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

[Reply #600 on:]

What could the sequels to Pocahontas Avatar possibly be about?

[Reply #601 on:]

What could the sequels to Pocahontas Avatar possibly be about?

I heard it's going to be a crossover with the Smurfs.

[Reply #602 on:]

None of you like Avatar. Shame on you.

[Reply #603 on:]

None of you like Avatar. Shame on you.

I think it is because we have taste.

[Reply #604 on:]

I don't like Avatar even though I have never watched it. But I feel justified in my opinion because 2 + 2 = sucks.

[Reply #605 on:]

Actually I really like Avatar, I never thought a film needed a good story for you to enjoy it, but I guess everyone's different. I think all movies deserve some respect no matter what we think, because people still worked hard to make them.

All I know about the first sequel is that they want it to be about the oceans of Pandora. Or at least that's what I read. I thought two sequels would have been better than three.

[Reply #606 on:]

I think all movies deserve some respect no matter what we think, because people still worked hard to make them.

Totally agree right there.

[Reply #607 on:]

I think all movies deserve some respect no matter what we think, because people still worked hard to make them.

Nay.  A lot of films, despite the work, is just that, work.  If passion has gone into a film, I can respect that.  If soul and heart has gone into a film, I can respect that.  But if a film is merely made to cash out money, then I do not need to respect that, despite how many man hours were spend on it.  Otherwise, we need to respect everything man made.  And then the word 'respect' has become useless.

That said, I think James Cameron did have some passion with Avatar.  I think he really wanted to make a successful 3D film and make 3D filming techniques leap us forward.  He did not want to create an interesting film, unlike his passion for Titanic (which I think is a much better film!), but rather an effective film (using clichés, cheap tricks, etc.) to ensure that people would watch his film and be dazzled by the 3D experience.

I have seen one 3D film.  I do not need to see another.  The effect made me think that someone was trying to distract me from a plot that didn't exist, and while that was possibly true in Avatar, I doubt it was in the film I was watching (The Hobbit, that is), because it actually had an interesting plot (of course, the source material helps).

This is also why I think the new Star Wars films suck; I cannot see the passion, soul or heart in these films.  They just appear as colour crisp images played in a sequence to make tonnes of money.  At least James Cameron had the balls to do actual locations, rather than shoot everything against a bluescreen, so at least I can respect that.

[Reply #608 on:]

I think Svip makes a good point. I've never seen Avatar so I can't judge it on the quality of the film but I remember seeing the trailers and while the effects were cool the story itself didn't seem interesting to me. It never has seemed interesting to me. Style over substance does not make a movie good, at least I don't think so.

[Reply #609 on:]

I don't like Avatar even though I have never watched it. But I feel justified in my opinion because 2 + 2 = sucks.

1 + 1 = Second.
Though I'm not sure how much I can say it sucks, when I haven't seen it.

[Reply #610 on:]

Actually, to be quite honest, I didn't even pay major attention to the storyline. I've only watched it what, 3 times?
I guess I just really like film itself, like the animations etc.
But even if it didn't have any great story it still had an attachment to it. Like I was personally a bit sad when their tree got torn down.

I guess they just really wanted to show off their animations. I mean, they used real people for the animations, which I find to be a great advancement in the filmography field.

But I loved the movie. I'll watch it again though and pay more attention to the.. "story", but otherwise I still love the film.

[Reply #611 on:]

I think all movies deserve some respect no matter what we think, because people still worked hard to make them.

Nay.  A lot of films, despite the work, is just that, work.  If passion has gone into a film, I can respect that.  If soul and heart has gone into a film, I can respect that.  But if a film is merely made to cash out money, then I do not need to respect that, despite how many man hours were spend on it.  Otherwise, we need to respect everything man made.  And then the word 'respect' has become useless.

I think passion goes into every film, and it's not always something you can see. I'm not sure it's anything someone can see at all to be honest, if it's more just personal opinion. A lot of people still put hard work into their movies (The sensible ones that is. I directed my statement more towards professional directors, not cheap films) and I believe that they deserve respect for that. But maybe that's my problem, I tend to respect a lot of man-made things.

I like a good storyline, sure, but there's no problem with simple ones too. Sometimes that's all they need. My parents suggested that people who read a lot of books enjoy more complicated stories.

But still there's a lot more that goes into a film than just the story, such as graphics, cinematography, lighting, music, compelling characters etc. As for Avatar, films are loved for a reason, and I don't think that's all to do with the graphics.

And as for me, I enjoy the characters and the relationships between characters and how they develop. That's something I like to look for in a movie. Emotion is important. If I don't feel for the relationship between the hero and heroine (Man Of Steel is a good example for me) then why should I care about them? The audience needs to fall in love as much as the characters. Same with books, although this isn't a book thread.

[Reply #612 on:]

I think all movies deserve some respect no matter what we think, because people still worked hard to make them.

Nay.  A lot of films, despite the work, is just that, work.  If passion has gone into a film, I can respect that.  If soul and heart has gone into a film, I can respect that.  But if a film is merely made to cash out money, then I do not need to respect that, despite how many man hours were spend on it.  Otherwise, we need to respect everything man made.  And then the word 'respect' has become useless.

I think passion goes into every film, and it's not always something you can see.

Your naïveté is sweet, but Hollywood is not really as sincere as you might think it is.

(The sensible ones that is. I directed my statement more towards professional directors, not cheap films)

You said every film (even in this post).

I like a good storyline, sure, but there's no problem with simple ones too. Sometimes that's all they need. My parents suggested that people who read a lot of books enjoy more complicated stories.

I am not complaining about the complexity of a storyline (or lack thereof), the storyline simply has to be interesting.  Or at the very least telling something.  Duel is a very simple film, but it is also very good.  And it has fewer characters than Avatar.

But still there's a lot more that goes into a film than just the story, such as graphics, cinematography, lighting, music, compelling characters etc.

As I said, I respect James Cameron for his filming technique advancements (even though I think 3D is a useless technology for films) and the fact that he shot on location.  But if a film doesn't have an interesting foundation (i.e. the story and the characters), then it doesn't matter how good the rest of the filming techniques are (to me, that is).

As for Avatar, films are loved for a reason, and I don't think that's all to do with the graphics.

I don't think the fact that some people like Avatar that that automatically makes it a good film or a film passion went into.  People like Battleship and the Transformers series, and I doubt much passion went into either of those (particularly the latter one; Michael Bay does it for the money).

And even if passion goes into a film, it can be the wrong passion (well, a passion I don't find interesting/agree with), such as just wanting to see things blow up.

And as for me, I enjoy the characters and the relationships between characters and how they develop. That's something I like to look for in a movie. Emotion is important. If I don't feel for the relationship between the hero and heroine (Man Of Steel is a good example for me) then why should I care about them? The audience needs to fall in love as much as the characters. Same with books, although this isn't a book thread.

And it works in Avatar (and Titanic for that matter), because James Cameron uses some of the easiest tricks in the book.  I find the relationship between Han Solo and Princess Leia much more interesting.

[Reply #613 on:]

Fair enough, you're probably right. Just to say though, I enjoy Titanic more than I enjoy Avatar. Now that's a relationship I really fell for.

I've never seen all of the Star Wars movies, so I can't comment. I don't think I've even seen one all the way through to be honest.

[Reply #614 on:]

I've never seen all of the Star Wars movies, so I can't comment. I don't think I've even seen one all the way through to be honest.

<Farnsworth> "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"

I think Svip makes a good point. I've never seen Avatar so I can't judge it on the quality of the film but I remember seeing the trailers and while the effects were cool the story itself didn't seem interesting to me. It never has seemed interesting to me. Style over substance does not make a movie good, at least I don't think so.

I viewed Avatar on an excellent 65" plasma, from the 2D Blu-Ray, and in all seriousness can recommend it for the visuals if you see it on a great TV.  Especially if you have some beers and movie friends over to dissect and laugh at the plot / tropes and stereotyping. It is a beautiful film. The moon world seems to relate more to 'pandering" than to ancient Earth mythology, though...

[Reply #615 on:]

I viewed Avatar on an excellent 65" plasma, from the 2D Blu-Ray, and in all seriousness can recommend it for the visuals if you see it on a great TV.  Especially if you have some beers and movie friends over to dissect and laugh at the plot / tropes and stereotyping. It is a beautiful film. The moon world seems to relate more to 'pandering" than to ancient Earth mythology, though...

To be honest, I think Duel is visually a more beautiful film, so is Citizen Kane.  Because the pictures themselves tell a story, and incredibly effectively in both those two films.  Largely because they have interesting scenography and shots.

[Reply #616 on:]

You know one of my favorite movies to watch just whenever is Red Eye because it's a pretty basic story told really efficiently and thrillingly. I don't need special effects to enjoy a movie and even if there are that's more a bonus. I'm also a huge fan of practical effects like the Evil Dead movies because before we had the ease of access with CGI (which in itself can be an art form) people had to be innovative when creating special effects because we actually needed to see them. And there's something very superficial about CGI especially when a movie over does it (an example would be when a horror movie made in this generation feels the need to CGI the blood).

[Reply #617 on:]

A few people have compared Avatar to Titanic in this thread, and I have to give my two cents (no seriously, I'll die if I don't!): I despise Titanic just as much, if not more, than Avatar. In my opinion it's one of the laziest, most overwrought romance stories of all time. It's full of just as many cliches and stereotypes as Avatar as far as the characters are concerned, and its only contribution to the story of the Titanic itself was the CGI used to make it look so real. Even without having the ship splitting in half (the facts of the sinking were still in question at the time), the 1958 film A Night To Remember is still a far better historical account of the Titanic, and it doesn't have all that terrible romance nonsense.

Now, if we want to talk about good James Cameron films we can talk about Aliens or Terminator 2, thank you very much.

[Reply #618 on:]

I compare it to Titanic because it is basically the same methods James Cameron uses (clichés, etc.), just as you mention.  In my mind, Avatar is Titanic in 3D.  It even has the same basic plot structure; finding a romance while a threat is looming (ship sinking or military attacking).

But there are things in Titanic I like; the sets and Cameron's passion for the ocean.  I know the historical inaccuracies in the film and whatnot, but it is very comparable to Avatar in many regards.  And while I think Cameron honestly wanted to tell a story about Titanic, Avatar seems more a desire to make 3D film techniques.  And in both cases, tonnes of money.

That's not to say either film are good films on their own.  There are far better Titanic films out there, and better James Cameron films as well.

[Reply #619 on:]

But what about the re-release of Titanic in 3D(!)? Wouldn't that be more comparable to Avatar?

Also no one ever talks about The Abyss. I think it's extremely boring and kind of a midway point between the good Cameron films like The first two Terminators and Aliens.

[Reply #620 on:]

The Abyss is actually pretty damned interesting, if a bit slow and somewhat strange with the ending.

[Reply #621 on:]

Maybe it's because I used to be into scuba diving, but I loved The Abyss.  It kept me very engaged, and the tension at times was palpable, rather than flat melodrama.  And that one scene teared me up, big time...

Also, Aliens is to Alien what stale bread crumbs are to a thick doublecrust pizza right out of the oven   But yeah, T1 is one of my all-time faves.

[Reply #622 on:]

I agree, Alien is the superior film by far. That said, I think Aliens is a decent action flick in its own regards.

[Reply #623 on:]

Oh, definitely!  It's a fun action flick set in the Alien universe. The characters aren't too one-dimensional, he does a great job with the tension, and the one-liners that set off the tension cracked me up.  "Have you ever been mistaken for a man?"  lololol

[Reply #624 on:]

Game over, man

[Reply #625 on:]

Whilst we're on the topic of the Alien franchise:

All the Ways Aliens: Colonial Marines Breaks the ‘Aliens’ Story

[Reply #626 on:]

This thread title could not be more accurate.

Sequels, Prequels, and Remakes are all that hollywood fucking is nowadays!

And if they ever produce a sucessful standalone film, they will give it a fucking sequel/prequel/remake anyway! ARGH I HATE HOLLYWOOD!

Blade Runner was always my favourite standalone film. But I have now heard that they are making a sequel! ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!! LEAVE THE CLASSICS ALONE, LAZY HOLLYWOOD DICKS!!!!!!!!!!

[Reply #627 on:]

To what depths of sacrilege and depravity will they dive to next?  Sequels of Citizen Kane?  The Maltese Falcon?  Wings, for Heaven's sake?

[Reply #628 on:]

To what depths of sacrilege and depravity will they dive to next?  Sequels of Citizen Kane?  The Maltese Falcon?  Wings, for Heaven's sake?

Exactly. I agree

[Reply #629 on:]

Looking forward for the Ender's game film... despite the ginormous controversy on Scott Card due to him being a big homophobic arse is still an history i want to see as i liked the book..

So far 2 trailers... both look faithfull to the books wich is good, tought some previews are hinting things i dont like much like:


Warning spoilers for the possible changes for the movie and HUGE spoilers if you didnt readed the book:

Show spoiler

Some previews seem to suggest that Mazer Rackham's famous attack was in a F-35 jet fighter in earth skies rather than commanding a small cruiser in Saturn's orbit like in the book ... this seems to sugest that the film might merge the 1st and 2nd invasions into one...

I dont like this much, first because its pointless... they dont need to show much of either invassion so its not like they need to cut time (and anyway the novel focus flashbacks and videos on the second invasion only.. barelly talks about the first).. 

second because it would create a huge technology gap.. earth had time between the first and second invasion to develop ships capable of reaching saturn (barelly) and between the second and third they created the fleets capable of interstellar flight to fight the formics in their own territory... if the movie merges 1st and 2nd invasions it would mean humanity developed interstellar flight really fast.. also Mazer's Rachkam would go from flying an F-35 to command deep space fleets? please...
Also in the books is explained that humanity decided to go and fight formics because the 2 invasions convinced them that the formics where trying to wipe us out .. its like they tried twice we dont let them try third.. but the films would be "oh aliens tried to kill us so lets directly go exterminate them"...

merging both invasions creates a lot more problems than sollutions..

[Reply #630 on:]

Looking forward for the Ender's game film... despite the ginormous controversy on Scott Card due to him being a big homophobic arse is still an history i want to see as i liked the book..

So far 2 trailers... both look faithfull to the books wich is good, tought some previews are hinting things i dont like much like:


Warning spoilers for the possible changes for the movie and HUGE spoilers if you didnt readed the book:

Show spoiler

Some previews seem to suggest that Mazer Rackham's famous attack was in a F-35 jet fighter in earth skies rather than commanding a small cruiser in Saturn's orbit like in the book ... this seems to sugest that the film might merge the 1st and 2nd invasions into one...

I dont like this much, first because its pointless... they dont need to show much of either invassion so its not like they need to cut time (and anyway the novel focus flashbacks and videos on the second invasion only.. barelly talks about the first).. 

second because it would create a huge technology gap.. earth had time between the first and second invasion to develop ships capable of reaching saturn (barelly) and between the second and third they created the fleets capable of interstellar flight to fight the formics in their own territory... if the movie merges 1st and 2nd invasions it would mean humanity developed interstellar flight really fast.. also Mazer's Rachkam would go from flying an F-35 to command deep space fleets? please...
Also in the books is explained that humanity decided to go and fight formics because the 2 invasions convinced them that the formics where trying to wipe us out .. its like they tried twice we dont let them try third.. but the films would be "oh aliens tried to kill us so lets directly go exterminate them"...

merging both invasions creates a lot more problems than sollutions..

I'm a huge Harrison Ford fan, so I'm hoping it's a good role for him and a decent film.

Regarding the Blade Runner sequel, does anyone know if this is genuinely confirmed? Or just rumours?

[Reply #631 on:]

'12 Monkeys' TV adaptation gets pilot order from Syfy

[Reply #632 on:]

'12 Monkeys' TV adaptation gets pilot order from Syfy

BAM!

[Reply #633 on:]

Technically it's a remake based on a movie so it could go in here too.

[Reply #634 on:]

Really?

[Reply #635 on:]

X-Men: Days of Future Past is looking like something pretty damned awesome.
Discuss.
Also, post pictures from the production. I would google them, but the search bar is all the way up there...

[Reply #636 on:]

I'd like to see The Family and The Conjuring.

[Reply #637 on:]

New trailer for the second installment of The Hobbit.



Smaug's voice... wow.

[Reply #638 on:]

The Hobbit: An Entire Film of Padding

[Reply #639 on:]

I dunno... I thought the first film moved at an almost perfect pace; only really slowing down noticeably during one or two scenes. Then again, it's quite uncommon for me to share the same opinion as you about a film.