Well, it certainly looks like a Baz Luhrmann movie.
The Great Gatsby is one of my favorite novels, and the Sam Waterston film didn't really do it justice at all. I don't really think this is gonna do it either.
There's something I'm not liking about the overall aesthetic in that Gatsby trailer.
Plus, the style of the trailer just really doesn't fit a film adaptation for a book like The Great Gatsby.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I just want them to go a little bigger with the villains. It doesn't have to be Moonraker II, but let's have a world-wide threat, a volcano base or something. Bond isn't Bourne.
This is what the end of Casino, and most of Quantum was setting up really, especially in the opera scene as he called everyone out in the audience. Quantum are the villains, the whole organization, kind of a combination of what SMERSH and SPECTRE were in previous films. The fact that they decided to completely eschew Quantum and Mr. White in Skyfall kind of pisses me off honestly, the direction they were going seemed like it would have a nice payoff. Instead Skyfall sounds more and more like it's going to be a standalone movie, and turn back into the glitzy gadget-fest that dragged the franchise down.
At first I thought, "It's Tim Burton's Alice in Gatsbyland" but then Baz Luhrmann popped up and yep, he's skilled at wrecking classics too.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I dunno. I kinda dig Luhrmann's work, though I skipped Australia.
It's an acquired taste, that's for sure, but I'm kind of down with Luhrmann eschewing the traditional technique of "movie set in Period X will only feature music from Period X and will have a cinematic texture of Period X."
I dunno. I kinda dig Luhrmann's work, though I skipped Australia.
It's an acquired taste, that's for sure, but I'm kind of down with Luhrmann eschewing the traditional technique of "movie set in Period X will only feature music from Period X and will have a cinematic texture of Period X."
I just want them to go a little bigger with the villains. It doesn't have to be Moonraker II, but let's have a world-wide threat, a volcano base or something. Bond isn't Bourne.
This is what the end of Casino, and most of Quantum was setting up really, especially in the opera scene as he called everyone out in the audience. Quantum are the villains, the whole organization, kind of a combination of what SMERSH and SPECTRE were in previous films. The fact that they decided to completely eschew Quantum and Mr. White in Skyfall kind of pisses me off honestly, the direction they were going seemed like it would have a nice payoff. Instead Skyfall sounds more and more like it's going to be a standalone movie, and turn back into the glitzy gadget-fest that dragged the franchise down.
I understand why you think its going to be a stand alone.
But what about the trailer makes you think Glitzy Gadgetfest?
I just want them to go a little bigger with the villains. It doesn't have to be Moonraker II, but let's have a world-wide threat, a volcano base or something. Bond isn't Bourne.
This is what the end of Casino, and most of Quantum was setting up really, especially in the opera scene as he called everyone out in the audience. Quantum are the villains, the whole organization, kind of a combination of what SMERSH and SPECTRE were in previous films. The fact that they decided to completely eschew Quantum and Mr. White in Skyfall kind of pisses me off honestly, the direction they were going seemed like it would have a nice payoff. Instead Skyfall sounds more and more like it's going to be a standalone movie, and turn back into the glitzy gadget-fest that dragged the franchise down.
I understand why you think its going to be a stand alone.
But what about the trailer makes you think Glitzy Gadgetfest?
Well, bringing back Q for starters. I don't mean this movie on its own will do a 180 and go all-gadget, all the time, just that the original Bond franchise started out the same way. Dr. No was completely stripped down, Craig in Casino used that portrayal of Bond as inspriation. Then after a while you could chart the course of the plot in each film by the gadgets Q introduced at the beginning.
Before Casino came out, the studio/directors/producers/actors all said the idea of "rebooting" the franchise was to bring it back to its roots, to get rid of it being nothing but *FANCY LOCATION* *ACTION SETPIECE* *CONVENIENT GADGET* over and over. Casino and Quantum took pains to set up a very solid franchise story arc, and Skyfall ditching all that is just worrying.
From that trailer, and basically everything Sam Mendes has said about the film, I'm definitely not worried about it going back to wacky gadgets and such. From what we know so far, it could give Casino Royale a run for its money.
I just want them to go a little bigger with the villains. It doesn't have to be Moonraker II, but let's have a world-wide threat, a volcano base or something. Bond isn't Bourne.
This is what the end of Casino, and most of Quantum was setting up really, especially in the opera scene as he called everyone out in the audience. Quantum are the villains, the whole organization, kind of a combination of what SMERSH and SPECTRE were in previous films. The fact that they decided to completely eschew Quantum and Mr. White in Skyfall kind of pisses me off honestly, the direction they were going seemed like it would have a nice payoff. Instead Skyfall sounds more and more like it's going to be a standalone movie, and turn back into the glitzy gadget-fest that dragged the franchise down.
I understand why you think its going to be a stand alone.
But what about the trailer makes you think Glitzy Gadgetfest?
Well, bringing back Q for starters. I don't mean this movie on its own will do a 180 and go all-gadget, all the time, just that the original Bond franchise started out the same way. Dr. No was completely stripped down, Craig in Casino used that portrayal of Bond as inspriation. Then after a while you could chart the course of the plot in each film by the gadgets Q introduced at the beginning.
Before Casino came out, the studio/directors/producers/actors all said the idea of "rebooting" the franchise was to bring it back to its roots, to get rid of it being nothing but *FANCY LOCATION* *ACTION SETPIECE* *CONVENIENT GADGET* over and over. Casino and Quantum took pains to set up a very solid franchise story arc, and Skyfall ditching all that is just worrying.
At the same time, though, Q is a staple piece of the franchise mythos going back for decades. Even if he does nothing but give Bond a refill for his glove-box defibrillator and a new bluetooth headset, having a Bond movie without Q in it at all is kind of odd. The Bond movies have varied so much in tone, cast, and story over the years that, really, the only things that make a Bond movie a Bond movie are the central cast: Bond, M, Moneypenny, and Q. Their characters vary with the actors and the scripts, but they have their recognizable roles to fill and archetypal notes to hit.
Casino and QoS were both very serious, very grim films. It works well enough, but re-introducing Q and/or Moneypenny seem like the easiest ways to keep the new Bond from becoming an emotionless murder machine. They were, traditionally, the characters the provided a foil for Bond -- Moneypenny by being a woman he actually has a casual relationship with, rather than being either an asset or an enemy; Q in a sort of goofy uncle role to humanize Bond when he's not busy killing badguys.
I don't mind Baz Luhrmann, but something about that Gatsby trailer seems off to me. His style seems too "on-the-nose" for the story's themes and this somehow makes the whole thing seem dull to me.
I just want them to go a little bigger with the villains. It doesn't have to be Moonraker II, but let's have a world-wide threat, a volcano base or something. Bond isn't Bourne.
This is what the end of Casino, and most of Quantum was setting up really, especially in the opera scene as he called everyone out in the audience. Quantum are the villains, the whole organization, kind of a combination of what SMERSH and SPECTRE were in previous films. The fact that they decided to completely eschew Quantum and Mr. White in Skyfall kind of pisses me off honestly, the direction they were going seemed like it would have a nice payoff. Instead Skyfall sounds more and more like it's going to be a standalone movie, and turn back into the glitzy gadget-fest that dragged the franchise down.
I understand why you think its going to be a stand alone.
But what about the trailer makes you think Glitzy Gadgetfest?
Well, bringing back Q for starters. I don't mean this movie on its own will do a 180 and go all-gadget, all the time, just that the original Bond franchise started out the same way. Dr. No was completely stripped down, Craig in Casino used that portrayal of Bond as inspriation. Then after a while you could chart the course of the plot in each film by the gadgets Q introduced at the beginning.
Before Casino came out, the studio/directors/producers/actors all said the idea of "rebooting" the franchise was to bring it back to its roots, to get rid of it being nothing but *FANCY LOCATION* *ACTION SETPIECE* *CONVENIENT GADGET* over and over. Casino and Quantum took pains to set up a very solid franchise story arc, and Skyfall ditching all that is just worrying.
At the same time, though, Q is a staple piece of the franchise mythos going back for decades. Even if he does nothing but give Bond a refill for his glove-box defibrillator and a new bluetooth headset, having a Bond movie without Q in it at all is kind of odd. The Bond movies have varied so much in tone, cast, and story over the years that, really, the only things that make a Bond movie a Bond movie are the central cast: Bond, M, Moneypenny, and Q. Their characters vary with the actors and the scripts, but they have their recognizable roles to fill and archetypal notes to hit.
Casino and QoS were both very serious, very grim films. It works well enough, but re-introducing Q and/or Moneypenny seem like the easiest ways to keep the new Bond from becoming an emotionless murder machine. They were, traditionally, the characters the provided a foil for Bond -- Moneypenny by being a woman he actually has a casual relationship with, rather than being either an asset or an enemy; Q in a sort of goofy uncle role to humanize Bond when he's not busy killing badguys.
M
and Vesper, along with Felix & Mathis to a degree
became Bond's foils when Moneypenny and Q weren't available. The movies did well to humanize Bond when he was with them. Casino Royale & Solace spoilers
With Vesper and Mathis dead and with Eon finally gaining the rights back for Moneypenny they must have decided to put her and Q in.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I'm one of those guys who thinks if they do Skyfall right, Quantum of Solace will automatically payoff and be awesome also.
QoS was the follow-up, after all. Everyone knew what they wanted, but no one knew what they really wanted, after Casino Royale.
I'm with you on this one. Quantum was an OK Bond movie, but it played like every second-in-a-trilogy movie does, it's a setup for the payoff. Skyfall needs to follow through and be that payoff.
Second movies in trilogies can be very good. X-men 2, Aliens, Blade 2, Spider-man 2, Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight. It's the third movies which tend to fail.
True, though there's definitely a trap with second movies to just be all setup and no resolution, when a third movie is being planned. Empire and the others you mentioned avoid this trap, but movies like Matrix Reloaded or Pirates 2 landed squarely in it. Planning trilogies is fine (look at Empire and The Two Towers), but the second movie has to at least be able to stand up and have its own arc, within the bigger trilogy's arc.
That said, I thought I heard rumors that Skyfall wasn't going to be related to Casino/Quantum very much? Or did they get rid of that? Quantum had an okay arc and resolution; I'd put it in the "good" column of Bond movies.
Also, isn't Skyfall the first Bond movie to not be a reference to a Flemming story/novel? Like QoS was scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they ran out of Fleming books in the 80s.
Right, I remember someone saying that Solice is actually a short story title and actually has little to nothing to with Bond (maybe. They have just been saying the movie has nothing to do with the original story.) I know for sure that QoS isn't a novel title for sure but definately something penned by Flemming.
(hence why I used the "story/novel" descriptor)
They had a bunch of titles that didn't reference any story before the last two.
And the movie having nothing to do with the original story was always a thing in James Bond films.
I'm one of those guys who thinks if they do Skyfall right, Quantum of Solace will automatically payoff and be awesome also.
QoS was the follow-up, after all. Everyone knew what they wanted, but no one knew what they really wanted, after Casino Royale.
I'm with you on this one. Quantum was an OK Bond movie, but it played like every second-in-a-trilogy movie does, it's a setup for the payoff. Skyfall needs to follow through and be that payoff.
Second movies in trilogies can be very good. X-men 2, Aliens, Blade 2, Spider-man 2, Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight. It's the third movies which tend to fail.
True, though there's definitely a trap with second movies to just be all setup and no resolution, when a third movie is being planned. Empire and the others you mentioned avoid this trap, but movies like Matrix Reloaded or Pirates 2 landed squarely in it. Planning trilogies is fine (look at Empire and The Two Towers), but the second movie has to at least be able to stand up and have its own arc, within the bigger trilogy's arc.
That said, I thought I heard rumors that Skyfall wasn't going to be related to Casino/Quantum very much? Or did they get rid of that? Quantum had an okay arc and resolution; I'd put it in the "good" column of Bond movies.
Also, isn't Skyfall the first Bond movie to not be a reference to a Flemming story/novel? Like QoS was scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they ran out of Fleming books in the 80s.
Right, I remember someone saying that Solice is actually a short story title and actually has little to nothing to with Bond (maybe. They have just been saying the movie has nothing to do with the original story.) I know for sure that QoS isn't a novel title for sure but definately something penned by Flemming.
(hence why I used the "story/novel" descriptor)
They had a bunch of titles that didn't reference any story before the last two.
And the movie having nothing to do with the original story was always a thing in James Bond films.
Yep, "Quantum of Solace" is an Ian Fleming Bond short story. The people that made QoS only nabbed the title and changed the story.
Well I won't be seeing it in 3d. I fucking hate 3d, the tickets cost more and I never see the difference. It's just a blatant money grab.
I've been hearing reports that most theater chains are going to be (or thinking about) raising regular ticket prices to those with 3D.
3D prices will stay the same (the amount they are now, which will make them equal with the general admission tickets) but you will soon have to purchase your own glasses and bring them to the 3D films.
Jesus I don't know who's worse movie theater chains or pac northwest gas stations. Both seem content to fuck over the end consumer without any care to long term business.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Well I won't be seeing it in 3d. I fucking hate 3d, the tickets cost more and I never see the difference. It's just a blatant money grab.
I've been hearing reports that most theater chains are going to be (or thinking about) raising regular ticket prices to those with 3D.
3D prices will stay the same (the amount they are now, which will make them equal with the general admission tickets) but you will soon have to purchase your own glasses and bring them to the 3D films.
Seriously, some decisions made by most theater chains are so staggeringly short sighted and ill conceived that it's genuinely difficult to imagine someone who wasn't a complete fucking idiot making them.
They wonder aloud why fewer people are going to the movies, while at the same time making it prohibitively expensive, even at the bare minimum.
Seriously, some decisions made by most theater chains are so staggeringly short sighted and ill conceived that it's genuinely difficult to imagine someone who wasn't a complete fucking idiot making them.
They wonder aloud why fewer people are going to the movies, while at the same time making it prohibitively expensive, even at the bare minimum.
Yeah I like seeing new movies and the social experience is nice (except when people bring their fucking screaming young children I swear to god), but for christ sake if you are going to charge more than the DVD/Bluray is when the movie hits that, I might as well just wait the fucker out and netflix/on demand it for less than half the cost of one fucking ticket.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
If I'm seeing a ring rip off, I want to see some tig ole bitties to make it worth my while. Otherwise I have to jerk off to the macies catalogue again, and they keep hiring these models that looks like stumbled out of fudruckers.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
What the fuck is the plot? Who are the characters? What in the what
Too bad, cause I really love that era.
I have many problems with the entirety of this.
The Great Gatsby is one of my favorite novels, and the Sam Waterston film didn't really do it justice at all. I don't really think this is gonna do it either.
Plus, the style of the trailer just really doesn't fit a film adaptation for a book like The Great Gatsby.
Old as balls.
This is what the end of Casino, and most of Quantum was setting up really, especially in the opera scene as he called everyone out in the audience. Quantum are the villains, the whole organization, kind of a combination of what SMERSH and SPECTRE were in previous films. The fact that they decided to completely eschew Quantum and Mr. White in Skyfall kind of pisses me off honestly, the direction they were going seemed like it would have a nice payoff. Instead Skyfall sounds more and more like it's going to be a standalone movie, and turn back into the glitzy gadget-fest that dragged the franchise down.
At first I thought, "It's Tim Burton's Alice in Gatsbyland" but then Baz Luhrmann popped up and yep, he's skilled at wrecking classics too.
It's an acquired taste, that's for sure, but I'm kind of down with Luhrmann eschewing the traditional technique of "movie set in Period X will only feature music from Period X and will have a cinematic texture of Period X."
He's going big here. I'm down.
And you can't ever go wrong with Jack White.
I'm hopping on this train
So it's a pretty accurate trailer for The Great Gatsby.
I understand why you think its going to be a stand alone.
But what about the trailer makes you think Glitzy Gadgetfest?
I did see lots of green in the trailer though, so at least they've got that down right. Green and green light is a big part of the novel's symbolism.
3DS Friend Code: 0404-6826-4588 PM if you add.
Well, bringing back Q for starters. I don't mean this movie on its own will do a 180 and go all-gadget, all the time, just that the original Bond franchise started out the same way. Dr. No was completely stripped down, Craig in Casino used that portrayal of Bond as inspriation. Then after a while you could chart the course of the plot in each film by the gadgets Q introduced at the beginning.
Before Casino came out, the studio/directors/producers/actors all said the idea of "rebooting" the franchise was to bring it back to its roots, to get rid of it being nothing but *FANCY LOCATION* *ACTION SETPIECE* *CONVENIENT GADGET* over and over. Casino and Quantum took pains to set up a very solid franchise story arc, and Skyfall ditching all that is just worrying.
At the same time, though, Q is a staple piece of the franchise mythos going back for decades. Even if he does nothing but give Bond a refill for his glove-box defibrillator and a new bluetooth headset, having a Bond movie without Q in it at all is kind of odd. The Bond movies have varied so much in tone, cast, and story over the years that, really, the only things that make a Bond movie a Bond movie are the central cast: Bond, M, Moneypenny, and Q. Their characters vary with the actors and the scripts, but they have their recognizable roles to fill and archetypal notes to hit.
Casino and QoS were both very serious, very grim films. It works well enough, but re-introducing Q and/or Moneypenny seem like the easiest ways to keep the new Bond from becoming an emotionless murder machine. They were, traditionally, the characters the provided a foil for Bond -- Moneypenny by being a woman he actually has a casual relationship with, rather than being either an asset or an enemy; Q in a sort of goofy uncle role to humanize Bond when he's not busy killing badguys.
M
They had a bunch of titles that didn't reference any story before the last two.
And the movie having nothing to do with the original story was always a thing in James Bond films.
Yep, "Quantum of Solace" is an Ian Fleming Bond short story. The people that made QoS only nabbed the title and changed the story.
Sons of bitches they better not! That was the start of my awesome Bruce Willis movies summer!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Motherfucking 3d garbage bullshit. I hate this god damn fad.
pleasepaypreacher.net
God damn it. I was looking forward to that.
March 2013 Thom. So we'll never see a good GI Joe movie now that we all die in december 2012!
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
3DS Friend Code: 0404-6826-4588 PM if you add.
3D prices will stay the same (the amount they are now, which will make them equal with the general admission tickets) but you will soon have to purchase your own glasses and bring them to the 3D films.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well, cinema death watch can begin soon, then.
They wonder aloud why fewer people are going to the movies, while at the same time making it prohibitively expensive, even at the bare minimum.
Yeah I like seeing new movies and the social experience is nice (except when people bring their fucking screaming young children I swear to god), but for christ sake if you are going to charge more than the DVD/Bluray is when the movie hits that, I might as well just wait the fucker out and netflix/on demand it for less than half the cost of one fucking ticket.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
Man, PG 13 is the worst.
If I'm seeing a ring rip off, I want to see some tig ole bitties to make it worth my while. Otherwise I have to jerk off to the macies catalogue again, and they keep hiring these models that looks like stumbled out of fudruckers.
pleasepaypreacher.net