|
LesterGroans posted:Schwarzenegger is really, really good in that movie. Yeah, as a whole it wasn't a great movie but watching Arnold Schwarzenegger transition from "action hero" to "character actor" before your eyes is pretty great. And Jesus/Mister Reese as the creepy warden was a lot of fun too.
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
Spatula City posted:
I think she was not badly matched with Josh Groban and Ryan Gosling in crazy stupid love. I am not sure on those guys ages though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
They're both between 30 and 35, which seems perfectly healthy for a 25 year-old to hook up with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Yeah, Ryan Gosling's not TOO much older than Stone. And it's part persona in addition to age. Gosling still seems "young". In terms of charismatic younger leading men, Miles Teller, Dane DeHaan, Josh Hutcherson, Anton Yelchin, Dave Franco, Logan Lerman, Michael B. Jordan, Jamie Bell, Nicholas Hoult, Garrett Hedlund. also, although he's 8 years older, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Emma Stone should be in a romantic comedy together.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Now I'm embarrassed I didn't mention Michael B. Jordan. That guy has been excellent since he was 15.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
I just saw Expendables 3 and it wasn't too bad. Certainly an action movie. Banderas was the best part of the whole thing as far as I'm concerned. The way he's so desperate to join the team is pretty entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Bulging Nipples posted:It's really weird with Statham's character because apparently he's "the knife guy", but EVERYONE is apparently "the knife guy". Stallone, Lundgren, Rourke and now Snipes in the new one. The hell is the point of Statham's character then? The "little throwing knife guy" as opposed to Lundgren's "giant knife guy"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
I honestly haven't seen any of the Expendables movies. But given what I saw of that clip from Expendables 2, would having a huge cast have worked better if it had split the cast up into two completely separate teams of mercs forced to work together? You then maybe have a way to better excuse a lot of generic or redundant roles with some inter-team pissing contests and rivalries. Just a stupid example: Maybe you get one mostly UK/US-centric team with your Stallone, your Willis, your Crews, your Statham, etc. Then maybe a rival, more international, firm that has your Arnold, your Li, your Lundgren, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
The last really good Stallone movie was Rambo (2008). Expendables 2 kind of owned at times but that had nothing to do with Stallone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:I honestly haven't seen any of the Expendables movies. But given what I saw of that clip from Expendables 2, would having a huge cast have worked better if it had split the cast up into two completely separate teams of mercs forced to work together? You then maybe have a way to better excuse a lot of generic or redundant roles with some inter-team pissing contests and rivalries. In Expendables 1, the solution is to have the whole team amount to roughly one character. Since the action sucks, the bulk of the film is a fever-dream of baffling homoerotic monologue. Mickey Rourke goes on about tattooing a 'sexy' pregnant spider on Statham's 'perfectly shaped, muscular head', while Statham threatens to empty a rival's balls, etc. This largely distracts from the fact that the team is fighting to obtain 5 million dollars by covering up CIA involvement in a South American puppet dictatorship/narcotics ring. No twist. They just do that, and then celebrate. It honestly only works as parody.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
First Bass posted:His voice is so gravelly, I don't think they even try to make him do an American accent in movies where he's supposed to be an American. Cacator posted:He had to drop out of the second movie (both figureatively and literally in the movie itself) which explains why he wasn't in it much, although they gave him the line "You will find another minority" which I thought was cute. Krypt-OOO-Nite!! posted:Also isn't Jet Li's career fairly stable in China?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
Cameron announced Avatar 2, 3, and 4 for 2016, 2017, and 2018. It's been so long since the first one is anyone really invested in that world anymore? My other question would be, how the hell is he going to make the Avatar movies that fast? James Cameron had never been known for pumping out films at a lightning pace.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
I think he's filming all of them at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:This is why Game of Thrones is one of the lowest-rated shows on cable, poor HBO didn't sue enough housewives and now thanks to piracy nobody watches them anymore They sued the high school my wife went to over a student torrenting Game of Thrones. Dudes are ruthless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:I think he's filming all of them at the same time. Is he actually filming them yet because this seems like it has been a case where he's talked them up quite a bit but no progress has been made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
It's WETA just going to be completely unavailable to take on other work during this time frame? Cause it seems like three Avatar films simultaneously in such a short time frame would just take every last one of them. Filming STARTS in 2015. For reference this is also the time frame for which Power Rangers will be filmed and released.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
greatn posted:Cameron announced Avatar 2, 3, and 4 for 2016, 2017, and 2018. Realistically, he is going to take a break when Avatar 2 fails to get 1bn worldwide and go on another deep sea adventure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:The last really good Stallone movie was Rambo (2008). Expendables 2 kind of owned at times but that had nothing to do with Stallone. I wonder how much of First Blood Part III: Rambo IV was due to him just trying to make a good movie as opposed to trying to catch the exact same bolt of lightning as the first three. As a storyteller, obviously Stallone's sensibilities will change over time as he grows and changes, so he told a story about John Rambo along his modern lines. This is, incidentally, why I think he was a bad choice to write and direct Expendables with the goal of "tribute to 80's action flicks" in mind. He's way too close to the material he's trying to recreate, and just isn't capable (I think) of seeing the forest for the trees. Then there's the tone issue of the side-Expendables having joke names like Hale Caesar and Toll Road, while Stallone plays a dude named Barney Ross. If there's a joke hidden in that name, I don't see it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
greatn posted:It's been so long since the first one is anyone really invested in that world anymore? I'd be surprised if it remotely hits 2bn again - there's a chance that given we've got the crummy "saves the natives" story out the way there might be a reasonable story that keeps people coming back. It is lining up for a "Avatar Land" thing at Disney so I suspect there's going to be quite an effort to get some sort of franchise rolling. Not that it doesn't have it fans, but they end up slotted under "weird cult underdog" and do stuff like tattoo their body to look like the Navi. But also I wonder if there could be a franchise overload as it's competing with Marvel and Star Wars/Trek releases around the same time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
I'd say part of the reason it left public consciousness so quickly is that there wasn't really anything else other than the movie itself. There was a tie-in videogame that was kind of lovely so it didn't sell very well but that was about it for cross media stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:the tone issue of the side-Expendables having joke names like Hale Caesar and Toll Road, while Stallone plays a dude named Barney Ross. If there's a joke hidden in that name, I don't see it. Barney Ross was an old-time Jewish boxer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
If Cameron puts more amazing visuals back on the big screen again I'd say there's a good enough chance for the next movie to hit $1 billion. It's not that impossibly hard to do internationally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:I'd say part of the reason it left public consciousness so quickly is that there wasn't really anything else other than the movie itself. There was a tie-in videogame that was kind of lovely so it didn't sell very well but that was about it for cross media stuff. That and its theatrical release was ~160 minutes long. It's not really a film you can binge like Lord of the Rings even if it is self contained. With a big marketing push I could see Avatar 2 more or less pay for the cost of development though. That's what happened with the first Hobbit film (minus marketing, maybe) and really the major reason for the Hobbit's success was a bunch of films released a decade prior.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Goddamit James Cameron, give us the Gunnm movie we really want! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Didn't screeners of American Gangster and Lone Survivor leak online weeks before release? Those two still did very well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:Didn't screeners of American Gangster and Lone Survivor leak online weeks before release? Those two still did very well. What do you expect them to say, "We realize we don't make these films as good as they should be, sorry about that"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:A plucky band of individuals mingle their labor with guns and bombs to defeat the evil empire, whose violence against their persons comes in the form of consumer protections, a minimum wage, and compulsory education. This has not one but two actors from Voyager in it. It looks like a student film. MonsieurChoc posted:Goddamit James Cameron, give us the Gunnm movie we really want! Cameron is secretly making Gunnm instead of Avatar 2 under a code name.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:This has not one but two actors from Voyager in it. It looks like a student film. The Writer/Director/etc behind this has some sort of professional ties to Nichelle Nichols which is where the Star Trek connection comes from, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Cool, we're having another round of "I can't believe they are making sequels to the movie that made the most money ever!" from noted failed director James Cameron.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:The Writer/Director/etc behind this has some sort of professional ties to Nichelle Nichols which is where the Star Trek connection comes from, I think. I hope to god it's just in the capacity that she's friendly and he just seems like a nice young man who needed some help making a movie and not that she's into nutso apocalyptic libertarian stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
20,000 Leagues reboot planning to film in Australia for 2015 release. They're getting $21.6 million, but Disney wants more money from Australia. Things like this is why it's often less expensive to make a $200 million film than a $20 million film. Don't believe the studio hype about studios losing $150 million on films, they probably were already even on tax breaks and product placement alone. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-eyes-early-2015-20000-725985
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Cool, we're having another round of "I can't believe they are making sequels to the movie that made the most money ever!" from noted failed director James Cameron. No, you don't understand. He should make a live action early 90s Anime instead because that's where the REAL money is and has always proven to be. People don't want a sequel to a movie they liked, they want a remake of a thing they've never heard of. What is Cameron thinking???    
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:20,000 Leagues reboot planning to film in Australia for 2015 release. They're getting $21.6 million, but Disney wants more money from Australia. Things like this is why it's often less expensive to make a $200 million film than a $20 million film. Don't believe the studio hype about studios losing $150 million on films, they probably were already even on tax breaks and product placement alone. Does this still have Fincher attached?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:20,000 Leagues reboot planning to film in Australia for 2015 release. They're getting $21.6 million, but Disney wants more money from Australia. Things like this is why it's often less expensive to make a $200 million film than a $20 million film. Don't believe the studio hype about studios losing $150 million on films, they probably were already even on tax breaks and product placement alone. That movie is like the Duke Nukem Forever of movies. Everyone from Fincher to Will Smith has tried to make it and failed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Honestly, I thought Expendables 3 was pretty good, though I thought 2 and 3 were both good. Stallone is not the reason to see either, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Cool, we're having another round of "I can't believe they are making sequels to the movie that made the most money ever!" from noted failed director James Cameron. I think it's fair to wonder why he took a movie whose standout feature was the use of 3D and decided to wait almost a decade and long after the 3D craze has cooled off before making a sequel. If it has anything to do with all the underwater poo poo he's been doing lately I'll watch the hell out of it, though. I'm not sure who the audience for Gunnm / Battle Angel was back in the late 90s/early 2000s when I first heard those rumors though, and I have even less idea who's going to line up for a movie of it now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Does this still have Fincher attached? He left earlier this year IIRC, I have no idea who is attached now (if anyone) because there are too many articles about previous versions clogging Google to find the current information. Not that no director and no stars have stopped studios from scheduling everything else before! There is also a rival version called Captain Nemo that's coming through Sony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Cool, we're having another round of "I can't believe they are making sequels to the movie that made the most money ever!" from noted failed director James Cameron. I'd say that I'm more surprised they're going all-in on three sequels at the same time for yearly release. That seems like it's pretty high clusterfuck potential if Avatar 2 doesn't catch the same audience as the first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I'd say that I'm more surprised they're going all-in on three sequels at the same time for yearly release. That seems like it's pretty high clusterfuck potential if Avatar 2 doesn't catch the same audience as the first. IIRC they're also supposed to be filmed in 60FPS. Actually it looks like Cameron is looking more at Variable Frame Rate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I'd say that I'm more surprised they're going all-in on three sequels at the same time for yearly release. That seems like it's pretty high clusterfuck potential if Avatar 2 doesn't catch the same audience as the first. Assuming a budget of $200 million, Avatar 2 would have to get less than 7% of the audience of the original to not break even. Are you seriously arguing that's going to happen? Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 21:01
|
|