Miscellaneous news from the movies!

[Seil]

And by that I mean there's going to be X-Men Origins: Charles Xavier. (http://justjared.buzznet.com/2010/05/27/james-mcavoy-professor-x-xmen-first-class/)

[Donomni]

Well, shit. Unlike the Wolverine movie, I might actually have to see this.

Like, seriously, totally unexpected to see this from Hollywood.

[RickZarber]

This is the saddest news. (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/05/30/36920-guillermo-del-toro-departs-the-hobbit/)

Man, I was looking forward to his version so much.

EDIT: A deeper exploration of the financial issues troubling MGM that have led to the prolonged delay in a greenlight for the Hobbit films. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/05/guillermo-del-toro-hobbit-mgm-peter-jackson-quits-baggins.html)

[Meister]

Let's have a dedicated thread to collect all those single movie news story links that would otherwise be good for only a few brief comments. I was just going to drop a few reminders about
Please avoid creating new threads with only one or a few links and very little personal input in the initial post.
but this seems like the better way to go about it. e: as an experiment, for now - let's see how things go with this setup.

[Magus]

I'm going to go ahead and assume that First Class absorbs X-Men Origins: Magneto into itself as well so we won't have to be subjected to two of these movies.

Hopefully Jackson will decide to come back and direct The Hobbit now if they can't find a competent replacement for Del Toro, as a producer and screen writer I'm under the impression he'd have to put a bunch of time into it anyway, might as well direct.

[RickZarber]

I'm going to go ahead and assume that First Class absorbs X-Men Origins: Magneto into itself as well so we won't have to be subjected to two of these movies.Ooh, which means Jared Hess (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0381478/) won't be directing the latter, as was long rumored. I'm for it!

Hopefully Jackson will decide to come back and direct The Hobbit now if they can't find a competent replacement for Del Toro, as a producer and screen writer I'm under the impression he'd have to put a bunch of time into it anyway, might as well direct.Well, except for he's flat out said he won't be directing--both because he has other projects lined up, and because he didn't want to "compete against himself" re: LotR. Not that it's impossible he might change his mind, but it's not looking that way right now.

[Lumenskir]

Atlas Shrugged on route to become four movies starting production soon.[/quote] Over/under on how long the final speech will be: Currently 1 and 1/8 movie.

[url=http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/05/internet_campaign_pushing_for.html]Yes. Yes Yes Yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes... (http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/atlas-shrugged-rights-holder-sets-june-production-start-whether-or-not-stars-align/)

[Magus]

I dunno, I was under the impression that at least one producer of films is always pretty closely involved with the director in the directorial process, I guess it would take up less time than directing because you aren't there everyday filming but it seems like it still takes a big chunk of your time up.

And whatever the ability of people to get one film involving Atlas Shrugged into theaters, I seriously doubt their ability to get four films into theaters if the creation of the second through fourth requires a good showing of the first. If they manage to get a good adaptation of Blood Meridian filmed, I'll say Atlas Shrugged has a chance, but thinking that audiences of any caliber, I don't care how hardcore Rand fans they are, want to sit through 4 movies worth of Atlas Shrugged is crazy.

Unless they introduce radioactive mutant alligators into the plot, of course.

"We’re shooting it because it’s a good movie with great characters."

Does he mean it's a good book with great characters, or is there already a screenplay or something that he is referring to, or what? And does he find good book synonymous with good story suitable for film or...? Does Atlas Shrugged have a plot that lends itself well to film? Film is all about action, there is not a lot of room for philosophizing, even if you are Steven Seagal. It's been proven!

"Polk said that the idea of cutting through the bureaucracy and just getting started is consistent with the book's themes of capitalism and taking entrepreneurial risk."

Lawl. Wouldn't want an endgame to shoot for before getting started! I see failure for this project's final culmination before it even begins.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Preliminairy call: Atlas Shrugged- Worst film ever made.

[RickZarber]

I dunno, I was under the impression that at least one producer of films is always pretty closely involved with the director in the directorial process, I guess it would take up less time than directing because you aren't there everyday filming but it seems like it still takes a big chunk of your time up. Wellp, here you go (http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/3760208/Peter-Jackson-may-direct-Hobbit):Sir Peter Jackson says he will step into the breach and direct The Hobbit himself if it becomes the only way to ensure the US$150 million (NZ$219m) film is made after the sudden departure of director Guillermo del Toro.

"If that's what I have to do to protect Warner Bros' investment, then obviously that's one angle which I'll explore," he said. But stepping in as director would be difficult as he had signed writer and director contracts with Hollywood studios for two other films, with one likely to begin next year. "The other studios may not let me out of the contracts."

Regarding Donald Glover as Spider-Man: I think that's a fascinating idea! Might give the movie the edge it needs to quickly differentiate itself from Raimi's bloated outings in the public eye.

Then again, at one point Colin Salmon was up for the role of James Bond, and Hollywood shot that down pretty fast... I fear they're still too much entrenched in the "moviegoers only want white male leads" ideology.

Well, that and I can imagine a lot of complaining and outrage from inflexible minds in the fandom.

[Magus]

If Atlas Shrugged does come out, at last the American public at large can ask, "Wait, on this commune of high-minded Objectivist creative minds, who is going to shovel the horse manure around the tomato plants so they can eat?"

Yay, Jackson is directing! Yay! Screw contracts for other films!

Now if they only get the same Gandalf and Elrond back we'll be set...

A black Spider-Man would probably work, I can't really think of a reason it wouldn't. Donald Glover is certainly funny enough to pull off being a weak nerd no one likes well enough. They will never do it, though, possibly because they don't see any need to change the formula.

As for the fandom, the fans do like things to stay the same as in the comics. I'm not sure how the character of Peter Parker would really change from being portrayed by a black guy, though. Like, James Bond, well he's a British secret agent, but Peter Parker's from New York, he can be portrayed by any race, it's New York.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2010/jun/01/dilbert-comic-strip-film-adaptations
So they are making a Dilbert movie. Hmmmm....

[Viridis]

All movie adaptations are terrible, terrible ideas unless proven otherwise.

[RickZarber]

Dilbert will only have a chance of being good if it is like the animated series; that is, almost nothing like the comic strip.

[bluestarultor]

Dilbert will only have a chance of being good if it is like the animated series; that is, almost nothing like the comic strip.

Maybe it's just because I'm an IT professional, but I've come to appreciate the comic strip a lot more.

[Lumenskir]

All movie adaptations are terrible, terrible ideas unless proven otherwise.
Uh, ok: There Will Be Blood, American Psycho, Dark Knight, Josie and the Pussycats, Blade Runner, No Country for Old Men, Children of Men, Total Recall, Disney Animated movies based off of old fables, Adaptation, Ghost World, American Splendor, the list goes on.

Unless...were you trying to say that all movie adaptations are bad ideas until a good film is made? Because that goes for everything.
Dilbert will only have a chance of being good if it is like the animated series; that is, almost nothing like the comic strip.
I think this is true of adaptations. If you try to directly transcribe the original work into a film, it just comes out as muddled. Better if you just take the general feel of the original work and make a movie with the same skin. I think P.T. Anderson described it as having the original work nearby to act as a giver of ideas, not as a blueprint.

[Magus]

Dilbert will only make sense if it stars Drew Carey. Then again the Drew Carey show was only really similar to Dilbert when Drew was at work...

There Will Be Blood was pretty great but it was actually a pretty poor adaption of Oil! all told, it only covered like the first 100 pages or something and then did its own thing.

I don't think book adaptations are automatically bad, especially with books that have a certain story structure and have enough plot events in them to carry the movie forward. Atlas Shrugged doesn't seem like it'll make a very exciting movie, let alone 4, but I wouldn't say all adaptations of films are bad, there have been enough good ones to show they can be done...

[bluestarultor]

A black Spider-Man would probably work, I can't really think of a reason it wouldn't. Donald Glover is certainly funny enough to pull off being a weak nerd no one likes well enough. They will never do it, though, possibly because they don't see any need to change the formula.

As for the fandom, the fans do like things to stay the same as in the comics. I'm not sure how the character of Peter Parker would really change from being portrayed by a black guy, though. Like, James Bond, well he's a British secret agent, but Peter Parker's from New York, he can be portrayed by any race, it's New York.

Don't know how I missed this.


The only difference would be cosmetic. Peter Parker wouldn't gain or lose anything by being black, because at the base, he's still Peter Parker, a geeky student who grows up into a geeky photographer. That's why it'll never happen. There's no point other than to say you did. It's not worth pissing off the fanbase, especially since they are already by remaking a series that's not even a decade old yet. There's a difference between poking the bear and poking the bear, covering yourself in honey, and saying "treat me rough, sugar."

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Best adapations: Welle's The Trial, Apocalypse Now, The Godfather, Alice by Svankmeyer, TMNT 2: Secret of the Ooze

[Lumenskir]

There Will Be Blood was pretty great but it was actually a pretty poor adaption of Oil! all told, it only covered like the first 100 pages or something and then did its own thing.
This is pretty much the reason why it's such a great adaptation. Oil!'s 'protagonist' (which Bunny is by the thinnest of margins) is less a character than a way for Sinclair to talk directly to the audience about how awesome socialism/communism is. The movie takes the same basic message (capitalism is bad) and makes it into a character study of what all consuming greed will do to a person, rather than just drone on and on about how much communism is teh roxxors.
The only difference would be cosmetic. Peter Parker wouldn't gain or lose anything by being black, because at the base, he's still Peter Parker, a geeky student who grows up into a geeky photographer. That's why it'll never happen. There's no point other than to say you did. It's not worth pissing off the fanbase, especially since they are already by remaking a series that's not even a decade old yet. There's a difference between poking the bear and poking the bear, covering yourself in honey, and saying "treat me rough, sugar."
I don't think you're quite getting what the thrust of this particular movement is about. Like you said, the change is cosmetic...so why not let everybody try out for it? It's not about doing it for the PC-cred, it's just trying to widen the gates so that all potential Spideys are considered. There's nothing to lose by letting a charismatic and funny black(/Indian/latino/asian/etc) guy prove that he's got what it takes to be the best Peter Parker/Spider-Man.

And for Donald Glover in particular, have you seen any of his standup? It's mostly about him being a geeky black middle-class kid. You're telling me he wouldn't bring a funnier edge to the character than Tobey Mopeguire?

[Magus]

Would having a black Peter Parker alter the dynamic between him and Tombstone? I'm assuming not since there is no real dynamic there. Anyway, I'm all for it since there wouldn't be any other plot reasons that would even come up.

Like I said, There Will Be Blood is a great movie but since it seemed to move so far away from Sinclair's original plot it's hard to say it's a great adaptation...this is a larger issue I should probably get around to making a separate thread about because I'd like to see if people feel that adaptations can be loose with the original plot and still be good adaptations or if there is a requirement that a certain percentage of it match up with what happens in the book or other thing that is being adapted.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm of the opinion if ou follow the plot of the original you are probably a bad adaptation. Adaptions are about maintaining the feel, the ideas, the thrust of the original whereas plot is really a secondary concern. Different mediums have dfiferent requirements of plot so oyu should pretty much always change it.
And plot in most cases is not that important to maintain the work.

[bluestarultor]

I don't think you're quite getting what the thrust of this particular movement is about. Like you said, the change is cosmetic...so why not let everybody try out for it? It's not about doing it for the PC-cred, it's just trying to widen the gates so that all potential Spideys are considered. There's nothing to lose by letting a charismatic and funny black(/Indian/latino/asian/etc) guy prove that he's got what it takes to be the best Peter Parker/Spider-Man.

And for Donald Glover in particular, have you seen any of his standup? It's mostly about him being a geeky black middle-class kid. You're telling me he wouldn't bring a funnier edge to the character than Tobey Mopeguire?

Would having a black Peter Parker alter the dynamic between him and Tombstone? I'm assuming not since there is no real dynamic there. Anyway, I'm all for it since there wouldn't be any other plot reasons that would even come up.

I'm not saying it's impossible for Glover to do a really great job with it. The guy looks like a black Peter Parker. I'm just saying that it would piss off the hardcore fans even more than the reboot already is. He might be great at it, but he probably wouldn't end up being a popular choice. Peter Parker has always been white, and there would be a lot of people who just wouldn't like the change on principle.

On top of that, call me paranoid, but do we really want Twitter to rule the world? It's fine to get ideas and such from the Internet, but once you give in to this kind of movement, people know that it works and will abuse it. And then when it doesn't get them literally everything they want, they bitch.

Case in point, Jericho and The Dresden Files. For Jericho, people all mailed in a nut of some sort as a movement to get it back on the air, and it happened. Then people did the same thing with a single drumstick (for drums, not chicken) to bring back Dresden, and they're still doing it and it's still not happening. Because such a campaign succeeded once, people decided to use it again because, hey, it worked once, right? Only the studio execs put their foot down and said they weren't going to be taken advantage of like that. The fans decided that they just needed to flood them with more drumsticks and you could probably build a low-income housing development out of them at this point.



Again, this has nothing to do with the talents of non-white actors and everything to do with the character and giving into mass pressure. Maybe the studio will break down and let it happen and maybe it'll be great, but you know there will be controversy over it.

[Magus]

What is a better word for the kind of thing I think is a good adaptation, then? Translation? You'd think there would be a better term to describe the different types of book-to-film projects, one's that are as close as possible to the work and other's that just try to maintain elements of them.

Executives getting taken advantage of? I assure you they only greenlit Jericho's ending because the high amount of nuts they received made them believe it would get high enough ratings to make a profit. Dresden undoubtedly didn't receive enough drumsticks (from separate people) for them to go for it, because I'm sure the amount of people watching the Dresden Files was way lower than a CBS show, since it was on SciFi.

Glover-as-Spider-Man is fine as long as it's based entirely on him being better than whatever other actor's try out for it. If it's just to have a black Spider-Man then, yeah, it's disingenuous. But if the studio came out and said that it was because Glover was the best for the role then it would probably assuage about half the people. Of the remaining half who were still mad about it most would probably just be fan boys who want it to be as similar as possible and the few left over are probably just hardcore conspiracy theorists who think it's being done just to have a black guy and for no other reason, like Jackson as Mace Windu or something.

[bluestarultor]

Executives getting taken advantage of? I assure you they only greenlit Jericho's ending because the high amount of nuts they received made them believe it would get high enough ratings to make a profit. Dresden undoubtedly didn't receive enough drumsticks (from separate people) for them to go for it, because I'm sure the amount of people watching the Dresden Files was way lower than a CBS show, since it was on SciFi.

I suppose you're right. I might hold a bias on that because what I saw of Dresden was really good, where what I saw of Jericho seemed like they tried to stretch an episode of the Twilight Zone out into a full series.

Glover-as-Spider-Man is fine as long as it's based entirely on him being better than whatever other actor's try out for it. If it's just to have a black Spider-Man then, yeah, it's disingenuous. But if the studio came out and said that it was because Glover was the best for the role then it would probably assuage about half the people. Of the remaining half who were still mad about it most would probably just be fan boys who want it to be as similar as possible and the few left over are probably just hardcore conspiracy theorists who think it's being done just to have a black guy and for no other reason, like Jackson as Mace Windu or something.

I think for me it's just the whole tone of the movement being "HEY Y NOT MAK A BLAK SPIDRMANZ!!!1one!two" I actually like Glover's personal attitude towards it, where he'd like to earn the role, but the movement's seems very much just for the sake of it, which is what I was commenting on.

[Lumenskir]

I'm not saying it's impossible for Glover to do a really great job with it. The guy looks like a black Peter Parker. I'm just saying that it would piss off the hardcore fans even more than the reboot already is. He might be great at it, but he probably wouldn't end up being a popular choice. Peter Parker has always been white, and there would be a lot of people who just wouldn't like the change on principle.
Then I think in this setting, where the 'hardcore'* fans are already pissed, why not go for broke? Put out an open casting call, race be damned, its not like there will be ramifications if they get even more pissed. Are they not going to buy two tickets or something?

*From what I understand of comics fans, hardcore just means "Hates everything that isn't THEIR vision" correct? Sort of what were seeing with the Epilogue?
On top of that, call me paranoid, but do we really want Twitter to rule the world? It's fine to get ideas and such from the Internet, but once you give in to this kind of movement, people know that it works and will abuse it. And then when it doesn't get them literally everything they want, they bitch.
...I have no idea what this means, and it just sounds like a separate beef you have with petitions in general. We need to take away any avenues of getting mass participation in pop culture? And this is because of the proven track record consisting of one (1) show that was brought back for an abortion of a season and one (1) show that...never came back.

Do you think the Twitterati have some sort of mind control effect that only works if enough people use hashtags, and you don't want them to realize this power and use it for evil or something?

And hey, speaking of departures from fan canon, they're remaking(/rebooting) that darling of the emo set, The Crow (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/06/01/the-crow-update/). That Godzilla non-sequitur immediately brought to mind a giant crow with scenehair in an Underoath hoodie, and if that image isn't included in the final product then it has failed THIS HARDCORE FAN.

[bluestarultor]

Then I think in this setting, where the 'hardcore'* fans are already pissed, why not go for broke? Put out an open casting call, race be damned, its not like there will be ramifications if they get even more pissed. Are they not going to buy two tickets or something?

*From what I understand of comics fans, hardcore just means "Hates everything that isn't THEIR vision" correct? Sort of what were seeing with the Epilogue?

I'm thinking less in terms of self-entitled fans, who are never happy no matter what you do, and more in terms of the loyal followers whose reaction is "why the fuck would you do that!?" You know, the people who wouldn't give it a chance and spread bad press before it ever came out, but who would later grudgingly acknowledge that it wasn't half bad if you tied them to a chair and taped their eyelids open.

...I have no idea what this means, and it just sounds like a separate beef you have with petitions in general. We need to take away any avenues of getting mass participation in pop culture? And this is because of the proven track record consisting of one (1) show that was brought back for an abortion of a season and one (1) show that...never came back.

Do you think the Twitterati have some sort of mind control effect that only works if enough people use hashtags, and you don't want them to realize this power and use it for evil or something?

Well, sorry for the sample size of one, but looking at a lot of society (such as all the people who decided even one cent was too much to pay for a game pack valued at $80 (http://www.cracked.com/article_18571_5-reasons-its-still-not-cool-to-admit-youre-gamer_p2.html)), we're pretty widely entitled. People don't get that way by not getting what they want all the time, and, quite frankly, social media is becoming quite powerful. Look at Anon and all they've done (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=34451&highlight=anon+poll+influential).

My concern is that, being entitled, if people on Twitter can get what they want just by trending a hash tag, it sends out a pretty limp message from the studio.

Obviously, there are good ways to handle it, such as the suggestion of just having open casting, but there are also bad ways of handling it, and ways of handling it that are good in principle, but can be misconstrued.

Basically, my view is that not everybody is going to come out of it happy, and I'd rather see the studio keep as much integrity as possible, rather than telling people that by pressing the ReTweet button they can holler loud enough and long enough to get what they want.

[Eldezar]

Michael Clark Duncan played a really cool King Pin. He did not play Kingpin anything near the one I grew up watching in the 90's, but he was still a really cool King Pin.

[RickZarber]

As cool as I think it would be, Donald Glover will not be cast as Spider-Man for one single, sad reason: Hollywood movies with black male leads do not sell well overseas--specifically and especially in South America and Europe. (With the important exception of Will Smith films.)

This is what Hollywood cares about when it comes to a huge project like Spider-Man. It's not enough for it to do well domestically--even if it earns back its cost in the states alone. A property like Spider-Man has to be a hit globally. And Sony will not risk rocking the boat with a (I'm guessing at least) billion-dollar franchise.

Fan reaction, fairness in casting, social commentary: all of that pales in consideration when it comes to profitability.

[Lumenskir]

back its cost in the states alone. A property like Spider-Man has to be a hit globally. And Sony will not risk rocking the boat with a (I'm guessing at least) billion-dollar franchise.

Fan reaction, fairness in casting, social commentary: all of that pales in consideration when it comes to profitability.
Goshdarnit, I had an entire post planned out that started with "And studios have had integrity since when" but you blew my original statement out of the water. Do you read HitFix as well (just because they made the same argument like two days ago)? Assuming that mass corporations (which the studios either are or are owned by) care about anything other than the bottom line is naive, I'll say it.

But as regards the 'entitlement' issue...I dunno, Blues, you're talking like a man three generations removed. If people on Twitter can influence studio behavior at all, that isn't a bad thing. Really, it just signals that there this a new form of fan interaction to watch out for. I'm going to predict that for the most part, the Twitterati are going to fail, and fail horribly. But whenever they do eke out a 'win'...I don't see how a number of fans expressing their desires and winning is at all bad. Hollywood, and the studios therein, should bow down to the fans on occasion, provided they have the right intention (or hell, even the wrong intention: pop culture needs the screwups as much as the successes).

[RickZarber]

@ Lumenskir: I read a lot of movie news articles online, and online articles tend to link to other online articles, and I'm not very good at paying attention to what sites I'm reading them on. So... entirely possible?

And @ blues, you're crazy if you think Hollywood doesn't love Twitter. Word of mouth is the holy grail to marketers; the more you can get other people to do the advertising for you, the more profit you turn. I've seen studios provide hashtags in advertisements in the hopes that people start using them. Nothing beats free promotion. Even if they have humble intentions to do right by the fans, listening to their input is still a marketing spin.

[Lumenskir]

Holy crap, Brett Ratner wants to make a gritty 3-D update of Snow White (http://www.deadline.com/2010/06/fairy-tales-are-hot-relativity-media-acquires-new-version-of-snow-white/). I can't confirm whether that story is actually real or just the result of a Bad Movie Idea MadLib.

[Kim]

Fox is making a Gulliver's Travels movie starring Jack Black (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhoktf7X0aQ)

sigh...

They have the girl who played Donna Noble in there, but so far that's the only good thing about it.

[BloodyMage]

Unless you're not a fan of Catherine Tate...

[Kim]

Unless you're not a fan of Catherine Tate...

Then I guess that means there's nothing good about it.

I liked her, she was the only decent New Who companion. Also, keep in mind that New Who is my only experience with her.

[BloodyMage]

Meh, she had her moments but I didn't like her more than of the others really. I did like Martha, but she was dragged down by a whole season of unrequited love so yeah. She's alright in Doctor Who, and I'm not a fan of her sketch show work, so no, I'm not going to go see this movie to see her.

That said, I probably won't go see this movie because it looks more like some sort of oddball romantic comedy fantasy than an actual Gulliver's Travel adaptation. Chances are it only goes to the first island, and none of the later super intelligent horses that leave Gulliver a misanthrope, which is a shame because I'd go see that film.

Edit: They probably will include the part where he pees on a castle fire to put it out. I'm sure it'll be hilarious....<_<

[RickZarber]

That trailer seemed like an interesting movie right up until the Bermuda triangle / Gulliver's Travels adaptation part. I wanted to see that movie.

Also what is Jason Segel doing in this movie.

[Magus]

There's already a great Gulliver's Travels miniseries starring the guy who played Becker, why in the world would we need one starring Jack Black?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

So Godard has a new film Film Socialisme.
Here is the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLuWoz9OpqU It's the entire film speed up to fit into 2 minutes.
Also the subtitles on the film are deliberalety wrong and designed to be incoherent so to really watch it you need to know French and English.
Hahahaha good shit.

[EVILNess]

To be fair, there are two Jack Blacks, and depending on how "Zany" he has to be the movie could be good.

In fact, I would postulate that a Jack Black movie's goodness is directly inverse of how zany Jack Black was in the movie.

[Magus]

What movie was he not "zany" in, Be Kind Rewind?

So Godard has a new film Film Socialisme.
Here is the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLuWoz9OpqU It's the entire film speed up to fit into 2 minutes.
Also the subtitles on the film are deliberalety wrong and designed to be incoherent so to really watch it you need to know French and English.
Hahahaha good shit.

How delightfully pretentious!

[Krylo]

It's the entire film speed up to fit into 2 minutes.

There wasn't a single explosion or gun fight in that movie.

I declare it to be shit.

[Magus]

I think little "tricks" like "purposefully incoherent subtitles" are kind of old hat at this point. What would really blow everyone's mind is if Godard made a parody of regular movies by simply making a movie without things like that. Unfortunately unless everyone knew who Godard was ahead of seeing the movie they might not get it...

[EVILNess]

What movie was he not "zany" in, Be Kind Rewind?


King Kong, his VA work (Shark Tale, Kung Fu Panda, Brutal Legend), The Holiday, School of Rock (This is a maybe).

[Magus]

He was pretty zany in School of Rock, man. I remember at least one scene of him jumping into frame and perhaps pretending to play a guitar or something in that one.

[EVILNess]

He was pretty zany in School of Rock, man. I remember at least one scene of him jumping into frame and perhaps pretending to play a guitar or something in that one.

Still, School of Rock is pretty low on his list of zany jobs.

Basically, what I am trying to say about Jack Black is that when he isn't trying too hard to be funny is when he is at his most funny.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I think little "tricks" like "purposefully incoherent subtitles" are kind of old hat at this point. What would really blow everyone's mind is if Godard made a parody of regular movies by simply making a movie without things like that. Unfortunately unless everyone knew who Godard was ahead of seeing the movie they might not get it...

He had a period in the 80s where he did that for a few films

[Geminex]

I have a theory:
Every piece of audio-visual media can be turned into a parody of itself by just adding an appropriate laugh track. I mean, imagine star wars with one. Or lord of the rings.

[Kim]

I have a theory:
Every piece of audio-visual media can be turned into a parody of itself by just adding an appropriate laugh track. I mean, imagine star wars with one. Or lord of the rings.

Depends on whether or not you're as pretentious as I am regarding what qualifies as parody.

[synkr0nized]

That's not parody.

[Geminex]

A parody (pronounced /?pær?di?/; also called send-up or spoof), in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody

I won't claim to have much taste, but how is my usage of "parody" incorrect?
The inclusion of a laugh-track in contemporary audio-visual art usually indicates to an audience "you are supposed to find this funny". Mind you, it's a very crude method, and one I personally dislike , but it indicates the artist's intention of amusing the audience.

As such, inserting a laugh-track into a non-comedic piece of AV art would, falsely, indicate to the audience that the artist intended for them to find this piece of art (or, in any case, the moments accompanied by said laugh track) funny. Accompanying a dramatic moment with such a laugh-track would highlight that, while this moment might seem dramatic from one perspective, from another perspective it could just as easily be seen as quite ridiculous.

And I think that highlighting the ridiculousness inherent in a piece of art qualifies as mockery of the original. As such, parody. Or was there a fallacy in there somewhere?

But hell, I was joking. It was an idle thought that I wanted to share with people. I don't want to get into an argument over this, I'm done here. Excuse me while I call up lady gaga to see if I could borrow any of her taste.

Edit:
One disclaimer, I don't think laugh tracks can improve anything. But they can be a tool for mockery. And honestly, I don't see how that's tasteless.

[Kim]

And I think that highlighting the ridiculousness inherent in a piece of art qualifies as mockery of the original. As such, parody. Or was there a fallacy in there somewhere?

means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation.

That last word is arguably the most important part of the whole thing.

[Lumenskir]

Yay, no Voltron film! Boo, 'edgy' Voltron cartoon series. (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118020276.html?categoryid=4027&cs=1&nid=2562&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+variety/headlines+(Variety+-+Latest+News))

A-Team remake director wants to make films of Taskmaster or Preacher (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/102138-exclusive-joe-carnahan-on-taskmaster-and-preacher)...or whatever you'll let him take a stab at, he won't care, it's not like he has some vast store of dignity he's protecting.

[Magus]

Yeah, that's not parody, to add a laugh track to something not funny (or even tragic), that's something else. It probably has a name, too. Ironic something or other.

[Lumenskir]

Torchwood coming to Starz (http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2010/06/07/starz-acquires-torchwood/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+entertainmentweekly/ausiellofiles+(Entertainment+Weekly's+The+Ausiello +Files)) for its new season. This means no American version, plus stories that take place outside of the three square miles surrounding their headquarters. Plus, it'll be on-demand from Netflix. Now they just need to revive all of the characters they killed and we could be on to something.

[Donomni]

Here's a trailer for Disney's Rapunzel movie. (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/disneys-tangled-teaser.html)

I have to say, I'm being optimistic about this.

[Tev]

Here's a trailer for Disney's Rapunzel movie. (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/disneys-tangled-teaser.html)

I have to say, I'm being optimistic about this.
[Theater Voice]Torn from her familly as a baby and stuffed high in a tower, young http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/4703/214850-millia_large.jpg yearns for life outside her cage. When a young thief stumbles upon her by accident, the adventure is on![/Theater Voice]

[phil_]

What happened to "I want to bring the warmth and intuitive feel of hand-drawn to CGI?" This looks like all Pixar's other films. Where's my moving oil painting, Disney?

This is not to say that the trailer lessened my interest or anything. It actually got a chuckle from me, plus, four-year-old bombast aside, it does look really pretty.

[Wigmund]

Yay, no Voltron film! Boo, 'edgy' Voltron cartoon series. (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118020276.html?categoryid=4027&cs=1&nid=2562&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+variety/headlines+(Variety+-+Latest+News))

From Article:
Mattel will tie-in with the anniversary to launch toys based on the classic "Voltron" range, as well as action figures and playsets that revolve around an edgier, modernized robot. There is no date on when the toys will hit shelves.

"What's paramount is getting the toys right," Ted Koplar, president of St. Louis-based WEP told Daily Variety. "They're pretty involved toys that have to transform and fit together."

WEP and Classic Media had been developing a live action feature for some time but scribes, including Justin Marks, have yet to lock down the right tone, producers said.

Hasbro took the opposite approach with "Transformers" and "G.I. Joe," relying on the first films in the franchises in 2007 and 2009 to introduce new toys for the lines.

The move to TV makes sense: "Transformers," "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" and "G.I. Joe" were introduced to kids via shows produced by Hasbro and Mattel to sell toys. "It's an exciting way to introduce the brand to a generation that isn't familiar with 'Voltron,'" Koplar said.


So the late 80s/early 90s are back, cartoons as 30 minute toy commercials has returned.

[Lumenskir]

So the late 80s/early 90s are back, cartoons as 30 minute toy commercials has returned.
Sheeeeit, when did they ever leave? What is Ben Ten but a show with a built in amount of collectible action figures?

In other depressing news, funny three-scene characters are now getting their own movies (http://www.deadline.com/2010/06/exclusive-paramount-to-make-les-grossman-film-for-tom-cruise/). Personally, I would think that a movie created to mock how insipid and inbred Hollywood ideas being the birthplace of an insipid and inbred one-note character would cause whatever film stock they try to use during filming to burst into flames within the canister, but apparently the producers are banking on us living in a universe without a merciful God.

[Flarecobra]

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-the-smurfs-get-real-in-first-trailer.html

..Goddamnit Hollywood.... always with the raping of the childhood...

I don't know what's worse: It's computer generated...or taking place in New York.

Or the godawful stuff they put in the trailer as a soundtrack to go with it...

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Why can't it be both? Yeah I'm going to pretend they didn't just try to make a live action smurfs movie now.

[Magus]

Wasn't the Smurfs set in Ye Olden Dayes?

[Flarecobra]

Yeah, but they use magic to go to NYC.

[Krylo]

On the one hand, we have live action Smurfs in New York.

On the other hand, it's starring NPH, one of the Glee kids, and the smurfs look half way decent.

I don't know. Initial reaction is to hate it, but is it possible to hate something with NPH?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Yeah, but they use magic to go to NYC.

In the cartoon they had magical time travel crystals at one point. So its kind of faithful.

[Flarecobra]

On the one hand, we have live action Smurfs in New York.

On the other hand, it's starring NPH, one of the Glee kids, and the smurfs look half way decent.

I don't know. Initial reaction is to hate it, but is it possible to hate something with NPH?

Do you also assocate the Smurfs with crappy rap music, like what happoned in the video?

[Krylo]

Do you also assocate the Smurfs with crappy rap music, like what happoned in the video?

There was no rap in that video.

There was a cliched bass beat reminiscent of rap played over the standard smurf, "Lalala".