Movie Talk (was Questions for Jason)

[mrk]

On at least the first two films, I think they did. That's rather my point. I'm not going to deny there were real problems with the third one, but I'm simply not able to see too much to dislike about the first two, other than the bad choice of casting involving Halle Berry (and I don't know I'd have predicted that would be a bad idea; if there was any mistake made in the second film it was not cutting her loose, but reportedly she claimed she was going to try much harder to get the character the second time around).

You know, a lot of people liked the fist Batman movie back in 89'. I even did to some degree. Now it it's hardly watchable and thats' even before the new Batman films came out and blew it out of the water.Now just imagine how much better those X-Men films could possibly have been of John Favreau or Chris Nolan were invovled. Eventually, they will be remade and if whom ever owns the righs in 15-20 years can find someone with half the tallent of those guys, maybe will be lucky to see a REAL X Men film and not some bastardization version made by people who never cared much for the material to begin with. Sorry, but unisexual outfits and big rolling Indiana Jones style Sentinel heads don't make for a good X- Men film in my book.

Edited July 22, 2008 by mrk

[Nightshade]

begin with. Sorry, but unisexual outfits and big rolling Indiana Jones style Sentinel heads don't make for a good X- Men film in my book.

And as I said, I didn't have a bit of a problem with the costumes, and didn't find the Danger Room in joke with the Sentinel head more than an in-joke and as such, inconsequential. Its not like the uniforms were appreciably different than some incarnations of the group have worn from time to time.

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

And as I said, I didn't have a bit of a problem with the costumes, and didn't find the Danger Room in joke with the Sentinel head more than an in-joke and as such, inconsequential.

It was a very dim attempt at "fan service."

[mrk]

And as I said, I didn't have a bit of a problem with the costumes, and didn't find the Danger Room in joke with the Sentinel head more than an in-joke and as such, inconsequential. Its not like the uniforms were appreciably different than some incarnations of the group have worn from time to time.

Some joke. More like a slap in the face to everyone who wrote to 20'th Century Fox pleading to put the Sentinles in one of the films. It's also well known Tom Rothman( the CEO of Fox ) hated the original costums of the X -Men and believed nobody would go see the film if any of the actors wore them. In fact, he dislikes the franchise period. That sort of reasoning is just as bad as when the ex head of New Line Cinema, Robert Shaye, thought it would be stupid to show Iron Man flying on screen when it was in development at his studio. Nice to know thease are some of the people in control of many of the comic books we love so much...

Edited July 23, 2008 by mrk

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

Batman just broke the record books. The sh*t talking from the studio execs who didn't get it is over.

[Nightshade]

Some joke. More like a slap in the face to everyone who wrote to 20'th Century Fox pleading to put the Sentinles in one of the films.

This is what's known as "fan oversensitivity" in some circles, and didn't bother me at all--and I've been reading the X-Men for nearly 40 years now, on and off.

It's also well known Tom Rothman( the CEO of Fox ) hated the original costums of the X -Men and believed nobody would go see the film if any of the actors wore them. In fact, he dislikes the franchise period. That sort of

I don't know if his latter statement is correct, but I'll state I think the traditional X-Men uniforms probably were too garish for real life usage. Some superhero costumes work (Batman and Superman's notoriously) when seen on an actual person, some don't. I think the older X-Men uniforms would almost certainly have been in the latter.

reasoning is just as bad as when the ex head of New Line Cinema, Robert Shaye, thought it would be stupid to show Iron Man flying on screen when it was in development at his studio. Nice to know thease are some of the people in control of many of the comic books we love so much...

The fact their reasoning isn't always sound (the Iron Man thing is just stupid on the face of it as the Superman franchise showed years ago) doesn't mean every decision is unsound.

Really, the bottom line is that the X-Men movies worked for some people and didn't for others. For everyone I've seen who didn't like the first two, I've seen someone who did, and I'm talking about _inside_ the fan community.

[mrk]

Nightshade , I don't mean to insult you, but it doesn't seems you follow too much of what goes on inside the film industry. As I already pointed out, You thought adding the Sentinels to XM3 would "bloat" the film budget, even though the Studio easly put in $200+ million dollars into it ( probably through a loan from a major Bank or even a Hege Fund company as major studios NEVER put their own money into a project). Mind you, all the things 'I've talked about aren't "inside secrets" known to only a select few, but have been mentioned both in the press and websites focused on the happenings of the film industry. You could of easly looked up and seen just how much final the budget actually cost at boxofficemojo.com then just "imagining" it was more then Transformers because that movie had bigger effects and tons of CGI work.

But besides all that, I do have to say the idea that you've been a fan of the X-Men for 40 years and believe the suits might be to "garish" does question your validity of how much of a true fan your really are or were you looking for more "canon fodder" for our little debate?

Anyway and I do mean this honestly, I'm glad you liked the X-Men films as it keep me employed when I'm hired to do some industry related work. Thanks for your support! :thumb:

Edited July 23, 2008 by mrk

[Nightshade]

Nightshade , I don't mean to insult you, but it doesn't seems you follow too much of what goes on inside the film industry. As I already pointed out, You thought adding the Sentinels to XM3 would "bloat" the film budget, even though the Studio easly put in $200+ million dollars into it ( probably through a loan from a major Bank or even a Hege Fund company

And I still think it would; its not like they don't have to account for the cost of the CGI for those in _addition_ to other things. If you don't think that adds significantly, then I have to question you in returns.

as major studios NEVER put their own money into a project). Mind you, all the things 'I've talked about aren't "inside secrets" known to only a select few, but have been mentioned both in the press and websites focused on the happenings of the film industry. You could of easly looked up and seen just how much final the budget actually cost at boxofficemojo.com then just "imagining" it was more then Transformers because that movie had bigger effects and tons of CGI work.

Or you could miss my point that a movie with the same amount of fake animated robots _and people with superpowers_ is going to be pricier than a movie that only does one. I'm willing to be told that's not the case, but it contradicts things I've been told by other people I have every reason to believe know what they're talking about as you.

But besides all that, I do have to say the idea that you've been a fan of the X-Men for 40 years and beleive the stuits might be to "garish" does question your validity in my option. Now I wonder just how much of a true fan your really are or were just looking for more "canon fodder" for our little debate.

Two things here:

1. Note my comment was it would seem garish _to the public_. Comic fans sense of garish is entirely different than the public as a whole.

2. The original X-Men costumes _were_ garish, even by the standards of comics; bright yellow with red (or blue, depending on when you saw it) accents was particularly eyepopping even for the time; contrast it with the costumes the majority of the Avengers wore during that period.

Past that, if you want to question my statement, I can't stop you; anyone can project what they want on another participant. None the less I read the books intermittantly starting when I was a kid, then regular from the time I was a teenager until about the time of the Mutant Massacre. At that point I lost interest because I didn't like where the books were going, but that's neither here nor there. I occasionally dip back in just to see what's going on.

You'll excuse me if I can't help but roll my eyes if you're suggesting I'm lying, however. Hell, I met my wife on an X-Men themed MUX!

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

Really guys it's ok to have different opinions and no reason to go negative. Along with others here, I enjoyed following your conversation. People see things differently, that's all.

Nightshade, I had no idea what a MUX was! Was it like this one?

[Nightshade]

Really guys it's ok to have different opinions and no reason to go negative. Along with others here, I enjoyed following your conversation. People see things differently, that's all.

Nightshade, I had no idea what a MUX was! Was it like this one?

Yeppers, though obviously X-Men: End Times is a peculiar hybrid. The one I spent most time on (Children of the Atom) is long gone (all MU**s are a dying breed because of MMORPGs, even though the latter don't typically supply quite the experience of the former), but Mutatis Mutandis is still around, even though I haven't been on it in a decade now:

Mutatis Mutandis

Edit: Well, at least their webpage is still up; given the age of the updates I won't swear the MUX itself still is, and I now longer have a telnet client to check with.

Edited July 24, 2008 by Nightshade

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

I wasn't sure if this was relevant (I also posted in Off-Topic), but it looks like the gaming industry is taking a stab at film-making again. What do you think?

Gametrailers.com - Dead Space: Downfall - Feature Film Trailer

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

For as long as it lasts online here is something that could be of interest to X-MEN fans:

X-MEN ORIGINS- WOLVERINE COMIC-CON TRAILER - The Spill.com Movie Community

[Sorloc]

So... what do you have to say about this:

Apple - Trailers - Watchmen

[Trifletraxor]

So... what do you have to say about this:

Apple - Trailers - Watchmen

Like the trailer a lot. Like the comic a lot. Do not like it's the same director as for 300 though...

Still, it has a lot of potential.

SGL.

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

Really? I thought that 300 captured the spirit of the comic very well. He also did the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. Of course, they could've made it picture authentic with naked Spartans, but that would've been too much.

[Trifletraxor]

Really? I thought that 300 captured the spirit of the comic very well.

Well he have done that, but I didn't read the comic so I wouldn't know. I just thought that the trailer looked so extremely good, while I found the film to be only average. And the Watchmen trailer also look extremely good!

SGL.

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

You've got two audiences and I can only imagine how hard it must be to translate a comic to the screen. Of course, nothing ever matches what you're seeing in your mind's eye. A film can only hope to jiggle a few of those same feelings, but not at any depth, especially one with characters as otherworldly primal as Leonidas. I loved "300" the comic, but it's been a long time since I read it, so my viewing of the film left me with a positive impression. YMMV of course Just as an aside, Alan Moore thought the book and the movie wasn't just stupid, but "sublimely stupid."

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

Looks like Marvel's favorite symbiote is coming back...I'm actually looking forward to this more than Spider-man 4. :ohwell:

The back story is that "Venom" was being shopped around Spider-man 2, but got shelved. It looks like they didn't like the first go-around with the script, but then again, Spider-man 3 really changed things up a little.

Sony may bite on Spidey spinoff

Studio developing 'Venom,' seeking new writers

By Steven Zeitchik

July 31, 2008, 12:01 AM ET

Marvel's Venom

With Heath Ledger's villainous Joker drawing attention and boxoffice dollars, Sony is moving forward with "Venom," a potential "Spider-Man" spinoff based on a bad guy.

The studio is developing the project, based on the gooey nemesis who appeared in "Spider-Man 3" and is hoping the character could serve as an antidote to the aging "Spider-Man" franchise in the way that Fox has used Wolverine to add longevity to its "X-Men" franchise.

But getting any spinoff off the ground, let alone one centered on a villain, can be tricky.

The studio had commissioned a draft of the script from Jacob Estes, a writer of the specialty film "Mean Creek," released several years ago by Paramount Classics. He's also attached to the Plan B drama "The Gifted."

But the studio is considering going in a different direction from Estes' script and is seeking writers for a new draft.

Casting also is no simple matter. Topher Grace played the character in the film, but agents have been eyeing the role for their clients, as Sony is not yet convinced the actor can carry a tentpole picture.

Neither Sony nor Marvel would comment for this story.

In "Spider-Man 3," Venom is essentially a parasite that attaches itself to a host via a sticky substance that then gives the host special powers. The fact that it is a substance rather than a character could give Sony leeway to cast a new actor.

"Venom" came about as part of the licensing deal between Marvel and Sony for the Spider-Man movies, which contained provisions allowing for the use of spinoffs based on other Spider-Man characters.

The project is part of a larger feeding frenzy for superhero projects, scores of which have been signed up in the last few months while movies such as "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight" light up the boxoffice.

Sony is developing a fourth "Spider-Man" film for 2011, but that picture would come out nine years after the original movie debuted, adding to the studio's desire to see new Marvel characters.

Sony may bite on Spidey spinoff

[mrk]

I wasn't sure if this was relevant (I also posted in Off-Topic), but it looks like the gaming industry is taking a stab at film-making again. What do you think?

Gametrailers.com - Dead Space: Downfall - Feature Film Trailer

Talking about game trailers. ID Software's post apocalyptic game " Rage" looks mighty impressive.

Rage Extended Trailer - Shacknews - PC Games, PlayStation, Xbox 360 and Wii video game news, previews and downloads

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

Thanks for sharing this mrk. I like the post-apocalyptic genre. Looking forward also to the new Fallout 3! :thumb:

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

Even serial hack Brett Ratner was chafing at the bit over at Fox!

But having suffered through years of having their chain yanked by the studio's business affairs department and having seen virtually every creative decision approved by Rothman, top talent learned to avoid Fox like the plague. After making an "X-Man" movie there, Brett Ratner complained that Rothman even had approval of releasing key photo images from the film. Innumerable agents have complained to me that Fox doesn't want filmmakers--it wants no-name traffic cops to direct its movies. Here're the people who directed the studio's 2007 summer films: James Wan, Tom Brady, David Silverman, Len Wiseman, Tim Story and Carlos Fresnadillo. I bet some of them are genuinely nice guys, but there's not a Warren Beatty or Tim Burton in the bunch.

While the quote and point he makes above is quite telling, I think concluding that what he says contradicts what he writes about M. Night Shymalan earlier on. Uh, saying that MNS is too easily controlled by execs is just not..."The Happening." (Or M. Night Shymalan in general.)

Link

Edited August 12, 2008 by FunGuyFromYuggoth

[mrk]

20'th Century Fox has always had a reputation of micro managing everone to death as well as not having faith in many of their projects. They also are credited for three of the biggest financial blunders of all time in Hollywood that made them loose billions of dollars.

Edited August 13, 2008 by mrk