|
second-hand smegma posted:Currently reading Snatch comics by R. Crumb and eagerly awaiting the miniseries. That one would be so much better as an HBO series.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:Oh yeah I totally forgot about that rear end in a top hat teacher Part of me wonders if the early scenes were studio mandated add-ins but nah, no way, Eric Wareheim was an important part of the director's vision!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 23:52
|
|
"I can't understand this science so it must be MAGIC. F!!!!!"
|
computer parts posted:Someone said it earlier more or less but this movie sounds a lot like Alien 3 and I wouldn't be surprised if eventually we got a director's cut of sorts that makes it better but still not that great. Alien 3 was directed by David Fincher and is still in a mostly beloved series which probably has a lot to do with how it got that revisiting. I'd be surprised if Trank and this movie got the same goodwill.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
How do you cast Reg E Cathey in a movie with DOOM and then not have him voice DOOM?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
The funny thing is, as the movie goes on his voice actually winds down. By the end he's basically doing an insulting Michael Caine impression.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
massive spider posted:Alien 3 was directed by David Fincher and is still in a mostly beloved series which probably has a lot to do with how it got that revisiting. I'd be surprised if Trank and this movie got the same goodwill. I don't think Fincher publicly trashed Alien 3 until years after the fact, either. You can get away with making an unsuccessful film in Hollywood, but they'll never forgive anything that actively interferes with the film making money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Black Lighter posted:I don't think Fincher publicly trashed Alien 3 until years after the fact, either. You can get away with making an unsuccessful film in Hollywood, but they'll never forgive anything that actively interferes with the film making money. Even with Trank trashing it so soon, if he directs a movie or two in the future that either make $$$ or are massive critical darlings I'm sure Fox will do a re-release. Alien was already a beloved franchise but even without that, with Fincher becoming such a big name I think that played a big role in the Alien 3 work print being released, the beloved franchise part just ensured completed effects for things like the shot of baby alien running away. Fincher wasn't involved with Alien 3's re-release or re-editing at all beyond giving it his approval as the best thing that could be done with what was shot. Plus even when the movie was being made... http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/interview.asp?IID=1102 Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Aug 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
I haven't seen the movie but of those two trailers posted a little while back the first looks far more interesting to me, the second seems muddled and forced. I quite liked Chronicle and I'm a fan of Teller/Jordan so I was really hoping this wouldn't suck. Ah well. A 26m opening weekend is abysmal even given the apparent quality though, you'd think a superhero movie would at least win the first weekend on release.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
If you thought this movie was going to be any good from the trailers I honestly don't know what to tell you except that I envy your naive optimism. I went to see this with a friend who is also a huge comic book nerd, who thought the break from the mold offered a glimpse of hope that there might actually be a worthwhile Fantastic Four experience in cinema. It did not. What the movie DID offer was a great riffing experience (sorry to whatever theatergoers we bothered, but PLANET ZERO), though it did give the slightest glimpse of pathos in the guilt Reed felt over robbing his friends (especially Ben) of their "normal" lives. I mean, that's a story that was old when I was born, but Miles and Jamie did a really good job of selling their friendship: too bad it was rail-roaded by the time break and immediately abandoned in the bizarrely graphic Doom escape. The climax felt so rushed we both had to check the time, but we'd really been in the theater for over an hour at that point, and so as far as plots go it was right on schedule.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Green Arrow on TV is amazing you philistine! Green Arrow is actually consistently hilarious. I never thought a TV show could remain so-bad-it's-good for so long Neo Rasa posted:Even with Trank trashing it so soon, if he directs a movie or two in the future that either make $$$ I doubt Josh Trank will ever get big bucks to make a blockbuster again. The lesson studios have taken away is "Josh Trank can't work within the system". Calico Heart fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Aug 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
Heey, how could anyone not be cool with the  I thought it was pretty intense in a Scanners/Akira/whatever sort of way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:Heey, how could anyone not be cool with the It worked for Hannibal Lecter, not so much the glowing green duct-tape mummy
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
Four Score posted:It worked for Hannibal Lecter, not so much the glowing green duct-tape mummy poo poo, I just realised who he reminded me of: Mumm-Ra from goddamned Thundercats 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
Four Score posted:What the movie DID offer was a great riffing experience (sorry to whatever theatergoers we bothered, but PLANET ZERO)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
It was all right up until they decided to just abandon any interesting storylines and cram in a weird, rushed, generic finale. What an odd decision by the studio. I can't imagine the third act before reshoots was worse, and if it was I really want to see it. Like someone said earlier, it really feels like a workprint.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
I love that Doom's motivation in the end pretty much boiled down to 'gently caress YOU  And the FF combined their mighty powers - Reed's super genius and stretching, Sue's ability to discern any pattern and force field battering rams, Ben's military training and strength, Johnny's speed and flames and flight - and put all that together into their masterful strategy of "distract Doom and then push him over" Like everyone else is saying, I'm really curious to find out what Trank originally had in mind for the ending. Surlaw posted:You were upset about the goofy name Planet Zero in a story about Dr. Doom? His surname is von Doom and he has a PhD, what else is he supposed to call himself? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Four Score posted:
Please tell us these surely hilarious quips!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Planet Zero? More like IMDB rating five point zero!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Victor von ....... DUMB haha
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Yeah next time you feel like a sci-fi story is trying too hard to give its planet a cool name, remember that all but one planet in our own solar system is named after a dead god of an ancient empire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:poo poo, I just realised who he reminded me of: Mumm-Ra from goddamned Thundercats 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 15:52
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Plus even when the movie was being made... Ha, I remember an Empire article on the behind-the-scenes strife from back when the movie came out. It made Fincher look like an utter clown, and of course the movie ended up being no great shakes. So Seven was a very pleasant surprise 
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:Part of me wonders if the early scenes were studio mandated add-ins but nah, no way, Eric Wareheim was an important part of the director's vision! I'll have you know that was Tim Heidecker, the more 'Richards' of the two. I'm also in the boat in that I hope this movie gets some sort of directors cut, but seeing how Trank's been reacting so far makes it seem kind of unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Even with Trank trashing it so soon, if he directs a movie or two in the future that either make $$$ or are massive critical darlings I'm sure Fox will do a re-release. Even before this tanked, he already got himself fired from directing the Boba Fett movie, not sure how many big studios are going to be willing to work with him after that combination.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
I didn't hate this movie, I actually really liked a lot of it, but then the moment the group separates, and Ben and Johnny are military pawns, the movie turns to complete dogshit. Also yeah, Kate Mara's obvious wig in the re-shot scenes was distracting as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Producer 1: We're making a Fantastic Four movie. What have we learned in the 16 years since X-Men blew up the comic book movie trend? Producer 2: People really loved Spider-man! Producer 3: And the Avengers! Producer 1: Excellent. Get me a script where scientists are nerds for 90 minutes then in the last five minutes there's a green metal man and a blue laser shooting into the sky and the team learns to work together. Those were clearly the elements that earned those films billions of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
So what you're saying is, the movie would be better if they swapped out the Fantastic Four for the Entourage guys?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:Even before this tanked, he already got himself fired from directing the Boba Fett movie, not sure how many big studios are going to be willing to work with him after that combination. Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical that the studio destroyed a "good" film. If Disney stops by and cancels their deal with Trank based on what was going on I think it signals a truth to things not working out. Makes me wonder if there has ever been a director's cut that actually made a bad film legitimately good. I know power have said Highlander 2 Renegade but that movie is still terrible, just tons less awful than the theatrical version. The Exorcist prequel thing was interesting and the original is better than Harlin's version, but it's still not very good and most of it feels like an Omen movie. The core idea is strong and it has a few really good scenes but the exorcism itself isn't very disturbing in execution or dialogue and the mass panic concept doesn't gel with the previous movies. Are there really any game changing director's cuts? Edit: it's a fun mental exercise thinking of the journey where Harlin gets brought in to fix select scenes of The Exorcist and it just spirals out of control until you have two uniquely shot movies. Maybe it all starts with "what if it was a woman instead of a boy?". Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Aug 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Kingdom of heaven
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
And according to Ebert, The Brown Bunny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Blade Runner
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
A GLISTENING HODOR posted:Producer 1: Excellent. Get me a script where scientists are nerds for 90 minutes then in the last five minutes there's a green metal man and a blue laser shooting into the sky and the team learns to work together. Those were clearly the elements that earned those films billions of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Kingdom of heaven
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical that the studio destroyed a "good" film. If Disney stops by and cancels their deal with Trank based on what was going on I think it signals a truth to things not working out. See, I think the opposite question is just as valid: Can anybody think of an example where a studio took a film away from the director and made a successful go of it? Because the failure rate would seem to be so high that the studios would be better off just going with the original work and making the best of it in marketing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Black Lighter posted:See, I think the opposite question is just as valid: Can anybody think of an example where a studio took a film away from the director and made a successful go of it? Because the failure rate would seem to be so high that the studios would be better off just going with the original work and making the best of it in marketing. Emperor's New Groove had some executive meddling in a positive direction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
It is still amazing to me that this movie's opening weekend it seen as a abysmal failure, while it has earned about the same as Titanic, the second highest grossing movie of all time. Sure, there is inflation and all, but still...
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Black Lighter posted:See, I think the opposite question is just as valid: Can anybody think of an example where a studio took a film away from the director and made a successful go of it? Because the failure rate would seem to be so high that the studios would be better off just going with the original work and making the best of it in marketing. World War Z had extensive reshoots and outside writers were brought on to rewrite the entire third act. Say what you will about the final product but the film was ultimately successful as a more traditional summer blockbuster. Confusion posted:It is still amazing to me that this movie's opening weekend it seen as a abysmal failure, while it has earned about the same as Titanic, the second highest grossing movie of all time. Sure, there is inflation and all, but still... Titanic was number 1 at the box office for 15 weeks straight and stayed in theaters for 10 months. No film ever again will likely perform like that especially not a mediocre to crappy comic book movie. Two Kings fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Aug 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Emperor's New Groove had some executive meddling in a positive direction. Fair, but animation also presents a really different case than live-action. By its nature, you're not working with the same kind of time constraints as you would if you had to keep things like actors' availabilities in mind. I'd imagine it's also much easier to draw new footage that gels with what's already there than to shoot it live.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Confusion posted:It is still amazing to me that this movie's opening weekend it seen as a abysmal failure, while it has earned about the same as Titanic, the second highest grossing movie of all time. Sure, there is inflation and all, but still...
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
Black Lighter posted:See, I think the opposite question is just as valid: Can anybody think of an example where a studio took a film away from the director and made a successful go of it? Because the failure rate would seem to be so high that the studios would be better off just going with the original work and making the best of it in marketing. Most of the examples are studio-forced casting choices which in retrospect turn out to be far better than the director's choice. But that's a crapshoot because plenty of times the person forced in can be terrible. And there's more than a few examples of director's cuts being bloated and including really bad storylines with the caveat that many (most?) DCs are just non-director-driven padding to make home releases more attractive. But studios often push for new endings which sometimes work out far better in the end. Army of Darkness and Final Destination spring to mind. It's a crapshoot for when they hurt and when they help but filmmaking is a collaborative process and they sometimes, sometimes bring something to the table other than money and connections.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:31
|
|