All things:sequels

SmytheKing said:
Man diversity is pretty tragic.
Click to expand...

The higher and higher pinnacles of greed and laziness that Hollywood studios continue to aspire to, when they think they can check their creativity box and call it a day just by changing the gender of the cast is more comic than tragic. But hey, anything to keep them from making another movie of the Spiderman origin story.
 
Review: "Mad Max Fury Road" is a high watermark for blockbuster action films

Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captur...-blockbuster-action-films#Pe2mrkybd05UUvLb.99

But let's be honest… none of that matters if this is anything less than thrilling, and Miller has done something nearly supernatural here. The way Miller unfolds this film's story is just as deft as his always-perfect action choreography. Both George Miller and his cinematographer John Seale are in their 70s, and there is more energy in the action staging than I've seen in any studio movie in recent memory. These two "old men" attack these sequences like they're trying to carve some brand new action language out of what has become a very routine genre. Both Seale and Miller have this incredible depth of craft to draw on, and what they do here is downright revolutionary in the age of Jason Bourne's quaky overkill. There are moments where they are staging action on up to six or seven different planes at the same time, and it is almost surreal in how beautiful it is. While I feel like I absorbed the overall effect of the movie on my first viewing, I know that I've just started to unpack the action scenes. There are so many gags, so many stunts, so many different beats that play out that I felt drunk by the end of the film. This is that high that I chase each and every time I sit down in the theater, the thing that we seem to be telling Hollywood we want when we support these reboots and sequels and requels. This is a return to a world we've seen before, but on a scale the filmmaker never dared dream before. I genuinely have trouble believing it's real, even having seen it now. It feels like something I dreamed, something I made up.


Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captur...-blockbuster-action-films#Pe2mrkybd05UUvLb.99
Click to expand...
 
SmytheKing said:
Man diversity is pretty tragic.
Click to expand...

KingInTheWest said:
The higher and higher pinnacles of greed and laziness that Hollywood studios continue to aspire to, when they think they can check their creativity box and call it a day just by changing the gender of the cast is more comic than tragic. But hey, anything to keep them from making another movie of the Spiderman origin story.
Click to expand...

It's not diversity...it's pure animal commerce. They see Tyler Perry flicks drawing in big opening weekend crowds, 'let's black it up!!!' They see all the hubbub over an all female Ghostbusters, 'Let's chick it up!!!!' It's the art of the one sentence pitch meeting. You combine name brand recognition with execs realizing there is an untapped market to be mined. It's the lowest common denominator way of business...already own the rights, doesn't have to be great cause it will sell itself, and we will make our money before they know what hit them. Hell, they will even come back for a sequel if it's 'not bad' enough. Let's not turn this into an equal rights argument...for that to be at stake the studios would have to recognize their prey as human instead of just projected opening weekend numbers.
 
notbob said:
Is this a 3-d worthy movie or should i just see the regular version?
Click to expand...

From the John Seale interview post #728

I'd heard all the talk around town about how they were building their own 3D cameras from scratch so that they passed certain criteria that George requested and required to make the film. And that, of course, was the reason why he was building his own. I thought that sounded very exciting in itself, as part of our filmmaking process, actually building your own cameras. That's pretty unusual stuff.
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention...le-back-behind-the-camera#fS5xVYSlh5txhfvO.99
Click to expand...

I'd say that was a HELLYEAH.
 
jerseydevil said:
It's not diversity...it's pure animal commerce. They see Tyler Perry flicks drawing in big opening weekend crowds, 'let's black it up!!!' They see all the hubbub over an all female Ghostbusters, 'Let's chick it up!!!!' It's the art of the one sentence pitch meeting. You combine name brand recognition with execs realizing there is an untapped market to be mined. It's the lowest common denominator way of business...already own the rights, doesn't have to be great cause it will sell itself, and we will make our money before they know what hit them. Hell, they will even come back for a sequel if it's 'not bad' enough. Let's not turn this into an equal rights argument...for that to be at stake the studios would have to recognize their prey as human instead of just projected opening weekend numbers.
Click to expand...

My main issue would be the fact that a reboot is a reboot is a reboot. If your issue is that they're being lazy, just say, "Christ, a reboot of a reboot?". No one ever says "is this the Jew version of Film X?". That would be insulting. Other groupings seem to get a pass on that though.

Saying, "this a black film" or anything along those lines is defining it as something less than. No one said about The Hangover, "oh is this a white person film?". Somehow a film with an all-black cast (or female) gets that tag as a method to diminish it. Consciously or unconsciously, it's what happens. There's literally no subjective reason to discount a movie like Top Five, but people go, "That's that black movie that Chris Rock is in right?" and don't go see it (it's pretty damn good by the way).

It's something that really annoys me and it's a simple thing to notice and not do. A studio making a movie is doing it because it feels it can make a buck from an audience. Annie, from what I heard, wasn't any good...but what was the first thing people were saying before they even saw it? Why?
 
SmytheKing said:
My main issue would be the fact that a reboot is a reboot is a reboot. If your issue is that they're being lazy, just say, "Christ, a reboot of a reboot?". No one ever says "is this the Jew version of Film X?". That would be insulting. Other groupings seem to get a pass on that though.

Saying, "this a black film" or anything along those lines is defining it as something less than. No one said about The Hangover, "oh is this a white person film?". Somehow a film with an all-black cast (or female) gets that tag as a method to diminish it. Consciously or unconsciously, it's what happens. There's literally no subjective reason to discount a movie like Top Five, but people go, "That's that black movie that Chris Rock is in right?" and don't go see it (it's pretty damn good by the way).

It's something that really annoys me and it's a simple thing to notice and not do. A studio making a movie is doing it because it feels it can make a buck from an audience. Annie, from what I heard, wasn't any good...but what was the first thing people were saying before they even saw it? Why?
Click to expand...

There are no jew people films because they are the ones making the movies...

I KEED I KEED, seriously I want it known that was a joke...

But more to the point...so, I am unsure of your point? You DON'T think Hollywood 'colorizes' or feminizes a movie to simply hit an until then unexploited market? I like your sentiment, but it's pretty naive. And yeah, Chris Rock's movie was definitely limited by it's advertising. But I think even he would say that it was a black Woody Allen flick. As many people, or should I say white people, go see it as don't. It's a matter of whether you think it speaks to you, or in some cases because it doesn't. Did the Friday movies have just as many white viewers as black? I would have to guess yes.
'White' people movies are the norm/standard. It just is. Until the next decade or sooner, white folks will be the majority. White males will continue to be the desired demographic...for everything. Because that is the primary market. Once again, this isn't an EEOC issue, it's numbers plain and simple. And to cry foul when Annie, an established property with 'white' characters is given a primarily black cast and produced by Jay-Z with the accompanying soundtrack...well, if you want to call that anything but a calculated attempt to appeal to African Americans, have at it. First of all...NOBODY went to see that. So, everyone saw through it's manipulative nature.
I couldn't disagree with you more about a reboot is a reboot is a reboot. Most reboots are done to pull in the biggest cross section of people they can. Usually with a cast that is diverse, even if the roles tend to fall into archetypes. So when a property is remade with an ALL _________ cast...yeah, they are trawling a like minded SPECIFIC group.
If you want an example of an exception to the norm, Paranormal Activity 57 that one with the primarily hispanic cast and Dia De Los Muertes subject matter. It was mass marketed and, from what I remember, got decent reviews. Not a reboot, but a sequel in a franchise, but the point is that it tried to appeal to a mass market with non WHITE cast.
 
jerseydevil said:
There are no jew people films because they are the ones making the movies...

I KEED I KEED, seriously I want it known that was a joke...

But more to the point...so, I am unsure of your point? You DON'T think Hollywood 'colorizes' or feminizes a movie to simply hit an until then unexploited market? I like your sentiment, but it's pretty naive. And yeah, Chris Rock's movie was definitely limited by it's advertising. But I think even he would say that it was a black Woody Allen flick. As many people, or should I say white people, go see it as don't. It's a matter of whether you think it speaks to you, or in some cases because it doesn't. Did the Friday movies have just as many white viewers as black? I would have to guess yes.
'White' people movies are the norm/standard. It just is. Until the next decade or sooner, white folks will be the majority. White males will continue to be the desired demographic...for everything. Because that is the primary market. Once again, this isn't an EEOC issue, it's numbers plain and simple. And to cry foul when Annie, an established property with 'white' characters is given a primarily black cast and produced by Jay-Z with the accompanying soundtrack...well, if you want to call that anything but a calculated attempt to appeal to African Americans, have at it. First of all...NOBODY went to see that. So, everyone saw through it's manipulative nature.
I couldn't disagree with you more about a reboot is a reboot is a reboot. Most reboots are done to pull in the biggest cross section of people they can. Usually with a cast that is diverse, even if the roles tend to fall into archetypes. So when a property is remade with an ALL _________ cast...yeah, they are trawling a like minded SPECIFIC group.
If you want an example of an exception to the norm, Paranormal Activity 57 that one with the primarily hispanic cast and Dia De Los Muertes subject matter. It was mass marketed and, from what I remember, got decent reviews. Not a reboot, but a sequel in a franchise, but the point is that it tried to appeal to a mass market with non WHITE cast.
Click to expand...

I think you might be misunderstanding what I'm saying though. I'm not talking about the studios here. They're going to try and exploit any market they can for as cheap as they can to make as much as they can. End of story.

I'm talking about regular average joes calling something "a black movie" or somesuch. Annie had a little black girl playing Annie and people freaked out because they tried to mix it up a little. Annie isn't a real character. Being black, white, indian, asian, whatever is irrelevant to the story. Are they trying to appeal to a certain audience or are the filmmakers trying to get a little more representative of reality? I really don't care about why they did it. I care more about why people freak out when they do. Like, the same folks that will say that representation isn't important will also be the same folks that get worked up when you change the race of a character. That's what I'm talking about. Honestly, why would you not go see a Tyler Perry movie but you're fired up about the latest Adam Sandler garbage? Or Paul Blart? Why is the Tyler Perry movie pandering to a black audience, but the other one isn't when they get characterized? It's a little deeper than a surface thing. Also, I know you'd NEVER see any of the garbage I just posted. I'm using the Royal You or whatever.

Judge a film on its merits is basically what I'm saying. By all accounts Annie was pretty mediocre...but how many people didn't go because of that versus those that didn't because it was the "black version" of Annie? No pun intended here, but I'm certain that colored their view of the film prior to anything else. Again, no one went to see Top Five and that was really quite good. There were commercials for it on television quite a bit from what I remember.

I suppose the main point here is, whether a studio is trying to appeal to a particular market, why is that relevant to discuss in relation to the film at large? If the discussion is going to be on representation in movies, let's have it. To marginalize a movie off the get because (in your mind/eyes) it's trying to ONLY appeal to a particular group is a little sorry. The "female ghostbusters" sounds scary to me because it doesn't sound like it's going to be a comedy. Put Kristen Wiig in there with Tina Fey and some others and I'm all up for it. Dismissing it because it's an all-women group (and make no mistake, that's going on) isn't fair. Like I said, judge it on the merits, not the demographics you're attributing it to.

Anyway, this might be a discussion reserved for a different thread. I think it's a really interesting thing to talk about personally, but this feels like it's derailing the topic at hand. Garbage and ****ty sequels. :)
 
Alex Garland Says He’s Written The Story Concept For ‘28 Months Later,’ But Won’t Be Involved Further

In fact, he said that none of the parties involved were initially interested in finishing a trilogy and the possibility of a final film sat in limbo. “The rights to ‘28 Days’ were frozen, effectively, because they were shared between Danny [Boyle], [producer] Andrew [McDonald], myself, and Fox,” he said. “After the second one, none of us really wanted to do another. Fox may or may not have, I don't know.”

But Garland says a third picture is moving forward with McDonald, the producer of the first two ‘28’ films and a producer on all of his movies thus far and many of Boyle’s films (including the intended “Trainspotting” sequel).

What changed exactly? Garland says he organically came upon an idea rather than having to force one out. “About two years ago, Danny started collaborating on the potential to make ‘Trainspotting 2,’ another sequel,” he explained. “In that conversation, an idea for '28 Months' arrived. I had a sort of weird idea that popped into my head. Partly because of a trip I'd taken. I had this thought, and I suggested it to Andrew and Danny, but I also said I don't want to work on it. I don't really want to play a role, and Andrew said, 'Leave it to me.' So he's gone off and is working on it.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Now Chirping

  • No one is chatting at the moment.

Share this page

Back
Top