Upcoming Movies Thread

Your knee-jerk nerd rage reaction to that statement caused you to miss an important thing about your ensuing "points"; that most of them have nothing to do with the premise or script. Rather, they have to do with the same thing I wrote;

The great thing about movies is that they can be awesome even if a novelization of them would be average or downright crappy. It's mostly style over substance, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

The Batman series is a terrific example. Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan are both good/great directors, and were able to make some fun, excellent pictures out of the insanely idiotic premise of a billionaire dressing up at night with zero firearms to fight face-painting villains. The script? At its core, it's no more complicated or interesting than a child's cartoon.

They're pure entertainment flicks, not deep, thoughtful "film as art" by a Bunuel or Bergmann. And that's totally fine by me.

Of course, there are angry nerds who take this shit dead seriously, but then again, there are grown woman who take the "Twilight" series seriously. To each their own.

And in case you've forgotten, "Batman Returns" had Max Shreck, a powerful corrupt business mogul, who occupied a similar role, and "Batman" also had the Mob. Frankly, it doesn't change a lot about any of those pictures, except adding in a pleasing detail which can also be used for certain set pieces where Batman/main villain dominates the hapless gangsters. (Note how many times this has occurred in the past two films as well as the first two)

Thank you for repeating the EXACT same thing I did. Last I checked, "action set pieces" is not the same thing as "premise or script".

By the way, I consider The Dark Knight a unique film in that sense. It's the only action movie with great set pieces and ideas, and even overall...which also had absolute shit choreography. The "fighting" in DK was putrid shaky cam nonsense.

At the same time, the crash on the motorcycle, or the bank robbery at the very beginning (absolute highlight of the film) were amazing. But in terms of the pure "fighting", "Batman Forever" was actually better.

Of course, "Batman Forever" also didn't have a single original action scene throughout the entire film, while TDK had several, which is part of why the latter was so much better.

This is directing, once again, not the premise or script. Schumacher's tone was more tongue-in-cheek, playful, like Burton's first two Batmans. Nolan's is more serious. That explains most of the difference you described.

The inclusion or exclusion of a single side character is a deep, fundamental change to the premise or script? Wow. Maybe you just don't understand what a "script" is?

Yes, and his love interest in "Batman Begins" was even worse, as well as one of the single worst acting performances (Katie Holmes) I have ever seen in a film with professional actors. What's your point?

Once again, that's directing. Not premise or script. I think you just can't distinguish between the two.

Never watched that show, but you personally remind me of this guy.

 

Tone is conveyed through how the director presents the material, not what was written in the script. However, with the last two Batman films, Nolan wrote AND directed, so of course, there is going to be a direct correlation there.

But read the scripts for Batman and Batman Returns and note that they don't have the funny, joking vibe that Burton injected into the pictures.

Dare I ask...where this deep thought and introspection was evident in either film? As much as I really like Nolan, (I think he is an all-time great director) he has always been weak at dialogue and his basic premises are banally simplistic, even though he likes to splash it with lots of flashy details.

He excels at making really fucking exciting, huge, awesome-looking mainstream blockbusters. He is terrific at this, one of the best in history. I just get confused when people ascribe some depth to his films which isn't there.

 

Can someone explain to me how Thor and Iron Man are supposed to occupy the same universe? It doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.

 

Unless you're just referring to the fact that Thor is a Norse God and thus can't possibly exist, in which case I can't help you, Marvel has covered its bases pretty well with regards to continuity here. The backbone of all the movies, from Iron Man to Incredible Hulk to Captain America, is SHIELD. Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, specifically. They are in the trenches in WWII, they oversee Iron Man (Who has Captain America's Shield in his possession, which they know about), they have the Hulk on their threat radar, and they discover Thor's Hammer, also knowing exactly what it is.

Dark Knight specifically creates a world where this kind of shit doesn't exist. But given that there is an all knowing, super advanced government agency monitoring and interfering with all the Marvel property movies, I find it pretty conceivable that a guy who could create a nigh perfect energy source from spare parts in Afghanistan, a guy who wields a magic hammer, and a guy who can turn into a giant green monster, all occupy the same space.

If you watch the movies again, or hit the internet, there are mountains of clues in all the films that point to everything being in the same universe, and so far they haven't stretched the realm of plausibility in that regard, but we'll see what Captain America and Thor bring to the table.

 

Not completely up with it, but I've seen a few story arcs in Marvel that Thor is a mental case who thinks he's a Norse god... complete with hallucinations that he's talking to other Norse gods who visit him but aren't visible to mortals. Part of the psychosis is caused by the powers he has.

 

I'm just having trouble reconciling the fact that Iron Man and Hulk live in a non-supernatural world and derive their powers from advanced technology, where Thor is a wholly supernatural Norse god.

 

Well, without getting into any kind of theological discussions, WE live in a world where people make use of advanced technology, yet a (steadily declining) number of people believe in some form of an afterlife, supernatural beings who walk the earth, and/or magic. And most people in the world, religious or otherwise, have the same difficulty reconciling many aspects of their faith with the world around them. And, again without turning it into an argument for or against, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence and testimonies that suggest these things do exist.

So Marvel, drawing on that dichotomy, often focuses on the blending of "magic" and technology. Doctor Doom is a notable example of this, classically his powers come from technology, yet he also plunders the secrets of magic to add to his power. He keeps a whole library of books from the lost city of Atlantis with spells and whatnot and uses them frequently.

My point being, just because Tony Stark doesn't use magic or supernatural power (which would be keeping in line with the scientific tendency towards atheism), it in no way means that those powers do not exist in his universe. I also point back to the fact that the technology he does use is absurdly advanced and would never be possible in the real world, so I see a Norse God, he just doesn't look that out of place.

$0.02

 

Kevin Feige (the President of Production at Marvel) has talked about exactly this here

 

It has often been said in Marvel comics, that "magic is just technology we don't understand yet". But I do concede the point that a tall blond guy flying around on his magical hammer that shoots lightning bolts is a little bit different than a toaster.

 

When you put it like that, it sounds pretty ridiculous. But remember, sometimes the key to making the audience believe in something absurd lies in the execution. By all accounts, Thor is shaping up to be a Shakespearean epic, focusing not on a guy who shoots fire from his eyes and lightning bolts from his ass, but about a son who steps out from behind his father's shadow while competing with his brother for approval. Granted, all three of them have the power to crack the Earth in half, so the scope of that family drama is (wait for it...) Brobdingnagian. I expect this film, perhaps more than any of the other Marvel properties, to stand on its own merit, rather than as a derivative of a comic book or as a piece of a larger whole (the build up to The Avengers).

Also, in reference to the quote of a quote above, how can we forget Lex Luthor's take on the issue: "To the primitive mind, any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic."

 

13 in skin tight latex, The dude, a Daft Punk sound track in the background, and all on an IMAX? Yes please! All sorts of awesome in this new Tron trailer..... I don't normally camp out in the cold waiting for movies opening night.... but I just may for this one.

 

Whoa boy. A big, dumb, CGI-driven summer blockbuster comic book adaptation is a Shakespearean epic all of a sudden?

I've written it before, and it's worth repeating; these films are good or bad solely based on how exciting and/or funny they are. When they don't take their absurd premises too seriously (like the Tim Burton Batman films, "Red") and/or focus on the adventure, ("The Dark Knight") they can be really good.

When they focus on idiotic melodrama and present themselves as something overly dramatic and serious (Spiderman series, all the other shitty comic book movies of the last 15 years), they fucking suck. It's literally that simple, as well as that complicated. (Injecting humor and excitement into an utterly nothing movie is a complicated task, and the hallmark of an excellent director)

 

I like what I see. With today's release of Skyline, it seems like alien invasion flicks are back in vogue. Let's hope this director avoids Dakota Fanning levels of screaming as seen in War of The Worlds.

 

I get that your thing now is to be contrarian, but you obviously haven't read a single thing about this movie. It's directed by Kenneth Branaugh (otherwise known as an academy award winning SHAKESPEAREAN ACTOR AND DIRECTOR), the actor playing Loki is a classically trained Shakespearean actor, Odin is Anthony fucking Hopkins, and every single comment made by any of them points to this movie being grounded in realism by making the focus the relationships between the main characters, the interaction between the world of the Gods and world of men. And Anthony Hopkins explicitly stated that this was Shakespeare with superheros, as well as most of the cast and Branaugh himself.

And yes, one would expect action sequences. Which Shakespeare wrote into virtually all of his plays, except it was simply not feasible to have battle sequences with a handful of actors and a shoestring budget. And no one wants to see two guys in tights crossing swords over a 12 year old boy.

Further, Ray Stevenson (The third Punisher) will be the comic relief, which was also present in every single Shakespearean tragedy/historical play. But to go just slightly more in depth on that, a big dumb action movie doesn't need comic relief. DRAMA needs comic relief, because you can't sustain that kind of high tension for too long without the audience inciting a riot. Iron Man didn't need comic relief because Tony Stark was himself a wisecracking douchebag throughout the whole movie. Arguably, it could have been a better film if he'd toned it down a bit and allowed some drama to build before defusing it with humor. But that wasn't the intention with Iron Man. It IS the intention with Thor, because it's a totally different animal.

Now is it possible this movie will suck monkey balls? Absolutely. Is it possible that, given Marvel's impressive track record, the world class talent associated with this film, the clear and explicit statements that this is a Shakespearean epic, that this will be no more than a mindless, popcorn fueled adventure? Well, it's happened before.

But to make either assumption prior to seeing a final product is a little fucking stupid, given that all the evidence thus far totally contradicts them.

 

Movies are watched, not read. I came in as a blank slate, but after watching the extended, 5 minute trailer, it looked like more overly arrogant, big dumb CGI, summer blockbuster superhero nonsense. It looked utterly lame, and was difficult just to sit through.

That's what I'm basing my opinion off of, not actors paid to star and promote the film.

This is such a freaking stupid argument. Do you want me to go through all the films with Academy Award winning directors and actors which were total garbage? Hell, Francis Ford Coppola won 3 of the damn things, and still came out with the Robin Williams turd "Jack".

William Marshall was not only a classically trained Shakespearean actor, but widely considered the greatest Othello of the 20th century. He was a legend of the stage. But in movies, which is the fucking subject here, what was his greatest, most famous role?

Blacula, Dracula's soul brother!

Yeah, and in Gigli, one of the main roles was played by Al fucking Pacino. That was a stirring American epic on the level of the Godfather or at least Scarface....right?

Unlike you, I don't give a fuck what the actors who are in the film say to promote their meal ticket, or what some worthless shill of a blog says.

I make decisions based on my own two eyes and understanding. It works out very well for me when it comes to betting on sports, as I avoid the majority of the hype, and it also helps me avoid disappointment in the movie theater.

You're certainly free to make quality judgments based on shameless ads and promotion if you like, but it's ridiculous you're pushing it as being the unabashed truth.

Funny you link to the Phantom Menace. It was not a good or even particularly enjoyable film, but it was watchable. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of any Marvel films that were as good as it, let alone better.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid if you like, though; the movie industry depends upon its marketing (P&A, press and advertisement) for getting that all-important opening weekend gross. Without people like you, it would literally collapse. I mean it.

We're both making assumptions. This entire thread is fucking speculation.

Difference is that I'm speculating FROM ACTUALLY WATCHING PARTS OF THE FILM. A five minute trailer, sure, so I can't be certain, and might be wrong.

But you're speculating based on the WRITTEN WORDS of people who have an interest in seeing the film perform well at the box office, which to me, is ludicrous.

I could be wrong (although I'm willing to bet I'm not), but your source is way less trustworthy than mine.

 

Seriously, how many fucking times. Take the arguing to PM.

 

Time to argue like a bunch of nerds again: The first trailer for Green Lantern: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJABsJQCZHA&feature=player_embedded. With Spanish subtitles!

Some obvious things: The CGI looks really rough. Especially the suit. But there were a lot of movies who had this flaw in their trailers, but cleaned it up before they premiered. The main draw for this movie will probably remain Ryan Reynolds, considering the fact nobody gives a fuck about the Green Lantern. Reynolds may not be a DeNiro or a Pacino, but he's enjoyable to watch and charming as hell (wow, that sounded way gayer than I intended). He's a little bit like Robert Downey Jr., who made a movie about a B-list superhero and with a mediocre plot one of the best movies in its genre. So maybe Green Lantern will emulate that.

But to be honest, I don't really expect that. Because all the things in the trailer look really fucking dumb. Like Blake Lively, the crashed alien, the shocked roommate and the evil villain with the huge wrinkled forehead.