February 11, 2012 at 10:55 am #23649
Okay, a lot to (over)think about, here.
First, to link back to what I just said, I’m pretty sure that music came from MethodicDoubt Music, a studio that specializes in that sort of thing.
Second. The way the trailer opens, with narrow slits of footage sliding in and out, I’ve seen that before. Where? I know I’ve seen it in other trailers, but I can’t remember. Crud.
Sniping a plane? Hm, alright. But turning a fire extinguisher into a nail gun? Wow. How long do these Tredstone agents train in order to be so adept at turning random stuff into deadly weapons?
And I realize new movies need new characters, but I’m curious. If Tredstone is so top-secret, how long until we meet everyone that knows about it? Each new character depletes the pool of unknowns-to-us, and that pool should only be a few more people deep. It looks like they could be setting up a bunch of movies with a whole lot of different leads (and wow, I can think of a lot of movie stars that could probably be in their own Bourne series edition- AND NOT JUST MEN); so does that mean we’ll have a recurring supporting cast every time at some point? Or will various high-ups in offices get fired/ killed in order to protect the secret and then subsequently replaced by nebies that get informed on the details?February 13, 2012 at 1:24 pm #23696
*newbies, not nebies
AND HOLY CRAP WATCH THIS ONE
I couldn’t help but think, “BAMF.” So ridiculous, it’s going to be awesome? Or just plain ridiculous?February 14, 2012 at 1:50 pm #23715
Oh my god. I’ve been burned by high concept movies before (I’m looking at you, Snakes on a Plane), but Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter makes me want to love again.February 14, 2012 at 9:15 pm #23727
So Gab, the Bourne Legacy trailer’s opening sliding clips might be a James Bond thing, but I’m not sure. It almost might be done on a station called Encore Avenue, but again, I’m not sure. I think I’m getting it confused. Anyway, an interesting commenter on YouTube pointed out that if Bourne was not in the movie, they should maybe call it something else. While this is a valid point, after watching the trailer, I believe the title means that the whole plot will really be about this new agent, and how it wasn’t just Bourne, all this time, which could be really interesting. I also have not seen the first three movies, though I think I should. I’m shooting in the dark here. As for Mr. Lincoln the Vampire Slayer, I’ll just say, how historically accurate does anyone think/want this to be?February 15, 2012 at 9:43 am #23781
Ted, I think you’re right about what they’re going for: They’re tying to show how Bourne was one of a bunch of different people trained (brainwashed?) the same way. I’m wondering if they’re going to do a Dollhouse-esque thing with some of the backstories (it’s kind of alluded to here, after all). As in the people sign up because they’re already criminals, in really bad situations, whatever- basically, under duress.
As for Lincoln, I doubt it’ll be remotely historically accurate- it’ll prolly drop lots of stuff at history buffs (names, places, allusions to events), but I don’t think that’s a big deal. It’s based off of a book, though, and I wonder if there will be more historical not-so-inaccuracies there, if only because of the medium of art. But do I want it historically accurate? No, not really.
I was joking with some friends about other presidents they could do this sort of thing for, and one suggested Teddy Roosevelt. We determined it would probably be much more historically accurate. Teddy Roosevelt: Werewolf Destroyer. Opening scene: Teddy is hiking and his pack gets caught on something. He fiddles with it, and when he turns after dislodging it, a bear is growling over him. He sighs, punches it in the face, then moves on.February 15, 2012 at 9:44 am #23782
Damn italics! I get it wrong half the bloody time, I should just not do them.February 23, 2012 at 10:34 am #23979
Fulfilling Godwin’s Law, one Forum Post at a time.February 29, 2012 at 9:12 am #24131
…needs to be mashed up with clips from thisFebruary 29, 2012 at 10:24 am #24132
“Beneath its glassy surface, a world of gliding monsters” is a pretty hilarious way to describe British society.March 2, 2012 at 9:54 am #24145
Gab, nice idea for a mashup with similar titles. Another candidate would be R.Pat and Reese Witherspoon in a Mexican magical realism love story: “Like Water for Chocolate Elephants.”March 2, 2012 at 10:18 am #24146
Bring me my legs.March 3, 2012 at 12:33 am #24147
Piranha 3DD – Bonus points for innovative sequel title and for casting Ving Rhames, but demerits for stealing the gimmick from Robt Rodriguez.
Re: Avengers, the official trailer has a few seconds where lots of flying heroes and/or robots and/or bad guys and/or missiles hit each other and dodge each other while curving between skyscrapers. A little too fast to follow. It works well for the trailer, but if it’s not done right in the full length movie, it could be as annoying as some of the busy dogfight scenes in Attack of the Clones. After a few seconds of looking really cool, you don’t know what to focus on, and then it turns into more noise than signal.May 21, 2012 at 10:37 pm #25138
What did I just see? I mean really, I can’t believe that someone thought, “What if Snow White had monsters in it?”. I’m all for gritty reboots, but this one somehow seems to go to far. I didn’t really “grow up” with Snow White, and I’ve never watched the Disney Movie, but something still feels wrong.
First off, Youtube comments are basically all concerning whether Kristen Stewart is a good fit. I personally say no, because she didn’t blow everyone away with her acting in Twilight. Besides, I get sick of seeing the same name in the credits all the time. Charlize Theron is a nice change, but Chris Hemsworth? Ugh, why is Thor in this? At least he doesn’t fight with a hammer. Though, he might in the full movie. He is shown using an axe and a sword, so a hammer may be on the docket yet.
Second, some seriously crazy stuff went down at about Twenty seconds in. A guy disintegrated into small diamonds, and the Queen/Witch inhaled a woman’s youth. I get the latter, but the weird death of the soldier? I don’t get what that’s about. Are they not really human?
Third, there are some big friggin’ monsters in this movie. I don’t think Kristen Stewart is going to fight them all. Why are these things there? Obstacles? No game of Cat and Mouse is complete without giant abominations, freaks of nature lumbering through the forest destroying everything they see.
Fourth, why is it called Snow White AND THE HUNTSMAN? What role does the huntsman play? The title can mean two things: either it will be an elaborate chase through the forest, or Snow White will show Thor her chest or something and they’ll team up through the forest happily ever after. The only thing Thor is shown doing is killing soldiers. Why? What is his narrative purpose? Thor and Snow White aren’t seen in a single shot together. There are plenty of shots of armies colliding in war, and it is the start of the Queen’s narration. So why in the world do these armies exist? There’s no reason for this story to take place with a backdrop of war, civil or not. It is just providing more story for the movie to have to slog itself through. This story, as messed up as it is, would probably work just fine without a war happening, and I bet that the war won’t be shown in very much of the film.
Fifth, the story seems to be very much in line with the Fairy tale that inspired it.. The Queen’s vanity leads to her destruction of Snow White, and with the added layer of “The Huntsman” it does sound like an entertaining film.
But then there’s this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35EGNolcxEg&feature=related
So… yeah. I don’t know.
Both films are looking to reinvent the story of Snow White. As far as I can tell, neither of them bring anything new to the story thematically except for Mirror Mirror, which has a strong feminism vibe, but both just present a new twist on the story. One is serious, the other is comedic. It would almost be brilliant for the same company to release both films, seeing that both will end up potentially filling the four quadrants.
Is this a renewed love of fairy tales? I would like to think that the recent slew of Fantasy series like Game of Thrones, Merlin, and Once Upon a Time have attracted the attentions of the film industry. Only time will tell if we see more tales like Hansel and Gretel, Jack and the Beanstalk or Sleeping Beauty become new movies.
Speaking of Sleeping Beauty, what the fuck is this? (Pardon my,… FRENCH!) I’m not even going to touch this one. Too much to take in.
I should probably shut down YouTube now.May 24, 2012 at 2:07 am #25148
And there’s also the book The House of the Sleeping Beauties that inspired a German film of the same name in 2006, as well as an Australian one (Sleeping Beauty) in 2011. Weee!
I think you’re probably onto something with the role the armies will actually play in Snow White and the Huntsman. Also with how much screentime the two title characters will share (meaning hardly any).
I don’t really have all that creative reason as to why both Snow Whit films exist- my instinct is to chock it up to how stuff often seems to come with a partner, sometimes drawing from the same source (there are three different Wizard of Oz projects in the making right now, for example, iirc), sometimes using a similar story (Armageddon and Deep Impact).
Maybe we feel tired, as a country? Tired of all the BS in politics, of the terrible economy. But, we’d rather take action than lie back and fall asleep. (?)May 30, 2012 at 9:47 pm #25260
First trailer for this is out now, and while I’m loving all the visuals, I’m really not feeling Anne Hathaway. Incidentally, she’s also the thing I look forward to least in Dark Knight Rises. So is this the year that Anne Hathaway ruins all my favorite movies? To be fair, I’m not a big fan of the Catwoman or Fantine characters to begin with.May 30, 2012 at 9:54 pm #25261
Yeah, my personal theory on that (especially now, having watched the trailer) is that Anne Hathaway is the perfect fit for Fantine, the character everyone loves to hate. She was quite adequately irritating, in my opinion.May 30, 2012 at 9:59 pm #25262
I’ve seen a number of people saying that they ‘won’t see the movie’ because of her, and that’s a little silly. I mean, at worst, just show up a few minutes late, or take a long bathroom/concessions break when she first shows up.May 30, 2012 at 10:17 pm #25263
Why does everyone love to hate Fantine? Cossette is so much more hate-able (that ssaid, I don’t mind the casting of either). Looking at the trailer, Lovely Ladies looks like it is done perfectly, I’m afraid the battle scene will become too impersonal, I can’t wait to see Javert and Valjean interact, and OMG THIS IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING YEEEEEESSSSSSSS!!!!!May 30, 2012 at 11:25 pm #25264
I didn’t realize there were people that even remotely disliked Anne Hathaway, so that’s total news to me. I think she’ll be good at the role not because she’s easy to hate, but because she’s a darn good actress- and her singing in the trailer seemed appropriate, given the medium. This is a film adaptation, not a staged performance, so the singing style should be a little different than what is best for a theater-house performance*. I’m actually quite excited for this. My hs friends are all raving about it on FB and in person (since we went to a performing arts school together, and Celine Dion came when our production of Les Mis premiered, or so the legend goes…).
*This is also why I absolutely cannot stand Sarah Brightman’s Christine for Phantom. Yes, I know she’s playing an opera singer (and yes, I know Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote the part for her), but she’s on a Broadway (etc.) stage in a NOT-opera show. Micheal Crawford? Gives me chills. Brightman? Hurts my ears.June 21, 2012 at 6:20 pm #25478
Oh my God, what can we say about this?
(Again, real link, YouTube is putting periods in the middle now for some silly reason.)
As the headline for the article in which I found it read, “Liam Neesan wants you to listen carefully… again.”
I’m thinking, this puts an interesting spin on the usually random dudes that get killed in a movie such as Taken or a James Bond/ Jason Bourne flick. The guys that drop with one or two hits, they don’t even really get names, right? Thug #1-5, etc. This makes them more… substantive, for lack of a better word, right? To think this movie is happening because the “brothers” and whatnot were killed. I’m curious to see if actual names for all the guys killed in the first one get brought into it, or if it ends up panning out more like the boss is just mad that this guy kicked his organization’s ass single-handedly.
Thoughts? Please, please, please tell me someone else has some thoughts!!!June 21, 2012 at 9:11 pm #25482
I don’t know, I think you are overestimating the “mooks matter.” Neilson pissed off the… I think it was Ukrainian mafia? I think this is more of a “don’t piss off the mob” movie than a “every death has consequences.”
My two thoughts are:
1. The wife seems to be too warm about him after what was obviously a painful separation. “Dad’s the best, huh?” “Yes he is”? Really?
2. I love to imagine that in every movie Neilson has made since Schindler’s List, he is reprising his role as Oscar Schindler. So it is Schindler who is going around Europe, determined to save One. More. Life at whatever cost. I also pretend that Oscar Schindler coaches the Oklahoma City Thunder.June 21, 2012 at 9:18 pm #25483
Yeah, she did seem really pleased to be around him, a stark contrast to the first movie.
FUNFACT/TIE-IN/COINCIDENCE/WHATEVER: Neeson is Ducard/Ra’s Al Ghul in Batman Begins, and Famke Janssen, the wife, plays Jean Grey in the X-Men movies. Both are comic movies, yup. WEEEE!
Call me Captain Obvious.June 21, 2012 at 9:44 pm #25484
>_> Yes, how silly of the… auto-correct on my keyboard… Neeson of course Captain Obvious >_>
Also of interest, Janssen was the Bond Girl in Golden Eye, so this isn’t the first time she has been between Eastern Europe crime syndicates and unstoppable government agents.June 22, 2012 at 12:11 am #25485June 24, 2012 at 1:21 pm #25495
The number of iterations of that joke I have now looked at trying to find someone to top that one (which I saw on facebook the other day) is very high.
Log in to reply to this topic.