General Movie Discussion

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Funny how you mention how Universal would try to make a new dinosaur franchise if the lose the rights to Jurassic Park. Other then making unmade dinosaur movies that were planned by Ray Harryhausen or making a movie series out of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic novel, 'The Lost World'. The problem with the second option is that other then the original 1925 movie and the late 1990's TV show, that movie does not have a good track record via Hollywood. And as for putting the unmade Ray Harryhausen movies on the big-screen, they'd have to find somebody really special like Guillermo del Toro or bring back Peter Jackson, I don't see how it would work. And given how Universal treated Dr. Suess like bullcrap via the movies....yeah....I have my doubts.

The unmade Ray Harryhausen movies would probably be taken up as passion projects by uber-Harryhausen fans like Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson. I hardly see an unlucky director-for-hire like Louis Leterrier on the Clash of the Titans remake delivering successfully on that count, since that strategy did not pay out well or Warner Bros at all. Hell, if Creation, the movie that King Kong was originally going to be, got made well then we'd have something since that was based on the Land That Time Forgot book series from Edgar Rice Burroughs. A thousand bonus points if it happened to feature stop-motion dinosaurs!

The Arthur Conan Doyle 'Lost World' is not something I would see as franchise material, so much as a standalone film that was made to properly represent/update the book and 1925 silent film.

Another, more recent possibility is a big budget adaptation of Cadillacs & Dinosaurs, which when you get down to it reads like an ideal franchise for Universal: it has the dinosaurs and the fast cars driven by good-looking meatheads! The post-apocalyptic setting could be seen as another appealing factor, and would allow for an interesting "what-if" setting. But whatever it turns out to be, it would need something that Jurassic Park and King Kong (2005) had: an established and visually distinct director to introduce it to the world, and to ensure that it doesn't become another half-arsed studio executive product.

For some reason, I've always thought that Creation would work well in modern times if it was set up in Alaska where feathered dinosaurs survived the KT wipeout and lived side-by-side with Ice Age mammals. Have the woolly rhino replace the Triceratops and have the mother T. rex kill a full grown bull woolly mammoth. That have the feathered Troodons, Parksosaurus, short faced bears, smilodons, Bigfoot, dire wolves, and giant prehistoric eagles/hawks in place of pterandons and have them be the explanation of Thunderbird sightings. Believe it or not, much, if not most, of Alaska has yet to properly explored/described. I really think that this would work.

http://nerdist.com/edge-of-tomorrow-2-live-die-repeat-tom-cruise-emily-blunt-doug-liman/

When I read the title "Live Die Repeat and Repeat" I thought it was a joke. But apparently it isn't. And I didn't even know the first film  was renamed as that for the bluray. Such a terrible, terrible title. Also it pretty much confirms the same thing happening again.

Anyway, even though that and the possible prequel premise don't exactly hold terribly exciting prospect, it's good Emily at least seems to be confirmed to appear alongside Tom again. Whenever the film comes out that is, could be a while

Mistral wrote:

http://nerdist.com/edge-of-tomorrow-2-live-die-repeat-tom-cruise-emily-blunt-doug-liman/

When I read the title "Live Die Repeat and Repeat" I thought it was a joke. But apparently it isn't. And I didn't even know the first film  was renamed as that for the bluray. Such a terrible, terrible title. Also it pretty much confirms the same thing happening again.

Anyway, even though that and the possible prequel premise don't exactly hold terribly exciting prospect, it's good Emily at least seems to be confirmed to appear alongside Tom again. Whenever the film comes out that is, could be a while

The people on reddit seem to have the same opinion. I always thought the name for the first was fine and this is going to confuse people even more.

I would call it "Edge of tomorrow: Angel of Verdun".

I ordered the steelbook because it has the real title on the front. All the blu-rays have the name technically. It's just the tagline is so big it makes live die repeat look like the title.

Martin Scorsee says that cinema is gone and younger people don't understand.

Quote wrote:

“It should matter to your life,” he says. “Unfortunately the latest generations don’t know that it mattered so much.”

I see where he's going and I kind of agree with him. You do see more movies pandering to the lowest common demonenator and fewer movie with heart and soul, or at least one of those 2. I can like many mindless fun movies (1970's Godzilla movies, Super Mario Bros, etc.) but at least those movies have many sci-fi elements to them. You rarely see movies that really connect with you anymore.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Martin Scorsee says that cinema is gone and younger people don't understand.

Quote wrote:

“It should matter to your life,” he says. “Unfortunately the latest generations don’t know that it mattered so much.”

I see where he's going and I kind of agree with him. You do see more movies pandering to the lowest common demonenator and fewer movie with heart and soul, or at least one of those 2. I can like many mindless fun movies (1970's Godzilla movies, Super Mario Bros, etc.) but at least those movies have many sci-fi elements to them. You rarely see movies that really connect with you anymore.

Agree. Even "bad" movies (general audience reaction) seemed to have a lot more soul to them.

Troyal1 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Martin Scorsee says that cinema is gone and younger people don't understand.

Quote wrote:

“It should matter to your life,” he says. “Unfortunately the latest generations don’t know that it mattered so much.”

I see where he's going and I kind of agree with him. You do see more movies pandering to the lowest common demonenator and fewer movie with heart and soul, or at least one of those 2. I can like many mindless fun movies (1970's Godzilla movies, Super Mario Bros, etc.) but at least those movies have many sci-fi elements to them. You rarely see movies that really connect with you anymore.

Agree. Even "bad" movies (general audience reaction) seemed to have a lot more soul to them.

Indeed. Thankfully, people are smart enough to know really bad movies when they see it nowadays. Fant4stic, (which backfired since Fox can't be trusted with them anymore), Movie 43, Jem and the Holograms, R.I.P.D., and stuff like that. Although, you get that one bad movie that suckers in enough people that it gets a profit. I.E. The Last Airbender and JP3, which in that case you could argue it was a mediocre movie in an ocean of worse movies since 2001 was a really bad year for movies. Tomb Raider is the only respectable movie from that year that I can think of.

c'mon, Rhedo, don't lump JP/// in with the rest of those. even if one considers it the worst of the JP films, or even the worst thing in the whole franchise, it doesn't compare to the rest of those. the general rating for it is about 50%, the others you mentioned climb no higher than 20%--the latter is a bad movie, the former is just a mixed reception.

Oshronosaurus wrote:

c'mon, Rhedo, don't lump JP/// in with the rest of those. even if one considers it the worst of the JP films, or even the worst thing in the whole franchise, it doesn't compare to the rest of those. the general rating for it is about 50%, the others you mentioned climb no higher than 20%--the latter is a bad movie, the former is just a mixed reception.

Agree, I'm extremely bias because I love JP3. But I feel that even though it was a mindless action movie with basically no plot it still has some of that "special sauce" in it. Whether it be Grant, the animatronics or just certain set pieces of the film.

It takes me back to being 5 everytime I see it.

Troyal1 wrote:

Mistral wrote:

http://nerdist.com/edge-of-tomorrow-2-live-die-repeat-tom-cruise-emily-blunt-doug-liman/

When I read the title "Live Die Repeat and Repeat" I thought it was a joke. But apparently it isn't. And I didn't even know the first film  was renamed as that for the bluray. Such a terrible, terrible title. Also it pretty much confirms the same thing happening again.

Anyway, even though that and the possible prequel premise don't exactly hold terribly exciting prospect, it's good Emily at least seems to be confirmed to appear alongside Tom again. Whenever the film comes out that is, could be a while

The people on reddit seem to have the same opinion. I always thought the name for the first was fine and this is going to confuse people even more.

I would call it "Edge of tomorrow: Angel of Verdun".

I ordered the steelbook because it has the real title on the front. All the blu-rays have the name technically. It's just the tagline is so big it makes live die repeat look like the title.

It's probably because the first film wasn't as successful at the box office (not initially at least) as the studio had hoped, and maybe Cruise blamed it on the title that wasn't describing enough. But this is just me guessing. It's very weird.

Anyway, it's just a terrible title and doesn't really matter if the film is good. Hopefully there will be original ideas. Groundhog Day premise is a fine tool when adapted for different situations for short periods, and certainly when done quite well like in EoT, but it does lose effect if repeated enough times.

Speaking of Groundhog Day premises , I know there are like billion different episodes on TV where that has happened, many of them are quite good too, but my absolutely favorite is still the classic SG1 episode "Window of Opportunity", where O'Neill and Teal'c are playing golf next to Stargate and practicing some wacky hobbies

Spoiler:

There are some amazing gags in that episode that still make me laugh 15 years later. In terms of comedy episodes on that series, I'd put it third behind "1969" and "200", and probably in overall top 10 of the entire run too.

Oshronosaurus wrote:

c'mon, Rhedo, don't lump JP/// in with the rest of those. even if one considers it the worst of the JP films, or even the worst thing in the whole franchise, it doesn't compare to the rest of those. the general rating for it is about 50%, the others you mentioned climb no higher than 20%--the latter is a bad movie, the former is just a mixed reception.

Yeah, as much as I lump on JP3, I would happily take it over the myriad of soulless, personality-free, bad films that come out in this day and age.

But the real issue that Scorsese raises about cinema being dead/dying is something I've picked up on. Yes we've had box office hits but how many originals? Will there be a motion picture event like Lord of the Rings or The Wizard of Oz, Star Wars or indeed Jurassic Park ever again? More so if it isn't connected to something we already know?

The question audiences should be asking, yet seem unable to do so, is "what more is there?"

Because I'm not convinced that's all there is.

Although I'm not really agreeing that this sequel needed to be made, like at all, I think eventually watching it will certainly feel less of a chore than with the new Alien soft reboot for example, or these new Star Wars films... Denis Villeneuve usually has some vision and artistically there are hints of brilliance here again. Also Ford doesn't look bored to death, so he may care what he's doing for a change. However,  as some people said on the comments, there might be some concerns regarding the nature of the film

Spoiler:

Mistral wrote:

Although I'm not really agreeing that this sequel needed to be made, like at all, I think eventually watching it will certainly feel less of a chore than with the new Alien soft reboot for example, or these new Star Wars films... Denis Villeneuve usually has some vision and artistically there are hints of brilliance here again. Also Ford doesn't look bored to death, so he may care what he's doing for a change. However,  as some people said on the comments, there might be some concerns regarding the nature of the film

Spoiler:

I didn't really care for the first movie but I'm very intrigued by this.

Although I have to say the holograms immediately reminded me of that recent Ghost in the Shell movie. Which isn't a bad thing, just kinda thought they looked similar in a way.

There never really seemed to be middle ground in opinions with Blade Runner, you either love it or don't. This one will likely will be less polarizing

Hey guys. Sorry we can't give you Hellboy 3, so here's a reboot.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/09/hellboy-to-be-rebooted-with-new-director-actor-according-to-creator-mike-mignola

Troyal1 wrote:

Hey guys. Sorry we can't give you Hellboy 3, so here's a reboot.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/09/hellboy-to-be-rebooted-with-new-director-actor-according-to-creator-mike-mignola

I know a lot of time has passed since the last movie, but even so, I find it odd that they would just reboot it rather then complete a trilogy.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Hey guys. Sorry we can't give you Hellboy 3, so here's a reboot.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/09/hellboy-to-be-rebooted-with-new-director-actor-according-to-creator-mike-mignola

I know a lot of time has passed since the last movie, but even so, I find it odd that they would just reboot it rather then complete a trilogy.

I don't have anything against or for it. But I know tons of people are going to be extremely sad for the reason you just stated. 

Although I like the director. Wish he'd go back to work on game of thrones and other stuff I'm interested in lol

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I find it odd that they would just reboot it rather then complete a trilogy.

But that's how movies are made today. Easy and lazy with just as safe profit margins

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I find it odd that they would just reboot it rather then complete a trilogy.

But that's how movies are made today. Easy and lazy with just as safe profit margins

Not with everything. Just look at how Sony tried, and failed, with their all female Ghostbusters reboot when the fanbase wanted a true 3rd movie that would be a passing of the torch movie.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Not with everything. Just look at how Sony tried, and failed, with their all female Ghostbusters reboot when the fanbase wanted a true 3rd movie that would be a passing of the torch movie.

But the reason they still did that was because it was lazier, easier and [as they originally thought/miscalculated] safer than the alternative route.

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Not with everything. Just look at how Sony tried, and failed, with their all female Ghostbusters reboot when the fanbase wanted a true 3rd movie that would be a passing of the torch movie.

But the reason they still did that was because it was lazier, easier route and [as they originally thought/miscalculated] safer than the alternative.

Hard to call an all female Ghostbusters reboot "lazier and easier". Maybe if they had compromised and got better casting and wrote the script that it was were they were the daughters of the originals, then you'd be right.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Not with everything. Just look at how Sony tried, and failed, with their all female Ghostbusters reboot when the fanbase wanted a true 3rd movie that would be a passing of the torch movie.

But the reason they still did that was because it was lazier, easier route and [as they originally thought/miscalculated] safer than the alternative.

Hard to call an all female Ghostbusters reboot "lazier and easier". Maybe if they had compromised and got better casting and wrote the script that it was were they were the daughters of the originals, then you'd be right.

Yes it is lazier and easier when you just do the same exact thing as before but with the gimmick of females on roles.

For Ghostbusters 3 they would've tried to actually write actual script or something (even the second film had been rehash of the first one), but with that remake-reboot they could just slap any crap quickly together. They aren't aiming these things for the fans but for the masses while relying on familiar name. "Oh Ghostbusters, I remember that". Also there is always doubt traditional sequel's gonna work so many years later, with old faces. It's safer to reboot/remake, on top of being easier and lazier.

They and their market research + focus groups just miscalculated the effects on that particular franchise. And when everybody started crapping on it was too late already, and they started switching excuse gears towards blaming the audiences for hating women, which obviously was not the real reason everybody despised that garbage of a premise and film

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Not with everything. Just look at how Sony tried, and failed, with their all female Ghostbusters reboot when the fanbase wanted a true 3rd movie that would be a passing of the torch movie.

But the reason they still did that was because it was lazier, easier route and [as they originally thought/miscalculated] safer than the alternative.

Hard to call an all female Ghostbusters reboot "lazier and easier". Maybe if they had compromised and got better casting and wrote the script that it was were they were the daughters of the originals, then you'd be right.

Yes it is lazier and easier when you just do the same exact thing as before but with the gimmick of females on roles.

For Ghostbusters 3 they would've tried to actually write actual script or something (even the second film had been rehash of the first one), but with that remake-reboot they could just slap any crap quickly together. They aren't aiming these things for the fans but for the masses while relying on familiar name. "Oh Ghostbusters, I remember that". Also there is always doubt traditional sequel's gonna work so many years later, with old faces. It's safer to reboot/remake, on top of being easier and lazier.

They and their market research + focus groups just miscalculated the effects on that particular franchise. And when everybody started crapping on it was too late already, and they started switching excuse gears towards blaming the audiences for hating women, which obviously was not the real reason everybody despised that garbage of a premise and film

Pretty much this. They thought women and the "everything is all about diversity all the time for the sake of it" crowd would eat this film up. They didn't expect one of the most severe backlashes EVER in film history. 

And then their intended base didn't really even care about the film.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Hey guys. Sorry we can't give you Hellboy 3, so here's a reboot.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/09/hellboy-to-be-rebooted-with-new-director-actor-according-to-creator-mike-mignola

I know a lot of time has passed since the last movie, but even so, I find it odd that they would just reboot it rather then complete a trilogy.

Del Toro wanted to make it. Guess the story wasnt good enough.

Are we really still on the Ghostbusters reboot? It was an ok film that was weighed down by way too much controversy because the studio were idiots. That's pretty much where the discussion ends for me at this point lol.

In other news, the Edge of Tomorrow sequel has some news, and a horrible title: Live Die Repeat and Repeat.

Warner Brothers is making more changes in the executive ranks. One of which was naming Courtenay Valenti, who was involved with the Harry Potter movies and the 2 Lego movies.

Critics are destroying Guy Ritchie's King Arthur movie.

How hard can it be to make a King Arthur movie?!

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Critics are destroying Guy Ritchie's King Arthur movie.

How hard can it be to make a King Arthur movie?!

At this rate, I'm content to wait until Disney's eventual live action Sword in the Stone, that at least has a book to work with and, I imagine, directors and writers who are respectful to the legacy of what they're working on. While I have not seen the film, this honestly looked like a paycheck job for the cast and crew on this film and nobody cared about what they were working on, and as a fan of the Arthur mythology that was disappointing as hell. In theory, you could work out a trilogy of the most famous Arthur legends from Uther's reign to the Battle of Camlann. But this did not look like the right approach for that; over fifteen years since The Lord of the Rings and almost everyone working on these big budget fantasy films keep learning the wrong lessons.

On the subject of other King Arthur movies (that aren't Monty Python & the Holy Grail), I have a few recommendations. John Boorman's Excalibur is an ambitious and faithful adaptation of Thomas Mallory's Le Morte de Arthur and highly entertaining, provided you can overlook some particularly hammy sequences. The 1998 miniseries Merlin starring Sam Neill is pretty good for a televised adaptation, and King Arthur directed by Antoine Fuqua delivers on impressive battle scenes in a Late Roman British setting.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Critics are destroying Guy Ritchie's King Arthur movie.

How hard can it be to make a King Arthur movie?!

At this rate, I'm content to wait until Disney's eventual live action Sword in the Stone, that at least has a book to work with and, I imagine, directors and writers who are respectful to the legacy of what they're working on. While I have not seen the film, this honestly looked like a paycheck job for the cast and crew on this film and nobody cared about what they were working on, and as a fan of the Arthur mythology that was disappointing as hell. In theory, you could work out a trilogy of the most famous Arthur legends from Uther's reign to the Battle of Camlann. But this did not look like the right approach for that; over fifteen years since The Lord of the Rings and almost everyone working on these big budget fantasy films keep learning the wrong lessons.

On the subject of other King Arthur movies (that aren't Monty Python & the Holy Grail), I have a few recommendations. John Boorman's Excalibur is an ambitious and faithful adaptation of Thomas Mallory's Le Morte de Arthur and highly entertaining, provided you can overlook some particularly hammy sequences. The 1998 miniseries Merlin starring Sam Neill is pretty good for a televised adaptation, and King Arthur directed by Antoine Fuqua delivers on impressive battle scenes in a Late Roman British setting.

I remember watching the Merlin miniseries via a single movie back in 10th grade. I like it even today. I could never get into the 2004 movie since it was 'too real'. Yes, I know that a Roman general has been the source of King Arthur, or at least has a majority part of all the sources, but seeing the trailers for that as a 16 year old who grew up on the old medieval legends...It just left a big sour taste in my mouth.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I could never get into the 2004 movie since it was 'too real'. Yes, I know that a Roman general has been the source of King Arthur, or at least has a majority part of all the sources, but seeing the trailers for that as a 16 year old who grew up on the old medieval legends...It just left a big sour taste in my mouth.

Too real?



Historically it's just as made-up nonsense as films like Robin Hood 2010 or Troy 2004 or Gladiator 2000, almost completely fabricated with just the thinnest pretense of 'real' time scale that the masses could buy into. And even legends wise it wasn't that accurate. Not that there is really such thing as 'accurate with Arthur when it got modified thousand times over the centuries...

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I could never get into the 2004 movie since it was 'too real'. Yes, I know that a Roman general has been the source of King Arthur, or at least has a majority part of all the sources, but seeing the trailers for that as a 16 year old who grew up on the old medieval legends...It just left a big sour taste in my mouth.

Too real?



Historically it's just as made-up nonsense as films like Robin Hood 2010 or Troy 2004 or Gladiator 2000, almost completely fabricated with just the thinnest pretense of 'real' time scale that the masses could buy into. And even legends wise it wasn't that accurate. Not that there is really such thing as 'accurate with Arthur when it got modified thousand times over the centuries...

What film is that gif from?