bothered by the quality or realism of the CGI as I am by how retardedly silly the shots of zombies running really fast and climbing up shit and then collapsing on top of each other looks. They look like ants on an ant hill. It's hard not to laugh at...which is the opposite of being scared of them. Which is not a good thing, considering it's supposed to be a zombie movie.

[Reply #449 on:]

Agreed Josh.

I also find it funny how they try to remind us that Brad Pitt's character is supposed to be an everyday joe kind of guy by pairing him with a plain Jane-never-heard-of-her-before actress to be his wife.

[Reply #450 on:]

I'm far more excited for Brad Pitt's other Z movie - The Lost City of Z

[Reply #451 on:]

I actually am upset by bad movie effects.  They destroy parts of the atmosphere.  Then there's using too many effects, which detracts from whatever else is going on.

In theory, everything should compliment everything else, and less is more is a palpable rule of thumb.

[Reply #452 on:]

It's been a while since I read it, but I don't recognise a single part of that trailer from the book.

Shame. World War Z could have been a masterpiece, but that looks like it'll be on par with I Am Legend at best.

[Reply #453 on:]

You know, I didn't think the book was all that and a bag of tea. It was..good..not..not great

[Reply #454 on:]

I thought it was exceptional.

And regardless of that, an early draft of the script for the film by J. Michael Straczynski leaked way, way back. Aintitcoolnews reviewed it and said "This isn't just a good adaptation of a difficult book... it's a genre-defining piece of work that could well see us all arguing about whether or not a zombie movie qualifies as 'Best Picture' material".

Sadly, the film's undergone extensive rewrites since then to the point that Straczynski is no longer a credited writer and the trailer seems to reflect a weaker script among other things.

[Reply #455 on:]

"I didn't ask for this...", Deus Ex: HR movie

Hmmm

[Reply #456 on:]

They should cancel the movies.

[Reply #457 on:]

You know how I wish they named the Hobbit movies?

1. Bilbo Begins

2. The Hobbit

3. The Hobbit Rises

[Reply #458 on:]

Anything would be better than the awful three titles they've actually chosen.

Yes, I know they're the names of chapters in the book but they suck.

[Reply #459 on:]

Are you being critical for the sake of being critical, or do you have an actual reason for disliking them? Because they seem like pretty standard titles to me. Nothing worse than the usual titles movies get.

[Reply #460 on:]

Like everything else that I've seen regarding The Hobbit so far, they're just really, really gay.

I hate using gay as a word with negative connotations, but I can't think of anything else that accurately describes The Hobbit, so far. Liberace gay.

[Reply #461 on:]

But is there a reason you find it "gay"? I mean, there isn't anything blatantly obvious. Maybe if the dwarves were all fitted with pink beards and dresses I'd understand where you where coming from.

[Reply #462 on:]

The small portion of the LotR book I read many years ago said they were gay a lot. Maybe that explains it.

I found all those movies to be rather boring. So boring I didn't see the second one at all, and couldn't get through an hour of the third. Maybe some day I'll give them another go, but the fact that they're adding prequels means it's going to take forever, and makes me even less inclined to watch a bunch of elf things with hairy feet being all over-friendly for 18 hours. I just don't understand the appeal. I understand the whole fantasy genre, but who really wants to fantasise about a huge number of men of various sizes and levels of unattractiveness playing with a ring and fighting? Gay guys, maybe? I guess. There, I explained it for you.

[Reply #463 on:]

When put that way, I suppose it makes sense. 

I don't personally find them boring, but  I can see why people would. They're very slow-paced. (Well, LOTR is. The Hobbit is much faster.)

[Reply #464 on:]

I'm more excited for The Hobbit than I was for any of the LotR trilogy movies for exactly that reason...that LotR books and movies are mostly very boring and slow. The Hobbit book on the other hand is much more adventurous, exciting, and fast-paced, much less boring mythology and dialogue, and the theatrical trailer I've seen for it seems to reflect that.

[Reply #465 on:]

But The Hobbit is guaranteed to be even slower because they've expanded a book considerably smaller than any of the three volumes of The Lord of the Rings into THREE films. These films will no doubt be roughly 3 hours a piece so essentially, they've stretched this out ridiculously.

The Hobbit could make a nice, swift 2 hour film. As it stands, we're getting at least 9 hours of it. It will not be fast paced.

And yeah, I hate The Lord of the Rings, so I suppose I'm biased - but I did love The Hobbit when I read it as a child.

[Reply #466 on:]

You've got a point there. As far as I know, they're expanding the story by adding in canonical events happening elsewhere, so I doubt it will be endless nonsense.

It could very well be a bit overdone, but either way I'm pumped.

[Reply #467 on:]

But The Hobbit is guaranteed to be even slower because they've expanded a book considerably smaller than any of the three volumes of The Lord of the Rings into THREE films. These films will no doubt be roughly 3 hours a piece so essentially, they've stretched this out ridiculously.

The Hobbit could make a nice, swift 2 hour film. As it stands, we're getting at least 9 hours of it. It will not be fast paced.

And yeah, I hate The Lord of the Rings, so I suppose I'm biased - but I did love The Hobbit when I read it as a child.

As UnrealLegend said, they are expanding with stuff from The Silmarillion and other works by Tolkien, and some parts they could not get into the original The Lord of the Rings films.

NewLine Cinema has the rights to Tolkien's works, to be published as The Hobbit.  Their agreement with the Tolkien Estate does not cover how many films (but it does limit them to The Hobbit), nor does it limit it their availability to Tolkien's works.  However, because the Tolkien Estate feels a bit cheated by NewLine Cinema, they have decided that they would not seek another agreement with them following The Hobbit film(s).

So essentially, they are trying to get all the Tolkien content on film as they can while they can.  This became obvious when they announced it was going to be three films, rather than the initially two planned films (and before that, just one).

So while it will be called The Hobbit and obviously contain that story's plot, there will be a lot of 'flashbacks', excess explanations and other ways to tie in much of the universe Tolkien created.

[Reply #468 on:]

Three films out of the Hobbit?

This Deathly Hallows Part 2 malarky just opened Pandora's Box.  

I'm guessing for each song in the Hobbit there is going to be a flashback of the characters involved.  I wonder who they are going to get to play Beren and Tinuviel, since I imagine they will be milking that storyline for all it's worth.

[Reply #469 on:]

Now I didn't even read Deathly Hallows until after I saw both movies, (and then I didn't even finish it), so I'm not the one to make the argument that it was a good idea to split the book into two movies but from what I gather I still think it was. I liked both Deathly Hallows movies, they were both by far so much better than Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince. And I say this as someone who literally grew up with these books and movies, I do feel like Harry Potter was a phenomena not just for one target but for people of all ages and that the end of the series had to be done right.

I can't say that for Twilight, because I've never read the books or seen the movies (nor do I ever plan on it). But Twilight had one audience, pre-teen through young adult girls, and lonely moms. For me the phenomena wasn't the books themselves it was just the explosion of popularity that came out after the first movie and how batshit crazy people were (oh let's face it, no person with a penis cared). Splitting it into two movies seemed more like a money grab and "Hey it worked for Potter!" idealism. And the hilarious reviews I've seen all say part one was filler. (But I heard that argument for Deathly Hallows too).

And then there's the Hunger Games, which I don't think is quite the phenomena of either Harry Potter or Twilight. I did read the books and I like the series. But I'm actually very reluctant and frustrated that they're splitting Mockingjay into 2 movies. I don't want to say nothing happens in Mockingjay and that it's mostly filler...but yeah Mockingjay is awful. I don't want to pay twice as many times to see the disappointing conclusion to this series.

Again I feel like with Harry Potter it at least made sense considering how big the book is to split it up, but not for the other two. (I mean the Hunger Games trilogy is a very fast read, and even though it took me longer to finish Mockingjay cause I was bored with it, I still finished it pretty quickly).

I can't comment on The Hobbit or any of The Lord of the Rings books because I haven't read them (and probably won't because I can't see myself getting into the books). I like the movies, they are long and epic, but I'm really surprised that they want to split the shortest book into three movies. And considering that my knowledge of the franchise only goes as far as the movie universe, I don't know that I'll really care to go see all three of them. It sounds like with all this expansion talk that they should just make a TV show to rival Game of Thrones.

This was longer than I thought it would be...

[Reply #470 on:]

If they tried to make a show to rival Game Of Thrones they would fail. All respect to Tolkien, but ASoIaF is far superior to LotR on almost every level.

[Reply #471 on:]

I generally disagree with your comment JoshTheater.  It's more of an apples to oranges kind of thing.  Furthermore, without Tolkien, it's very conceivable that ASoIaF wouldn't exist, along with a whole slew of cultural heritage that was created because Tolkien willed it into existence.

[Reply #472 on:]

...This was longer than I thought it would be...

You should have split it into three separate posts...   :D

[Reply #473 on:]

[Reply #474 on:]

If they tried to make a show to rival Game Of Thrones they would fail. All respect to Tolkien, but ASoIaF is far superior to LotR on almost every level.

As Winna mentioned, A Song of Ice and Fire in many ways have The Lord of the Rings to thank for existing.  It is no surprise George R. R. Martin lists Tolkien as one of his influences.  In fact, when talking about Valyria, and the downfall of the Seven Kingdoms, he specifically compares it to the situation of Middle Earth in Tolkien's works and the fall and aftermath of the Roman Empire.  He finds a world that has seen better days more interesting; and I agree with him.

Furthermore, Tolkien's works also established a way of doing a lot of fantasy.  Now, R. R. Martin seems to specifically avoid other species, such as elves, dwarves, etc., but sticks to mythical beings instead.  But rather - than some fantasy settings (if not most?) - make them 'every day' stuff, these beings are mythical even within the setting, in such a way, that most people don't really believe they exist.  Even dragons, despite there being evidence for their existence (bones and eggs, are mentioned).

Another thing is magic; Tolkien really did not use a lot of magic, but it certainly was more prominent than in R. R. Martin's works.  I mean, Tolkien had wizards (sorry, Ainur) that possessed the ability to perform magic, R. R. Martin's stories conveys no such 'obvious' figures.

What people say says truly sets Tolkien's and R. R. Martin's works apart is the sex.  But the use of sex in R. R. Martin's works is actually more natural, it's Tolkien that being unusual here.  For a story with so many characters, and love stories, it is not just surprising that sex is entirely avoided in his stories, it is amazing.

It is some feat to actually avoid mentioning sex of any kind, even when including an appendix of the love story between Aragorn and Arwen.  It's not that there isn't a sex scene, it's that sex or the act isn't even mentioned.

Which is particularly unusual, because what Tolkien was attempting to write, was an 'English mythology', akin to the Norse and Greek ones.  But all other mythologies, I can assure they mention sex a lot.

So, as much as I am looking forward to The Hobbit as films, I do not think they would do well as a television programme.  There is too little meat on those stories in the long run.

[Reply #475 on:]

If they tried to make a show to rival Game Of Thrones they would fail. All respect to Tolkien, but ASoIaF is far superior to LotR on almost every level.

Breaking Bad > The Lord of the Rings!

Also, Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows: Part I was garbage.

[Reply #476 on:]

I certainly enjoyed svip's analysis.  I also enjoy the fact that Martin's setting has mythical things and magic, but that they aren't common in any regards.  They exist and they are secrets.  This would probably be true in Middle Earth for a given setting, both time and place from a certain vantage point.  It's also nice that Martin is interested in portraying things as realistically as possible, especially the inclusion of sex.  It's not that I'm wanton to read sexual gratuity, but to deny that sexual intercourse has an important and significant role in the lives of breeding orgasms is to deny that entire aspect of the reality spectrum.  Tolkien certainly made up for it in other ways though, given his genius in the development of language, song, adaptation of culture, and propensity to create intriguing, realistic, and detailed maps.  Plus LotR essentially influenced the 1960s, and even the band Led Zeppelin felt compelled to make a tribute.  It's hard to say what would have occurred had Tolkien gone through with his suicide at the age of 28.  Especially since LotR helped shape the unreasonableness of communism through metaphysical symbolism and poignant logic.  Today Stalin might have robot arms and jack off across the Atlantic.  You should count your blessings.

[Reply #477 on:]

Director/producer/writer/editor/composer/star of 2004's Primer, Shane Carruth, finally has a second movie premiering at Sundance in January called Upstream Color. Can't wait.

[Reply #478 on:]

Will he be starring in it?

Oh... yes... also he's credited as the editor, cinematographer, lighting staff, music producer, ambiance analyzer: he just made everything in the movie, I get it.

[Reply #479 on:]

He is the movie.