It's not the quantity, it's the quality. Thor would be awesome as a medieval family drama (Shakespeare with superpowers), Ghost Rider is about a demon from hell on a motorcycle on fire=how they fucked up something that cool to watch is beyond me. Blade, Sin City, 300, Watchmen, From Hell, V for Vendetta were all movies that stayed faithful to the comics and were fun to watch. Also, all R-rated. Spider-Man, Iron Man, X-Men, Punisher were all PG-13 at best and came off watered-down. Which group made more money? That's the problem: no studio is going to dump cash into making a high-quality comic book movie that's rated R, with a "blockbuster" action movie dropping every weekend of the summer. Unfortunately, some of the comics that are most deserving of adaptation (The Dark Knight Returns, Preacher, The Sandman, Y the Last Man, Kabuki) can't be done justice with a PG-friendly treatment. Think of how awesome an R-rated Ghost Rider, Punisher, or Batman movie would be. Honestly, stuff that will make the best adaptations: things like the Walking Dead (not trying to cram too much in two hours), the Goon (cartoons can show all the gore they want), and recognizing the limits: not trying to make things like Green Lantern or Fantastic Four into a more realistic medium-it just looks stupid and unbelievable and not devoting an entire film to characters like Deadpool or Luke Cage.
But you see, that's antithetical to adapting from a comic book to begin with! Sure, you can make a good action movie out of just about anything; but if the idea is to pander to people by bringing their childhood superheroes to life, it's very hard to divorce that from the production of the film itself. You can't be concerned with making the characters "look good", and as you correctly noted, you can't go for the PG-13 rating to make more money. Thus, not surprisingly, the better adaptations that you have mentioned, like 300 or Sin City (both deeply flawed, with awful plot holes and laughable dialogue, but with terrific action and visual style), were made from more mature, adult comics that didn't have the same nostalgia attached to them. The original Punisher film was indeed R-rated, and starred Dolph Lundgren and Oscar winner Louis Gossett Jr. I personally thought the film was very good, but as with many action and comedy pictures, the general public disagreed. Blame that one on the fans; the studios rightly figured that if it didn't make money in 1989, it wouldn't in the 2000s.
They could make a bomb ass Metal Gear Solid film. Shit adapt the first game to feature the real motha-fuckin Snake Pliskin, Kurt Russell. The game was close enough to a really well made action film to begin with. I honestly don't see Kojima fucking it up and letting Hollywood bastardize his franchise with shit. But then that could be the reason it never gets made.
The Atlas Shrugged trailer is out: Im split. The trailer is cut like any MTV generation movie and that doesnt help sell this type of movie too me. On one hand it doesnt look, so far, like it has a 5 million dollar budget and some of the characters/actors look promising in their roles. On the other hand there were some cringe worthy bad lines delivered in the trailer. It could be all out of context but it also could be the grade of actors and the material not lending itself easily to smooth dialogue.
Spookyfish. Basically Blair Witch bumping uglies with Paranormal Activity. Spoilered since the screenshot is fucking creepy. Spoiler
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.slashfilm.com/thor-trailer-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.slashfilm.com/thor-trailer-2/</a> Thor's second trailer. Were I such a man inclined, I would go to see this movie on titanic quantities of drugs and listen to the latest Mastodon record instead of the actual "dialog".
Better than I imagined it would be. I laughed. And judging by the Youtube comments, I wasn't alone. Much better than the first trailer, at least. (I actually made it through to the end for this one) Anyways, is it just me, or was the acting of Thor, even in the freaking trailer of a super hero CG film, really poor?
Depends on what your opinions on "Skyline" were. Personally, I'm tending more towards the "fucking shit" side of the spectrum.
Both Atlas Shrugged and Thor look terrible beyond belief. Atlas Shrugged even at a $5 million budget looks like a spectacular waste of time, cast with shitty D-list actors and a Hype Williams ultra-bright look. I'd rather chew broken glass than see it. As for Thor, there are many comic characters that shouldn't be made into movies, and this is one of them. Thor was one of the most uninteresting of all Marvel characters. How is anybody supposed to put up a fight with him in the movie? He's at least twice as strong as the Hulk and can level mountains, not including the Mjollnir hammer that he weilds which I predict he won't even be able to lift until the last 10 minutes of the movie, because that's how every comic book movie works. And what the fuck is Natalie Portman doing in it? Anothony Hopkins as Odin? Great actor, embarrasingly miscast. They couldn't fuck it up more if they tried. On another note, The Farrelly Brothers will be directing The Three Stooges. I don't know about that one.
The Good: Guillermo Del Toro is making a movie of H.P. Lovecraft's "At the Mountains of Madness" The Bad: It's being produced by James Cameron and filmed in 3D... Ugh
Is nothing holy? New 'Blade Runner' producers talk movie prequel. Or maybe a sequel. Please. Just leave it the fuck alone. Blade runner is one of the best movies of all time, and a piece of me dies when thinking about what these hacks could do to a sequel. Or prequil. Or whatever they end up doing. Sure, there's a shot it might turn out just fine, but I just don't see it happening. But in other news, I had no idea that Ridley Scott's Alien prequil has now morphed into something called Prometheus. If nothing else I think it'll rock because it stars Noomi Rapace from the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy. She does an awesome job in all three of those movies, and I highly recommend seeing them if you haven't. Be sure to see the original Swedish versions with subtitles.
I'm not quite as high on "Blade Runner" as some people (although I agree it's great) are, but the 80's retro feel, subdued action, and dark-tinted, mysterious setting and characters are all things that I can't see being replicated in a mainstream production today. In other words, even if will be a good movie, it will have nothing in common with the original.
A "Taken" sequel? <a class="postlink" href="http://www.deadline.com/2011/03/big-drama-with-liam-neeson-and-taken-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.deadline.com/2011/03/big-dra ... d-taken-2/</a> What are they going to do, kidnap his daughter again? Sequels usually involve strong characters but I don't even remember Neeson's name in the original. The original was ok, a little overrated, but I thought Liam was above making sequels just for the dollar. His career seemed to be above that. Maybe not.
Very poor picture quality of the teaser for The Thing. It's a prequel to the 1982 film, and the special effects had better not suck because they set the bar for years in the original. LOVE the music at the end.
Honestly I dont even know if I care if actors go for paydays. I think he still has it in him to make great films but who cares if he's doing Taken 2, CotT2, BattleShip, and probably an A Team 2. Dude likes to make the paper... Or he could be in a Nic Cage situation. Still he'll put out an oscar worth performance and no one will care. I thought Taken was a bit over rated myself but he was awesome in it.
Jason Biggs, Eugene Levy, and Sean William Scott have all signed on for American Reunion, and most of the other original cast is in talks to come back. I for one, am all for this. American Wedding was pretty funny, in some ways better than The Hangover. The straight to DVD pseudo-sequels blew, so hopefully this one will redeem the franchise.