Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

Re: Ridley Scott's ALIEN

Postby TheButcher on Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:41 am

From Collider:
Ridley Scott Dishes on Two ALIEN Prequels And Much More at Hero Complex Film Festival

Germain Lussier wrote:- As a child, Scott thought science fiction was sort of cheesy until he saw the Mad Max films and the art work of Moebius, who he mentioned on SEVERAL occasions.

- He told the story of how Alien came to be. He was trying to get something going after The Duelisits and after a meeting in Hollywood, his producer took him to see Star Wars at the Grauman’s Chinese. Scott said he felt a vibe in the packed theater that he hasn’t felt since and walked out sick with envy. A few months later, the script for Alien came across his desk and he had to do it.

- He said he was the fifth person the script was sent to and it was in danger of being killed. When he realized he knew how to shoot it, he went in and proposed they don’t change one word.

- The original budget was 4.2 million dollars, but after spending several months drawing storyboards, the studio got excited and doubled the budget. He feels storyboarding is almost as important as writing.

- When he can, Scott will spend two hours in the morning each day just reading with no distractions. He thinks it’s essential to read things pure.

- Scott loves the Alien franchise and was kind of upset they never asked him to come back. In fact, he didn’t even know they were making a second one when they started.


Germain Lussier wrote:- Sigourney Weaver wasn’t cast until 3 weeks before shooting and though she’d gained acclaim on Broadway, she hadn’t really done a film at the time. When he met her the short Scott (who is 5 foot 8 inches) was extremely impressed and kind of taken back by her size. She tested on the actual set, because they were close to shooting and it was being built. Scott said he could have cut the test into the movie.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 10507
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby cerafan86 on Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:28 pm

just saw blade runner for the first time! amazing!

read that he recently (couple of years ago) said the ford's character is a replicant while ford was led to believe, during filiming, that his character wasn't.

what a troubled movie
Thou art noble. Thou art divine. Thou art dead.
User avatar
cerafan86
GLIB
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:20 pm

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Spandau Belly on Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:50 am

Here's a question I have. I grew up in the post-mobile telephone age so I have a question for you old-timers:

You know how in old movies people always call a bar and ask for somebody who would be drinking there? Did that actually used to happen normally? Did anybody here have that kind of relationship and lifestyle where if people were looking for you they would know which bar to call and the bar tender would actually pick up the phone and come and find you?
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: München, Deutschland

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby minstrel on Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:27 am

That didn't just happen in old movies, S Belly. It has happened in my own life. When I lived in Victoria, BC, I used to be a regular at a bar there and my friends were, too, and we all were friends with the barmaids, and we'd call each other at that bar fairly regularly.
"The internet has no idea what's going on." - Zack Snyder
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12222
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Spandau Belly on Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:42 am

Thanks Minstrel, that was my question. I was wondering if this happened in real life or if it was just one of those movie things.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: München, Deutschland

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Hermanator X on Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:23 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:Here's a question I have. I grew up in the post-mobile telephone age so I have a question for you old-timers:

You know how in old movies people always call a bar and ask for somebody who would be drinking there? Did that actually used to happen normally? Did anybody here have that kind of relationship and lifestyle where if people were looking for you they would know which bar to call and the bar tender would actually pick up the phone and come and find you?


My first "job" (£1.54 an hour) was as a glass collector at a local working mans club (read: Bar room with pool, snooker, darts, and fun stuff, in which only men were allowed, and a lounge, in which men and women drank, with just bingo and other shit) and regularly there were calls to the bar for absent fathers/alcoholics from their ladies. And many "im not heres" called out. Quite sickening really, but a nice life lesson in how not to end up. Also many incursions in which women at the end of their tether would march into the man only environ, to heady calls of "WHUUUUUUUHHHHH BOOOOOOOO!!!" from all the guys aimed at humiliating all the women with the cheek of trying to grab the men drinking away their benefits/welfare. This was roughly 16 years ago, (age 14 to 16) so before mobiles. This was one of many such establishments local to where I grew up, so it was a common thing. Also had many cases of guys calling from other pubs, to see where other guys were, so yes, I would say its wholly realistic from my viewpoint.
...and so forth.
User avatar
Hermanator X
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:55 pm
Location: Kongsberg, Norway, This Town needs an enema

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby MadCapsule on Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:55 am

So I've watched The Dark Knight many times now and there are a couple of things that I just can't get my head around.

First, why were the characters that were clearly supposed to be Bullock and Montoya not named as such?

Second, the fingerprint on the bullet thing. I don't really get it. I mean the whole thing; I just don't understand what was going on. If all he was looking for was a fingerprint from the bullet, why go through all the trouble of shooting bricks with that mini-gun contraption? He clearly wasn't going to get the prints he was looking for from ammo that The Joker didn't handle and he already had a 3-D scan of the actual bullet. Why not just reconstruct the bullet and the print with the scan? Also, am I missing something here, or did that whole sequence turn out to be more or less useless?

Then there's the part where the Bat-Pod comes out of the alleyway sideways. Again - huh? Sure, it looks cool every time I see it, but the logic behind it escapes me. The alley was narrow and the bike was very long...
User avatar
MadCapsule
SUSAN CAGLE
 
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:53 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Tyrone_Shoelaces on Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:48 pm

MadCapsule wrote:So I've watched The Dark Knight many times now and there are a couple of things that I just can't get my head around.

First, why were the characters that were clearly supposed to be Bullock and Montoya not named as such?

Could be DC didn't want the characters in the film.

MadCapsule wrote:Second, the fingerprint on the bullet thing. I don't really get it. I mean the whole thing; I just don't understand what was going on. If all he was looking for was a fingerprint from the bullet, why go through all the trouble of shooting bricks with that mini-gun contraption? He clearly wasn't going to get the prints he was looking for from ammo that The Joker didn't handle and he already had a 3-D scan of the actual bullet. Why not just reconstruct the bullet and the print with the scan? Also, am I missing something here, or did that whole sequence turn out to be more or less useless?

I took that as Batman trying to find the exact ammo and the test firing was to see how the bullet broke on impact with brick. How that affects a 3D reconstruction is beyond me but it looked cool so I went with it.

MadCapsule wrote:Then there's the part where the Bat-Pod comes out of the alleyway sideways. Again - huh? Sure, it looks cool every time I see it, but the logic behind it escapes me. The alley was narrow and the bike was very long...

I think the batpod turned when it came out of the alley but the wheels switched up automatically to not drop the rider and wreck the bike. I think its the camera angle that makes it look like it comes right out of the alley sideways.
Image
User avatar
Tyrone_Shoelaces
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3816
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:33 am
Location: Northern Frontier

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby MacCready on Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:52 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:Here's a question I have. I grew up in the post-mobile telephone age so I have a question for you old-timers:

You know how in old movies people always call a bar and ask for somebody who would be drinking there? Did that actually used to happen normally? Did anybody here have that kind of relationship and lifestyle where if people were looking for you they would know which bar to call and the bar tender would actually pick up the phone and come and find you?


My grandfather sure as hell did. With more than one bar, in fact. Tracking him down was a matter of dialing in a specific order, in a diminishing radius.
Sooner or later, the noose would close on his ass.
User avatar
MacCready
MAN IN SUIT
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:52 am

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby so sorry on Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:49 pm

M Night Shamalyan gets called to the carpet at a conference

The crux of this interview is: a reporter asks him if he thinks he's "gone commercial" based on the movie-going public having lost faith in his work as a director, and he answers by saying his work is huge all around the world. Its amusing to say the least. Delusional to the max.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 12774
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby TheBaxter on Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:25 pm

he says "France's favorite movie is the Village"
but then again, France's favorite actor is Jerry Lewis. so make of that what you will.
how could i possibly improve over my old sig image? just add water...

Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
The Rastabortionist
 
Posts: 15437
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby magicmonkey on Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:36 pm

so sorry wrote:M Night Shamalyan gets called to the carpet at a conference

The crux of this interview is: a reporter asks him if he thinks he's "gone commercial" based on the movie-going public having lost faith in his work as a director, and he answers by saying his work is huge all around the world. Its amusing to say the least. Delusional to the max.


This is the thing tho, everybody knows his name. He actually is the modern day multiplex Hitchcock.
magicmonkey
I AM fucking Zen
 
Posts: 6003
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Shanghizzo

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby MacCready on Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:39 pm

magicmonkey wrote:
so sorry wrote:M Night Shamalyan gets called to the carpet at a conference

The crux of this interview is: a reporter asks him if he thinks he's "gone commercial" based on the movie-going public having lost faith in his work as a director, and he answers by saying his work is huge all around the world. Its amusing to say the least. Delusional to the max.


This is the thing tho, everybody knows his name. He actually is the modern day multiplex Hitchcock.


In his mind. Hitch's work does and will live on. Despite a couple of films with a "surprise twist", his filmography comes up way short.
He really, really needs an ego check, and fast. Any asshat who announces that he's the "next Speilberg" is playing some mighty long odds,
and is so far coming up short.
User avatar
MacCready
MAN IN SUIT
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:52 am

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Peven on Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:16 am

come on, mm, you can't be serious. the only comparison between Hitchcock and M. Night is in Night's mind only....and i even love "Unbreakable"
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
User avatar
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 12467
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby magicmonkey on Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:12 am

Peven wrote:come on, mm, you can't be serious. the only comparison between Hitchcock and M. Night is in Night's mind only....and i even love "Unbreakable"


I dunno , maybe I am out of touch, but didn't the "The Last Airbender" do great business? As far as he/his people are concerned that's all the justification they need.
magicmonkey
I AM fucking Zen
 
Posts: 6003
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Shanghizzo

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby BuckyO'harre on Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:17 am

magicmonkey wrote:
Peven wrote:come on, mm, you can't be serious. the only comparison between Hitchcock and M. Night is in Night's mind only....and i even love "Unbreakable"


I dunno , maybe I am out of touch, but didn't the "The Last Airbender" do great business? As far as he/his people are concerned that's all the justification they need.



Budget=$150 mil
Total boxoffice=$134 mil
User avatar
BuckyO'harre
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3687
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:14 am

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby magicmonkey on Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:40 am

BuckyO'harre wrote:
magicmonkey wrote:
Peven wrote:come on, mm, you can't be serious. the only comparison between Hitchcock and M. Night is in Night's mind only....and i even love "Unbreakable"


I dunno , maybe I am out of touch, but didn't the "The Last Airbender" do great business? As far as he/his people are concerned that's all the justification they need.



Budget=$150 mil
Total boxoffice=$134 mil


Worldwide?
magicmonkey
I AM fucking Zen
 
Posts: 6003
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Shanghizzo

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby BuckyO'harre on Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:47 am

magicmonkey wrote:
BuckyO'harre wrote:
magicmonkey wrote:
Peven wrote:come on, mm, you can't be serious. the only comparison between Hitchcock and M. Night is in Night's mind only....and i even love "Unbreakable"


I dunno , maybe I am out of touch, but didn't the "The Last Airbender" do great business? As far as he/his people are concerned that's all the justification they need.



Budget=$150 mil
Total boxoffice=$134 mil


Worldwide?



Yep.
User avatar
BuckyO'harre
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3687
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:14 am

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Peven on Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:50 am

magicmonkey wrote:
Peven wrote:come on, mm, you can't be serious. the only comparison between Hitchcock and M. Night is in Night's mind only....and i even love "Unbreakable"


I dunno , maybe I am out of touch, but didn't the "The Last Airbender" do great business? As far as he/his people are concerned that's all the justification they need.



again, seriously? you are comparing directors based on box office? does that mean that Tim Burton would be like Ingmar Bergman if their films grossed similar numbers? hand that glass over, dude, because you have been hitting the pipe too hard...... :-P




....plus it looks like some pretty good shit :wink:
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
User avatar
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 12467
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby magicmonkey on Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:04 am

Peven wrote:
magicmonkey wrote:
Peven wrote:come on, mm, you can't be serious. the only comparison between Hitchcock and M. Night is in Night's mind only....and i even love "Unbreakable"


I dunno , maybe I am out of touch, but didn't the "The Last Airbender" do great business? As far as he/his people are concerned that's all the justification they need.



again, seriously? you are comparing directors based on box office? does that mean that Tim Burton would be like Ingmar Bergman if their films grossed similar numbers? hand that glass over, dude, because you have been hitting the pipe too hard...... :-P




....plus it looks like some pretty good shit :wink:


You are confusing a hastily constructed argument based on "the box office thread" conjecture with personal opinion. The guy's just protecting his "brand image".
magicmonkey
I AM fucking Zen
 
Posts: 6003
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Shanghizzo

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby so sorry on Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:30 am

magicmonkey wrote:
Peven wrote:
magicmonkey wrote:
Peven wrote:come on, mm, you can't be serious. the only comparison between Hitchcock and M. Night is in Night's mind only....and i even love "Unbreakable"


I dunno , maybe I am out of touch, but didn't the "The Last Airbender" do great business? As far as he/his people are concerned that's all the justification they need.



again, seriously? you are comparing directors based on box office? does that mean that Tim Burton would be like Ingmar Bergman if their films grossed similar numbers? hand that glass over, dude, because you have been hitting the pipe too hard...... :-P




....plus it looks like some pretty good shit :wink:


You are confusing a hastily constructed argument based on "the box office thread" conjecture with personal opinion. The guy's just protecting his "brand image".


I can understand M Night trying to protect his image, and he does so by hard and true facts (re: the box office numbers). But to say that he's a modern day Hitchcock is to propose that he is an intelligent and pioneering filmmaker, and that's simply not true (at least not the pioneering part). I respectfully request you take Hitch out of this debate!
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 12774
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby TheBaxter on Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:41 pm

BuckyO'harre wrote:
magicmonkey wrote:
BuckyO'harre wrote:
magicmonkey wrote:
Peven wrote:come on, mm, you can't be serious. the only comparison between Hitchcock and M. Night is in Night's mind only....and i even love "Unbreakable"


I dunno , maybe I am out of touch, but didn't the "The Last Airbender" do great business? As far as he/his people are concerned that's all the justification they need.



Budget=$150 mil
Total boxoffice=$134 mil


Worldwide?



Yep.


it's a bit more complicated than that. the film has not yet been released in a lot of countries because it was delayed while the world cup was going on. its only been out in the US for 3 weeks, and of that $134mil, $116mil is US gross. once it's opened worldwide, it should easily surpass the budget and make some money.

and all of that, of course, has nothing to do with whether it's a good movie or not. don't make me bring up the twilight films.

and shyamalan has a long way to go before he can earn a hitchcock comparison... and the way he's going, he probably never will.
how could i possibly improve over my old sig image? just add water...

Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
The Rastabortionist
 
Posts: 15437
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Al Shut on Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:53 pm

I'll give you the comparison now

Hitchcock is better
Image
User avatar
Al Shut
THE LAUGHING ZONER
 
Posts: 5585
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Oberhausen, Germany

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Peven on Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:55 pm

Al Shut wrote:I'll give you the comparison now

Hitchcock is worlds better



edited for accuracy :wink: :D
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
User avatar
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 12467
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby ironic name on Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:48 pm

he is really mentally gone. france's favourite movie is the village? like ever?
damn son, michael jackson's yes men have got some competion.
User avatar
ironic name
had cheer sex with Megan Gale
 
Posts: 5659
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:53 am

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby TheBaxter on Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:05 pm

ironic name wrote:he is really mentally gone. france's favourite movie is the village? like ever?
damn son, michael jackson's yes men have got some competion.


in fairness, i think he meant it was their favorite of HIS films, not their favorite film of all time. how he could know that, unless he's just going by the box office, i don't know.
how could i possibly improve over my old sig image? just add water...

Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
The Rastabortionist
 
Posts: 15437
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby TonyWilson on Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:15 pm

I dunno, formally I'd say he's closer to Spielberg (with out the ability to create characters that resonate and a much bigger ego), though of course Spielberg has his Hitchcock similarities too.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9144
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Beyond The Wall

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby The Vicar on Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:51 pm

Any decent director could do worse than cribbing from Hitch. That classic opening shot in Touch of Evil, fer instance.
Its a pity they couldn't digitally treat The Birds, removing those mostly fake and sometimes just hard to work with birds.
Some scenes just lose dramatic impact when you can see the actor holding the bird on himself.
Picture it now with proper birds.
And fix all those nasty rear-screen projection shots - people running in front of screened images has never looked anything but fake.
Otherwise, me & Hitch are solid.


Makes for a decent teacher. Who ya gonna learn from, him or Uwe Boll?
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Fried Gold on Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:25 pm

magicmonkey wrote:
BuckyO'harre wrote:
magicmonkey wrote:
Peven wrote:come on, mm, you can't be serious. the only comparison between Hitchcock and M. Night is in Night's mind only....and i even love "Unbreakable"


I dunno , maybe I am out of touch, but didn't the "The Last Airbender" do great business? As far as he/his people are concerned that's all the justification they need.



Budget=$150 mil
Total boxoffice=$134 mil


Worldwide?

Airbender has somewhat "bombed". Lady in the Water was less than spectacular money-wise too.

But for some reason The Happening farkin took a bundle at the box office. But then that didn't cost $150 million.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13372
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby minstrel on Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:19 am

The Vicar wrote:Any decent director could do worse than cribbing from Hitch. That classic opening shot in Touch of Evil, fer instance.
Its a pity they couldn't digitally treat The Birds, removing those mostly fake and sometimes just hard to work with birds.
Some scenes just lose dramatic impact when you can see the actor holding the bird on himself.
Picture it now with proper birds.
And fix all those nasty rear-screen projection shots - people running in front of screened images has never looked anything but fake.
Otherwise, me & Hitch are solid.


Makes for a decent teacher. Who ya gonna learn from, him or Uwe Boll?


Vic???

Vicar?? Is that really you?

HI THERE!!!

Um, Touch of Evil was Orson Welles, not Hitch. Your post is 100% perfect in every other respect, though.
"The internet has no idea what's going on." - Zack Snyder
minstrel
Leader of the Insquirrelgency
 
Posts: 12222
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Area 52

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby magicmonkey on Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:17 am

I like Hitch more than I love him. I love "The 39 Steps", "The Birds", "The Rope" "Psycho" and "Vertigo". But, its only really "Vertigo" in my opinion that actually has anything that comes close to having any real depth. His movies on release were always big with "the masses", but the more highbrow critics dismissed him as style over content. He never won a best directing oscar, or even got much academy recognition. It's only in relatively recent times that his contributions to cinema were recognised, which was mainly in the realm of formulist/structuralist film theory which I guess began about the same time as film became an academic subject.

Now, I'm not saying the same will happen to M. Night, but I think his movies are each significantly different, that he has an authorial stamp on his work, that he is well known and that his box office track record is not to be scoffed at. What happens with the ultimate profits of "The Last Airbender" remains to be seen. But, I do think Hitch is a legitimate parallel to draw, despite however high your esteem for him is. I mean, come on, he's no Renoir or Kubrick.
magicmonkey
I AM fucking Zen
 
Posts: 6003
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Shanghizzo

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby tony-montana on Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:50 pm

Now, I'm not much for comparing, so I'm going to take a step aside from the buisness of whether M. Night is or isn't the next Spielberg or Hitchcock, but my theory is that the fame influx just messed him up artistically.

He got The Sixth Sense under his belt, everyone's happy, "alright then," he thinks, "lets try a new genre."
Unbreakable, still going strong, "lets try another one"
Signs, "okay, lets play it safe for the next one, you guys like twists right?"
Here's where he really gets hit foot in a few bear traps. The Village, Lady in the Water, The Happening. "Alright, cleansing breath."
So he tries Last Airbender, not an original idea, something that could scrape by on its own merit without his name attached.

So now's he's trying to work his way back up, and I think I lot my train of thought, and my points might not all make sense, this was a bad idea, I'm just going to stop now.
Image
User avatar
tony-montana
GLIB
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Hard to tell, this stupid planet won't stop moving.

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Bloo on Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:06 am

I'm watching Buck Rogers in the 25th Century and since the backdoor pilot was released in theaters, I pose this

Doesn't Erin Grey have one of the most perfect asses of the 70s/80s?
Image
User avatar
Bloo
ROOFIED BY RAYLAN
 
Posts: 9504
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: Kansas, home of the Bacon Explosion

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Hermanator X on Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:29 am

Bloo wrote:I'm watching Buck Rogers in the 25th Century and since the backdoor pilot was released in theaters, I pose this

Doesn't Erin Grey have one of the most perfect asses of the 70s/80s?


70s/80s?? All time dude. And the pilot contains the single greatest dance scene commited to film. God I love that dance so much.

edit: backdoor? Filthy man, filthy.
...and so forth.
User avatar
Hermanator X
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:55 pm
Location: Kongsberg, Norway, This Town needs an enema

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby The Vicar on Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:07 am

Bloo wrote:I'm watching Buck Rogers in the 25th Century and since the backdoor pilot was released in theaters, I pose this

Doesn't Erin Grey have one of the most perfect asses of the 70s/80s?


That was the only reason I ever saw the show. Should be in the Ass Hall of Fame, fer reals.

http://www.myspace.com/dizzydeering

Boy does someone have too much time on their hands......
.
........................................
Image
User avatar
The Vicar
Fear & Loathing in the Zone
 
Posts: 16179
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:21 am

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Bloo on Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:54 pm

Hermanator X wrote:
Bloo wrote:I'm watching Buck Rogers in the 25th Century and since the backdoor pilot was released in theaters, I pose this

Doesn't Erin Grey have one of the most perfect asses of the 70s/80s?


70s/80s?? All time dude. And the pilot contains the single greatest dance scene commited to film. God I love that dance so much.

edit: backdoor? Filthy man, filthy.


that dance sequence is pretty good and yeah the backdoor comment made me giggles

unrelated tpic here

I saw THE THIN RED LINE at my local Wal-Mart for $7 but I held off buying it because it's packaged in the same sleeve as BEHIND ENEMY LINES

should I have bought it? I keep going back and forth on that issue

though I think I'd rather have the Criterion collections, they aren't cheap...and why is the standard def DVD criterion collection of DAYS OF HEAVEN like $10 more then the blu version on DVD

just seeing it made me want to go on a terrance Malick kick but I"m between paychecks at the moment and so I'll hold off but it's sooooo tempting
Image
User avatar
Bloo
ROOFIED BY RAYLAN
 
Posts: 9504
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: Kansas, home of the Bacon Explosion

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Peven on Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:14 pm

The Vicar wrote:
Bloo wrote:I'm watching Buck Rogers in the 25th Century and since the backdoor pilot was released in theaters, I pose this

Doesn't Erin Grey have one of the most perfect asses of the 70s/80s?


That was the only reason I ever saw the show. Should be in the Ass Hall of Fame, fer reals.

http://www.myspace.com/dizzydeering

Boy does someone have too much time on their hands......


biddy biddy biddy biddy biddy biddy...I'd tap that ass, Buck


actually, we didn't get the channel that ran Buck Rogers....so I only knew her from Simon and Simon, and they didn't show off her....assets the way Buck apparently did.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
User avatar
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 12467
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby ironic name on Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:47 pm

Bloo wrote:I saw THE THIN RED LINE at my local Wal-Mart for $7 but I held off buying it because it's packaged in the same sleeve as BEHIND ENEMY LINES

should I have bought it? I keep going back and forth on that issue

FUCK yes.
User avatar
ironic name
had cheer sex with Megan Gale
 
Posts: 5659
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:53 am

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Bloo on Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:58 pm

ironic name wrote:
Bloo wrote:I saw THE THIN RED LINE at my local Wal-Mart for $7 but I held off buying it because it's packaged in the same sleeve as BEHIND ENEMY LINES

should I have bought it? I keep going back and forth on that issue

FUCK yes.


if they are on seperate discs, one package I will, if it's one of those duel disc deals fuck that
Image
User avatar
Bloo
ROOFIED BY RAYLAN
 
Posts: 9504
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: Kansas, home of the Bacon Explosion

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby stereosforgeeks on Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:18 am

Bloo wrote:
ironic name wrote:
Bloo wrote:I saw THE THIN RED LINE at my local Wal-Mart for $7 but I held off buying it because it's packaged in the same sleeve as BEHIND ENEMY LINES

should I have bought it? I keep going back and forth on that issue

FUCK yes.


if they are on seperate discs, one package I will, if it's one of those duel disc deals fuck that


Criterion has it coming out soon if you want the end all be all edition, which as a film is worth purchasing it in this manner.
User avatar
stereosforgeeks
Re-Wound
 
Posts: 7856
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:46 pm
Location: DCish

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Bloo on Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:45 am

which brings me back to the question

why the hell is the Criterion edition of DAYS OF HEAVEN so damn expensive on regular DVD

I don't know it's tempting to have it now you know
Image
User avatar
Bloo
ROOFIED BY RAYLAN
 
Posts: 9504
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:26 pm
Location: Kansas, home of the Bacon Explosion

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby ironic name on Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:33 am

stereosforgeeks wrote:
Bloo wrote:
ironic name wrote:
Bloo wrote:I saw THE THIN RED LINE at my local Wal-Mart for $7 but I held off buying it because it's packaged in the same sleeve as BEHIND ENEMY LINES

should I have bought it? I keep going back and forth on that issue

FUCK yes.


if they are on seperate discs, one package I will, if it's one of those duel disc deals fuck that


Criterion has it coming out soon if you want the end all be all edition, which as a film is worth purchasing it in this manner.

will there be commentary or maybe the sean penn part of the movie?
User avatar
ironic name
had cheer sex with Megan Gale
 
Posts: 5659
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:53 am

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby Tyrone_Shoelaces on Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:38 am

It's the Bagel telling you it's time for you to go Blu-ray.
Image
User avatar
Tyrone_Shoelaces
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3816
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:33 am
Location: Northern Frontier

Re: Flash Gordon 2

Postby TheButcher on Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:04 pm

From BLASTR:
Director reveals the REAL reason there was never a Flash Gordon 2
During the interview, the 77-year-old director revealed that it was a dispute between the movie's main star, Sam J. Jones, and producer Dino De Laurentiis that ultimately led to the sequel being dropped. Hodges said:
''I was very fond of Sam but here's what happened: we did the main shooting up until Christmas and then we stopped for the break. After Christmas I came back and did all of the second unit stuff too. For instance, I had to do the shots with the flying men and that sort of thing—what passed as special effects back then (laughs). So I also had to shoot a whole bunch of other stuff with a stunt double for Sam and I had to re-voice the occasional line of dialogue too. Not much but some—and I got somebody to impersonate Sam's voice. You would never know it wasn't him.

But Sam found out and I think that was one factor that led to him being upset. And Dino and he just did not see eye to eye for a while. So when you lose your main star there can't really be a sequel."


Are you sorry that Jones balked? Would you like to have seen a Flash Gordon 2?
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 10507
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am

Re: Flash Gordon 2

Postby magicmonkey on Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:49 am

TheButcher wrote:From BLASTR:
Director reveals the REAL reason there was never a Flash Gordon 2
During the interview, the 77-year-old director revealed that it was a dispute between the movie's main star, Sam J. Jones, and producer Dino De Laurentiis that ultimately led to the sequel being dropped. Hodges said:
''I was very fond of Sam but here's what happened: we did the main shooting up until Christmas and then we stopped for the break. After Christmas I came back and did all of the second unit stuff too. For instance, I had to do the shots with the flying men and that sort of thing—what passed as special effects back then (laughs). So I also had to shoot a whole bunch of other stuff with a stunt double for Sam and I had to re-voice the occasional line of dialogue too. Not much but some—and I got somebody to impersonate Sam's voice. You would never know it wasn't him.

But Sam found out and I think that was one factor that led to him being upset. And Dino and he just did not see eye to eye for a while. So when you lose your main star there can't really be a sequel."


Are you sorry that Jones balked? Would you like to have seen a Flash Gordon 2?


Wow, the truth really is out there. Still, if you crave a Flash Gordon 2, you can almost get your fix watching Dune instead.
magicmonkey
I AM fucking Zen
 
Posts: 6003
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Shanghizzo

Re: Ridley Scott

Postby TheButcher on Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:06 pm

From The Independent:
Ridley Scott: 'I'm doing pretty good, if you think about it'
As Ridley Scott prepares two new Alien prequels, he tells James Mottram why, at 72, he isn't ready to slow down yet
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 10507
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am

Re: REBOOTS

Postby TheButcher on Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:08 am

From The LA Times:
Hollywood gets a kick out of 'rebooting'
Ben Fritz and Steve Zeitchik wrote:When Sony Pictures' plan for a fourth "Spider-Man" movie starring Tobey Maguire fell apart in January, the studio had to come up with a new way to keep the superhero series alive after three movies released from 2002 to 2007 grossed $2.5 billion worldwide.

Its solution: Start over.

Like many others in Hollywood seeking to breathe new life into an established movie franchise, Sony decided to "reboot."

First used in computer parlance, "rebooting" is, along with 3-D, Hollywood's latest fad. If a sequel continues an original story, a prequel tells what happened earlier and a remake portrays the same events again, a reboot takes a franchise back to its origins and begins again with a different take — and cast.

The new "Spider-Man" film, scheduled for 2012, is expected to focus more on the personal life of teenager-turned-web-crawler Peter Parker than did the 2002 original. The 35-year-old Maguire will be replaced by little-known British-raised actor Andrew Garfield, 27.

"Reboot is a word that lets you have your cake and eat it too," said Erik Feig, president of production for Summit Entertainment, which is rebooting the science-fiction series "Highlander." "You get to make a movie that has brand awareness, but you're not slavishly tied to what was done before."

However trendy they may be, reboots have far-reaching financial and artistic implications. Studios use them to hold down escalating costs, keep popular franchises going when a traditional follow-up isn't possible, or take one with a shrinking core audience and rework it for a broader crowd.

For those hoping to see more original stories on screen, however, reboot-mania is a discouraging example of creative poverty in the movie business. Most big-budget event films are already sequels or are based on popular existing properties, be they books such as " Harry Potter," video games such as "Prince of Persia" or toys such as the upcoming "Battleship." But with the option to reboot, studio executives don't even need to look for new material to adapt.

"The obsession with brand names is getting ridiculous and now feeding off itself," said Mark Steven Johnson, the writer and director of "Daredevil," the 2003 film that is being developed as a reboot. "We made 'Daredevil' because people knew it from the comic books, and now it's seen as a title worth rebooting."

The reboot trend has been building steam for a while. "Batman Begins" presented a new origin for a well-known character in 2005, as did the 2006 James Bond movie "Casino Royale." Last year's "Star Trek" proved it can work for a franchise that many thought was dead.

Now development slates at most major studios are packed with reboots. They range from hugely successful films such as "Spider-Man" to flops such as

"The Haunted Mansion" at Walt Disney Studios. They include pictures made in the last decade — such as

Warner Bros.' " Superman" and 20th Century Fox's "Fantastic Four" — and older films like the 1990 "Total Recall" from Sony, 1986's "Highlander" at Summit Entertainment and even the 1939 MGM classic "The Wizard of Oz" at Warner Bros. A new version of the 1968 film "Planet of the Apes" is going into production at Fox just nine years after another by director Tim Burton — call it a reboot of a reboot.

Some say that "reboot" might just be a flavor-of-the-moment in Hollywood, where agents, producers and executives love to chase whatever's hot.

"'Reboot' has entered the Hollywood lexicon now, and everybody uses it to mean a re-imagining," said Matt Tolmach, Sony's co-president of production.

"I think reboots can work when they're filmmaker-driven," said "Hellboy" and "Pan's Labyrinth" director Guillermo del Toro, who's developing a reboot of the 2003 Eddie Murphy misfire "The Haunted Mansion." "I'm a little suspicious when they're marketing-driven."

Economic concerns are at the heart of many reboots, however.

When it was trying to put together " Spider-Man 4" with Maguire and director Sam Raimi, Sony was looking at potentially laying out more than the $250 million it spent to make "Spider-Man 3." But with Garfield in the lead role, director Marc Webb at the helm and fewer special effects, the studio is rebooting the budget as well. It expects to spend less than $100 million.

"In success everybody gets paid more, but at some point you reach an upper limit where it doesn't make sense anymore," said Doug Belgrad, Sony's co-president of production. "With a reboot, the cost structure changes."

Some might be tempted to think that reboots mark the final evolution in Hollywood's brand obsession.

Once the most popular movies have been rebooted, after all, what's left except fresh material? But studios are avoiding that fate by shortening the amount of time during which they leave franchises on ice.

"When you're not taking many opportunities with original material, the cycle for using older stuff gets faster," said Tim Story, who directed the 2005 film "Fantastic Four" and its 2007 sequel but isn't involved in the reboot. "You would think it would take 'Fantastic Four' at least 10 years to come back around, but it may end up being less than five."

For all the commercial benefits reboots bring to studios, it's filmmakers who are most directly confronting their potential pitfalls.

Screenwriter Josh Olson, who is rebooting one of the most beloved movie properties of all time with his script "Oz," said his job is one of careful balance. "You want to write something that takes people back to the fondness they had for the original, but you can't just try to duplicate it," he said. "I'm aware of the fact that there are a couple million people who will come to your house and burn it down if you don't get it right."

Perhaps the biggest risk, however, is for reboots of pictures that were released recently to great success.

"The more recently something was done and the more successful it was, the greater the challenges," said director Matt Reeves, who helmed the upcoming English-language remake of Danish vampire thriller " Let the Right One In." "I'd be very daunted if I was doing the 'Spider-Man' reboot."
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 10507
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am

Re: THE FRANCHISE

Postby TheButcher on Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:12 am

From Variety:
Blockbuster blitz masks franchise fatigue - As franchises fade, does the universe need another retread?
Peter Bart wrote:The arrival of autumn always brings an abrupt change to the movie business. The megaplexes belong to the likes of "The Social Network" and "Hereafter" not to another iteration of "Transformers" (that happens next July). Filmgoers are suddenly allowed to discover movies rather than be assaulted by them.

To be sure, studios become downright antsy when brand recognition takes a backseat to artistry. Surprise hits defy the hard-and-fast rules of the tentpole business. Corporate marketers don't like surprises.

But they can look for comfort to 2011, when a record inventory of sequels, prequels and assorted franchises will again rule the day. Disney will mobilize its next "Pirates of the Caribbean," Universal (and Paramount) will unleash "Cowboys & Aliens," and Warner Bros. will finally exhaust its "Harry Potter" oligopoly (its seventh and next-to-last Potter film will bow this November).

And that's just for starters.

Fox has its own stash of cut-rate tentpoles (call them tentsticks, or tentstickles) in the form of a new "X-Men" and "Alvin and the Chipmunks." Dreamworks Animation (releasing through Paramount) will unfurl "Kung Fu Panda: The Kaboom" (how can any Kaboom pic misfire?). And then there's Sony, whose summer 2011 slate includes the animated "The Zookeeper" and "The Smurfs."

The 2011 franchise derby finishes with a bang later in the year with sequels to "Mission: Impossible" (rebooted and possibly retitled) and "Sherlock Holmes," not to mention the long-awaited "Adventures of Tintin" from Steven Spielberg.

Given this arsenal of firepower, the distributors figure not only to be satisfying their audiences but downright nuking them. But there's still one abiding concern: They're running out of franchises.

As the Los Angeles Times pointed out recently, studio executives are turning their attention to rebooting their franchises rather than simply recycling them. The process consists of a total reinvention of branded movies, complete with new storylines, new casts and even new titles.

"The Wizard of Oz," the 1939 classic, is being rebooted and may even star Johnny Depp, fresh from the rebooted "Alice in Wonderland." "Planet of the Apes" and even "Total Recall" are getting reboots as well.

It's hard to tell where the rebooting process will take us. Will we ultimately rediscover "Gone With the Wind" -- this time with a young Rhett Butler assembling his munitions business while secretly giving a damn about a feckless Scarlet? Will we find ourselves tracking some teenage Corleones sewing their wild oats in Sicily while studying for their MBAs (Mafia Business Administration?)

The rebooting onrush may inspire formation of a new wing of the film preservation movement, which will focus not only on the sanctity of old films but also the dignity of old stories.

In its zeal to reinvent and reboot, Hollywood has dedicated itself to "thinking out of the box." Which brings us to a disturbing question: Has anyone really defined "the box"?

My question is prompted by a reading of Stephen Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," which effectively undermines our presumptions about the world we live in. For one thing, Hawking reminds us that we dwell in a multiverse, not a universe.

The concept of a single universe, writes Hawking, the noted physicist, fails to recognize an infinity of dark energy, super black holes, sprawling galaxies and the probability of alien civilizations not imagined by either Spielberg or George Lucas.

In the same vein, while Hollywood may be emboldened by 3D, Hawking reminds us that cosmologists now think not in terms of three but rather at least 10 dimensions.

If this seems jolting, Hawking points out that the true miracle of our multiverse is its unpredictability. "Recent advances in cosmology and quantum theory allow new universes to appear simultaneously from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is 'something' rather than 'nothing' out there."

The inevitable question: Is Hawking trying to reboot the biggest story of them all?
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 10507
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am

Re: THE FRANCHISE

Postby TheButcher on Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:14 pm

'From The Big Picture:
How Hollywood's franchise sequels have become catnip for top directors
Patrick Goldstein wrote:According to a variety of Web reports, Darren Aronofsky, the gifted filmmaker behind such indie delights as "The Wrestler" and "Requiem for a Dream," has a tough career decision to make. For his next film, should he direct an original script, "The Gangster Squad," about a secret group of L.A. cops who cut all sorts of corners battling mobsters, or should he do the latest installment in Fox's "X-Men" franchise, "Wolverine 2"?

In the old days of Hollywood--meaning five or 10 years ago--Aronofsky's decision would be easy. He'd direct the original story, which would offer far more artistic heft and creative possibilities than a studio sequel. But in Hollywood circa 2010, the rules when it comes to carving out a filmmaking career have all changed. As it stands, Aronofsky is only circling "Wolverine" because he lost out to Zack Snyder in the director derby for Warners' upcoming franchise reboot, "Superman: Man of Steel." In fact, a surprising number of filmmakers who cut their teeth making personal movies are opting for the studio sequels.

Consider the following. In addition to Aronofsky, who so far is only leaning toward the "Wolverine" project: Brad Bird, who directed the sparklingly original Pixar films "Ratatouille" and "The Incredibles," is over at Paramount, trying to figure out how to make Tom Cruise cool again in "Mission: Impossible 4."

Marc Webb, who did the surprise indie delight "(500) Days of Summer," is at Sony, preparing to make the fourth installment in the studio's "Spider-Man" series.

Paul Weitz, who has directed such oddball, satiric films as "American Dreamz" and "In Good Company," is at Universal, readying the launch this Christmas of "Little Fockers," the third film in studio's long-running comedy franchise.

And Tony Gilroy, who launched his directing career with the cerebral Oscar-nominated drama "Michael Clayton," is also at Universal, having signed on to ramp up "The Bourne Legacy," the fourth film in the studio's successful spy thriller series.

What's going on here? In short, two words: Christopher Nolan. It used to be that you had to choose between street cred or studio moola. But Nolan, thanks to the runaway critical and commercial success of "The Dark Knight" and "Batman Begins," has been able to have his cake and eat it too. If you talk to agents who represent top directors, they all say that Nolan has become the role model for most of their clients, having retained his artistic integrity while still reaping the benefits of seeing his films promoted by a huge studio marketing machine.

So, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. "If these guys think they can make a big studio film without looking like whores or compromising their vision, they are all pretty eager to jump at the chance," says one agent who reps a number of top filmmakers. "The sad truth is that there isn't much of an indie marketplace anymore, so it's not like they have a lot of other places to go. At a studio, you get all sorts of creative resources, you can attract a top cast and still have a surprising amount of freedom."

That's the biggest shift of all. Until recently, studios keep most of their franchises on a tight leash. If you were a filmmaker, you had to serve the material. But especially at Warners, which under Jeff Robinov has become a director-driven studio, and Sony, which has given its filmmakers a lot of artistic leeway, directors are thriving, enjoying little or no studio interference. Insiders assume that Bird only took the "Mission: Impossible 4" job at Paramount after getting assurances from producer J.J. Abrams that he wouldn't end up like John Woo, who got the bum's rush and was unceremoniously locked out of the editing room after shooting "Mission: Impossible II."

It remains to be seen whether Fox, which has a reputation for preferring to work with more malleable filmmakers, will mesh with Aronofsky, who has a reputation for bringing his movies in on budget but fiercely protecting his independence. But everywhere you look, filmmakers have put all those original stories on hold while they see what they can do to breathe new life into aging studio franchises. Whether it's inspired by a new form of careerism or a lack of other compelling choices, a whole generation of gifted directors is now focusing on piloting the jumbo jets of the movie business.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 10507
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am

Re: Stray Film Thoughts/Questions

Postby TheButcher on Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:17 pm

FromThe Geek Files:
The X-Men movies that never were...

David Bentley wrote:TWO unused script treatments for the first X-Men movie, released in 2000, have been revealed online, showing characters, story ideas and details that never made it to the finished film.


It was in 1994 that 20th Century Fox and producer Lauren Shuler Donner bought the film rights to the X-Men from Marvel. At that time, Andrew Kevin Walker was hired to write, and James Cameron expressed interest in directing. Eventually, Bryan Singer signed on to direct in July 1996 and a new set of writers became involved.


The final version of the film credits its screenplay to David Hayter, but many others were involved in the project's journey to the big screen...


THE 1996 MICHAEL CHABON TREATMENT

A script treatment written in July 1996 by Michael Chabon included Cyclops, Jean Grey, Nightcrawler, Beast, Iceman, Storm, Wolverine and Jubilee as the X-Men, with Chabon saying this line-up "provides for the greatest degree of contrast of personality...in an ensemble configuration not too different from Star Trek."

Jubilee featured in the 1990s cartoon and had a cameo role in all three movies (left), but she plays a central part in the Chabon script.

Chabon did not include a superpowered villain and said he felt Magneto, Sabretooth and the others could be introduced in a future movie. Instead, Chabon invented a villainous organisation called The League of Gentlemen, headed by a man called Mr Montclair.

The story begins with Wolverine on the run and being shot with a dart from a pursuing helicopter. He runs into the trees, ferociously fights off an attack by a pack of wolves, then collapses. Meanwhile, Jubilee's powers emerge at home and she runs away - she has the ability to emit plasma energy as balls, flashes and streamers of light (see comicbook image below right).

Wolverine and Jubilee are both rescued by the X-Men. They discover Wolverine was shot with a dart containing the Legacy virus (a disease fatal to mutants, featured in the comicbooks) and that he was given his metal claws by the League of Gentlemen and once worked for them as a killer. Jubilee's real parents also worked for the League and her father invented the virus - and secretly programmed a cure into the DNA of his daughter. While Wolverine's healing power holds the virus at bay in his own body, he infects Jean, who in turn infects Iceman.

Beast tries an early cure serum on himself, which ends up mutating him further into his blue, furry version. Later he extracts the proper serum from Jubilee to save Jean and Iceman. Jubilee settles into the mansion and is shown pictures of her real parents; watching enviously, Wolverine then feels the need to go and investigate his own past and identity.

There are some great ideas in this. Rogue obviously replaced Jubilee in the movie. Montclair could easily have been changed into a suitable comicbook character such as the scientist Sinister and the League of Gentlemen could have been changed to a comicbook organisation.


THE 1999 ED SOLOMAN/CHRISTOPHER MCQUARRIE SCRIPT

A script treatment written in February 1999 by Soloman and McQuarrie begins with the same Magneto prison camp scene seen in the released film, but then includes an origin scene for Storm, set in Kenya in 1972, in which the 12-year-old mutant brings huge hailstones down on to a mob of bullies and almost destroys her village. The draft continues with an origin scene for Cyclops, set in California in 1986, when his powers emerge from his eyes just before a school prom.

Then, at the Senate hearing, Jean Grey gives a far more detailed explanation of why these bizarre mutations are happening: mankind hasn't evolved for thousands of years, instead altering his environment to suit him, but dramatic changes to the Earth mean humankind can no longer keep up. As a result, a dormant evolution gene has switched itself back on, enabling people to begin adapting to their world. The emerging mutants are merely the first signs of change that will one day affect the entire human race.

There's no scene with Wolverine fighting in a bar, but we do get a fantastic visceral fight with Sabretooth before the intervention of Storm (left) and Cyclops.

Senator Kelly meets the President, unsuccessfully arguing for urgent action against mutants. Back at Xavier's mansion, we meet Beast; and Rogue is already there (with no origin sequence in Mississippi as in the actual film, although her deadly first kiss from the finished movie is mentioned later).

We see Cyclops and Wolverine in the Danger Room with Jean Grey in the room's control booth. Here, the Danger Room is not a hologram chamber as it was when it finally appeared in the third X-movie; instead, it contains various mechanical devices, traps and missiles, like the comicbook version.

Kelly is still taken to Magneto's island lair. The mutation machine uses adamantium as a conductor (in much the same way as the metal filament in a lightbulb) and, although Magneto has a small amount for the first use of the machine, he needs Wolverine to power it with the adamantium grafted to his skeleton. Magneto, whose real name is Max in this draft and whose associates include Blob (main picture at top) and Pyro, tells Kelly: "What if you could breathe pure carbon monoxide, Senator? The kind your fellow man is pumping straight into the atmosphere as we speak? Fly above the water that might one day cover the face of the Earth, or swim faster than any fish in the sea? Would you consider yourself a freak of nature? Or would you just consider yourself prepared for the future?"

After he is mutated into a gelatinous form, Kelly escapes, stinging Blob like a jellyfish. He doesn't swim to shore and go to Xavier's mansion the same way as in the finished movie - instead he emerges from the toilet bowl in the mansion!

The movie's train station attack here takes place in a shopping mall, where Toad has the power to change his skin pigmentation to camouflage himself against any background. After that, Magneto attacks the X-Men at the mansion, trapping Jean Grey by surrounding her with levitating metal implements and capturing Wolverine in a metal cabinet resembling an 'iron maiden' medieval torture device.

At the Statue of Liberty, Wolverine is strapped into the machine as its power conductor. He breaks free and fights Sabretooth. Toad and Pyro die gruesomely, Magneto tries to escape and is attacked by Storm, Jean, Beast and Cyclops, but he fights back and pins them down with strips of metal (as seen in a similar scene in the finished film). Rogue absorbs Mystique's shapeshifting power and, in the guise of Mystique, is able to get close to Magneto and kiss him to drain his lifeforce.

The president vetoes the mutant registration act on a news bulletin as Wolverine tries on a new X-Men uniform and is welcomed to the mansion. And the final chess scene with Magneto and Xavier is there but is fuller and longer.

There's some great characterisation and explanation in this - often much deeper than in the finished film - and the environmental theme of emerging mutation as the key to man's survival on a planet he is destroying is excellent. It's easy to see why Rogue's more emotional role, in being a vulnerable teenager needed by Magneto to power the machine, was added for the movie, even though the version of Rogue in this early script is more accurate.

Both scripts contain some great ideas and it's a shame more of them didn't make it on to celluloid. Perhaps any future X-Men movies can try to include some of these unused ideas.





X-MEN 1984

Progressive Ruin casts (partially) the 1980s X-Men movie!

From Twomorrows: Alter Ego 58:
Alter Ego #58 spotlights “The X-Men Movie That Never Was!” as GERRY CONWAY & ROY THOMAS reveal their 1980s screenplay for Orion Pictures—analyzed & annotated by CHRIS IRVING—with art by DAVE COCKRUM, NEAL ADAMS, JOHN BUSCEMA, JOHN BYRNE, GIL KANE, JACK KIRBY, DON HECK, LARRY LIEBER, MARK GLIDDEN, & others!
Steven E. McDonald wrote:I'd love to read this article -- I was involved with the Orion X-Men project right before it hit turnaround, when they'd finally given up on the Thomas/Conway version (the reason I was given by the development folks at Orion was that the budget estimates for the project were terrifyingly high and that the writing wasn't coming within loudhailer distance of good.) I was in discussions on Friday, and we hammered out ideas (amounting to "let's simplify the fuck out of this!") and an agreement for me to start on story as soon as the contracts were set and signed, meaning I should have been hard at work by the following Wednesday. On the Monday the development arm was beginning to hammer out the deal memo with my agent...and at the same time Orion management were busy picking projects to put into turnaround.

By Monday afternoon I got a phone call saying it was off -- X-Men was one of those in turnaround due to Orion's financial problems. The timing was just right to prevent the deal memo from being signed off on. I think that was the worst thing at all -- not even a kill fee.

As they say, that's showbiz.

One of the things that got me there, though, was being a comics fan and knowing the history of the characters and the title. And the approach we'd have taken? Strip it down and take it back...pretty much a similar approach to the one Singer finally took, although we would have had fewer effects due to the technical limitations at the time. Gene Warren's Fantasy II house would probably have handled most of the visual effects, with Peter Kuran's VCE handling some of the shinier stuff (Cyclop's optic blasts, for example.) No idea about prosthetic effects and animatronics; it's been a while. If I recall correctly they were looking to top out at $20 million on the budget, but I suspect that would have been cut back, given the financial issues.

http://js-kit.com/api/static/pop_commen ... 194#307262
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 10507
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest