logo Sign In

greencapt

User Group
Members
Join date
12-Mar-2005
Last activity
8-Jul-2015
Posts
1,941

Post History

Post
#227238
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/227238/action/topic#227238
Time
Originally posted by: Han Solo VS Indiana Jones

His new suit is a rubbery, washed out piece of garbage covered with scales, very anti-heroic. Superman's costume isn't supposed to be that dark. He's not an unhinged vigilante like Batman.


But c'mon... you gotta love them there *huge* Superboots! Imagine hiding those beneath you mild mannered reporter clothes.

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/superman-returns1/boots.jpg
Post
#227073
Topic
I hate M. Night Ramalamadingdong!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/227073/action/topic#227073
Time
I was too afraid that if I typed it it might come true some day:

During the press day for Lady in the Water, ComingSoon.net asked writer-director M. Night Shyamalan whether his new studio partner Warner Bros. has tried to convince him to direct one of the last two "Harry Potter" movies. It certainly would be an interesting thing to see a filmmaker mostly known for directing movies from his own scripts to adapt the adventures of one of the most popular literary characters.

"You know, that Harry Potter dance has gone on a long time," he told us. "The problem is that it is a living breathing thing now, all by itself. When it comes over to my camp, it needs to be kind of handed over, adoption papers and everything. That's a tricky move.

"I haven't met with J.K. [Rowling]," he continued. "The first one was offered to me, but that conflicted with 'Unbreakable,' which was unfortunate. I would definitely, but I think probably before that I would adapt a book. I've gotten close a few times to adapting books."


http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=15294
Post
#227052
Topic
Snakes on a Plane
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/227052/action/topic#227052
Time
I found THIS amusing:

New Line Cinema will launch Snakes on a Plane without press screenings prior to its first late-evening showings on Aug. 17, reports Variety. The film, starring Samuel L. Jackson, will open at 2,500-plus theaters.

New Line said Monday the decision was the result of the fan support for "Snakes," directed by David Ellis.

"Understanding that they would be the driving force behind the film, we decided early on they should be the first to see it," the studio said. "They will have the opportunity on Thursday evening, Aug. 17, at 10 p.m. shows across the country. We are not planning any advance media or promotional screenings prior to that."


Yeah... they're doing for the *fans*. They're NOT doing it because studios who know their film is crap don't do press screenings. No. Not them. For the fans. Yeah, the fans.

LOL.

Post
#226963
Topic
I hate M. Night Ramalamadingdong!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226963/action/topic#226963
Time
I couldn't resist... the reviews are starting to come in:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117931086?categoryId=31&cs=1

http://nymag.com/movies/reviews/17661/index.html

The latter of which features the following amusing aside:

BACKSTORY
Born Manoj Nelliyattu Shyamalan in 1970, the director of Signs and Lady in the Water invented his middle name, “Night,” while studying film at NYU. He’s playfully embellished his biography ever since, including filming a hoax-documentary special, The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan, for the Sci Fi Channel to promote The Village. The hoax, picked up by the AP, the New York Post, and others, claimed that the director had been legally dead for a half-hour after drowning in a frozen pond—and thereafter communicated with supernatural spirits.
Post
#226523
Topic
Spirited Away
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226523/action/topic#226523
Time
Originally posted by: Mike O
Miyazaki-san actually made Disney sign an agreement that they would not edit even a single frame.


And God bless him for it! The agreement with Disney has produced some truly great DVD releases of these awesome films. And let's not forget 'Naussica', one of my personal favorites!
Post
#226520
Topic
A Scanner Darkly - First 24 minutes
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226520/action/topic#226520
Time
I haven't read the book and might someday but I won't be seeing the film for the very reasons both of you mentioned. I personally don't think I could stand a full film worht of that animation. Cool effect but it wears heavily on my eyes even after a 30-second commercial. There's just something about the technique that bothers me and that's enough to keep me away from this film the same as it did 'The Waking Life' also by Linklater.
Post
#225654
Topic
Fox France confirms the French OOT release >NOT< to be anamorphic
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225654/action/topic#225654
Time
Using Google translator:

To comfort you defeat of the team of France yesterday evening (and which made it possible the author of these lines to win its bet), our beautiful territory another type of victory gained! The original assemblies of the first trilogy Star Wars soon available in zone 2 will profit from a compatible transfer 16/9ème! It from now on certain, is confirmed by Fox France who would perhaps have, knows one never, heard and retransmitted with the authorities concerned the laments justified of the fans throughout the world to see films only announced into 4/3. And to remain chauvinistic until the end, also let us add that the American discs are not yet very some to profit from the same preferential treatment.

Announced for September 13 in France, these editions will propose each one two DVD: one for the version 2004, the other for the version of origin (1977-1980-1983 respectively). The DVD of the version 2004 will begin again with identical that available in the left box there are one year and half, proposing film approved THX in a compatible transfer 16/9 4/3 to format 2.35, accompanied by tracks Dolby DIGITAL 5.1 EX in French and English, and subtitles in the same languages.
Post
#225361
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225361/action/topic#225361
Time
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.
Post
#225169
Topic
Pirates of the Caribbean Two
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225169/action/topic#225169
Time
Just saw this today and have to agree with most of what was posted before- good flick, good characters, good action, little going on in the plot except setting up the third film and a tad long feeling. Back To The Future II-ism. Still I'm glad I saw it and probably enjoyed it just a hair less than the first one.

And stupidly I didn't stay til after the credits so if someone could PM me and fill me in please.
Post
#224928
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224928/action/topic#224928
Time
Originally posted by: Devilman-1369
Originally posted by: greencapt
Now I think I'll go try and figure out how a 22 year old Pulitzer Prize winning journalist is too stupid to be able spell 'catastrophe'. *sigh*

you don't have to be a good speller in order to be a good writer. That's what proof-readers & editors are for. Isaac Asimov couldn't spell for shit, and is still considered one of the greatest writers of our time.


Try getting a job as a reporter at a large newspaper when you can't spell 'catastrophe'- the editor is the one who does the hiring and the editor is the one who *wouldn't* hire you. Either way I admit it was a minor annoyance in the film's dialogue.

Originally posted by: Invader Jenny
Even Kevin Spacey said that this movie should be judged on its own merrit and not in comparison to the old films.


Kevin Spacey also said in a Wizard Magazine interview about his role in SR that not only did he just do the film because Singer asked him to but also that 'its JUST a f*cking comic book movie'. I don't care what film project you take on as an actor- you should treat the material with respect. And IMHO (again) Spacey just coasted his way through the film. I found him very NON-memorable. In fact that's one issue I had with the script- lack of focus. It seemed it couldn't decided whether is was a film about Lois Lane and the effect Superman's departure had on her or a film about Superman and how he dealt with his return.
Post
#224888
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224888/action/topic#224888
Time
Jenny, I can appreciate that you liked the film as much as you did but PLEASE don't make generic assumptions that people who complain about it as 'fanboys' who just want more explosions. First of all, there are thousands of young film viewers who *do* just want explosions in summer movies but those are more than likely *not* your more discerning 'fanboy' audience.

Second if the 'fanboy' crowd (in which I don't include myself at least in any sort of derogatory fashion inasmuch as anyone who posts on these forums are geeks and fanboys/girls etc) has complaints about this movie (and many do, try reading the SuperHeroHype Superman Returns forums for comments on either side) it is that Bryan Singer made a COPY of one director's interpretation of a character and INGNORED years and years of history of that character. Whether people like 'Superman' the comic or character or not I feel there was very little to be gained by 'modernizing' him in the way that Singer did and more importantly THROWING out the fundamental nature of the character, the very things that make the character who he is, for the sake of 'emotionalizing' him in a way that the director could better relate to. And I think the mixed reactions (and box office take) show this. Well, also that the movie has very little going on in the plot and what does go on is, frankly and no matter what genre, kind of boring and nonsensical.

I read in one review that Singer had suceeded, in that reviewer's opinion, in making Superman 'creepier than Batman' and I tend to agree. Saving people in and of itself is not heroic. There has to be heart and morals behind it. And the SR version of Superman, IMHO, has no heroic heart behind it. He's mopey, mostly self-serving and obsessive- which if Bryan Singer wanted to make up his own hero and call him Singerman or whatever that might be fine... but that is not Superman. At least not the Superman I've read in comics, seen in TV shows (and I've never watched 'Smallville' as it looks like more whiny WB soap opera crap to me) or even seen in the original 'Superman' films (and I'll even include 3 and maybe even 4, superior to Batman Forever and B & R). And using the old film style opening credits and using the Williams 'Superman' theme to tug at our nostalgia left me with just about as bitter of a taste as seeing the opening of 'The Phantom Menace'... I *wanted* to feel it fit in but in the end I couldn't delude myself.

So basically I am glad you liked it and wouldn't take that away for the world but please don't knock people who *didn't* enjoy it. They're people too!

Now I think I'll go try and figure out how a 22 year old Pulitzer Prize winning journalist is too stupid to be able spell 'catastrophe'. *sigh*
Post
#224869
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224869/action/topic#224869
Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Originally posted by: Han Solo VS Indiana Jones
So I hear that the box office performance of Superman Returns is not up to par. I guess now I'll have to see it out of pity for the box office.


I think it's the biggest opening in Warner Bros. history so I wouldn't say it's not up to par. It beat industry expectations and blasted the hell out of (the much superior) Batman Begins.


Actually if you go to BoxOfficeMojo and look at the number of screens versus the amount earned then you'll see that both films performed about the same- opening take of BB was aprox $12,634 per screen and SR was approx $12,923- so neither was a failure but SR has a much steeper hill to climb to reach profitability. And I really think POTC2 will soon make many movie-goers forget about seeing SR.
Post
#224521
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224521/action/topic#224521
Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan

For some real obnoxious screaming heroine action, check out Kim Basinger in Batman (if you've done so already, do it again). The favorite Bat-flick of many is totally ruined for me in the second hour by a woman who screams at every possible turn. One who apparently photographed dead bodies on the front lines of war.


For me the one who wins THAT award was Kate Capshaw in 'Temple of Doom'. Sheesh! That film would have worked SO much better for me if I hadn't have had to listen to her shriek and whine through the entire film.