Today's News: marvelous termination of Trek director

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158238/eerste_trailer_terminator_genisys

This trailer is receiving a lot of negative feedback. I can understand why. The plot exposed in the first half of the trailer bears a striking recemblance to that of the original 1984 Terminator movie, so much so you would think it's a remake. Then the twist kicks in and things start to turn out differently. The cheap explanation for this (dis)similar turn of events is the 'alternate timeline' route so popular in recent years. Where everyone hailed it as an inventive and effective way of rebooting things while paying homage to the original works with 2009's Star Trek - I didn't, I thought it was disrepectable baloney - by now people have gotten rightly sick of it. Which doesnt leave much to look forward to for Terminator: Genisys. It's apparently another chase movie with all the usual suspects in place. Poor Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese have to try and shake off two different Terminators - the genuine article and the nifty liquid metal type - but get help from an older model reprogrammed in the future. Basically, the plot of T1 and T2 combined. With slick modern FX of course. Some nice new faces (among them both Emilia Clarke and Jason Clarke: no relation, just the eerie hand of fate involved in this bit of casting) in age old roles. And old fossil Schwarzenegger once again doing his Terminator thing, since he's the guy that always says 'I'll be back' and sticks to that promise. Problem is, he need not be involved. Terminator Salvation showed us there's different ways to explore this universe than dragging poor old Arnold in the mix and rehasing the same plot over and over again. Sadly, Salvation failed to convince audiences and box office of that fact. So now studio execs think we'll settle for the routine of the first three movies instead, just tweaked via messing with timelines because that is 'a thing' right now. If only it was an alternate time line, where alternate things happened. From a story perspective, we seem to be stuck in a time loop instead...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158247/marvel_bevestigt_casting_strange_en_jones

Double casting of Marvel protagonists this week. First, Benedict Cumberbatch has finally been outed as Doctor Strange. Not so surprising, since his name kept reappearing in this casting contest. With Tom Hardy opting for Suicide Squad after all, Cumberbatch proved the last man standing. So the British actor will soon assume the mantle of the Sorcerer Supreme and defend us from interdimensional wrongdoers accordingly. I'm cool with that. Sherlock and The Hobbit have made me largely forget about his Khanberbatch debacle of Star Trek Into Darkness. The other Marvel casting news comes a bit more out of left field, since the project hadn't been discussed as much. Breaking Bad's Krysten Ritter will play Jessica Jones in the new Netflix show that is now called A.K.A. Jessica Jones. And it will debut in the fall of 2015, shortly after Daredevil first paves the way for the announced Defenders miniseries which will incorporate both characters plus two more. Since Ritter so far hasn't had any starring roles, I hope she proves up to the task. She surely made me cry when Heisenberg dramatically let her die in BB, so she's got my sympathy already.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158250/regisseur_star_trek_3_stapt_op

Well, that's just good news for Trek, for two reasons. First, giving the director's chair of a big blockbuster movie to someone who has never directed anything in his life is just an asinine idea (similar to handing the captain's chair to untested cadets, as inexplicably happened in the first Trek relaunch flick). Second, Orci already showed to have little respect or affinity with 40+ years of Trek lore in his piss poor screenplays of the previous two Trek reboot movies. So now someone can step in who does care and at least knows the score of directing. I'm fairly positive that person won't be Edgar Wright, who's on top of Paramount's short list. Considering the studio is in a real hurry to get this starship off the ground - should have built it in a space dock, guys - the new director will have to make do with the script that is available, which leaves little to no room for improvements at rewriting on his part. Wright just left Ant-Man after prepping it for the better part of a decade due to script issues with Marvel; you really think, as big a fanboy as he may be, he'll take kindly to not being allowed the slightest bit of leeway, with another big studio telling him exactly what to do and forebidding him any input of his own? Not gonna happen. Star Trek 3 is in real trouble. The 50th anniversary of the franchise is just around the corner and there's a strict deadline to be reached. There's no director, a script written by rookie writers involving the old and new cast alike (bad idea!!), and shooting is supposed to start within two months. If it's gonna be made at all in time, it's gonna be terribly rushed, and no movie profits from that. Once again, I blame J.J. Abrams for the trouble the franchise is in. He just left a series he never did care that much about to do what he always wanted to do (Star Wars), and things just deteriorated rapidly in his wake. Not to mention cast contracts will expire after having three pictures and I doubt any of them is willing to continue. The only good thing about this debacle is that the studio can only fix it by reboting the franchise yet again. It doesn't seem it can get worse, so a fresh fresh take may be just what Trek requires...

Today's News: more and more

News just keeps piling up. At times it seems like I'm the only one posting any on MovieScene lately. Which is one of the reasons my blog is witnessing a decrease in updates. Oh well, at least all this news means there is always something to post on my blog when there is time available.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156615/marvel_voegt_nog_vijf_films_toe_aan_huidige_planning

Seems overkill, to announce movies so far ahead without anything to go on but a title (at least, I hope Marvel has some to fill in those release dates, though they're not spilling those beans just yet), and of course, a plan. However, this is not so much about the movies, as it is a show of strength and confidence. Marvel flexes its muscles to let the world know they're totally prepared to accept DC's recent challenge in annual cinematic universe crafting. DC has so far revealed they're planning ahead up till 2019, now Marvel does the same. You didn't think it was a coincidence this latest planning of the House of Ideas ran until 2019, did you? Plus, DC so far sticks to one movie a year, while Marvel eagerly doubles that amount, and in case of 2017 even triples it. With this slate of release dates, Marvel is making a statement they mean to stay the biggest player in terms of superhero movies. And backed up by the ever expanding might of Disney, they can make good on it. However, unlike DC, Marvel hasn't named any properties yet that can fill those slots. They better put their money where their mouth is soon, because (most) people don't remember release dates, they remember names. Like The Batman in 2019. I wonder what marvel hero gets to go up against that one, DC's strongest franchise still. Ant-Man 2 maybe?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156632/nieuwe_comic-con_poster_jurassic_world

The first real Jurassic Park poster since 2001. And it's both beautiful and bad news. Of course, this is a great mix between the old - the thrashed Explorer vehicle, the beloved Velociraptor, the Isla Nublar setting - and the new - Jurassic World being built on the bones of the previous park in the background, but it also displays a disturbing, deeply rooted conservative attitude towards the JP dinosaurs. This is 2014. No respectable paleontologist will back that retro dinosaur as being an accurate representation of a Velociraptor. It worked in the early Nineties, but today's Raptors don't have arms like that and they are covered in feathers. However, Colin Trevorrow seems more adamant to recapture the glory of the first Jurassic Park film by reintroducing that vintage dinosaur look than by adhering to one of the elements that made JP great: making realistic animals of what otherwise would have been typical movie monsters. Say about Jurassic Park III's narrative quality what you will, at least it dared to show progression by adding feathered dinosaurs, and thus up-to-date science, to the mix. It would be a definite step back if Trevorrow chickened out on that just because audiences didn't think that much of JP III. Why? Because JP's representation of dinosaurs resonates strongly through popular culture. It's basically the dinosaur franchise that all others tend to copy. So if JP gets it wrong (and they admittedly have a few times), others will copy those mistakes and audiences are spoon fed the wrong notions about actual dinosaur looks and behavior. After two decades, Dilophosaurus is finally showing signs of ridding itself of that nonsensical neck frill and venom spitting action in the collective mind of the general audience. Does Trevorrow mean to reuse such silly concepts too, just because they look cool? If so, Jurassic World's dinosaurs are just that indeed: living theme park monsters, not actual animals. Maybe I'm just jumping to conclusions here though. I know that Raptor image on the poster is copied from a still of the kitchen scene from the first movie. It's probably too early to apply one of the final dinosaur designs for Jurassic World on any promotional material yet. So for now I'll keep my faith in Trevorrow. And I want one of those posters, but I'm not gonna get it as I don't care to visit San Diego just to pick one of these up.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156631/eerste_trailer_the_imitation_game

Benedict Cumberbatch adds another socially awkward genius to his repertoire. This time it's Alan Turing. And once again he excels in playing such a character, it would appear. This trailer makes me very interested about the actual movie. There's some terrific actors in there and a fascinating historical background to serve as a dramatic narrative. I'm not at all familiar with the director - the Norwegian Morten Tyldum - but this type of film seems to suit him. Or the studio's had some great trailer editors working on it, that's also a possibility. And already there is Oscar buzz generated around this film. Kinda obvious; solid actors, war story, gay emotional conflict, all typical Academy Award ingredients. I'm always put off by people dropping the word 'Oscar' around a movie that is still so far from its release date. It goes to show just what a political game the Oscars are. Then again, people suggested Oscar buzz for The Monuments Men well in advance too, but they haven't been doing that again since its release. Was it because it was a disappointing movie, or maybe because there was no homosexual aspect to any of it? Nevertheless, this trailer suggests a good film to me, so until I see it in theaters, that will suffice. But I'm not prematurely jumping on the Oscar bandwagon until the nominations are in. I am increasingly getting in on the Cumberbandwagon though. Ever since Sherlock, I developed a much more appreciative sentiment towards the man, and I'm even willing to forgive him his transgressions partaking in the further exploitation of the Star Trek franchise.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156643/nieuwe_trailer_star_wars_rebels

Speaking of exploitation, Star Wars has experienced that ever since 1978. And since Disney has bought the franchise, exploitation has been turned up a few notches. However, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Disney scrapped the then running animated series The Clone Wars and is now replacing it by Star Wars Rebels, which is... another animated series from the same creators! And it's set only a few years after Clone Wars, allowing the series to reintroduce some of that show's characters (like Obi-Wan Kenobi, as this new trailer shows). Other than that, the sense of adventure in a war torn galaxy remains the same, though this series does go for a slightly younger target audience. However, both this show and its predecessor feature a young Force sensitive protagonist, while the style of animation hasn't changed a bit. It basically makes you wonder why Disney didn't just pick up with Clone Wars where it left off. It makes little difference to me. I didn't watch Clone Wars, I have little interest in Rebels either. I prefer to stick to the big screen, even though I'm dreading what J.J. Abrams is doing to the franchise.

Today's many little bits of news

Someone has been a busy little bee posting movie news these past few days:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156058/nieuwe_poster_dawn_of_the_planet_of_the_apes

This is a poster I'm going ape over. So that's not a very original pun in this context, I know. Nevertheless, it fits the bill. The more I see of this sequel to the already surprisingly good Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the more I feel it's gonna be very much worth our while. Top notch, groundbreaking visual effects notwithstanding, there's a definite heart and soul to the story of man's (and ape's) incapability of coexisting alongside beings that on many levels should be considered equal (read: other humans with different points of view). Such intolerance can only lead to our own demise in violent revolt, for which we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Of course, apes make the same mistake as humans (ape shall not kill ape; yeah right!), showing that they're truly not so different. This poster hearkens back to the climatic events of the previous installment very nicely, even though the bridge portrayed on the one-sheet doesn't seem to be the same as in that final showdown. Apes on horesback wielding firearms are new to the (rebooted) franchise though, and just shows how far primate progression has come since. Or more aptly, just how much they resemble us now, considering their eagerness to carry weapons to purposefully harm others and subject animals to do their heavy work. Since mankind has been largely wiped out in this flick due to the pandemic set up in the credits of the previous film, both sides are now on equal footing in terms of strength. Will this incarnation of Planet of the Apes devolve into mutual annihilation as did its Seventies' predecessor? Or will a more hopeful outcome prevail instead to demonstrate such violent times have passed? Considering a third movie is already in the pipeline, don't expect an answer too soon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156034/marvel_will_derrickson_voor_doctor_strange

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156075/marvel_overweegt_hardy_of_cumberbatch_voor_doctor_strange

While Ant-Man is still stuck without a director (at least five candidates have passed the job over the last few weeks), Marvel is quickly moving forward with Doctor Strange regardless. In fact, at this rate it feels like the latter will beat the former to theaters, which might work too if the Marvel scribes shuffle their various set-up pieces for the larger Cinematic Universe around to accomodate these production problems. Strange has landed a director - Scott Derrickson, with the lousy Day the Earth Stood Still remake on his resumé, but also a recent tendency to deliver decent horror flicks - and consequently the studio is now focusing hard on finding a lead actor. The most promising name once attached to the project, Viggo Mortensen, is not on Marvels mind anymore, sadly. Instead, they choose to opt for 'hotter' names and at the moment that list has been narowed down to two: Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hardy. Both solid actors with a diverse enough background for me to realize they could adequately play this supernatural character. Both careers flawed by their involvement with much lamented Star Trek projects, as Hardy portrayed Picard's angry clone Shinzon in the feeble Star Trek: Nemesis, while Cumberbatch wasted his time and talent boringly repeating an unrepeatable Khan in the even worse Star Trek Into Darkness. I'll forgive those sins, as they have proven they are still very capable actors since. If it indeed has to come down to either one of these two, Cumberbatch would be my pick. The characters he has played usually prefer mind over matter, his unsurpassed take on Sherlock Holmes being the prime example. By comparison, Hardy's roles have tended towards men who let their muscles do the talking: not mindless necessarily (e.g. Bane from The Dark Knight Rises, who is both very strong and extremely intelligent), but still more driven by their physical attributes. The Sorcerer Supreme is very much a being of the mind. Sure, there is a physical aspect to him, with all his silly gesturing when uttering spells and whatnot, but otherwise his intellect takes precedence, his mind literally leaving his body when voyaging on the astral plane to keep humanity safe from supernatural harm. I'd feel more comfortable seeing the lean and elegant Cumberbatch in that capacity than the bulky built Hardy, as there's enough overly muscled Marvel heroes prancing around on the silver screen already. But still, I would have preferred Mortensen entirely.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156042/wachowskis_jupiter_ascending_uitgesteld

An unexpected move, but an understandable one for such an FX heavy film. At least the film was already announced to be in 3D, so unlike G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which witnessed an eeriely similar dramatic push in release date, this movie is not being postponed because the studio wants to pressure a 3D release on us. Nevertheless, Jupiter Ascending has all the hallmarks of a big summer blockbuster (popular stars for both male and female demographics, a recognizable pair of directors, epic effects, fairly typical plot), so to reduce it to a February release seems an odd move. It's likely the studio wants to ensure it has little competition at the box office, as it previously had to compete with equally big movies like Transformers: Age of Extinction, Hercules, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and the not so dissimilar Guardians of the Galaxy. Currently, the only film slated for February remotely in its league is the fantasy spectacle Seventh Son (which features less stellar names, a rather unknown director and also underwent its fair share of production problems and release postponements, as it was shelved for a year or two). Even though the late winter season isn't most noteworthy in terms of financial success, if there's few other big movies to contend with, the higher your attendance numbers will be. Or so the studio hopes. Time will tell whether they're right. I kinda hope so, since this movie looks rather promising. Even though both Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis far from get me stoked, I'm always in for another space opera as too few of those are produced to my liking.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156059/watts_en_kim_gecast_in_insurgent

Divergent is another one of those franchises that tries to narrowly avoid blockbuster season by appearing in theaters just before the storm of big movies hits. Understandable, as the first film wasn't quite a big film itself, though considering its success its sequel, Insurgent, seems better endowed in that respect. Jupiter Ascending now steers clear of that one too, appearing some six weeks beforehand. The Divergent movies so far have still to rely on their popularity with the young adult female demographic for the most part, which worked so well for the books aimed at the same target audience. The first film was ambitious, but had a reasonably low budget and only one big name (Kate Winslet) to speak of. Now that the ice has been broken and an audience for its successors seems guaranteed, the studio is expanding its scope. The series seems to follow the Hunger Games blueprint in that regard: for good reasons, as its audience and its thematic contents are largely identical. However, the second Hunger Games film (and the upcoming sequels) dared to enter the winter blockbuster season to establish a clear breakthrough to the top (to great effect), something Insurgent still avoids. A bigger budget is a given though, and names to match are swiftly added to the project. Octavia Spencer was already on board, while Winslet remained too. These two Oscar winners are now joined by a third, Naomi Watts. A lot of strong, talented actresses apparently. Good thing too. Hopefully the young women that form the core audience will take hints from them instead of the rather bland teen leads whose adventures they follow.