logo Sign In

Han Solo VS Indiana Jones

User Group
Members
Join date
5-Jan-2005
Last activity
18-Mar-2009
Posts
2,295

Post History

Post
#225655
Topic
HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225655/action/topic#225655
Time
Originally posted by: Mike O
I agree; a Potter film by Terry Gilliam would rock. JK Rowling even recommended him to direct the first film, but Warner Brothers didn't have the balls to let Gilliam do it, they wanted a "family friendly" film, so they went with Columbus instead. I can only hope that they'll consider him for either "Half Blood Prince" or #7.


True, but bear in mind, Terry Gilliam is not Hollywood's favorite person, and feeling is mutual. He isn't exactly a "mainstream" director. He was in fact Rowling's first choice. I like Columbus's films to an extent, but they feel too "Disney Channel," if you get my meaning. Though many fans of the book despise it for its deviation, I loved the Gothic look and feel of the third, even if it did feel a bit too rushed in place. The fourth had a slightly baroque look to the castle, and Newell brought a distinctly British feel to it (and Ralph Fiennes was an inspired bit of casting). He captures the adolescence so well, as did Caruon, something that I though Coumbus missed. Well, I suppose I can put the Terry Gilliam Harry Potter film on the shelf of dream projects that I have along the David Fincher Batman movie and the James Cameron superhero film.


Speaking of which, James Cameron would have been a kickass choice to direct an X-Men venture.

Of the three directors so far, I liked Cuaron's style best, even though 3rd film continued the 2nd film's tradition of butchering Ron.
Post
#225572
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225572/action/topic#225572
Time
Originally posted by: greencapt
I'm not too big of a fan of the quasi-sequel approach. It *can* be done successfully- look at the James Bond franchise. The filmmakers there pick and choose what they want to mention or not from previous films... and amusingly enough like SR (or most other comic films) the films bear little or no relationship to the series from which they were adapted.

Batman Begins was a total reboot of the series and the studio (in interviews and such) went to great lengths to say as much- not to say BF and B&R sucked so we'll ignore those two, but instead to say 'hey its time we take a look at what's been happening in the film world and in the comic world and make a movie based on *that*. WB stands by the previous Batman flics enough to release the special edition DVD set that they did, much like they stand by the Superman films and are doing the same this year with them. My problem with Singer's approach to continuity was to rely too heavily on his own interpretation of Donner's works, which were in turn already an interpretation of the comics... a copy of a copy. I don't care that he ignored this or that from the earlier films- even Superman III and IV did *that*. What bugs me is relying on 20 to 30 year old source material for minor source material to explain WTF is going on in your own poorly constructed plot or, when presented with lack of original ideas, just remaking the source material. And these sort of missteps can happen to filmmakers who even sequelize their own films- Blues Brothers 2000 anyone? The Star Wars prequels anyone?

But unlike the aforementioned James Bond franchise Brian Singer chose to change the nature of the character. In the Bond films, the core character of Bond rarely changes (and when it does people blast it, even if it happens to be closer to the source material... Dalton in 'The Living Daylights' and more than likely the new film this year). But as many have said here already- SR's 'Superman' is not Superman.

As always this is NOT to knock anyone who likes the film. There are PLENTY of bad movies that *I* like.

I agree with greencapt. Like you GC, I too enjoy plenty of bad movies on my own time, and I hated Blues Brothers 2000.

Anyway, I just saw Superman Returns and this is my rant/review:

This could have been a great film, it wished to be. It only lacked the light to show the way. It also lacked an actor strong enough to anchor it.

The fact that WB still relies on Superman and Batman to bring in the audiences when DC Comics is loaded with other deep, richly intriguing heroes, ranging from Wonder Woman to the Martian Manhunter, is both mind-boggling and disheartening. And when they finally tap Bryan Singer after so many false starts, what does he do? He decides to make the film a sequel to the first two Superman films directed [primarily] by Richard Donner, with Superman returning from a mysterious absence after failing to tell anyone he was leaving in the first place and dealing with the ramifications of that.

It was a bold, ambitious idea, but it doesn't work. Using the first two films, which were not exactly perfect to begin with, as reference point instead of the current comics, is lazy and uncreative, defeating the entire point of redefining Superman for a new generation of movie goers (Chris Nolan did not make that mistake with "Batman Begins"). I don't buy the stuff about how Batman had no choice but to start over. You think Superman's first film franchise was in any better shape than Batman's when the end came? Hell, they mirror each other for crying out loud - both took what are generally considered bad turns at the 3rd entries and both were burned out by the fourth entries. Superman's own franchise was reduced to a steaming pile of crap, which is why he didn't have a film for almost 20 years. On top of that, the film doesn't even explore it's own ambitious idea thoroughly, thus squandering what could have been a fascinating plot (the third and fourth films suffered the same mistake). Superman returns, resumes doing good deeds and the world falls in love with him again, never displaying any resentment towards him for leaving them in the first place. Only Lois Lane and Lex Luthor hold a grudge against him, albeit for different reasons, but it doesn't take long for Lois's undying love for Superman resurface despite having "moved on" to Perry White's nice guy nephew Richard, who has been helping Lois raise a son, Jason, who turns out to be the illegitimate son of Superman. Additionally, Superman would never have just taken off without informing the world that he was leaving; to do so feels very out of character for him. He ain't perfect but he shouldn't be that dumb. The more natural thing to do would have been for Supes to take Lois aside first, explain to her his reasons for leaving, and then he would have addressed the world about his leaving with a big meaningful speech. To have him just up and disappear like that is pretty much on par with the stupidity of having him give up his powers in the 2nd film.

Demographic friendly leads Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth, 26 and 23 respectively, are too young to believably pass themselves off as a Superman who has been missing for 5 years and a Lois Lane who is supposed to be an accomplished reporter turned single mother. Apparently Singer became so fixated on the idea of casting an unknown in the role of Superman, like Donner, that it didn't occur to him that if Superman were to have been missing for any length of time, he should look old enough to have been missing and also look old enough to have the experience of a hero under his belt. 37 year old Jim Caviezel would have fit these requirements perfectly. But Singer, blinded by X-Men hubris, decided to cast some young guy no one had ever heard of, and matching him with an equally young leading lady.

Adding insult to injury, Singer and his idiot costume designer Louise Migenbach, butchered Superman's costume, darkening the red parts to maroon/burgundy, shrinkng the insignia and giving the costume an overall rubbery look. After all of Migenbach's self-congratulating rantings about what a wonderful job they did of "updating" the costume and bitching about how much she's always hated the suit's classic color scheme and all those speeches about how Superman has to look as if he steppe dright out of our collective conscience, Singer's Superman looks like a high school jock in a bad Halloween costume, and he had twice Donner's budget and three times the special effects technology.

In some instances, Singer recreations of sequences from the Donner film with a little tweaking, like the romantic flight between Superman and Lois, minus the voice over narration, add in Lois taking off her high heels, feel so familiar it's creepy. While the film never sinks to the painful depths of banality that the Star Wars prequels, Matrix sequels, Catwoman, Daredevil, Elektra and the 2005 Fantastic Four sank to, there's an overall feeling of been there, done that, and Singer's slick style isn't enough to cover for it. Good intentions he may have had, but this time Singer bit off more than he could chew; perhaps it's time he abandoned the world of pop spectacle film-making and went back to directing films grounded in reality.

Given the thankless task of being the new screen embodiment of the world's most famous hero, Brandon Routh, chosen for no better reason than the fact that he's young, unknown, inexpensive and in the eyes of some vaguely resembles Chris Reeve (he's actually two years younger than Tom Welling, who plays the teenager Clark on "Smallville"), gives an admirable effort, but despite all his sincerity, he never inhabits the role the same way Reeve did and lacks the heroic aura of Reeve (though Routh's never as annoying as Hayden Christensen was as Anakin in the SW prequels). After a while you desperately want to like him, but Routh's clearly in over his head, most notably in his scenes with Ma Kent (Eva Marie Saint) where he tells her that what he found out there was "a graveyard...", and at the end when he tells his son the same speech that Jor-El gave to the infant Superman in the first film. As stated above, Routh's boyish youth prevents us from really believing that he was missing for five years and had prior experience as Superman. Reeve was also young, but damn it, Reeve looked like a man. Perhaps if he were older, or if the film wasn't mindlessly lashed to the earlier films, Routh's efforts would not be in vain. It's so easy to imagine the aforementioned Jim Caviezel in the same role and bringing the necessary depth and gravitas to Superman's plights.

But Routh's not nearly as bad in his role as Kate Bosworth is in hers. As stated above, Bosworth, while cuter than Kidder, is simply too young to be the veteran reporter Lois Lane, or the mother of a five year old boy for that matter (unless we assume she had the kid when she was 17 or 18), and she's too lightweight. Bosworth may have looked to Katharine Hepburn as a model for Lois, but Bosworth is no Hepburn.

Frank Langella, James Marsden and Sam Huntingten are good enough, and Kevin Spacey is an improvement as Lex Luthor, but Luthor's thugs are sadly lacking, with Kitty Kowalski a waste of Parker Posey (Posey probably would have made a better Lois than Bosworth).

Well, that's my rant. Sorry if it offended those who loved this movie. If it's of any consolation, this film is still better than Catwoman.

Post
#225486
Topic
Comics Fans
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225486/action/topic#225486
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Hm, while I do agree that comic books often take too many liberties with the source material, I'm afraid it's not anything that's going to change soon.

The problem with comic book movies is that it has to condense 70 years of retcons, reboots, and continuity into two hours of cinema and still squeez a plot in there. They tend to aim for the proverbial lowest common denominator--in this case, the general populace who doesn't know the characters' histories like fans. Everything has to be dumbed down for those who are unable or unwilling to follow years of history.

Which is why Batman Begins retold Bruce's origin story and why it introduced Ra's al Ghul gradually instead of having him be the kind of figure he is in the comics.
Hmm. Good point.

theredbaronNot necessarily people who don't care about being patriotic as far as the global market is concerned, more just people who aren't patriotic about a country they don't live in. I have to say, while I do know a fair bit about Captain America and he is fairly well-known amongst my nerdier peers, he would hardly rank at all in the popularity stakes as far as comic book sales/character prestige is concerned. As I understand, Captain America isn't far below the popularity of say Batman or Spiderman in the US.

Again, good point.
Post
#225382
Topic
Comics Fans
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225382/action/topic#225382
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
As long as the jet makes her invisible as well, I don't think it's a problem. I don't just understand why they don't maker her fly. "Superman Returns" proves that it can be done believably.

Wonder Woman flies in modern DC Comic Books, a gift betsowed upon her by Hermes in the post-Crisis reboot by George Perez. Wonder Woman flew oN Bruce Timm's Justice League series, just as she flies in modern comics. Comic book films should reflect the characters as they are in the time that they are made, and not reflect what the character was like 20 or 30 years ago, at least that's how I see it.

Post
#225380
Topic
HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225380/action/topic#225380
Time
Originally posted by: Mike O
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
There is no set date when Book Seven is coming out, as it hasn't been finished yet. They'll set a date only after it goes to the publisher and gets edited.

7/7/07 was a WAY cool notion for releasing Book 7, but I don't think it'll ultimately happen. Movie 5 has officially been slated for 7/13/07 and I don't see JK pitting her products against each other like that.

I hope that it'll work out so they can film Book 6 and 7 back to back and get the release dates closer to each other.


See, I was thinking that she would need to get book seven out soon so that they could get the film into production. I really hope the cast stays for all seven. Am I the only one who thinks that Terry Gilliam would be so perfect to direct?

I agree; a Potter film by Terry Gilliam would rock. JK Rowling even recommended him to direct the first film, but Warner Brothers didn't have the balls to let Gilliam do it, they wanted a "family friendly" film, so they went with Columbus instead. I can only hope that they'll consider him for either "Half Blood Prince" or #7.
Post
#225269
Topic
Comics Fans
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225269/action/topic#225269
Time
I fear for the new Captain America film that is set to be put into production in 2009.

1) I'm afraid they'll update or "modernize" his costume, which is purposefully meant to evoke the image of the American flag, by making the red aspects (gloves, boots, stripes) maroon or burgundy like they did to the Superman costume in SR so that Cap will look "darker and more mysterious" even though he's not meant to be a dark/mysterious character.

2) I'm afraid that the film just won't do well at the box office regardless of how well written, acted, directed and marketed it is because Cap stands for Truth, Justice, & The American Way, the last one which will make it difficult to market him to the global market and will just turn off cynical audiences who don't care about being patriotic or loving their country or whatever.

And now for something completely different - does anyone else here think it's really stupid to put Wonder Woman back in the Invisible Jet for the new movie that Joss Whedon's supposed to be making for her? (forgive me if I ranted about this a few pages ago; my memory's been shot lately)