Comments -

All jorson28's Comments

Showing items 91 - 100 of 110
<<  <  7 8 9 10 11 >  >>  

Millar Denied SUPERMAN Pitch by WB (Article) - 10/24/2007 6:19:45 PM

I have no bias for or against Mr. Millar because in terms of his work because I've never read it, but I have to agree with everyone here that Warners' position is stupid and, may I add, that based on Millar's printed statement, he's showing infinitely more professionalism about this than should be reasonably expected of him. In any case, it's a ridiculous situation for the reasons already mentioned and, not only that, but considering the material -- a sequel / follow-up to Brian Singer's "Superman Returns," a movie pitched by someone NOT under contract to Warners and ONLY associated with Marvel movies (X-Men). What gives? It's as if the execs are going out of their way to avoid anyone that actually KNOWS the source material or has any experience or track record with comic book characters whatsoever.

Millar Denied SUPERMAN Pitch by WB (Article) - 10/24/2007 6:00:16 PM

"- why the urge from the studio itself to exert extra effort to look for a new writing team?" Because the original writers quit, that's why -- as was reported YESTERDAY.

Wanted!: Writers for Live Action STAR WARS (Article) - 10/14/2007 1:36:51 PM

'All well and good, Metalwater, but do you intend to just open with Luke already having joined the dark side (something he did in a Dark Horse comic series once before)? 'Seems to me that it ought to at least be about WHY Luke does that -- and not in flashbacks -- considering he's probably been one of the least likely to do so in the whole saga. I mean, to borrow your own sentiments, where's the point (or substance) in boasting that you "think outside the (a) box" when you simultaneously don't even recognize the same metaphorical box? You can't think outside of something that doesn't exist, either to you or to everyone else. I applaud the boldness and, given some justification the events you describe could be very entertaining, but if nothing else, you're working within an extremely well established set of parameters with equally well-established characters. That must be respected (at least in this instance) and it can be without sacrificing originality in content and approach - example: Nicholas Meyer & "Star Trek 2." Meyer was a newcomer to the material with very little personal reverance for its canon, but still managed to make a great, original "Star Trek" movie that still spoke to what fans loved about the source material. In that case, all the extra-box thinking in the world won't do any good if your core audience isn't given sufficient reason to accept such a major change (not reinterpretation) to such a pivotal character. In conclusion, I could post an idea of my own instead of (or in addition to) criticizing / questioning someone else's, but it just seems a bit superfluous. Also, the faults you list as inherent to "Return of the Jedi" are just part of Lucas' original intention of starting and ending a story "in the middle" like one or more episodes in a 30's serial like "Flash Gordon."

Unspecified Title (Article) - 9/6/2007 8:42:13 AM

Apart from the endless vulgarity, Zombie's remake of Halloween isn't necessarily bad, it just defeats its own purpose. Clearly the only thing Zombie could add to the existing material is an impetus for the audience to psychoanalyze Michael Myers, but once the film has to admit that Myers is a born-psychopath (as it pretty much does very early on) that would have been a killer with or without a bad childhood or any other motivation, all the background with the kid and the asylum becomes superfluous and you're just waiting for stuff you've seen before -- which you eventually get in the third act but very little of it, forced and out of order.

Unspecified Title (Article) - 8/25/2007 11:38:49 AM

I predicted this -- not that it's set in stone but it was so obvious that this might happen. I suspect that since they can't tie any of the superheroes to their respective, current theatrical incarnations then they'll just make this a theatrical spin-off of Smallville. That would be the best thing to do -- I don't think audiences would know what to make of this movie with ALL the heroes recast, but I think they could have a major draw if they tied it to SMALLVILLE and, presumably, they could film these properties simultaneously using some of the sets and other elements from the show. Well, depending upon the story, of course, but if I were a JLA producer that's what I'd do.

SPIDER-MAN 3 Hits DVD Oct 30 (Article) - 8/4/2007 4:40:22 PM

What is an "emo kid?" I've been hearing that description for months, ever since Spider-Man 3 came out, and nobody ever bothers to define it. What is it? Where does the term come from? In lamen's terms, what is the etimology of this idiom? [or something... bad at lamen's speak on account of I never considered myself a lamen :) ]

Miller Directing JUSTICE LEAGUE? (Article) - 8/2/2007 6:19:00 PM

Like I said, no way Bale is going to be Batman in this and I can't see them recasting the role when the general consensus is that Bale is the best Batman on film, perhaps better than Keaton (certainly physically better). Routh is a maybe, but I'm still suspecting a Smallville-esque scenario. I mean, this film would have to appeal to a different demographic not to compete with the concurrent Superman and Batman franchises, which is something I don't think Warners wants since they won't even let the Bruce Wayne character on live television, and the only thing that makes any sense is to do this movie with the Smallville cast plus some new actors or in a way similar to Smallville. Also, I hear there's an animated direct-to-video JLA movie being done with new voice actors, so I really wonder just what is going on here. In any case, Bale's absence is almost a certainty, Routh's involvement a big maybe, and something akin to a big screen Smallville spin-off, in my opinion, more than likely.

Miller Directing JUSTICE LEAGUE? (Article) - 8/2/2007 3:08:15 PM

Don't count on both Routh AND Bale joining. I might could see Routh doing it since he's still fairly non-established and he would probably want a different go at a more action-oriented take on the Superman character, but Bale doesn't strike me as the kind of actor to do this. He's only really doing the Batman movies because of his loyalty to Nolan and Nolan's "realistic" approach. Bale sees Batman, as Nolan portrays him anyway, as just another great dramatic role, but those qualities would be compromised by having Batman as one of a half-dozen superheroes in one film. Besides, Nolan probably isn't anywhere near being involved in this film and I think Bale appreciates that Batman's involvement in this would, for Bale's version of him anyway, be very against-character and almost an embarrassment. Frankly, I still can't believe they're doing this. They'd have to be cashing in on something and I have trouble seeing the two current Superman and Batman franchises being melded like that, let alone in a movie with superheroes not yet given the cinematic treatment. If they do this, I think we can expect something closer to the "Smallville" interpretation of the DC characters than anything, especially considering the family-movie talent they've got behind the scenes. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they tapped Tom Welling and others in his show for the Superman part and others, releasing the film right at the end of the "Smallvlille" series. After all, even if it didn't have Wonder Woman or the Green Lantern, a version of the Justice League is already established in the "Smallville" continuum.

INCREDIBLE HULK Tearing Up Manhattan (Article) - 7/23/2007 3:55:11 PM

THE DARK KNIGHT comes out on July 18th, not June. Double-check your facts next time.

Unspecified Title (Article) - 7/8/2007 12:41:21 PM

One more thing -- regarding "Citizen Kane" being the "greatest movie ever made" -- I've seen the movie several times and in college I made it a point to learn just about everything I could about Orson Welle. I think the reason the movie is called that is because it had a couple of majorFIRSTS and a unique history: 1. FIRST movie to realistically depict ceilings on sets and to shoot angles from beneath the soundstage floor, etc. -- owes mostly to cinematographer Greg Toland 2. FIRST to really take on a powerful man or corporation in William Randolph Hearst and his newspaper empire, using the decadence of Xanadu as a fictitious (and not altogether realistic) doppelganger for Hearst's San Simien (misspelled probably -- sorry). 3. FIRST and, unless I'm mistaken, only studio movie to be bought by Hollywood moguls for the sake of the destruction of ALL prints to avoid financial ruin at the hands of Hearst. 4. Welles' age -- he was 26 when the film was released and had never made or been in a movie before. So, even though the movie is good, I'll readily admit that the whole "greatest" thing is probably more honorary than objective or factual even amongst critics.


Date Joined: January 9, 2007