Movies
-
Recently I found out a Han Solo spin-off is scheduled for next year. Disney really knows how to milk the Star Wars franchise. Though, I must admit I really enjoyed Rogue One contrary to Episode VII which was an uninspired and cringy mashup of all other Star Wars episodes combined that left me asking: are they being serious?
-
The Han Solo movie sounded interesting because Lord and Miller (21 and 22 Jump Street, The Lego Movie) were directing. Unfortunately, after clashes with the writer and producer, they were fired, and replaced with Ron Howard.
It's probably going to be less interesting as a result.
I think that Lucasfilm are trying to figure out how to make Star Wars films. Some of the difficulties faced by Edwards with Rogue One, and Lord and Miller with Solo could be down to the producers getting nervous. Ironically, I enjoyed the morally ambiguous parts of Rogue One the best, where it felt very much like a 2000AD story. I suspect that the iconography of the saga might be sufficient to keep the right "feel".
Marvel Studios, who're also a part of Disney, have tended to cleave to a particular format. The Incredible Hulk (the Edward Norton one) has a very different feel to Iron Man and subsequent entries into the franchise. They've had a few, similar problems to Lucasfilm. Norton was ejected, as was Edgar Wright from Ant-Man.
Interestingly, Thor: Ragnarok pushes the template a bit, going for a more comedic tone, though it's borrowing a lot from The Guardians of the Galaxy. I enjoyed it a lot, though I don't think that it's as great as some of the reviews say.
-
The Han Solo film isn't really doing anything for me personally, so whether it's Lord & Miller or Ron Howard at the helm, makes no difference to me. I thought Rogue One was well done. It was nice to see a Star Wars film diverge from the others and take on a darker tone.
The Marvel films all seem to have a lot of comedic moments that lend to their success. The first few Hulk movies were more serious, at the same time, the cgi at the time was pretty bad. The first 2 Thor movies, likewise, were more serious in tone and the cgi was horrible, so they're probably banking on the humour aspect to make it stand out from the others.
Studio meddling is nothing new. I was really pissed off when The Thing prequel came out. By all accounts a lot of the fx were done using practical animatronics and such, but of course, the studio stepped in and decided it needed a ton of cgi which completely ruined everything. It also didn't help that the plot & characters were damn near identical to Carpenter's film.
-
The Happening: horrible, horrible film ???
-
Have you only just watched that shocker of a movie? @gaseousclay
It was god awful! The scene where they're running away from the wind in the field… gobshite
-
@Sam:
Have you only just watched that shocker of a movie? @gaseousclay
It was god awful! The scene where they're running away from the wind in the field… gobshite
@Sam yes, I only just got around to watching it for the first time. I've been trying to catch up on old films I haven't seen and The Happening was available at my local library. I also watched After Earth, another M. Night Shyamalan turd fest, but The Happening was by far the worst film i've seen in a long time. Can't even believe it was greenlit and made into a film.
-
Just saw Blade Runner last night. It was enjoyable, but was far too long and suffered from a few issues. Without spoiling, they attempted to mimic the pacing of the original while packing in far too much storyline. This is why I (and you) felt like the movie was too long. I'm not against longer movies, but I should never be sitting there thinking "wow this movie is long."
Also, there were far too many decisions made for the sake of homage. Things that were done for a reason in the original were present purely because they were done in the original, not because they had any meaning. Again without spoiling I can offer an example. Roy Batty wears a black leather coat with a high collar:
He is the fallen angel. The greatest creation of God (Tyrell), but he has decided to rebel. His pale skin, white hair and blue eyes are how his creator envisioned him (purity). He has decided to don the black leather coat, indicative of his chosen path. All of this is communicated to you via the imagery, and whether or not you consciously acknowledge it, it all enriches the other things you do notice.
In the recent movie, Gosling wears a leather coat with a similar collar. And he does it…well because it reminds us of the first movie. So my issue is the lost opportunity. How could Goslings jacket have informed us of something without just explaining it (which is what movies have just decided to do recently)?
That said, I go into all of this because I did enjoy it, and though it was worthy of comment, unlike most movies out there.
-
Red Sonja in development. Not really surprised by this. It'll be interesting to see where this goes, especially with the success of Wonder Woman. Do any of you remember the promo poster from awhile back that Robert Rodriguez did featuring Rose McGowan as Red Sonja? They were dating at the time which explains a lot, but it clearly fell through the cracks.
I personally could see either Gina Carano or Rhonda Rousey as playing more believable characters when it comes to the physical side. They're not great actors but neither was Arnold Schwarzeneggar.
-
Nothing could ever be as good as the original Red Sonja.
Which had Arnold it it, since you mentioned him…
-
Damn, Gina…
looks aside, she has actual fighting skills (and muscle mass) that would work perfectly in a Red Sonja role, in the same way that Arnold Schwarzeneggar was a hulked out muscle head for Conan.
Still wished a King Conan movie was being made. That would be epic to see an old arnold doing one last outing as Conan.
-
@tvenuto I thought that Agent K's (Gosling's) jacket was more of a callback to Deckard's (Ford's) from the original movie.
If you want to geek out about its details, Esquire interviewed its designer. It's actually made of cotton, not leather, and the shearling collar was suggested by Gosling. Oh, and it's got a magnetic closure.
I do like the flip-up collar / mask on it.
As for the symbolism of the coat in the original Blade Runner, I wonder how much of it was deliberate, and how much has been read in after the fact. I wouldn't be surprised if Rutger Hauer's costume was chosen because it looked cool and fitted in with the aesthetics of the movie.
What I did like in the new movie was the relationship between K and Joi. There's an ambiguity as to whether or not she has feelings for him, or is just a program, and the fact that he's artificial and she's even more artificial.
-
Just saw Blade Runner last night. It was enjoyable, but was far too long and suffered from a few issues. Without spoiling, they attempted to mimic the pacing of the original while packing in far too much storyline. This is why I (and you) felt like the movie was too long. I'm not against longer movies, but I should never be sitting there thinking "wow this movie is long."
Also, there were far too many decisions made for the sake of homage. Things that were done for a reason in the original were present purely because they were done in the original, not because they had any meaning. Again without spoiling I can offer an example. Roy Batty wears a black leather coat with a high collar:
He is the fallen angel. The greatest creation of God (Tyrell), but he has decided to rebel. His pale skin, white hair and blue eyes are how his creator envisioned him (purity). He has decided to don the black leather coat, indicative of his chosen path. All of this is communicated to you via the imagery, and whether or not you consciously acknowledge it, it all enriches the other things you do notice.
In the recent movie, Gosling wears a leather coat with a similar collar. And he does it…well because it reminds us of the first movie. So my issue is the lost opportunity. How could Goslings jacket have informed us of something without just explaining it (which is what movies have just decided to do recently)?
That said, I go into all of this because I did enjoy it, and though it was worthy of comment, unlike most movies out there.
I left the theatre with less than 15 minutes of the film remaining. I think it took less time for me to read “Do Androids” than to endure that overwrought clunker of a movie. Not that it wasn’t aesthetically enjoyable for the most part…but nonetheless, barf!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I️ feel like the whole point of Red Sonja is she’s a sexualized badass. I️ think the modern version could be perfectly feminist, with slutty costumes and all. After all, being a slut is a choice for which none of us should be shamed.
This. If only we could have had something like that about 20 years ago and have a young Gina Gershon in the title role. No one did shameless, compromise free female sexuality like Gina.
-
IDK if she can act (probably better than Brigitte Nielson) but they should just get this Claire Anastasia cosplayer to play Red Sonja.
