The Last Sequel and Remake Discussion Thread Part II

[Reply #120 on:]

How awesome would it be if Doctor Strange ends up being...

[Reply #121 on:]

Dumb and Dumber To - Official Trailer Premiere

[Reply #122 on:]

Good Lord they  look old!

[Reply #123 on:]

Yeah, that trailer looks pretty bad

[Reply #124 on:]

It's awful but I don't know how to feel because I was smiling while watching it. Like it's been a while since I watched Dumb and Dumber but I was trying to keep in mind that maybe the humor is on par with that movie. However this is not 1994 anymore, and comedies have certainly changed over the years into something a lot more dark and cynical. Flat out "stupid is because stupid funny" doesn't really seem to exist except in the bowels of all those shitty spoof movies like A Haunted House. So...I don't know.

But I mean I like that joke that Lloyd would pretend to be insane for 20 years just to fuck with Harry. But then he had his hand up an old lady and that was gross I JUST DON'T KNOW!!!

[Reply #125 on:]

Yeah, I have very mixed feelings. Pleasuring the old lady wasn't funny. It was just gross...and kinda cheesy.

I know the Farrelly brothers kind of made their career on the "gross-out" genre, but Dumb & Dumber was never really much of a gross-out comedy. It was just two funny actors acting dumb and saying dumb things. And it worked! This, I don't know about. It made me smile/laugh a bit, but also raises a lot of red flags.

[Reply #126 on:]

First red band trailer for Hot Tub Time Machine 2:



The first one was okay I guess, I wouldn't really call it hilarious. It falls flat in a lot of places, but I'll still check this one out. Also, most people agree that

Show spoiler

"Patriot Lou" is going to be the ending gag/cliffhanger. Tired of trailers giving away important plot information/ending scenes.

[Reply #127 on:]

The first Hot Tub Time Machine was utter garbage.

[Reply #128 on:]

Leaked Batman vs Superman clip from Comic Con, spoilers obviously
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ou4KYyBGXM - updated link

[Reply #129 on:]

Batman vs Superman is coming out the same weekend as Captain America 3. I think, and am hoping, BVS is crazy batshit awful that it will probably make more money. But hopefully Captain America 3 is the better film overall. I'm kinda more excited to see that outcome than Age of Ultron.

[Reply #130 on:]

I'm a fan of what Marvel is doing but there's no way I'd see Captain America over Bats vs. Supes, he's just not as interesting as those two characters together whether they're fighting or not (which they clearly are )

Shit I need to watch Dark Knight Returns again, that clip made my balls tingle

[Reply #131 on:]

I get the impression that BvS will the most overblown balls-to-the-wall action film it can possibly be. I mean, could that clip be trying to be more badass? My guess is it will be amazing fun but not much else, aiming much more for style than substance (in other words, it will be a Zack Snyder film). I'll see it, enjoy it for what it is, and then likely forget about it. I don't expect to become deeply invested in a movie franchise from it, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

I will see anything Marvel Studios puts out though (except probably for the animated GotG show they just announced for kids) until they give me a reason not to. The second Avengers (from general plot details and spoiler rumors I've been hearing about the ending and where the continuity will go in the aftermath) is sounding absolutely incredible.

[Reply #132 on:]

Yeah I'm in agreement with you there. I'm so curious with the BVS updates and stuff that even though I hate Snyder I will have to go see this movie but you're probably right in that it will just be style over substance.

[Reply #133 on:]

Official Warner Bros. trailer for the third Hobbit installment:



Them goosebumps bro.

[Reply #134 on:]

They... they changed the name? "The Battle of the Five Armies" is honestly a pretty terrible subtitle.

Trailer was pretty good. Despite their problems, I've really loved The Hobbit movies.

[Reply #135 on:]

I agree with you on the name, but it's been like that for a few months now. "There And Back Again" would have been a better title, imo.

[Reply #136 on:]

I don't know, I can see what they're going for with the new title, both from a descriptive and marketing standpoint. There And Back Again (which was actually sort of the subtitle for the whole trilogy of movies) makes it sound like a more relaxed final chapter...whereas Battle Of The Five Armies advertises the crazy action/war movie that seems to be what we're getting.

[Reply #137 on:]

Well, I don't expect the movie itself to be peaceful and relaxed but we know it's gonna end with Bilbo kickin' it back in the Shire with a shit-ton of gold. Even by hobbit standards, that sounds relaxed.

I guess "The Battle of the Five Armies" isn't too bad of a title when you consider the LOTR/Hobbit movies have often had crap titles. I mean, "Return of the King" is a massive freaking spoiler!

[Reply #138 on:]

Also: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 teaser trailer

[Reply #139 on:]

Part 1? I can only assume Hunger Games is based on books and that is the last installment divided in two.

I agree "The Battle of the Five Armies" isn't very good name and it seems there's a big battle in the end, which I don't think is necessary. They should have done just two movies called "There" and "Back Again".

[Reply #140 on:]

Have you guys checked out the test footage for a Deadpool movie? It's fantastic and I would love to see this come to fruition.

Also the new Interstellar trailer was great.

[Reply #141 on:]

By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Warvan, I shall avenge you!

I'm not quite sure how I feel about this.  The moment I heard of the possibility I was really excited, but now my feelings are mixed.

[Reply #142 on:]

I guess "The Battle of the Five Armies" isn't too bad of a title when you consider the LOTR/Hobbit movies have often had crap titles. I mean, "Return of the King" is a massive freaking spoiler!

So.... reusing the title of a book published in 1955 is spoilers now?

Titanic:

Show spoiler

The ship drowns.

Passion of the Christ:

Show spoiler

Christ dies at the end.

aiming much more for style than substance (in other words, it will be a Zack Snyder film).

Watchmen?

I will see anything Marvel Studios puts out though

[Reply #143 on:]

aiming much more for style than substance (in other words, it will be a Zack Snyder film).

Watchmen?

Watchmen was a somewhat faithful adaptation of a work that already had a good bit of substance (and they even deviated from the source material a bit from what I hear) , so Snyder can't really get credit. Although honestly, I think the message presented in that movie is a bit more shallow than fans would admit. I liked it, but it was no profound statement. I'm not quite sure I can get behind Frank Miller's crazy worldview.

I will see anything Marvel Studios puts out though

Alright, I'll indulge you. Give me a good reason I shouldn't enjoy their output.

[Reply #144 on:]

Am I incorrect in sensing that The Hulk, The Hulk Returns, Captain America, Thor, Iron Man 1, and several iterations of Spiderman are not basically the same movie?  Also, I'm not sure why Avengers was appealing.... Of All the things named, Iron Man is probably the most entertaining property, but that's just because Robert Downey Jr. makes an entertaining Tony Stark.

Also, style and substance are two sides of the same coin; they often compliment one another within a given media, like comic books, or movies.  I don't see the criticism there, and Watchmen, a faithful adaptation had a lot of substance, right down to the emotional appeal of the soundtrack... maybe a few drawbacks, but I even found the ending change to be particularly reasonable given the context of the medium. (Ie movies tend to be more focused on character motivation interaction rather than semi-kooky paranormal based things: ymmv though)

[Reply #145 on:]

Doesn't the fact that they deviated from the source material but it was still a good movie give more credence to winna's side of the argument, Josh?

[Reply #146 on:]

Am I incorrect in sensing that The Hulk, The Hulk Returns, Captain America, Thor, Iron Man 1, and several iterations of Spiderman are not basically the same movie?

For the record, neither Ang Lee's Hulk nor any of the Spider-Man movies were products of Marvel Studios, despite being based on Marvel properties and bearing their logo as a credit. As for your question...um, no? None of them have particularly original or deep storylines, but most of them were different enough to not feel like I was seeing the same movie over and over, as well as being entertaining in their own right without being overly generic or offensively clichéd. I do feel like the movies have become dramatically better in Phase 2 (post-Avengers), though.

Also, style and substance are two sides of the same coin; they often compliment one another within a given media, like comic books, or movies.  I don't see the criticism there

I'm totally with you here, and I don't think I was criticizing use of style as much as you've interpreted. In the post you responded to I even implied that I would watch and enjoy a movie with more style than substance if it were entertaining enough. That said, there is a balance, and too much style over substance can result in a pretty empty-feeling experience. For example, while I thought Man Of Steel from last year boasted some pretty incredible action sequences and decent acting to the point that I didn't overly dislike it, the lack of any really interesting dialogue and the repetitive nature of it's philosophizing (see: any scene with Kevin Costner) made it something I don't think I'd call great art or particularly want to watch again. Zack Snyder is a talented filmmaker, but these are problems a lot of his movie's screenplays have.

To be clear, I don't think I'd consider any of Marvel's movies great art either...at the end of the day they are popcorn flicks. But they tend to keep me more invested in the characters and their interactions throughout than most other movies in the genre.

but I even found the ending change to be particularly reasonable given the context of the medium

I agree, in fact the ending is one of my favorite parts of the movie and I liked the choice to deviate there (at least as far as I am aware that it was a deviation...I'm not overly familiar with the graphic novel). Like I said, I liked that movie. I just think it was more entertaining in a shallow way than it was thoughtful. Which I'm not demonizing...there's just other stuff I like more.

[Reply #147 on:]

Perhaps I've grown fairly cynical.  A lot of superhero movies that I've seen typically follow the formula of introduce hero, then introduce villain who is basically a mirror of the hero, then hero wins. 

Granted Avengers doesn't follow that formula, and I mainly dislike it because of its bandwagon fodder.  Also there's X-Men 3 and Spiderman 3, and we get lots of reboots for everything.  Also I don't see why everyone seems to hate the Ang Lee Hulk... great Bruce Banner, and the storyline seemed generally nice, plus he gets to beat up his electricity father.

As for Watchmen, I also probably take it for granted that I read the source material, and so I understand some of the complex themes and details given to a complicated cast of characters; some of this was left out in the movie (probably due to time constraints), but I feel the movie did a wonderful job of attempting to display and portray those subtle details, as well as a movie possibly could.  But even with say 300, as an appeal to emotion, I felt that the style left credence to the substance; ie fighting against injustice and sacrifices made for freedom. 

[Reply #148 on:]

Perhaps I've grown fairly cynical.  A lot of superhero movies that I've seen typically follow the formula of introduce hero, then introduce villain who is basically a mirror of the hero, then hero wins.  

Granted Avengers doesn't follow that formula, and I mainly dislike it because of its bandwagon fodder.

Honestly I can see where you're coming from. Even if I agree with their overall tone and message, none of the Marvel movies have anything too important to say. I think what really draws me in is the concept of an inter-film continuity, where individual characters get their own films to develop and have arcs, and then occasionally interact all at once in an orgasmic spectacle of mindless action. The idea of a long-term ongoing connected series of big-budget films with elements of sci-fi and the supernatural is so irresistible to me that I can excuse the execution not being perfect, since no other studio has ever attempted it on such a huge scale before. You can't deny that they're putting a lot of effort into pulling it off.

Also I don't see why everyone seems to hate the Ang Lee Hulk... great Bruce Banner, and the storyline seemed generally nice, plus he gets to beat up his electricity father.

I need to watch it again. I haven't seen it since its release, and at the time I remember liking it even while it was being panned. I recall things it did well (possibly even better than the Ed Norton one) such as the majestic scenes of the Hulk leaping across the desert.

[Reply #149 on:]

John Wick

[Reply #150 on:]

I guess "The Battle of the Five Armies" isn't too bad of a title when you consider the LOTR/Hobbit movies have often had crap titles. I mean, "Return of the King" is a massive freaking spoiler!

So.... reusing the title of a book published in 1955 is spoilers now?

Forgive me for the late reply.

Just because it's from 1955, doesn't mean it's not a spoiler. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about plot-related things, but it's still best to use common courtesy regarding anything that could potentially dampen the experience, whether it's 1 year old or 30 years old.

And as far as Lord of the Rings goes, "Return of the King" is definitely a spoilerific title, especially for the people who first read the book in 1955. I recall reading somewhere that Tolkien didn't actually like the title but the publishers insisted or something like that.

[Reply #151 on:]

So did anyone else see that Mothra, Rodan and King Ghidorah were confirmed for a sequel to this year's Godzilla installment? These monsters are pretty well known, so that's good and all, but I hope the sequel doesn't end up with too much focus on the monsters, instead of how this one had almost too little.

[Reply #152 on:]

Unless the writers figure out how to write characters with personality, I think having all the focus on the monsters is probably the best way to go.

[Reply #153 on:]

If the monsters are given actual histories in the sequel, I think the focus being on them would be fine. But, judging by how vague this film was about the Muto's history, it's probably going to be left annoyingly ambiguous.*

^{*I know they did explain Godzilla's origins, but really, everyone already knows, so explaining that wasn't 100% necessary. Plus, their explanation kind of chipped some of Godzilla's dynamic/symbolism anyhow.}

[Reply #154 on:]

Ya, I guess I don't really care too much about how they explain their origins. As long as we get to see them in all their CGI glory, I'll be happy. They don't really need to have the writing be smart or interesting for them, because they're GIANT MONSTERS and I'm already pretty invested regardless. They just need to make sure that if the action is going to interrupted by human characters, we have some reason to be invested in them as well...which this year's film did not even come close to accomplishing.

[Reply #155 on:]

Crappy version of Age of Ultron trailer is up:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x28g8nh_ap-tlr-1-int-360p_creation

[Reply #156 on:]

Crappy version of Age of Ultron trailer is up:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x28g8nh_ap-tlr-1-int-360p_creation

Holy shit, that Iron Man suit.

[Reply #157 on:]

The Hulkbuster... but Hulk is OP, omg nerf.

[Reply #158 on:]

Marvel said "Fuck it, here's the stinking trailer":



I for one am looking forward to this.

[Reply #159 on:]

Damn, Black Widow really can't make up her mind about a hairstyle.

Warner/DC has a lot to live up to here.