I actually liked what they were trying to do with Salvation; it didn't feel like a retread to me. Shame that they did it so boringly, but as far as telling new stories in that universe is concerned, at least Salvation didn't feel quite as much like autocannibalism.
Salvation was an excellent idea as a setting (the details not so much), done horribly.
Harry Dresden on
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I actually liked what they were trying to do with Salvation; it didn't feel like a retread to me. Shame that they did it so boringly, but as far as telling new stories in that universe is concerned, at least Salvation didn't feel quite as much like autocannibalism.
True, Salvation was a bad movie for completely different reasons. Not least of which being that the movie's vision of the war looked nothing like what was shown in T1 and T2. Humanity scuttling like mice in the ruins of their civilization, freezing in terror as the footsteps of mechanical giants come ever closer, fleeing the light because to be seen is to be dead. Whoever decided that the post-nuclear resistance had an air force should feel bad and question their life choices.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I actually liked what they were trying to do with Salvation; it didn't feel like a retread to me. Shame that they did it so boringly, but as far as telling new stories in that universe is concerned, at least Salvation didn't feel quite as much like autocannibalism.
True, Salvation was a bad movie for completely different reasons. Not least of which being that the movie's vision of the war looked nothing like what was shown in T1 and T2. Humanity scuttling like mice in the ruins of their civilization, freezing in terror as the footsteps of mechanical giants come ever closer, fleeing the light because to be seen is to be dead. Whoever decided that the post-nuclear resistance had an air force should feel bad and question their life choices.
Not exactly a bad choice, since the time line was not the same as the original - when the war started later.
I didn't realise there were two cinematic monster universes going
I thought the mummy and Dracula were in with Godzilla and Kong and now I'm sad
How would that work?
In some versions, both have armageddon-level powers. So, yeah, it might technically be a fair fight, I just can't imagine it being an exciting one to watch. More like the last two minutes of X-men 3 if Jean Gray was only 2 inches tall.
The best thing for the Terminator franchise (post-T2) was the TV show.
I recently watched S1 of the series, and while there's a lot I like, I also felt that it was severely hampered by being an American TV series (and not on one of the prestige channels). Much of the casting, writing, direction, camera work and VFX are decidedly TV: you've got blandly boring actors (apart from some of the leads), PG-style violence and language, and the overall rhythms of each episode are very much governed by set episode length and ad breaks. There are moments where the potential comes through, but at least in S1 I almost always felt that this was okay but it could've been great if it wasn't held back by its format and budget.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I actually liked what they were trying to do with Salvation; it didn't feel like a retread to me. Shame that they did it so boringly, but as far as telling new stories in that universe is concerned, at least Salvation didn't feel quite as much like autocannibalism.
True, Salvation was a bad movie for completely different reasons. Not least of which being that the movie's vision of the war looked nothing like what was shown in T1 and T2. Humanity scuttling like mice in the ruins of their civilization, freezing in terror as the footsteps of mechanical giants come ever closer, fleeing the light because to be seen is to be dead. Whoever decided that the post-nuclear resistance had an air force should feel bad and question their life choices.
Not exactly a bad choice, since the time line was not the same as the original - when the war started later.
You can argue why that's the case from a practical standpoint, though I'm pretty sure that you need some high grade handwavium to explain the survival of the A-10s and enough support structure to keep them going.
The bigger issue is the change in tone that results. You lose the sense of being hopelessly outmatched, and the the story shifted from humanity beating the machines because of what makes them human (grit, determination, sacrifice, etc.) and humanity beating the machines using other machines.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The best thing for the Terminator franchise (post-T2) was the TV show.
I recently watched S1 of the series, and while there's a lot I like, I also felt that it was severely hampered by being an American TV series (and not on one of the prestige channels). Much of the casting, writing, direction, camera work and VFX are decidedly TV: you've got blandly boring actors (apart from some of the leads), PG-style violence and language, and the overall rhythms of each episode are very much governed by set episode length and ad breaks. There are moments where the potential comes through, but at least in S1 I almost always felt that this was okay but it could've been great if it wasn't held back by its format and budget.
The best thing for the Terminator franchise (post-T2) was the TV show.
I recently watched S1 of the series, and while there's a lot I like, I also felt that it was severely hampered by being an American TV series (and not on one of the prestige channels). Much of the casting, writing, direction, camera work and VFX are decidedly TV: you've got blandly boring actors (apart from some of the leads), PG-style violence and language, and the overall rhythms of each episode are very much governed by set episode length and ad breaks. There are moments where the potential comes through, but at least in S1 I almost always felt that this was okay but it could've been great if it wasn't held back by its format and budget.
Now I want a Terminator series on Starz.
Didn't they also relegate it to the 9 pm Friday slot?
The Terminator series was in 2008/2009. That may have been just before prestige tv shows were a thing.
The Shield started on FX in 2001 and HBO had already had Oz and The Sopranos by then as well so high end cable shows were starting to be a thing well before then. Around 2007/2008 is when you get Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Justified and some others kicking off the supposed Golden age of TV but the groundwork for it had already been laid down.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The Terminator series was in 2008/2009. That may have been just before prestige tv shows were a thing.
The Shield started on FX in 2001 and HBO had already had Oz and The Sopranos by then as well so high end cable shows were starting to be a thing well before then. Around 2007/2008 is when you get Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Justified and some others kicking off the supposed Golden age of TV but the groundwork for it had already been laid down.
Rome and Deadwood were also out (and canceled) by then, which might have been the more relevant comparisons as far as the studio suits go. Genre television and all that.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Guy Ritchie has no middle ground in his works, it's either really good/great or really bad/shit.
The only comfort is that Revolver has already been made so nothing he can do will be any worse.
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Thing that gets me, if you think about Guy Ritchie doing Camelot, why wouldn't you go with A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court type thing. Some light googling gets A Clerkenwell Cockney in King Arthur's Court as a working title.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Went to see King Arthur this weekend, and right before the movie started, a group of 8 loud teenagers sat behind us. Girlfriend and looked at each other and prepared for the worst.
They were silent throughout the whole thing, but as soon the credits started rolling, one of the girls loudly proclaimed "WELL THAT SUCKED"
Zak Snyder is leaving Justice League based on a family tragedy and now Joss Whedon will take over. It's horrible for Snyder, but fascinating purely from a movies perspective that the same guy will do the team movie for Marvel and DC.
Zak Snyder is leaving Justice League based on a family tragedy and now Joss Whedon will take over. It's horrible for Snyder, but fascinating purely from a movies perspective that the same guy will do the team movie for Marvel and DC.
That feels like desperation on DC's part.
"We need Avengers-level success. Who made that movie?"
"Uh, Joss Whedon? But I think you might need more then just one guy to"
"Shut up and throw money at Whedon until he signs up. This can't fail!"
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
There's no words for what Snyder's dealing with.
The Dark Universe seems so, so odd. And I think they spoiled Crowe's character from the Mummy in the reveal. Bardem as Frankenstein should be good, but Depp as Invisible Man, wha? And now we're at Bride of Frankenstein? Are they just going to do what Lionsgate did with Aaron Eckhart and just draw some lines on her and say "that's our sexy lady Frankenstein"?
The Dark Universe seems so, so odd. And I think they spoiled Crowe's character from the Mummy in the reveal. Bardem as Frankenstein should be good, but Depp as Invisible Man, wha? And now we're at Bride of Frankenstein? Are they just going to do what Lionsgate did with Aaron Eckhart and just draw some lines on her and say "that's our sexy lady Frankenstein"?
Invisible Man is usually involved with some kind of violence towards women, which makes this a badder pick than normal. Also... what IS the premise of the Dark Universe. Are they monstrous heroes? Are some or all of them genuinely bad but they have to do... something?
And yeah, they spoiled Crowe early because he is the Nick Fury of this universe.
Part of what makes the original Invisible Man, to this day, a hugely entertaining movie, is the titular character's incredibly hammy, syrupy, maniacally evil voice and persona. He's spectacular. Johnny Depp's casting is super lame news in this context. Really, his casting in anything these days is always a bit of a bummer.
Bardem as Frankenstein's monster is kind of inspired, though.
Part of what makes the original Invisible Man, to this day, a hugely entertaining movie, is the titular character's incredibly hammy, syrupy, maniacally evil voice and persona. He's spectacular. Johnny Depp's casting is super lame news in this context. Really, his casting in anything these days is always a bit of a bummer.
Bardem as Frankenstein's monster is kind of inspired, though.
The great Claude Rains was The Invisible Man originally, wasn't he? And also the title character in the first color version of The Phantom of the Opera a decade later (I adore that version of Phantom). Marvellous voice that man had.
I would be more interested in a (Penny) Dreadful Universe.
Possibly some sort of league?
Extraordinary idea.
+9
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
I liked the idea of Penny Dreadful better when I thought it was the same show as Peaky Blinders where Edwardian gangsters fought Gothic horror villains.
It really does feel like there's a solid hour of plot that got left out, but this was never going to be good. It's too dumb.
Another anachronistic issue:
- London is called "Londinium," an old Latin name that was out of use by the 5th century.
- There's a colosseum
See, I'm just not very attached to the source material as you are, but I have no problem with it being very dumb. It lets you know it's going to dumb from the very beginning. It's like a medieval Fast & Furious.
I'm not terribly attached to the source, really, just mostly surprised how far it deviates without any good reason to do so. The story is dim but there's enough action, I guess, if that's your thing.
It's kinda like if you made a Robin Hood story where the only other character from the source was Friar Tuck and Robin had a magic bow that shot cannonballs and the story was how he and his army of merry men defeated Charlemagne's evil twin at Waterloo and also Maid Marion is a pterodactyl that doesn't have a name.
I liked the idea of Penny Dreadful better when I thought it was the same show as Peaky Blinders where Edwardian gangsters fought Gothic horror villains.
Penny Dreadful was League of Extraordinary Gentlemen done right, and I liked that rendition better than Moore's.
Zak Snyder is leaving Justice League based on a family tragedy and now Joss Whedon will take over. It's horrible for Snyder, but fascinating purely from a movies perspective that the same guy will do the team movie for Marvel and DC.
That feels like desperation on DC's part.
"We need Avengers-level success. Who made that movie?"
"Uh, Joss Whedon? But I think you might need more then just one guy to"
"Shut up and throw money at Whedon until he signs up. This can't fail!"
That's awful for Snyder's family to go through.
There are worse choices than Joss Whedon for this project, though their styles may clash.
+2
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Is Universal pretending like their Dracula movie from last year didn't count?
I mean, if one man could save that movie, it's probably Whedon. That said, I don't think one man CAN save that movie, but if one man COULD...
I don't know if I see Whedon taking it in unless he's given the power to really fix what's broken. Control over the script, minimal meddling from the studio... especially after what he went through with AoU, I just don't see him accepting a doomed project, even if they throw money hats at him.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I mean, if one man could save that movie, it's probably Whedon. That said, I don't think one man CAN save that movie, but if one man COULD...
I don't know if I see Whedon taking it in unless he's given the power to really fix what's broken. Control over the script, minimal meddling from the studio... especially after what he went through with AoU, I just don't see him accepting a doomed project, even if they throw money hats at him.
My guess is he accepted it without a lot of strings as a personal favor to the studio in light of Snyder's tragedy. (And at the same time, if I were him, I'd keep that in my back pocket for when Warners tries to come fuck with Whedon's Batgirl project. "Remember that time when I was there for you...")
Posts
Salvation was an excellent idea as a setting (the details not so much), done horribly.
True, Salvation was a bad movie for completely different reasons. Not least of which being that the movie's vision of the war looked nothing like what was shown in T1 and T2. Humanity scuttling like mice in the ruins of their civilization, freezing in terror as the footsteps of mechanical giants come ever closer, fleeing the light because to be seen is to be dead. Whoever decided that the post-nuclear resistance had an air force should feel bad and question their life choices.
Not exactly a bad choice, since the time line was not the same as the original - when the war started later.
In some versions, both have armageddon-level powers. So, yeah, it might technically be a fair fight, I just can't imagine it being an exciting one to watch. More like the last two minutes of X-men 3 if Jean Gray was only 2 inches tall.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
You can argue why that's the case from a practical standpoint, though I'm pretty sure that you need some high grade handwavium to explain the survival of the A-10s and enough support structure to keep them going.
The bigger issue is the change in tone that results. You lose the sense of being hopelessly outmatched, and the the story shifted from humanity beating the machines because of what makes them human (grit, determination, sacrifice, etc.) and humanity beating the machines using other machines.
Now I want a Terminator series on Starz.
Kong is bit by a mummy and Godzilla gets wrapped up by the vampire, now you got monster monsters!
Then they bite each others and become allmonsters.
The Sherlock Holmes movies were enjoyable enough.
Didn't they also relegate it to the 9 pm Friday slot?
The Shield started on FX in 2001 and HBO had already had Oz and The Sopranos by then as well so high end cable shows were starting to be a thing well before then. Around 2007/2008 is when you get Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Justified and some others kicking off the supposed Golden age of TV but the groundwork for it had already been laid down.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Rome and Deadwood were also out (and canceled) by then, which might have been the more relevant comparisons as far as the studio suits go. Genre television and all that.
The only comfort is that Revolver has already been made so nothing he can do will be any worse.
Swept Away is laughably bad (I watched it on a plane) but I can at least see it being something Ritchie was forced into doing because of Madonna.
They were silent throughout the whole thing, but as soon the credits started rolling, one of the girls loudly proclaimed "WELL THAT SUCKED"
The kids are alright.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/22/dark-universe-announced-as-universal-monsters-shared-universe-depp-bardem-condon-and-elfman-confirmed
Universal is giving up their rights to do a 2nd mulligan after seeing how The Mummy does and are launching branding for their Universe right now.
Meanwhile in DCEU news:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/22/zack-snyder-exits-justice-league-after-family-tragedy-joss-whedon-to-finish-film
Zak Snyder is leaving Justice League based on a family tragedy and now Joss Whedon will take over. It's horrible for Snyder, but fascinating purely from a movies perspective that the same guy will do the team movie for Marvel and DC.
That feels like desperation on DC's part.
"We need Avengers-level success. Who made that movie?"
"Uh, Joss Whedon? But I think you might need more then just one guy to"
"Shut up and throw money at Whedon until he signs up. This can't fail!"
The Dark Universe seems so, so odd. And I think they spoiled Crowe's character from the Mummy in the reveal. Bardem as Frankenstein should be good, but Depp as Invisible Man, wha? And now we're at Bride of Frankenstein? Are they just going to do what Lionsgate did with Aaron Eckhart and just draw some lines on her and say "that's our sexy lady Frankenstein"?
Invisible Man is usually involved with some kind of violence towards women, which makes this a badder pick than normal. Also... what IS the premise of the Dark Universe. Are they monstrous heroes? Are some or all of them genuinely bad but they have to do... something?
And yeah, they spoiled Crowe early because he is the Nick Fury of this universe.
Bardem as Frankenstein's monster is kind of inspired, though.
The great Claude Rains was The Invisible Man originally, wasn't he? And also the title character in the first color version of The Phantom of the Opera a decade later (I adore that version of Phantom). Marvellous voice that man had.
Steam | XBL
Possibly some sort of league?
Extraordinary idea.
Now see I kind of want to see that movie.
Gentlemen, we may be onto something here.
Penny Dreadful was League of Extraordinary Gentlemen done right, and I liked that rendition better than Moore's.
That's awful for Snyder's family to go through.
There are worse choices than Joss Whedon for this project, though their styles may clash.
Hehe
Count
Nope. We're gonna get a Dracula, right? I'm fine with the new Mummy being on the team, but Tom Cruise Ethan HuntNick Morton feels like the odd man out.
I mean, if one man could save that movie, it's probably Whedon. That said, I don't think one man CAN save that movie, but if one man COULD...
I don't know if I see Whedon taking it in unless he's given the power to really fix what's broken. Control over the script, minimal meddling from the studio... especially after what he went through with AoU, I just don't see him accepting a doomed project, even if they throw money hats at him.
Last year? That was 2014.
Edit i had to google that
I'm not a vampire fan. What we do in the shadows is about the only vampire film i like, though I admit that I haven't seen too many of em
My guess is he accepted it without a lot of strings as a personal favor to the studio in light of Snyder's tragedy. (And at the same time, if I were him, I'd keep that in my back pocket for when Warners tries to come fuck with Whedon's Batgirl project. "Remember that time when I was there for you...")