Still looking forward to Looper:
Young Joseph Gordon-Levitt-looking hitman is tasked with offing marks who are sent back in time by future Mafia, conveniently leaving no evidence. So far so cliched, until he grows up into Bruce Willis, turns against his employers and gets sent back in time to be killed by himself (chronocide?), where he has to talk himself out of killing himself between bouts of trying to kill himself.
[quote]roybot wrote:
Still looking forward to Looper:
Young Joseph Gordon-Levitt-looking hitman is tasked with offing marks who are sent back in time by future Mafia, conveniently leaving no evidence. So far so cliched, until he grows up into Bruce Willis, turns against his employers and gets sent back in time to be killed by himself (chronocide?), where he has to talk himself out of killing himself between bouts of trying to kill himself. [/quote]
yes yes yes yes yes.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Also, and Iām just realizing this, how did Superman shave? Didnāt Superman 4 teach us that his hair can withstand 1,000 pounds of force? 
.[/quote]
He uses his heat vision. I saw that in some 90ās Superman comic once when he let his hair grow longer. Apparently nothing else can shave his face.
[quote]roybot wrote:
Still looking forward to Looper:
Young Joseph Gordon-Levitt-looking hitman is tasked with offing marks who are sent back in time by future Mafia, conveniently leaving no evidence. So far so cliched, until he grows up into Bruce Willis, turns against his employers and gets sent back in time to be killed by himself (chronocide?), where he has to talk himself out of killing himself between bouts of trying to kill himself. [/quote]
Looks pretty awesome.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
I still canāt think why The Hobbit needs three movies! GRRR!!![/quote]
Itās to do with Hollywoodās borderline superstitious obsession with trilogies: threeās the charm, good things come in threes, three is the magic number. [/quote]
Beginning ā Middle ā End.
The āfranchiseā mentality, on the other hand, thatās the one thatās got me stumped.
[quote]enrac wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
I still canāt think why The Hobbit needs three movies! GRRR!!![/quote]
Itās to do with Hollywoodās borderline superstitious obsession with trilogies: threeās the charm, good things come in threes, three is the magic number. [/quote]
Beginning ā Middle ā End.
The āfranchiseā mentality, on the other hand, thatās the one thatās got me stumped.[/quote]
Nolanās Batman was never conceived as a trilogy (Begins was supposed to be a self-contained movie: at the time , WB was still trying to recover from the critical mauling of Batman and Robin, so they gave Nolan complete creative freedom to do what he wanted. They had nothing to lose).
Also, while some movies work as three-parters, The Hobbit didnāt start out that way and certainly didnāt need to be a trilogy. The new Spider-Man is now a planned trilogy, even though there isnāt a script or a story in place (even Marc Webb said that they donāt know who the mystery guy at the end is going to be).
The more likely explanation is that thereās a sense of prestige around trilogies at the moment after LotR and Batman, and itās a marketing move to brand new movies as trilogies to suggest an epic engaging story is in store.
Franchises are just about churning out sequels until they have a flop.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]enrac wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
I still canāt think why The Hobbit needs three movies! GRRR!!![/quote]
Itās to do with Hollywoodās borderline superstitious obsession with trilogies: threeās the charm, good things come in threes, three is the magic number. [/quote]
Beginning ā Middle ā End.
The āfranchiseā mentality, on the other hand, thatās the one thatās got me stumped.[/quote]
Nolanās Batman was never conceived as a trilogy (Begins was supposed to be a self-contained movie: at the time , WB was still trying to recover from the critical mauling of Batman and Robin, so they gave Nolan complete creative freedom to do what he wanted. They had nothing to lose).
Also, while some movies work as three-parters, The Hobbit didnāt start out that way and certainly didnāt need to be a trilogy. The new Spider-Man is now a planned trilogy, even though there isnāt a script or a story in place (even Marc Webb said that they donāt know who the mystery guy at the end is going to be).
The more likely explanation is that thereās a sense of prestige around trilogies at the moment after LotR and Batman, and itās a marketing move to brand new movies as trilogies to suggest an epic engaging story is in store.
Franchises are just about churning out sequels until they have a flop. [/quote]
You donāt necessarily need a pre-concieved plan (though it helps) for future movies past the first one, Iām just trying to say that it works that way (assuming itās done well). When writing for the second movie, a writer would probably ask, āwell, where can we go from here?ā, and āhow do we tie all this upā for the third one.
The franchise notion though, like all the Bond movies before Casino Royale (which re-booted the series), is harder. What can you explore that hasnāt already been done?
[quote]enrac wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]enrac wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
I still canāt think why The Hobbit needs three movies! GRRR!!![/quote]
Itās to do with Hollywoodās borderline superstitious obsession with trilogies: threeās the charm, good things come in threes, three is the magic number. [/quote]
Beginning ā Middle ā End.
The āfranchiseā mentality, on the other hand, thatās the one thatās got me stumped.[/quote]
Nolanās Batman was never conceived as a trilogy (Begins was supposed to be a self-contained movie: at the time , WB was still trying to recover from the critical mauling of Batman and Robin, so they gave Nolan complete creative freedom to do what he wanted. They had nothing to lose).
Also, while some movies work as three-parters, The Hobbit didnāt start out that way and certainly didnāt need to be a trilogy. The new Spider-Man is now a planned trilogy, even though there isnāt a script or a story in place (even Marc Webb said that they donāt know who the mystery guy at the end is going to be).
The more likely explanation is that thereās a sense of prestige around trilogies at the moment after LotR and Batman, and itās a marketing move to brand new movies as trilogies to suggest an epic engaging story is in store.
Franchises are just about churning out sequels until they have a flop. [/quote]
You donāt necessarily need a pre-concieved plan (though it helps) for future movies past the first one, Iām just trying to say that it works that way (assuming itās done well). When writing for the second movie, a writer would probably ask, āwell, where can we go from here?ā, and āhow do we tie all this upā for the third one.
The franchise notion though, like all the Bond movies before Casino Royale (which re-booted the series), is harder. What can you explore that hasnāt already been done?[/quote]
But then it doesnāt have to be a trilogy, either. Itās just one storytelling structure. There is no reason to make The Hobbit (for an example) a trilogy, other than it will be a trilogy. There was no reason for the Star Wars prequels to be a trilogyā¦other than that was what expected (in fact, what was done in eps 1-3 could easily have been done in two movies).
The move towards blockbuster trilogies instead of ongoing franchises only happened because audiences got jaded with sequels that tried to one-up what had come before. Itās the execs, not the writers who make the call on how many installments it takes to get a story told.
Now that Nolan has taken the unprecendented step of giving a major summer blockbuster franchise a finite end, every studio with a comic book property is moving towards trilogies (except Marvel)ā¦Monkey-see, monkey do.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]enrac wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]enrac wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
I still canāt think why The Hobbit needs three movies! GRRR!!![/quote]
Itās to do with Hollywoodās borderline superstitious obsession with trilogies: threeās the charm, good things come in threes, three is the magic number. [/quote]
Beginning ā Middle ā End.
The āfranchiseā mentality, on the other hand, thatās the one thatās got me stumped.[/quote]
Nolanās Batman was never conceived as a trilogy (Begins was supposed to be a self-contained movie: at the time , WB was still trying to recover from the critical mauling of Batman and Robin, so they gave Nolan complete creative freedom to do what he wanted. They had nothing to lose).
Also, while some movies work as three-parters, The Hobbit didnāt start out that way and certainly didnāt need to be a trilogy. The new Spider-Man is now a planned trilogy, even though there isnāt a script or a story in place (even Marc Webb said that they donāt know who the mystery guy at the end is going to be).
The more likely explanation is that thereās a sense of prestige around trilogies at the moment after LotR and Batman, and itās a marketing move to brand new movies as trilogies to suggest an epic engaging story is in store.
Franchises are just about churning out sequels until they have a flop. [/quote]
You donāt necessarily need a pre-concieved plan (though it helps) for future movies past the first one, Iām just trying to say that it works that way (assuming itās done well). When writing for the second movie, a writer would probably ask, āwell, where can we go from here?ā, and āhow do we tie all this upā for the third one.
The franchise notion though, like all the Bond movies before Casino Royale (which re-booted the series), is harder. What can you explore that hasnāt already been done?[/quote]
But then it doesnāt have to be a trilogy, either. Itās just one storytelling structure. There is no reason to make The Hobbit (for an example) a trilogy, other than it will be a trilogy. There was no reason for the Star Wars prequels to be a trilogyā¦other than that was what expected (in fact, what was done in eps 1-3 could easily have been done in two movies).
The move towards blockbuster trilogies instead of ongoing franchises only happened because audiences got jaded with sequels that tried to one-up what had come before. Itās the execs, not the writers who make the call on how many installments it takes to get a story told.
Now that Nolan has taken the unprecendented step of giving a major summer blockbuster franchise a finite end, every studio with a comic book property is moving towards trilogies (except Marvel)ā¦Monkey-see, monkey do. [/quote]
Marvel had the unique idea of focusing on bringing the entire Marvel world to the screen with crossover circumstances. That was a one in a million shot. They just happened to actually pull it off. Marvel would have died if Thor, Cap and the Avengers sucked.
My mind could wrap around Thor, Captain America, Iron man and the Hulk being in a movie together before it came outā¦I knew it would be a tough sell, but I knew it could work.
Justice Leagueā¦I just canāt.
[quote]Nards wrote:
My mind could wrap around Thor, Captain America, Iron man and the Hulk being in a movie together before it came outā¦I knew it would be a tough sell, but I knew it could work.
Justice Leagueā¦I just canāt.[/quote]
That is because the characters are too vanilla. No one can relate to ā1950ās Supermanā todayā¦or Wonder Woman from the 70ās tv show.
They would have to let Superman get his hair messed up a littleā¦and maybe throw Wonder Woman in a strip club for 2 years to make it work.
Thatās trueā¦and I mean look at the Nolan Batman moviesā¦so much more real. To have Batman interact with Superman is hard to swallow.
Which reminds meā¦one thing I didnāt like about Captain America was how different his WWII was from the real WWII. I mean when I watch Iron Man or Iron Man 2[/i] itās sort of hard to think as that taking place after a WWII that had weaponry like they showed in the Captain America movie.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]enrac wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]enrac wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
I still canāt think why The Hobbit needs three movies! GRRR!!![/quote]
Itās to do with Hollywoodās borderline superstitious obsession with trilogies: threeās the charm, good things come in threes, three is the magic number. [/quote]
Beginning ā Middle ā End.
The āfranchiseā mentality, on the other hand, thatās the one thatās got me stumped.[/quote]
Nolanās Batman was never conceived as a trilogy (Begins was supposed to be a self-contained movie: at the time , WB was still trying to recover from the critical mauling of Batman and Robin, so they gave Nolan complete creative freedom to do what he wanted. They had nothing to lose).
Also, while some movies work as three-parters, The Hobbit didnāt start out that way and certainly didnāt need to be a trilogy. The new Spider-Man is now a planned trilogy, even though there isnāt a script or a story in place (even Marc Webb said that they donāt know who the mystery guy at the end is going to be).
The more likely explanation is that thereās a sense of prestige around trilogies at the moment after LotR and Batman, and itās a marketing move to brand new movies as trilogies to suggest an epic engaging story is in store.
Franchises are just about churning out sequels until they have a flop. [/quote]
You donāt necessarily need a pre-concieved plan (though it helps) for future movies past the first one, Iām just trying to say that it works that way (assuming itās done well). When writing for the second movie, a writer would probably ask, āwell, where can we go from here?ā, and āhow do we tie all this upā for the third one.
The franchise notion though, like all the Bond movies before Casino Royale (which re-booted the series), is harder. What can you explore that hasnāt already been done?[/quote]
But then it doesnāt have to be a trilogy, either. Itās just one storytelling structure. There is no reason to make The Hobbit (for an example) a trilogy, other than it will be a trilogy. There was no reason for the Star Wars prequels to be a trilogyā¦other than that was what expected (in fact, what was done in eps 1-3 could easily have been done in two movies).
The move towards blockbuster trilogies instead of ongoing franchises only happened because audiences got jaded with sequels that tried to one-up what had come before. Itās the execs, not the writers who make the call on how many installments it takes to get a story told.
Now that Nolan has taken the unprecendented step of giving a major summer blockbuster franchise a finite end, every studio with a comic book property is moving towards trilogies (except Marvel)ā¦Monkey-see, monkey do. [/quote]
Marvel had the unique idea of focusing on bringing the entire Marvel world to the screen with crossover circumstances. That was a one in a million shot. They just happened to actually pull it off. Marvel would have died if Thor, Cap and the Avengers sucked.[/quote]
They also made excellent choices of directors (each suited to the characters they were tasked with bringing to the screen), threw in enough references to pique the interest of non-readers and whet the appetites of existing fans, and most importantly, managed to reference the ridiculous aspects of characters in a way that was still respectful.
Whedon cranked it up in Avengers, but it was there in Thor (godly pride comes before a fall) and Cap America (that costume).
Yes, WB have Batman, but they also have Superman Returns and Green Lantern. They also rejected Joss Whedonās Wonder Woman script and made the TV series instead.
[quote]Nards wrote:
Thatās trueā¦and I mean look at the Nolan Batman moviesā¦so much more real. To have Batman interact with Superman is hard to swallow.[/quote]
Thatās why I said if WB were to reboot Batman as a flagship JL movie they would not be able to maintain Nolan-levels of realism.
[quote]
Which reminds meā¦one thing I didnāt like about Captain America was how different his WWII was from the real WWII. I mean when I watch Iron Man or Iron Man 2[/i] itās sort of hard to think as that taking place after a WWII that had weaponry like they showed in the Captain America movie.[/quote]
In Captain America, I think Joe Johnston was pitching for an Indiana Jones-type vibe (like with The Rocketeer)ā¦thereās a scene in The Avengers where Cap discovers a crate full of HYDRA weapons in a helicarrier bay
.
He confronts Fury and he said the weapons were being stockpiled for a coming invasion in case the Avengers initiave failed. The HYDRA weapons are similar in nature to those used by the Chitauri footsoldiers: same power source.
The Avengers initiave was supposed to be the main defense, but Furyās attempts at forming a team were aborted (Furyās presence in the solo movies was the first attempt; the actual teaming-up is the second push to assemble a team).
Thereās a shadow organization represented by the council seen on the heli-carrier monitors who seem to operate outside of SHIELD and give Fury orders. The idea is that all advanced technology was confiscated and kept secret from the public until the Chitauri invaded.
That Wonder Woman tv series bullshit is just scary. Anyone who thought that was a good idea is just lost.
The girl they picked wasnāt even attractive.
Bullet to the Head:
Axe fight!
Looks like shit, but itās Arnold!
Looks interesting. And, #7 is Tom Waits, how bout that
[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:
Looks interesting. And, #7 is Tom Waits, how bout that[/quote]
In Bruges and Six Shooter were great.
[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:
Looks interesting. And, #7 is Tom Waits, how bout that[/quote]
Looks ok, too bad Colin Farell is in it.