Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Trailers & New Movies: Coming Soon to a Cinema Near You!


  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 0:25 PM, Dejana said:

Isn't this just a gender-flipped Very Bad Things? Give a take a bit of Weekend At Bernie's thrown in...

 

Anyway, Very Bad Things was not an overwhelming success at the time but I guess there's more creative upside in remaking a so-so/bad movie than a classic? Still I imagine the premise running into even more resistance in 2017, than it already did in 1998.

Watching/listening to people react to the Rough Night trailer, it is a pretty interesting divide.  I don't know if it is "generational" or "movie buff".  I find the very simple answer to be "It's an all female hangover" when in reality it is more "Very Bad Things".  I was always a huge fan of Very Bad Things growing up so when I hear people make the connection I am always pleased.

Valerian looks really cool. Fun fact: we're getting three space operas this year! They could be spaced out, as it were, evenly. But I'll take them any way I can get them.

Oh god, Patrick Stewart, why? Did he lose a bet or something? Though considering some of his other movies, maybe he just doesn't actually have any taste.

10 hours ago, Joe said:

Oh god, Patrick Stewart, why? Did he lose a bet or something? Though considering some of his other movies, maybe he just doesn't actually have any taste.

It might be a paycheck movie for him.  Reminds me of the Michael Caine quote: "I never did see Jaws 4.  I did see the house it bought."

  • Love 7
19 minutes ago, Lugal said:

It might be a paycheck movie for him.  Reminds me of the Michael Caine quote: "I never did see Jaws 4.  I did see the house it bought."

Yes, that's a strong possibility. Here's something interesting. I looked on IMDB. In the first Dragonheart movie, Sean Connery was the voice of the dragon. In 3, it was Ben Kingsley. So he's in good company.

On 2017-03-29 at 10:46 AM, Joe said:

Oh god, Patrick Stewart, why? Did he lose a bet or something? Though considering some of his other movies, maybe he just doesn't actually have any taste.

 

15 hours ago, Lugal said:

It might be a paycheck movie for him.  Reminds me of the Michael Caine quote: "I never did see Jaws 4.  I did see the house it bought."

 

I think this is a generational and cultural trait for these actors. Caine, Stewart, and Connery are all actors from working class backgrounds. Caine has said that both he and Connery spent time on the dole when they started acting. It is a job to them as much as it is a passion and they all had some lean years before they got famous. As a result, they tend to be less likely to turn down paycheque roles. Not a bad strategy considering how this business is one where you can't turn too many things; you always have to be in something to keep the calls coming. 

  • Love 3
16 hours ago, Lugal said:

It might be a paycheck movie for him.  Reminds me of the Michael Caine quote: "I never did see Jaws 4.  I did see the house it bought."

I will always love Caine because of this.  In truth, I respect the actors who are forthcoming about taking parts for the pay check.  Unless you're well off coming into it (which I assume is NOT most actors), you gotta eat.  No sense in pretending every part you take is for the art. Of course, I imagine it's easier to be candid once you're older and have some respect in the industry. 

34 minutes ago, Jazzy24 said:

Saw the new It teaser trailer. And nope! Not today Satan!!!

Ha!

  • Love 6

I remember Michael J Fox, when asked why he picked a certain movie, would answer that they sent him a script and a check.  It was only years later that he disclosed his diagnosis and that his doctor told him he had a finite number of years before people noticed, and he was working like crazy to make enough money before that happened.

  • Love 6
1 hour ago, ribboninthesky1 said:

I will always love Caine because of this.  In truth, I respect the actors who are forthcoming about taking parts for the pay check.  Unless you're well off coming into it (which I assume is NOT most actors), you gotta eat.  No sense in pretending every part you take is for the art. Of course, I imagine it's easier to be candid once you're older and have some respect in the industry. 

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with working for money. Sometimes you take a part because you need a paycheck and sometimes you take a part because you're interested in the story. Neither is wrong.

  • Love 5

Yeah, I would probably do the same in their position.

In other news, the trailer for War for the Planet of the Apes. Here's something odd. It is the second ape movie this year, after King Kong, to be influenced by Apocalypse Now. It's a weird trend.

But you know what I'd like to see instead of the movie we're getting? A mockumentary about the apes living their semi-humanised lives. It doesn't have to be funny, just show me something interesting. Get David Attenborough to narrate.

  • Love 1

This will come as no surprise to anyone here who "knows" me, but for me? Superman is the Justice League, and its leader, so there is No Justice League without him, I don't care who at WB says otherwise. Even if Henry Cavill is listed as also being in it-I've yet to see him featured in any promos or posters.????

8 hours ago, vibeology said:

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with working for money. Sometimes you take a part because you need a paycheck and sometimes you take a part because you're interested in the story. Neither is wrong.

It's not. Still, I'm guessing that the well-established actors showing up in blockbuster/franchise/popular genre films aren't particularly interested in the story. I'm okay with that.  But then, I avoid most press junket-y interviews because the questions are some variation of "So what interested you about your character?" I couldn't care less what, for example, Cate Blanchett might find interesting about Hela in Thor: Ragnorok. I feel like actors are expected to be above enjoying the money - that everything is about the craft.  Truth is, I generally don't care how the actor feels about the character as long as they're convincing.  If you did it to buy a Hermes bag, Maserati, home in the south of France, or because it's a passion project...doesn't make much difference to me. 

4 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

This will come as no surprise to anyone here who "knows" me, but for me? Superman is the Justice League, and its leader, so there is No Justice League without him, I don't care who at WB says otherwise. Even if Henry Cavill is listed as also being in it-I've yet to see him featured in any promos or posters.????

I assume Superman is resurrected at some point, but yeah, no promos to date with him in it. Cavill doesn't seem to have the support of the studio, I suppose because they hang all their hopes on Batman. Which is baffling. I know Man of Steel has its detractors and critiques, but it's not like the film tanked at the box office. 

  • Love 4
9 hours ago, ribboninthesky1 said:

I assume Superman is resurrected at some point, but yeah, no promos to date with him in it. Cavill doesn't seem to have the support of the studio, I suppose because they hang all their hopes on Batman. Which is baffling. I know Man of Steel has its detractors and critiques, but it's not like the film tanked at the box office. 

Or that any of the detractors thought Cavill was the fundamental or underlying problem with MoS.

  • Love 2

Seriously, one of the things that bothered me most about BvS is that one of the title characters never got to say more than two sentences in a row. Cavill can be extremely charming, and that charm SHOULD be deployed to full effect when playing Superman rather than have him silently glowering or snarling before he tries to kill someone.

  • Love 6

Wait, when did Superman try to kill someone? I've not seen the film in a while.  Oddly enough, I rather enjoyed stankface Cavill (his expression conveyed what I felt often), as I found the film's version of Bruce Wayne/Batman to be pretty annoying.  And with Ben Affleck's ever-present personal problems, I have my doubts of his future in the franchise.  The studio might be casting another actor in a couple of years. But hey, maybe Cavill will get more than a couple of lines in Justice League! *fingers crossed*      

  • Love 1
On 3/30/2017 at 7:02 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

This will come as no surprise to anyone here who "knows" me, but for me? Superman is the Justice League, and its leader, so there is No Justice League without him, I don't care who at WB says otherwise. Even if Henry Cavill is listed as also being in it-I've yet to see him featured in any promos or posters.????

Aren't there rumors that Cavill wants out? I remembered reading somewhere that Armie Hammer is rumored to be a possible replacement for Cavill as Superman. That might have been from a Midnights Edge video.

Quote

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with working for money. Sometimes you take a part because you need a paycheck and sometimes you take a part because you're interested in the story. Neither is wrong.

I mean, within reason. If your paycheck gig is a role where you spend the movie spewing misogynistic bile and beating women or if the movie supports a racist narrative I'm going to be side-eyeing you and no amount of quips about the cars or alimony or pools the movie paid for is going to change that. But yeah, I like actors who work. Do all the things. Just don't expect me to have watched all of them. 

Re: King Arthur Legend of the Sword

I don't want to watch it myself. But I think it's going to be real fun when The Editing Room and various podcasts and internet folks all take their turns cracking jokes about it.

9 hours ago, ribboninthesky1 said:

Salt and pepper Bana? Devious, menacing Law? Shirtless, scruffy Hunnam? Together in an absurd medieval fantasy? Here for all of this.   

Wow so many running scenes in the trailer.  

Between the jumping while shooting arrow, giant elephants, fighting on a wall, and a king wearing all black, I thought they were remaking Lord of the Rings: Return of the King :D :D :D

  • Love 1
7 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I mean, within reason. If your paycheck gig is a role where you spend the movie spewing misogynistic bile and beating women or if the movie supports a racist narrative I'm going to be side-eyeing you and no amount of quips about the cars or alimony or pools the movie paid for is going to change that.

I'd hardly fault actors for choosing to play reprehensible characters, though if the narrative of the film doesn't treat such actions as reprehensible I can see having a problem with the filmmaker. Like, I certainly don't think less of Anthony Hopkins for playing a manipulative cannibal...

  • Love 5

Ferdinand: I have nothing against the animation style of Blue Sky but for some reason... even more than Illumination... it has a kind of cheap look to me. I think it's because it reminds me of the short videos that indie and student animators put out. It's higher quality with more light and shading and depth but not a lot of texture, etc. Though I think it depends on the scene because there were some shots that did have more texture and looked really good. Also, John Cena has a surprisingly pleasant voice but it bothers me a little that there's such a sense of place to the setting but all the voice actors are so American. I feel like there's usually something stronger to sell you in animation trailers but maybe they're saving it for the movie.

Paris Can Wait: That does not seem like a compelling movie at all but it looks pretty from the scenery to the food porn. I might watch it on Netflix on an especially boring night. The most interesting thing about the trailer was a shot of my favorite Cezanne painting. I guess it's interesting that it was directed by Eleanor Coppola, wife of Francis Ford Coppola. A quick imdb search tells me she hasn't directed anything like this. I wonder why this film... now... of all things. Maybe they just wanted a nice vacation.

On 4/2/2017 at 6:00 AM, DarkRaichu said:

Between the jumping while shooting arrow, giant elephants, fighting on a wall, and a king wearing all black, I thought they were remaking Lord of the Rings: Return of the King :D :D :D

Ha! Warner Brothers needs any (potential) hit they can get, so I can see why they'd invoke LOTR imagery.

  • Love 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...