Today's News: more comes every day

The latter half of the week certainly picked up some speed:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158720/remake_the_blob_vindt_regisseur

I'm not surprised this cult classic is getting another remake. The premise is just too much fun to ignore for more than a generation. Extraterrestrial ball of ooze wreaks havoc on Earth by devouring the population and growing ever larger: what's not to like? Of course, the Blob will only be as convincing as its FX and I doubt CGI will look as neat and realistic as the subject matter warrants. It sounds like the director just doesn't want to get his hands dirty on practical effects (and I reckon they would get very dirty indeed with the type of practical effects needed for a film like this). So as happens too often these days, computers prove to be the easy way out, but not the fun way. However, doing the Blob digitally this time around does set it clearly apart from its predecessors, making it a clear example of the zeitgeist, as befits the franchise. The 1958 version showed primitive practical effects and a lot of, by present day standards, redundant teen culture manifestations to woo the babyboomers to embrace the film (which they did). The darker Eighties' film showed quite a progression in terms of effects, but ideologically speaking it was a rather cynical film in which the government was even more sinister than the titular entity itself and a juvenile delinquent had to defeat the thing instead. Also, gore galore. And now comes the latest version, which has a Blob all CGI. Proof of the times indeed. It'll be interesting to see how it portrays humans though.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158680/amazon_wil_films_produceren

Of course Amazon wants to get in on the movie business. All of its competitors are starting to go down that route after all. It was just a question of when rather than if. Not surprisingly, this announcement doesn't follow long after Netflix spread the word it's doing the same thing. Amazon however, is still primarily known as a web store rather than a producer of television shows. Its name hasn't been established as strongly in terms of audiovisual production yet. That's likely also the basis for the decision to keep the movie industry happy by not offering their productions up for streaming simultaneously as releasing them in theaters, a convention Netflix was all too eager to break. Of course, audiences won't mind either way as long as the product proves to be appealing. Netflix does beat Amazon too in that regard, for the moment, thanks to making deals with the likes of Marvel. As for the future, we will see. It's too bad the Amazon execs haven't yet specified any of these upcoming movie projects of theirs, I would have loved to know what they're concocting for our pleasure. That is, if they've indeed already started production, rather than just making the announcement they will soon. If they're too release a dozen movies in the next two years, they better get started.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158704/world_war_z_2_in_de_maak

'Starting with a clean slate' sure sounds like a great idea for this sequel. The previous slate didn't resemble the source material much, and that proved a damn shame, as the original was not only shockingly different but also vastly more ingenious and innovative and made the movie feel dull and predictable by the inevitable comparison. Hopefully the writers take a closer look at Max Brooks' novel this time around. Which begs to ask the question whether that book could ever be translated to the big screen in a satisfactory way. Given the format it's written in, a two-hour movie just doesn't feel the right way to go. A TV (mini)series might allow for a closer adaptation, but the fragmentary, semi-documentary style the book dabbles in also doesn't seem too well suited for that either. There's simply too many stories and characters to make for a clear red line through it all. The only thing they all have in common is the interviewer gathering these distinct narratives and the living dead that star in them. Perhaps a series of webisodes would make for the best way to adapt these stories, but that's not a format that many audiences are too comfortable with, nor is it often used in a way to make the major bucks the studio is hoping for (which the movie did, despite its dissimilarities to the book). Oh well, whatever form it'll take, we'll always have the novel if things go south.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158734/ejiofor_gewild_voor_doctor_strange

Another talented, Academy Award nominated actor sought by Marvel to join its ranks. As to who he's playing, that's indeed the million dollar question. It certainly won't be Strange's loyal servant Wong. Aside from the fact that casting a minority in a role that traditionally was reserved for another minority is a route that many might deem offensive (and possibly rightfully so), it seems a waste of his abilities as an actor. Besides, this guy just spent Twelve Years playing a Slave, I doubt he's looking for another servantile role (though that would certainly be the stuff of irony). And now that his (rather exotic and easy to mispronounce) name is finally getting the attention it deserves in the industry, something more intriguing and major is needed to win Ejiofor over. So he's either going to play the adversary or the mentor to the protagonist, for sure. My money is on the former, also because I want to see him as a bad guy again, since he did so well playing one in Serenity (the creepy and ideologically singleminded Operative, remember?). I have no doubt his acting talents would be well suited in either capacity though.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158739/scodelario_gecast_in_pirates_5

I'm less interested in this bit of casting. Scodelario sure is a pretty girl and may have some decent acting capabilities under her belt (though not much of it was apparent in The Maze Runner), but it seems she's cast as just another generic love interest, kinda similar to Keira Knightley in the first Pirates of the Caribbean. We really don't keep watching these movies for those types of supporting actors, but for the catchy shenanigans of master actors Depp and Rush. It's Barbossa and Sparrow that the vast majority of the audience loves best, and that's not likely to change (though after four movies, their staying power is undeniably tested). Whatever scene from any of the previous Pirates movies first comes to your mind, it's surely not one starring Knightley and Bloom, I bet. Of course, that doesn't mean the studio should release a movie starring just the two ever disagreeable Captains (though I cannot help but wonder as to the result). New characters are obligatory to keep things (at least feeling) fresh. But it's the zany, outrageous pirate characters that make for the most memorable performances, not the bland star crossed lovers in the background. Scodelario is likely to do a decent job, but as for new characters, it's Javier Bardem playing the new pirate baddie that sounds most intriguing. Aarrrrr!!

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: am I gaining on myself or getting further behind?

With new movie news being posted on nigh a daily basis, I'm gonna be hard-pressed keeping the topics current. Today's news items too admittedly aren't all too fresh, being nearly a week old by now.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157417/nieuwe_trailer_horrible_bosses_2

I gotta admit I still had a few laughs watching this trailer, even though I'm against the whole notion of doing sequels to Hollywood comedies, since they're nothing but blatant cashcows and creativity is usually not their forté. The idea of three nitwits formerly screwed over by their employers starting a business of their own is at least a narratively logical construction, though otherwise all the predictable story ingredients from the sequel are in place: the inaptitude of the protagonists, the rich bastard conning them for his own gain, the crime that is to be their revenge but backfires on them, etc. Many of the supporting characters return, even though not all of them seem genuinely warranted to do so - read: gratuitous appearances galore - to provide a familiar face for people who are off-set by all those newcomers (not that there's that many of those though). Surprises are not likely to be found here, looking at the story. A decent joke or two, most likely. Will this be as good as the predecessor? Let's consider the sequels to similar recent succesful comedies. Can you name one that was anywhere near as good as its forebear? I certainly can't. So I doubt this will prove any different.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157415/dominic_cooper_toegevoegd_aan_marvels_agent_carter

Not exactly a surprising bit of casting, but a welcome one nonetheless. Gotta love the consistency between the TV branch of Marvel Studios' enterprise and its theatrical counterpart. It also provides a good example that television and cinema are getting increasingly intertwined as actors known mostly for their movie roles have no qualms appearing in series, a situation which was once stated to be a signal of their career's demise. These days, the opposite seems through: actors that stick to one medium are old news, it's the ability to switch between media which keeps them hot and interesting. Though the show's star, Hayley Atwell, certainly is no stranger to the small screen (Pillars of the Earth, for example), Dominic Cooper's television career by comparison is still in its infancy. It recently kicked off with his portrayal of 007 creator Ian Fleming in Fleming, so it's off to a good start. And for Agent Carter, Cooper's recent brush with espionage is all the more convenient, as that's exactly what the series deals with (though with the necessary Marvel twists). In temporal regards the latter could almost be considered a follow-up to the former, as Agent Carter takes place shortly after the period in which Fleming is set. No wonder the studio was so eager to get Cooper back to reprising Howard Stark, he seems a perfect fit and for his own benefit, he could use a bit more of the television treatment.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157442/joaquin_phoenix_niet_in_doctor_strange

As a nice segue to the former topic, even the mighty Marvel can't get every actor they would like. Joaquin Phoenix proved too headstrong and too gung-ho for contractual independence for the House of Ideas. Probably for the better, as Phoenix has shown little interest in doing big studio productions over the last decade. Small independent features are his preferred territory, and it seems to work well for him, so why would he succumb to the restrictive studio system? It would likely only have hurt his performance. Though it could still have been a great one. Doctor Strange was probably the character best suited to Phoenix, considering he's in an offbeat niche all his own in the Marvel universe, namely the mystical one. The physical resemblances would only have been a bonus. Strange however has had little issues joining others in bigger ventures, as he's been a member of almost every big super team from Marvel's comics over the years, from the Defenders to the Avengers. Such joint enterprises really aren't Phoenix's cup of tea, and I'm not surprised and only slightly disappointed he didn't bite. I'm still hoping for Viggo Mortensen to take the part, though he's very much of the same mind and is at least as unlikely to accept, if not more so.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157414/zombieland_2_niet_langer_dood

Another Hollywood comedy sequel I'm not eagerly anticipating, though I admit this one offers more diverse story telling possibilities than most. I got the general idea with the first Zombieland though, which I found only moderately funny. I guess I prefer my zombies without comedy (like the far superior The Walking Dead, duh!). The studio seems adamant to make a franchise out of this one though, even though they already failed on telly in that regard, as the series didn't get beyond the pilot stage (I didn't bother to see it). Undoubtedly the studio sees something in this that I don't: money. I think most people however just watched the first film, had a few laughs and simply moved on, largely putting the title out of their mind (which would be hard to do with The Walking Dead, a far more gripping viewing experience). Zombieland simply doesn't seem compeling enough to prove a lasting franchise, but the studio insists on trying regardless. They're welcome to try, but if it doesn't work out again, don't say I didn't warn them.

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.

Today's News: multiple directors interested in Marvel's strange project

Another older bit of news from my hand:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154380/meerdere_regisseurs_in_de_race_voor_doctor_strange

If the top boss of Marvel has a personal favorite, it's only a matter of time before said character gets himself a movie. Doctor Strange has been rumoured and reported on for a few years now, so it's about time the project really got going officially. So far most "news" has addressed the issue of who should play the titular character, with many names suggested (most interesting to my ears would be Viggo Mortensen, but fat chance of that happening!), but over the last few weeks the matter of a director has taken precedence instead. Marvel CEO Kevin Feige has so far shot down almost all possible contenders, but not the latest trio of rumoured names up for the gig: Mark Andrews, Scott Derrickson and Jonathan Levine. Each of them has dabbled in the fantastic, the horrific or the supernatural before, so all of them seem like they might fit the bill for directing a film about the Sorcerer Supreme battling various mystical, otherworldy adversaries that seek to claim humanity's souls or its dimensional territory. Levine is known for both horror and comedy (Warm Bodies, 50/50), applying both of them in a decently offbeat approach. Derrickson was responsible for one big winter blockbuster movie (the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still) which did well enough at the box office but proved disappointing for both audience and critics: he has shown more substantial skills in directing horror films though, which is not a bad thing considering the interdimensional terrors and grizzly ghouls among Strange's many antagonists. Andrews has only done one movie and it was animated (Brave), but it was the most lucrative of the bunch and also a definite work of fantasy and sorcery, bordering the substance of Doctor Strange the closest thematically. My money is on Andrews. It wouldn't be the first time a Pixar director went on to do a major motion picture, though the financially disastrous John Carter, directed by Finding Nemo/Wall-E veteran Andrew Stanton, is probably not an example studio execs want to be reminded of. Nevertheless, Andrews brought in the most dough and knows the genre best. However, since Doctor Strange is unlike any other Marvel project, the studio might very well decide to do things differently and pick the least expected director for the job. I gotta admit, the term 'unlike any other Marvel movie' keeps coming back, having prior been used to describe both Thor and the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy. The more movies get made that are 'unlike any other Marvel movie', the less impact the phrase carries. With a moniker like 'Marvel', you can always expect the unexpected after all. Doctor Strange may be a weird character, he's no more implausible or odd than Norse gods in present day America or talking interstellar raccoons and trees. Now hopefully Mortensen will see that too and decide playing such a strange role is right up his alley.