Yesterday's News continues Today

Having binged GoT (hell yeah!), I'll pick up where I so shamefully left off:

Wilde terug voor Tron 3

Neither good nor bad news to me. Olivia Wilde is a gorgeous gal and her acting was okay (though not mindboggingly compelling or anything), but it's not what I watch TRON movies for. Unlike most movies (though less so for summer blockbusters), TRON is all about the visuals. Of course those from the first movie were a lot more revolutionary than the effects of its late sequel, but Legacy too definitely delivered some cutting edge vistas. However, this time the question of the plot is more important, considering visual effects won't have developed so intensely since the last film (from 2010), compared to the gap between the first and second film. Not to mention where the story of Legacy left us. And then there's more room to consider Wilde's character. She's the first character from TRON's digital world to have made it to our everyday reality, as opposed to vice versa. The bad guy apparently has been destroyed and the good guy returned home after an arduous ordeal. So why would the good guy and his girl return to TRON's world of pixels? Aside from offering us more visual goodies, of course.

Johansson gewild voor Black Lagoon

Naturally Universal wants Scarlett, everybody wants her. She has grown to be one of Hollywood's most bankable and popular actresses. With that status of course comes the freedom to pick any project she likes, and I doubt a remake of a Fifties' horror classic counts among those. Especially one that already is a soft retreat of similar fare, repackaging a familiar Beauty and the Beast tale in an only moderately different guise. Plus, considering all the 'shared universe' business Universal is proposing for the various remakes of their horror flicks - which is not necessarily a rip-off of Marvels cinematic universe, considering Universal pulled off the same scheme to attract audiences 70 years ago -  it's not unlikely Johansson would have to sign for multiple pictures, repeating her Marvel contract. I doubt she's be willing to do that, now that she's a mom. That is, assuming the studio wants her in the role of the blond babe chased by the horny, oh so misunderstood prehistoric creature. It's not a given that is what the studio wants her for. Maybe it's just what our conservative mind suggests in case of this casting. Considering Johansson isn't only hot but quite talented as well, maybe we got it all wrong. This is the 21st Century after all. Could it be she'll play the creature itself? A female creature falling for a handsome human male, perhaps, in a wonderful reversal of roles? Or a female creature with the hots for a female human, to deliver some sizzling sexual situations to entice bi-curious audiences? Yeah, that's so not gonna happen. But hey, Joss Whedon just accused Universal's Jurassic World of sexism in traditional gender roles (based on a single clip, which may not be the smartest idea), so maybe someone at the studio was listening and decided the time was right to switch sexes around for a change and surprise us all. I'm sure that would attract Johansson a lot more than following age-old movie routines.

Redmayne in Fantastic Beasts?

Notice the question mark there. Only a few weeks ago I posted the news that Matt Smith likely nabbed the lead role in this Harry Potter spin-off. Now it turns out Eddie Redmayne is the new favourite, and Smith's name is nowhere to be found. Other names also keep floating around, which suggests the deal with Smith fell through after all, despite both parties seeming eager to start filming. So yeah, I need to post more question marks in the case of casting rumours like these, since unless contracts are signed, they're always just rumours. So now I may have falsely gotten people's hopes up and those that yearned for a cult series actor playing Newt Scamander might face the harsh reality that's not gonna happen, as he has likely been replaced by a recent Academy Award winner. Sorry, folks. But hey, Eddie Redmayne is a good actor at least, so he, too, is a decent choice for this new lead character we know next to nothing about. As for the actor, he's very British, that's as good a sign as any. Only Englishmen have a shot at playing in a J.K. Rowling based flick, after all. But even among British actors, some Brits are better than others. And personally I think Redmayne is a safer bet than Smith. But then, I've never seen Smith in Dr. Who.

Today's News: devils and beasts get some, lose some

More news from everybody's favorite movie website (for those who have heard of it, that is):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155901/deknight_vervangt_goddard_voor_daredevil

Apparently Marvel and Netflix traded talent for talent here. Both writers/producers have had their fair share of hits, and both stem from Joss Whedon's pool of creative talents. Both Goddard and DeKnight worked on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Similar backgrounds must yield similar results, the powers-that-be at Marvel probably thought. They're probably right. Personally I lamented the loss of the ingenious mind that came up with The Cabin in the Woods - if you haven't seen that hilariously inventive movie, that's something you ought to remedy - but I can surely live with the showrunner of Starz' delightful Spartacus series tackling a Marvel project. I would wager coin it won't be as vulgar as those raunchy Romans, but with DeKnight's evident capability to write intriguing character and plot twists, Daredevil doesn't necessarily take a turn for the worse. Also, DeKnight didn't burn his fingers on that one show called Lost, which might otherwise have left a sour taste in his career. And of course Goddard won't be gone entirely, as his scripts for the first two episodes will remain in use, plus he'll stay on as a 'consulting producer', whatever the hell that's supposed to be. So there's definitely gonna be a touch of Goddard to be felt at first. For now, I see more gain than loss here. And either way it's more likely to give the Daredevil his due than Ben Affleck's less than daring flick back from 2003.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155926/alfonso_cuaron_wijst_fantastic_beasts_af

Too bad, but I kinda saw it coming. Cuaron has spend the last five years working on Gravity, after all. To great effect to be sure, but I'm positive he's in definite need of a creative break from all that digital blue-screen material. Cuaron cares about characters and drama far more than about effects, as his quote makes abundantly clear. I'll say Gravity is the odd-one-out on his resumé in that regard: even though it was basically about two people trapped in space, the technical element to that film far outweighed the acting component. It was the effects that made the experience, not the story. So it's about time he changed back to his former routine, where the opposite held true. Even though not much is revealed about the specific plot contents of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, its very title suggests it's all about the fancy creatures and the exotic locales they inhabit, which are heavily dependant on visual effects to make them come alive on screen. Characters clearly seem to come second here. So that really doesn't sound so appealing to a director who has spent half a decade exploring the digital realm. Cuaron is better off returning to his roots and doing something small for a change, or indeed spending time with his actual biological kids rather than his silver screen babies (I've heard from parents that you have to make time for children for their own sake). And even though Cuaron is out for the first installment of this upcoming fantastic franchise, there's nothing that stops him from expressing his interests for one of the already announced sequels somewhere in later years. In the realm of Potter - which still is where we are in this otherwise Potterless project - anything is known to be possible by now.

Today's Triple News: Fantastic Frozen Sex and where to find it on tape

One does not simply post news on MovieScene and walk away from it:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154803/eerste_trailer_sex_tape_online

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154770/frozen_meest_winstgevende_animatiefilm_ooit

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154757/fantastic_beasts_and_where_to_find_them_wordt_trilogie

I gotta say, that trailer made me chuckle. That doesn't mean the movie will, as this is basically a thirteen-a-dozen raunchy studio comedy aimed at a predominantly adolescent audience, revolving about sexual (mis)conduct to get the public titillated in advance. There have been many similar movies over the last few years - among them Sex Drive, No Strings Attached, A Good Old-Fashioned Orgy, Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Hall Pass and We're the Millers, though all took a hint from American Pie (which itself hearkened back to material from the Eighties like Porky's, so it's not all a new phenomenon) - and very few of them proved even the slightest bit memorable. As always, the best jokes appear to be in the trailer and once you've seen that, there's little reason to go watch the actual movie. Sex Tape's trailer is running long just under three minutes, so don't be annoyed if you watch it first and the movie second and find there's little surprises left in the film. Or perhaps that's just overly cynical. After all, the cast list mentions Jack Black and Jolene Blalock (T'Pol!) and neither of them is featured in this preview. Maybe they're just bit parts, maybe the trailer does keep some stuff from the final movie from our prying eyes. I reckon Sex Tape is just gonna be an average sexy Hollywood comedy that makes you forget your woes for two hours and remember you have any woes as soon as the lights turn on, because none of the movie sticks to mind for very long. And it's plausible it will do very well at the box office because there's conveniently no other comedies scheduled for that time of the year. Which means we can "look forward" to a second Sex Tape in two or three years time. Just as is the case with the previous movie from this director and his two main stars, Bad Teacher, which turns out to get a sequel nobody asked for. Considering sex sells, expect a trilogy soon.

What also sells (segue!) is delightfully animated family entertainment, and Disney is back on top in that game. Pixar, under the Mouse House's wings, is continuously letting us down creatively, forced to focus on unneccessary sequels, so now the new Walt Disney Studios Animation department can fill that inspirational gap by exploring new ideas and fresh avenues. Or basically doing what Disney always did best, cannibalizing a classic fairy tale of sorts and Disneyfying the heck out of it (though in a bit more modern fashion these days, as it happens to be the 21st century). It's an age old routine that proves as effective and lucrative today as it did before, as Frozen shows. Beating Toy Story 3 from the top spot, there's your new Highest Grossing Animated Movie of All Time. For now, as such records have a tendency to be broken every odd year lately. Blame the studio's increasing insistence on 3D to raise admission costs (again). Or admit Frozen was simply a good movie, a welcome reprieve from Pixar's last few letdowns. And don't be alarmed if you see a Frozen 2 popping up somewhere in the next few years: you don't honestly think Disney can let this success slide without milking more money out of it by pushing sequels on us?

Speaking of milking (another seque! I'm on a roll here!), Harry Potter is over and done with but there's still more dough to be made from the brand name, so let the spinning-off commence! Studio Warner has J.K. Rowling's permission to do so, and even her assistance in fact, as she will pen the screenplay for the first installment of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Even though it remains to be seen whether a coherent story line as gripping as the Potter proper stories can be distilled from what was basically a fun little exploration of the Potterverse that was never intended to be made into a major motion picture, the studio is moving ahead on a trilogy of films. A cautious studio would start with a single movie and see how that works out, but as the blockbuster studio system is increasingly relying on tentpole franchises - and their various spin-offs - to keep itself going, caution isn't something they feel they can afford. So now we'll see whether a Potter movie can do without the actual Potter element, by revealing magic and monsters are enough to keep us going to theaters, or whether it was the life and times of the Boy-Who-Lived himself  that proved the quintessential compelling ingredient of the franchise, not to be omitted so easily on second attempts. If "her" movie fails, this trilogy could come crashing down like a house of cards, so Rowling will have a tough job working her magic a second time.

Today's News: exit Potter, enter Scamander

Breaking News from MovieScene (unfortunately posted a day too late since I was gone yesterday):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/150016/harry_potter_spin-off_aangekondigd

You know it had to happen sooner or later. Potter was much too profitable and is still hugely popular, so they couldn't just let it rest. More money is to be made here most definitely, therefore ignoring the franchise was never an option, leaving only two routes to take: rebooting Potter for the movies, which would have been too controversial since the last movie is less than two years old, or exploring the Potterverse in more detail via some other way. I'm glad Warner Bros. went for the most sensible option, since we'll be getting something new now, which is simultaneously the stuff of fantasy audiences are already comfortable and familiar with. I'm also glad to see Rowling is connected more closely than she ever has been before, doing her first bit of genuine screenwriting. Say what you will about being overprotective of her brainchild, a bit of creative and quality control on her part certainly can't hurt this upcoming second franchise.

But will this work on screen? I haven't read Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (yet), so I can't truly speak from experience, but what I know about the book is that it's basically meant as a fun tie-in to Potter proper, an encyclopedic textbook about various fictional creatures devoid of a specific narrative (though with hand written notes of Harry and his friends), never meant to be adapted into a movie or any similar audiovisual formats. That means there still is a lot of writing to be done here before the project's plot is in decent shape to start filming. In fact, at this point nearly everything in terms of story has yet to be conceived other than the protagonist, Newt Scamander, and the assorted magical creatures he deals with. Therefore, I think it's highly unwise Warner immediately decided to make an ungoing series of films based solely on this single book. It would have been more tactically sound to start with one movie and see the results first. After all, more than one recent franchise has had the misfortune of being the victim of overly enthusiastic corporate planning in advance and just ending up being dropped after disappointing box office results, thus losing a lot of money as pre-production on the sequel had already begun. Nevertheless, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them seems a fascinating project containing those elements we've come to love most about Potter: magic, unusual locations and vistas and odd creatures of all shapes and sizes. This time, it takes place seven decades before the events of Potter, so as a bonus we'll get an undoubtedly lavish period look to the piece, which is always most welcome. Though it's too early to get overexcited just yet, it's guaranteed Rowling's next baby is one to keep track of as it grows and grows. I'll be sure to do just that!