Today's News: big bad breaking! And then some

It's been a good start of the week for movie news, mostly because of one single bomb Marvel dropped.

Marvel past releaseplanning aan voor Spider-Man

And here it is. Or rather, here's the follow-up, as the main news item that Marvel has gotten Spider-Man back in the fold was posted by a colleague of mine (bastard!). But here's the first few ramifications for Marvel's Phase 3, with many more likely to follow in the next few years. Good thing about such major nerdgasmic news is it gives one inspiration for a column (or two), which I hope to pen this weekend. So I'll reserve my actual opinion on whether Spider-Man at last joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a good idea or not - for it's definitely not all sunshine in Marvel land with the webhead swinging his way through his fellow superheroes - for that opinionated piece to follow. Unless one of my colleagues beats me on that front as well. Not an unlikely scenario, since anything Marvel has a tendency to get people talking or in this case typing. That said, I am looking very much forward to seeing what take on the new webslinger will be applied to the new movie(s). I wasn't a fan of the way Sony handled the Amazing Spider-Man movies, nor of how they ended Raimi's trilogy. My nerd sense is telling me there's plenty of room for improvement. From the details, it's likely Marvel will turn to their Ultimate Universe for inspiration, a move I don't lament at all. I'm currently re-reading Ultimate Spider-Man - coincidentally, as I started doing so two weeks before this news broke - and it once again proves an utterly delightful and catchy read, that also goes to illustrate many an excellent possibility of hooking up Spidey with other Marvel names, without hurting any of them. I can only hope the new movie, plus Spider-Man's appearance in those of others, will turn out half as well as those comics did.

Eerste trailer serie Bloodline

Looks decent, but I have a hard time envisioning this as a long running show. The concept seems too limited to continue for more than a season or two, and from what I gather, it's Netflix' intention to keep it going as long as desirable. Then again, I once had similar reservations about this series called Breaking Bad, and look how positively that turned out against everybody's expectations. Of course, every character has a background you can delve into, but it feels like there's only so many startling family secrets you can reveal until it eithers gets boring or ludicrous. But what do I know, I've only seen this trailer, which no doubt totally limits our imaginations for this show. There's undoubtedly more to it than what's pictured here. Still, I can't help but get a distinct Festen vibe from this. A family tearing itself apart when the black sheep of the bunch starts digging up shady past events certainly sounds very familiar to those who'll recall the classic Thomas Vinterberg film. However, even if the basic premise is remarkably similar, we can expect there to be a lot more going on in a 13-episode season than in a two-hour movie. There better be, if Netflix hopes to keep this show going.

Lawrence en Pratt beoogd voor Passengers

Here's a premise that probably is better suited for a two-hour movie than for an entire season of episodes. Man accidentally wakes up in cryosleep on a spaceship during a voyage that ought to take decades. Man knowingly wakes up woman for companionship on trip. Whatever happens, happens. As to what happens exactly, I dunno. I can think of a thing or two, either involving bloodshed or sex, or both. It's one of those intriguing notions that gets the mind working after only two sentences of conceptual layout. But as for me, a Sci-Fi geek, you had me at 'spaceship'. As for who can play these characters, Lawrence and Pratt are decent choices, at least one of them sizzling with talent. However, I would have gone for someone else than the current go-to, default hot actor and actress in Hollywood. Both of them seem kinda omnipresent today. For a movie that largely revolves around two people only, I'd say it's better not to cast movie stars, but "real actors" instead, to avoid getting that feeling of seeing Pratt and Lawrence talking to each other for hours (even though that is what is going on, but we need to be able to suspend our disbelief and pretend they're somebody else). A project like this seems better suited to lesser known (but not necessarily lesser talented) actors. Even though that would make it a tougher sell to most audiences, who just want to see Pawrence and Pratt talking to each other for a few hours. But that's what people invented talk shows for.

Lionsgate wil meer Hunger Games

Speaking of Jennifer Lawrence, Lionsgate wants to see more of her. Or at least, they want to see more of that precious dough she keeps making the studio doing her Hunger Games thing. Or they want more material that carries the Hunger Games signature, potentially without the principal talent, since I imagine Lawrence is kinda done with the series when it ends. But studios are never done making huge piles of cash. So when something sells, you keep it selling as long as you can. And so the studio is looking for new ways to "flesh out" (read: ruthlessly exploit) their top franchise after it has properly come to an end. They're looking at both prequel and sequel opportunites, it's stated. Meaning, they don't care about the actual contents, they're just considering any and all ways that keep the franchise running for longer than the source material allows for. It works for Harry Potter and Warner Bros, their argument reads. We don't know that it does actually, since Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them hasn't been released to popular or financial acclaim (yet). Plus, author J.K. Rowling is in full cahoots on that new series of films, while it remains to be seen whether writer Suzanne Collins is as enchanted by the notion of more Hunger Games. So for now, it's only a studio's dream of more money without any material to back up the reality behind that line of thinking. May the odds be ever in their favor.

Eerste trailer Hitman: Agent 47

Or they can just start their franchise over again entirely. Seems to be working for Hitman, since this trailer already looks better than all of the previous film. Of course, that film wasn't a hit in any way the first Hunger Games was, hence the option for rebooting. There's (fortunately!) a form of unwritten decency protecting the audience against rebooting a franchise the moment the first take on it has been completed. Otherwise we would have had three more Lord of the Rings trilogies by now. But when a film failed to connect to its audience strongly enough to warrant a sequel, yet still holds potential for making more money, a reboot is always just around the corner. Often for the better, since in many cases a reboot improved upon its predecessor and ushered in a new era for the franchise. Time will tell whether that holds true for Hitman: Agent 47 as well. It's still a videogame adaptation too, after all. They usually have more running against them than films based on other media properties.

Today's News: trailers for everybody!

Been a busy week, here's some trailers that kept me posting:

Nieuwe trailer Minions

Everybody seems to really love the Minions. Even though they don't have much material going for them just yet. I guess the chief ingredients for success are all present in these little servants of evil: they're small, they're numerous (but just diverse enough to set them apart), they're colour coded in a simple fashion, and they're excessively cute. It worked for the Smurfs, eh? But unlike the Smurfs, they're supposedly evil, and I have yet to see any hard evidence of that. Of course, you can't sell evil to kids. So whatever villainous scheme they're involved in usually ends in failure, at least in Gru's case. It's obvious the evilness is just a pretense to get some silly story going, often interspersed with random gags (e.g. the teddy bear for example), while the main goal is to sell the Minions' cuteness to the audience so people will want to buy Minion dolls and stuff. I doubt things are gonna be any different in this semi-origin story. There's just a new baddie, who'll soon find hiring the Minions was a bad idea (that's what explains the badness of the Minions I suppose). No matter to us, as long as the Minions trollop around the screen looking utterly cute in all their zany, goofy shenanigans

Teaser Magic Mike XXL

Female audiences are gonna end up pretty satisfied in the erotic department this year. At this moment, everybody is moaning and groaning (either out of sheer lust or sheer loathing) over Fifty Shades of Grey, and in the not too distant future, that scenario will repeat itself with this second Magic Mike movie. I will not deny looking at the sweaty, undressed male torsos produces a sense of sexually insecurity for me, and I know that goes for most male audiences. The majority of those are of course dragged to theatres by the various women in their lifes (except for the homosexual portion of the populace, no doubt). Being a single man, I cannot help but wonder what tension Magic Mike hath wrought in the bedroom after a visit to the cinema. Do women press their men into trying to physically appear more like him, or do they accept that such an impressive bodily look is the exception rather than the rule? If we ignore the story line in effect for the film (which is not hard to do, since it's so overtly basic), what's left is largely nude men doing sexy dances to arouse women, which is basically softcore porn. I'm not judging, just stating the obvious. I hope the target audience realises full well that that's just all it is. But then, do men watching regular porn take the time to consider it's all just fantasies, too? Movies like Magic Mike XXL do a good job of reminding us just how small the difference between men and women actually is.

Eerste trailer Marvels Daredevil

This is more my cup of tea. Sure, there's a few good looking men (and women) in this production, too, but there's a lot more story to it. I enjoy ogling the well trained bodies of the opposite sex as much as anyone, but I prefer a good story. Too bad it's not a new story for the most part, but the previous audiovisual incarnation of Daredevil left plenty of room for improvement. It seems this new Netflix series delivers just that. This teaser also makes no mistake this is definitely going to be Marvel Studios' darkest production so far, and thus a certain amount of blood and violence is not spared. Good thing too, if they want to set the upcoming Defenders miniseries apart from the merrier, more colourful Avengers counterpart on the big screen. Sure, the following series are likely to be a bit lighter in tone, but since they all deal with fighting street crime and mob practices in New York's less pleasant neighbourhoods, some level of violence feels mandatory. Far be it from Netflix to shy away from that. For those who don't enjoy such grim superheroes, rest assured things will only brighten up after this. And if it's still not what they're hoping for, they'll always have the actually cinematic part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. No sinister sex crimes and gruesome drug wars there, only evil robots hellbent on annihilating humanity or intergalactic bad guys threatening the existence of the universe.

Nieuwe trailer Furious 7

And if you like action but not superheroes, you might consider checking this out. The typical 'get-rich-or-die-tryin'' atmosphere of fast cars and hot people (male and female) engaged in gunfights and general fisticuffs. A successful formula, so much so we've reached the whopping seventh entry in the F&F franchise. The actual death of a major player couldn't stop this production, yet there's a sense of finality to this trailer. All of Toretto's racing rivals have been added to his inner circle, his family. And now their bond will be put to the final test when the bad guy threatens to kill that family. Of course, it will prove a stupid idea and the villain will no doubt soon discover his folly. Since the merry gang of highway brigands is already rich since the fifth film, it's not about racing for money anymore, but racing for the ties that bind. And fondly remembering those ties in case of the fallen actor. For the studio however, money definitely still is the objective. So it's not inconceivable we'll be seeing more of this family in the future after all, even though it feels we're hitting an emotional climax here.

Jovovich speelt hoofdrol in Martins In the Lost Lands

And then there was this bit of non-trailer news. Of course, anything that has George R.R. Martins signature on it would be considered gold by studios hoping to cash in on the success of Game of Thrones. Doesn't mean everything Martin ever wrote is nearly as good as his most successful work. You wouldn't think the same genius was behind the majority of episodes of the second season of the Eighties' Twilight Zone show, considering their poor quality. At least In the Lost Lands is likely to appeal to the same (vast) fanbase since it's written in the same genre of epic fantasy. I had never heard of these stories before, but reading the synopsis doesn't convince me yet on whether adapting them to the big screen is a good idea. I may be entirely wrong, as I'm not familiar with the outcome, but the stories seem to lack coherency, while their protagonists seem to be subject to random elements, especially in the case of the story with the witch and the spacecraft (or maybe combining such seemingly incombinable elements is just proof of narrative brilliance beyond my comprehension). I probably should either read those stories or shout up about the topic and have faith in Martin. That said, I cannot help but wonder whether it would not be more prudent to adapt these shorts for television rather than the big screen. If they are indeed separate stories of an episodic nature, television seems suited for them. Anthology story telling isn't something you often encounter in theaters, maybe for a reason. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time Martin broke with conventions. Since GoT proved he excels at that, maybe I should simply reserve final judgment until In the Lost Lands hits cinemas.

Today's News: planning, casting, piloting and trailing

Look at the news these last few days yielded:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158580/nieuwe_trailer_chappie

Shit, this is starting to look derivative... Robot cops, the fine line between men and machine interspersed with explosive action sequences, unique robots developing a personality and starting to display Saviouresque symptoms... What's new here? You'd think RoboCop and I, Robot never happened. However, they did, and judging from this latest trailer Chappie will add little of novelty to the robot repertoire. However, this is Neill Blomkamp we're talking about, so I do hope he's got some tricks up his sleeve so he might surprise us yet. If he does, I'm betting it resides in the area of social commentary, which is rather his forte. Execution of both District 9 and Elysium proved not devoid of flaws, but the heart and the action both sure were in the right place. It's not like the dystopian future of Elysium differed that much from previously portrayed divides between a small elite and a vast multitude of have-nots. And it was still a damn fine flick. Chappie will likely at least be that. I would have hoped for some more original storytelling besides that, but I'll take what I can get. It's not like there's that much intelligent Sci-Fi directors to go round these days, so I support the few folks that try. Unless they really miss the mark completely (eh, Nolan?).

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158557/netflix_onthult_plannen_daredevil_en_marco_polo

So now we know when the devil gets his due. Even though actual footage of the series still has not been released (they better hurry with that, with only three months to go), the new poster sure sets the tone. This is definitely gonna be one of Marvels darkest projects. I wonder whether that is the best way to go when you're building a second shared Marvel universe for television. You'd think a lighter choice would be a better decision to reel viewers in. However, it's all in the name. You could start with light fare like Jessica Jones, but only the true Marvelites would know that name. Daredevil is more well known, partially thanks to Ben Afflecks crappy movie, though that was over a decade ago. Yet people likely still remember it. But the real strong name of course is Marvel. That suffices for most audiences. And if the company has its way, the same will soon ring true for Netflix, so a series like Marco Polo can count on a large enough number of spectators just because it has the Netflix logo attached to its credits. It seems to work well enough for HBO. And considering the quality the company offers thus far, I wouldn't mind if the same holds true for Netflix.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158583/casting_buzz_jonge_acteurs_voor_x-men_apocalypse

More younger versions of X-characters, more talent needed to fill their boots. Though the majority of the actors and actresses mentioned in the original article I am not familiar with, I do believe there's some fair choices here. I'm divided between Team Turner and Team Ronan. Turner does a fine job on Game of Thrones, and the populairty of that show definitely gives her a mean edge. However, Ronan has a far more impressive resumé which encompasses a wide array of dramatic roles, some of them which proved quite heavy but she pulled them off admirably. Unbiased by the GoT sympathy for Sansa Sophie, I'd say Ronan should get the part. However, GoT does make me prejudiced against any actors who didn't star in it, so I won't deny I'd love to see what Turner could do with the character of Jean Grey. Hailee Steinfeld has a similar background to Ronan, so I would not mind her winning the part either. I'm glad it didn't go to Moretz though; I like her work, but I'd hate to see her get typecasted as 'that comic book girl'. She's got Hit-Girl, let it end there. As for the guys and girls up for Cyclops and Storm, for the most part I can only say 'who the heck are all these people?'. I only know Tye Sheridan from Mud, in which he performed quite well. Here too, there's a sympathy vote working its magic, as Taron Egerton currently has buzz because of Kingsman. The fact it was directed by Matthew Vaughn who, as the director of X-Men: First Class, could pull some serious strings also adds in his favour. But then too he'd end up with a comic book stigma, even though X-Men and Kingsmen at least are wildly different, far more diverse in nature than Kick-Ass and X-Men. There's just so many elements to consider here. Since I have zero influence in the whole casting process anyway, I'm just going to let this one roll on and I'll bitch and whine about the final choice when actually one has been made. Still, I can't help it: Go Sansa!

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158585/pilot_voor_minority_report_serie_in_de_maak

Another good movie gets a follow-up for television. There's a lot of that happening these days, and not all of the titles involved are justified for the small screen treatment. I would say Minority Report is among those. Sure, there's story a few possibilities remaining after the events of the movie. However, the issue is that it follows the movie directly and thus might spoil its deliciously undefined ending. The last half hour of the film can be interpreted in two very different ways, and I'd hate to see the series ruining the movie by picking the less ingenious of the pair. And even if the series opts to ignore the matter entirely and leaves us in the dark as we should be, I still feel no particular need of watching a follow-up to a by then 15-year old flick. Even if it doesn't tread the same paths as its predecessor. Though it at least beats the prospect of a full-on remake, like 12 Monkeys is currently undergoing.

Today's News: 'twas a slow week of it

What with all the reviews and such, it took me a while to get around to posting new news (aside from that little item yesterday, but that wasn't news to my mind, it was a gift from the gods), but then, last week wasn't particularly noteworthy in that regard. Here's the entire crop of the previous week:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158028/nieuwe_trailer_netflix_serie_marco_polo

This show is starting to look increasingly epic. Just the way I like my historical drama on telly. Of course, with a modern twist here and there: I doubt any naked sword fights took place during Polo's actual visit, but I'm not complaining. It appears Netflix has a solid first entry into the historical epic on its hands with Marco Polo, likely to rival HBO's quality programs - Deadwood, Rome, Boardwalk Empire - that dabble in the same genre with such notable success. The only thing that bothers me somewhat is the overuse of spoken English. More actual Chinese (and/or Italian for that matter) would have been appreciated to add to the levels of authenticity (especially when actors from those parts are cast), but that goes for any similar show produced in the English language by rival networks, too. Otherwise, this is definitely a series to look forward to.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158043/trailer_son_of_a_gun_online

I'm less impressed by this one. The twisty crime thriller has kinda become a staple in recent years, most of these copying Tarantino's flicks. Son of a Gun apparently does not, judging from this trailer, but otherwise hardly appears innovative. Except maybe for its status as an Australian entry into the genre, can't recall too many of those. Casting Ewan McGregor as a bad guy - with beard, like some sleazy Obi-Wan Kenobi - is a more inspired move though, as he's not often seen in such a capacity, almost playing against type. But the notion of this top dog criminal taking a youngster under his wing for his own shady purposes rather than for his new buddy's benefits is hardly the stuff of novelty, nor is the secret agenda the teenager cherishes to get out on top himself against all odds. I'm reminded of the French film Un Prophete, for example, which featured a very similar story line, minus all the action. I guess there's only so much you can do with prisons and break-outs in whatever country. It's just the way you spice things up that makea any difference.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158068/_greengrass_regisseert_1984

It had to happen sooner rather than later. With all the dystopian movies currently hitting Hollywood's primary audience where it counts the most - their wallets - it's no surprise the granddaddy of all imperfect society stories is slated for a reprise. The Hunger Games, Divergent, The Maze Runner, they all took a page or two from Orwell's (in)famous reflections on ruthless governments absolutely controlling their populace. There's also a lot of sexual material present to appeal to the audience's hormones. Problem is, the original 1984 is a much more adult story, centered around adult protagonists. I doubt the studio will change that core aspect of the story to appeal to the spectators currently gobbling up dystopian fare en masse, nor do I think a serious director like Paul Greengrass would let them. However, just the notion of a society where everybody is under total control of the government's watchful eyes might bring to mind to more mature audiences who don't know jack-squat about Orwell's visionary writings the similar young adult flicks that are doing big business at the boxoffice at the moment. They might turn it down just on its dystopian qualities, ranking it as just another Hunger Games copycat (what do people know, eh?). Or the subject matter might just be too dismally bleak for them, which it just happens to be (nor should that be tampered with). However, I hope adult and younger audiences alike give it a chance, as this particular story remains as urgent thematically as it was at its inception in the late Forties.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158085/adams_speelt_joplin

Janis Joplin is something I know jack-squat of, admittedly. Popular musicians, be they from the Sixties or from more contemporary times, just have never particuarly held my interest. Too busy with watching movies to care about music, I suppose. I only knew Joplin died of an overdose (had to learn it from Austin Powers, I'll have you know). I wouldn't ever recognize her songs. I do know Amy Adams is a fine actress though, so that at least is one thing this biopic about the ill-fated songstress has going for it. I also know director Jean-Marc Vallee has a knack for historical drama, which the story of Joplin's life (and more so, her death) can be called after fifty years. So the motion picture adaptation of Joplin's life and times at least seems to be in good, Academy Award nominated hands, I'd say.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158088/video_the_last_goodbye_voor_derde_hobbit_online

Get out your handkerchiefs, everybody! This video is quite a tearfest. It seems to have been made as much for the fans of both Middle-Earth franchises as for the people involved in making them. We're treated to footage from all six films, most of it fondly remembered, other bits eagerly anticipated. We also get to see a lot of folks hugging each other on set, bringing to mind those good times for those lucky few who helped bring the two trilogies to life. Over all of it Billy Boyd's singing is heard. I don't find the music or lyrics nearly as moving as the imagery, I must confess. The text isn't that much different from the likes of Into the West or May It Be, which graced two our of three Lord of the Rings movies, nor does the melody sound that much different or inspired to my ears. Nevertheless, the message is clear: this is indeed a goodbye, as we're on the threshold of the last (Peter Jackson) directed Tolkien adaptation, and that's a bittersweet thought indeed. Of course, remakes of both projects are bound to occur some time in the future, but for now, it's a sad thought that it will finally end here. It's been a great journey though, one that will forever be cherished for decades to come by the generations that grew up with it. So, from the bottom of my heart: thank you, Peter Jackson and the entire cast and crew of both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogies!

Today's Column: what rhymes with 'Netflix'?

This month's column of mine:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157836/column_wat_rijmt_er_op_netflix

Call it petty whining, but each year I'm having an increasingly hard time finding suitable birthday and Sinterklaas gifts for my ever more demanding loved ones. DVDs are just an outdated medium by now, while few of them ever bothered to make the switch to Blu-Ray at all, rather than sticking to watching things online only (if at all). Sure, you can play a DVD on (most) computers, but it's not the same. Plus, watching things on computers and assorted mobile devices certainly saves shelf space (though of course it doesn't look nearly as sophisticated to visitors!). Point is, I fully agree with all the advantages the digital realm offers. After all, if people stopped watching DVDs, consider the production costs, both financial and material, that would be spared. Fewer DVDs sold means fewer resources wasted on an ever more declining medium. I'm all for that - and the same with books and CDs, naturally - yet I'm so stuck in my own routines that I can't switch to the same life style myself. I just love the feel of a DVD/Blu-Ray, the notion of owning something tangible forever, rather than saving ones and zeros in code on some digital plane, or just plucking things online whenever I feel like it and deleting them when I'm done, like a fleeting dream not long remembered. I applaud my friends and family for their modern mindset, but they can't expect everyone to think alike. So I'll continue to give them DVDs as long as that option is open to me, even though I know they have no particular desire (or space) to own them. I cannot help but stick to what I know best. But if my friends and family can't accept that about me, I guess they'll just have to chalk it up as a bad habit of mine.

Today's News: machines in revolt and intellectual theft

The week has picked up some speed in terms of notable news items:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157772/marvel_maakt_inhumans_en_captain_marvel

Yes, there was more news to report on, since Marvel saw fit to wash away al our questions on their projects for the next five years in a deluge of news, and I didn't post it all at once to keep people from getting overdosed on superheroes. So here's a sort of follow-up on what I posted earlier this week, though I will of course refrain from getting repetitive. I'm not gonna drone on about Marvel Studios' first female solo film as others have, since that is beginning to get old news, as both DC and Sony are developing female superheroine flicks of their own. I've known women can make capable superheroes ever since I started reading comics 20 years ago. So I consider Captain Marvel - who I've noticed isn't named Ms. Marvel, as in most of her comic book history, since that would likely be too sexist - in no way to be more worthy of anticipation that the other Marvel properties in development. The only thing that puzzles me is Marvel's apparent decision to have her team up with the Guardians of the Galaxy rather than the Avengers. I guess there's room for only one captain on Marvels primary superhero team, and having two of them, both blond and strong, might confuse audiences needlessly, even though one of them features boobs.

Still, I'm more curious to see what Marvel plans on doing with the Inhumans. Making a movie based on this superpowered human subspecies which has mostly featured as side characters in other franchise's series (and often not as good guys, too) seems like an odd choice. I guess Marvel still feels the need to include a team of misunderstood, villified outsiders the world hates and fears into their line-up, and since they don't own the rights to the X-Men any more, they decided to make do with this eclectic bunch of characters. Ideologically speaking, it's good to know Marvel still embraces the notion of taking a stand for people other than ourselves, teaching us that despite our often explosive differences we are all still only human and we should learn to live together rather than aim to kill those whose otherness scares us. I'm not sure the Inhumans are the best way to tackle said issues though, considering their aggressive history (which will undoubtedly undergo major rewriting to fit the bill more properly). Unlike the X-Men, they opt for selfimposed isolation rather than acceptance. They didn't move their entire civilization to the moon for nothing. Maybe they feel threatened by Richard Branson's attempt at commercializing space, which could end up in rampant, undesirable lunar tourism (though at the current rate his rockets keep exploding, that doesn't seem to be much cause for alarm). And if they get fed up with humanity somehow, will the Inhumans leave the moon and wreak havoc on Earth to preserve their genetic purity? I've already seen that movie, it's called Iron Sky (and I loved it, mind you!). I guess we'll just have to wait and see what Marvel intends to do with these people.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157824/extra_materiaal_avengers_age_of_ultron_online

But wait, there's more Marvel to go around. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is still running, remember? And to keep people interested in a show that isn't drawing spectators in such a huge capacity as Marvel would like, they planned to air the first Avengers: Age of Ultron trailer during this week's episode. The Internet hindered those plans though, so the trailer premiered online a week earlier than originally planned. Didn't stop Marvel from keeping their word and air the trailer again on telly this week. It's the same preview, except for a short but highly enjoyable opening scene, which does a grand job reminding us why we like the Avengers as a group so much. They have a great interplay together, a wonderful group dynamic that just screams for Joss Whedon's talents writing for such groups, which is one of his more famous and respected trademarks. This particular segment also pays hommage to the comics though, in which similar scenes of hammerlifting have played out a few times before, and the results in terms of good humour are none the lesser on screen. I could probably watch a whole movie about the Avengers getting together just hanging out and idling their time, rather than getting serious when another interchangeable villain threatens the world or stuff. Particularly when Whedon writes it. Scenes like these suffice of course, as it's an equally great thing to see the Avengers gearing up for action together.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157774/eerste_trailer_netflix_serie_marco_polo

'Game of Thrones in ancient China', is basically what this series keeps being hyped up as. Not a bad comparison, as the situation Polo encountered in the Far East very much was a game of thrones. However, despite the sex and political intrigue, which thanks to the popularity of shows like Game of Thrones is starting to become a staple of television - which I don't mind at all - that's where most comparions between both shows end. Except for the whole medieval background with swordplay, horse riding and such of course. However, you'll find no supernatural creatures plotting the downfall of man in the background. Despite the cultural affinity of the Chinese for dragons, there's none to be seen in this series (which only saves on the undoubtedly already expensive VFX budget). A few attempts at sorcery are probably interspersed throughout here and there, but I bet Netflix won't go so far as to call up creepy demons from their actresses' naughty bits. The show doesn't need all that, as actual history is fantastic enough in this case, and the Chinese are plenty exotic all by themselves. If you want to compare shows, Marco Polo has more in common with the likes of Rome and Deadwood. Both also shows from HBO, it must be noted, since that network simply wrote the book on the subject matter of explicit sex and intrigue cable shows excel at revealing today. But considering Netflix's own repertoire with series á la House of Cards, I bet they have little trouble transporting such a rich narrative atmosphere to a period setting, even though the latter is still mostly unfamiliar terrain to them. And I look forward to seeing the result.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157785/eerste_trailers_ex_machina

I cannot say I'm as impressed by this trailer. It looks like rather standard Sci-Fi, but gives off the vibe of pretending to be more than that. If it is, I'm not seeing it. It appears to question the age-old demarcation between man and machine, the line where the latter becomes the former. That's about as old a science fiction concept as they come, though it still tends to fascinate. Using the guise of a beautiful woman to make it more easily acceptable for the audience to get drawn into the debate is also a hardly novel approach. Crafting a robot into the image of a sexual alluring and desirable female has been done to death ever since Metropolis in 1927. However, naming the robot in question Ava is less of an everyday occurrence. Yet Ex Machina has the dubious honour to share that aspect with The Machine, a movie with a suspiciously similar premise (and title, even), which only was released last year... So as they ask in New Jersey, 'what's up with that?!'. Intellectual theft, divine intervention or just a veeery coincidental coincidence mayhaps? I dunno, but it doesn't help getting me pumped for this movie, nor does the prospect of a writer turning director. In this case it's Alex Garland. Sure, he wrote a few good movies (including some science fiction titles, like Sunshine), but that doesn't mean he's a capable director. I haven't yet forgotten how a fine Director of Photography landed the director's chair for that godawful Transcendence, which also shares more than a few story beats with Ex Machina (though in that case it's 'man becoming an A.I.' rather than 'man building an A.I.'). Nor am I looking forward to the writer of J.J. Abrams' Trek fuck-ups directing what's set to be the third Trek fuck-up in a row, because Abrams is too busy fucking up (?) Star Wars. Just stick to your own trade, let directors direct. And let writers write. But don't let them write the same as other writers and get away with it. If that's indeed what's happening here.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157784/eerste_posters_insurgent

Here's another derivative little thing for you. Divergent is basically the next Hunger Games, except the new Hunger Games movie is actually the next Hunger Games. Nobody can deny there's many similarities between both stories. Doesn't mean Insurgent should also 'be inspired' visually by its rival. These new posters bear a fairly striking resemblance to some of the character posters released a few months back for Mockingjay - Part 1. Except they feature lesser actors, and less guns too (lesser budget, no doubt). Ripping off another movie's marketing campaign doesn't help setting you apart from that film. But my guess is a strong independent identity isn't Insurgent's goal. They're hitching a ride on the Hunger Games' success by enticing the same audience with the same sort of subject matter. The Hunger Games is making huge sums of money, so of course the producers don't feel bad leeching off that franchise by letting the audience know they offer a similar product. They're basically shouting 'if you enjoy the Hunger Games, check out this franchise while waiting for the next installment!'. It worked on Divergent, and it is likely to work for Insurgent as well. Doesn't make either of them better movies though. Or more original ones for that matter. The only thing Insurgent seems to have that Mockingjay - Part 1 does not, is a 3D release. And that doesn't get me more excited in the least. But then, I'm not the target audience. Impatient teenage girls who like The Hunger Games are. And considering Divergent made a lot of money as well, I suppose there's lots of those.

Today's Triple News: it's a Marvelous world

Here's a few more news flashes, all Marvel related (coincidence, or a sign Marvel/Disney is slowly but surely taking over the world):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156092/eerste_character_poster_guardians_of_the_galaxy

Character posters! Always fun! Attractive pieces of marketing and usually very collectible in the long run. Not often very imaginative though (all they need to do is display a character after all, without giving too much plot away), and this one proves little different. It does what it needs to do, showcasing a dynamic pose of an intriguing pair of characters in this case, designed to entice the audience to go see the movie to learn what their deal is. We're talking about a talking tree and dito armoured raccoon, so I suppose there's quite a deal to be talked about here. Otherwise this poster leaves little clues as to the movie itself. You can wonder about the affiliation of the two different types of star fighters in the background, but that would be a bit too nerdy even for me. This is one fine piece of advertising, but it doesn't make me want to watch the Guardians of the Galaxy movie any more than I already did. The new Gamora poster however... check back later for more on that.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156083/ant-man_vindt_nieuwe_regisseur

Sick and tired about all the Ant-Man buzz of late? So was Marvel I guess, and that's why they finally settled on a director. The job goes to Peyton Reed, reponsible for such noted classics like Bring It On and Yes Man. That's a joke of course, as those are not at all memorable movies. Decent enough fare for gloomy Sunday afternoons perhaps, but not something people will talk about in twenty years time. Nevertheless, if the whole departure debacle of Edgar Wright on this project showed, Marvel does not want visionary directors for their films. They want stooges that know how to direct a decent film but also know when not to interfere with studio planning, especially when it concerns long term universe building the like Marvel is currently engaging in. Wright likely did not fit in as much as Marvel at first had hoped, having too much ideas of his own that might not have sat well with the studio (came you blame the guy, he worked for nigh a decade developing this project!). Wright just isn't a gun-for-hire as much as all his potential successors, including Reed, are. They all have a background in directing contemporary basic comedies, but none of them share Wright's distinctly British finesse, or in fact, any sign of true character. However, they do know how to follow studio orders no doubt, as is the case with the majority of the Marvel directors thus far. Louis Leterrier, Jon Favreau (before he got too big for Marvel after having done two Iron Man movies, at which point he was replaced), Shane Black, Alan Taylor, Joe Johnston, the Russo Brothers... all capable directors, but none of them fan faves because of their originality, likable offbeat approach or signature style, unlike Wright. The only exception to the rule seems to be Joss Whedon, but who knows for how much longer? I'm also a little disturbed by Marvel's tendency to actively search for a comedy director only for Ant-Man. Does a movie about a shrinking superhero talking to ants have to be a comedy per se? After all, this is a man with a very serious and dark side to him. He beats his wife for crying out loud! Please don't let that comedic element dominate the others. The last thing we need is the Avengers' very own Jar Jar Binks.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156114/vincent_donofrio_gecast_als_daredevils_doodsvijand

What we do need is an enemy that gives the devil his due. In the case of the Daredevil comics, that has always been Kingpin. Sure, the stupendously obese mobster plagued Spider-Man on many occasions, but he was not his most recognizable or memorable villain (I'd say that would be Doctor Octopus, like or not). Daredevil himself may not be as recognizable or memorable a superhero as Spidey, but most people that don't know him from the source material will know him from the 2003 Ben Affleck movie, where he was also confronted with the might of the Kingpin of Crime, then played by the late (and surprisingly, African-American) Michael Clarke Duncan, who proved more fun to watch in that role than Aflleck as the titular character. This time a white guy has been casted (casting another black man would probably have invited accusations of racism, not wholly unfounded) and it's Vincent D'Onofrio. He's shown he knows how to pull off comic book baddies, if you recall the hideous Edgar (the bug) in Men In Black. Of course, Kingpin is a whole different animal. Decidedly human, supremely intelligent but utterly ruthless, cold and calculating, shadowy, out for monetary gain but still not adverse to taking over the world in a fashion... that's all Kingpin. Fortunately D'Onofrio has done enough episodes of Law & Order to know the workings of those on the opposite side of the law through and through. A fine bit of casting if you ask me, less likely to stir fan feelings in both directions than casting a Brit as an American superhero.

Today's News: daredevils and dinosaurs

Hot off MovieScene!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155944/netflix_vindt_zijn_daredevil

Despite the sudden change of guard in showrunners (see yesterday's news), the Marvel/Netflix show seems to be picking up speed. Most importantly, a principal actor has been cast to assume the mantle of the Man Without Fear, and it's Charlie Cox. Pretty good choice, even though some people might be annoyed they went with the safest route and opted for an Englishman to play a (fairly iconic) American comic book vigilante. If he can throw a convincing Irish accent, like he did on Boardwalk Empire to great effect, US slang ought not be an issue. He fits the bill in most other respects - apart from not being blind, obviously - as he's the right age, charming but able to switch to a darker, more distressing persona effortlessly. Okay, so he looks in no way like Matt Murdock as in the comics, but that's something easily remedied I reckon. I think a good casting choice was made for this show. Cox's general '(dare)devil may care' attitude would suit the show, which is still only as good as its writers. There's talent in that regard as well. For the moment, I have little doubts as to the quality of this upcoming Marvel television series.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155955/regisseur_onthult_details_jurassic_world

Douts I have aplenty about the plot of Jurassic World though. But not about its director. Most of the plot has been leaked online, and instead of firmly denying everything (which in Hollywood irrevocably ends up being an act of blatant lying), Colin Trevorrow takes his time to acknowledge unavoidable fan doubts and reassure them he respects the armies of dinosaur devotees eager for another Jurassic bite. Whether they want to hear about the plot contents he just gave away is their own affair. I for one am trying to steer clear off spoilers insofar as at all possible for someone moving in the circles I do. My duty as a movie news poster sometimes leave me little choice in the matter. Do I like what I hear about JW? Not all that much, to be quite honest. The notion of a park open for visitors, where dino shit again hits the fan in that finest of 'jaws and claws' tradition, is hardly the stuff of originality. Even though it would be nice to see the original island of Isla Nublar again (though you cannot help but wonder how anyone could be so stupid as to repeat such dreadful past mistakes: all of Ian Malcolm's ramblings seem to have fallen on deaf ears, alas!). Velociraptors I have found to be overrated in this franchise and the idea of training them to establish a 'relationship with humans' is too vague to make any impression: surely both species already have a relationship, as hunter and prey? They're not gonna train them as watchdogs or bioweapons or something silly like that, are they?

The concept I'm most uncertain about, as is the majority of the fanbase, is the 'genetically modified dinosaur', by which Trevorrow hints at a made up species rather than an existing one. Of course, this was hinted at in the books where the idea of dinosaurs suited to human needs was touched upon - like Sauropods reduced to dog size to make cute pets - thus further underscoring the notion of humanity playing God. Also, none of the dinosaurs so far were actually supposed to be accurate live reflections of the fossil record, as they were already 'theme park monsters', equipped with frog DNA to fill the gaps in their genetic code as well as those in the plot. In this case, the shady corporation pulling the strings has seemingly ordered a theropod that does justice to the popular conception of giant carnivorous dinosaurs as scary monsters rather than actual animals, allowing for the creation of a 'Diabolus Rex'. Sounds ludicrous, but in terms of the Jurassic Park ideology, not wholly without merit. On the one hand it's a logical next step in man's messing with nature, on the other I would much prefer up to date paleontological accuracy to be felt as well. Maybe we'll have both. Until such time as any of the dinosaur animatronics or digital effects shots have been revealed, don't blame me for being on the (electric) fence about this one. But my faith in Trevorrow remains.

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 Double News: Marco Polo Most Wanted

Another instance of me killing two birds with one stone (an act I can only condone in a figurative sense by the way):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153071/netflix_produceert_marco_polo_serie

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153030/speciale_golden_globe_promo_voor_muppets_most_wanted

More historical series, epic or otherwise, are always welcome, especially if they involve 'political skullduggery, sexual intrige and spectacular battles'. I can't recall Marco Polo having been done before on the small screen, so this might be as good a time as any to start. There's enough hugely fascinating material to be covered, ranging from Polo's long voyages to the East and the clash of cultures between West and East (but also the mutual learning) the explorer personified, to the major political strife in ancient China. At least there's one Game of Thrones veteran to bring his expertise on television like this along, and the participation of the duo of writer/directors Sandberg and Ronning is also most welcome after their wonderful Kon-Tiki movie that already showed they have an affinity with exploration, even though I know they are quite busy working on Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales simultaneously. In all honesty, I'm not acquainted with showrunner John Fusco's body of work, but judging from his resumé - which includes The Forbidden Kingdom and the upcoming Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon II (don't ask) - the Far East is something he enjoys, and if that's true, he might be properly motivated to make this project work to the best of his abilities, as would befit a showrunner. As for Netflix, I have as yet no need for it in my life, since I prefer to watch television of my choice the oldfashioned way, by slowly but surely - with emphasis on the former it must be admitted - working my merry way through huge piles of DVDs and such. So I guess I'll have to do some serious waiting on this show over the next two years, as I'm also not the downloading type. Oh well, that pile will keep me busy for many more months to come anyway.

And should I get bored regardless I can always go see a movie in theaters, like Muppets Most Wanted for example (not the strongest segue, I'll grant you). This new Golden Globe promo spot is pretty hilarious, though it could easily have been done with other movies too, or for other award shows for that matter. Wouldn't be surprised if the Muppets had something up their sleeve for the Oscars too. Until that time, this fun little teaser is enough to whet our appetite for this 'most sensational, inspirational, celebrational, muppetational' sequel. And it also adequately reminds us to avoid any online message boards that are running rampant with trolls, flame wars and assorted silly people, especially the sort that would entice unsuspecting visitors to make money simply sitting at home.

Today's News: two powerhouses join forces for marvelous consequences

Quite the news flash was posted on MovieScene the other day, thanks to me:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151502/marvel_en_netflix_bundelen_krachten

So basically, what Marvel did on the big screen is being redone on the small screen. Though the originality has worn off, giving several TV shows the same treatment, simultaneously setting up a larger universe that leads to a new (mini)series is quite a novelty, not to matter risky business. But hey, the same thigng was said about Netflix itself, so it comes as no surprise that particular "network" opted to engage in this joint venture. At the same time, Marvel is still cooperating with a regular television network (ABC) on the currently running Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and a new show which has still to be revealed (but is probably that Agent Carter show which was suggested earlier these past few months). So Marvel is branching out on all platforms, being visibly active in theaters, on home cinemas and online. It's gonna be hard to miss the company it seems.

But will these TV shows be compelling enough for audiences? I foresee a few potential obstacles. First, there is name recognition. Daredevil people may be aware of, most likely through the 2003 Ben Affleck movie, which isn't a good thing since it wasn't a very good movie. But how many people outside the world of comic book readers are familiar with Iron Fist, Jessica Jones and Luke Cage? Getting people to embrace these could prove quite a challenge, so hopefully that Marvel brand alone is enough to pull in an audience for their shows. Secondly, there's the background of the characters, which in all four cases is rather similar. All four series will take place in the New York neighbourhood of Hell's Kitchen, so instead of battling outlandish super villains these heroes will fight more basic everyday evil, like drugs, corruption, organized crime and such. What's more, in terms of powers these characters aren't all that different either. Though there are some noticeable unique abilities, they mostly feature superhuman strength, speed and reflexes. At least their origins are rather different, but otherwise four shows dealing with the same subject matter seems somewhat redundant. Of course, the final Defenders climax could herald the end of one or more of these shows to balance things out more neatly, but so far it remains to be seen just how far Marvel and Netflix plan to take these shows. Each character gets 13 episodes, after that we'll have to wait and see where they go from there.

Though story and power diversity may not be as strong, at least the characters are fairly different in make-up, which could appeal to a broader audience. You have your heroine to appeal to a female demographic, a black character and a character dabbling in Asian mysticism (but who's not actually Asian!) to get racial minorities interested and a blind guy to engage disabled folk (okay, that last one may be highly debatable, but you never know). In this regard, The Defenders would be far different from The Avengers, which is basically all white males. True, there's Black Widow as a female role model, but she still hasn't gotten a movie of her own, while Samuel L. Jackson's black Nick Fury is only a supporting character that isn't on the Avengers roster proper but mostly overseeing stuff and letting the white people do all the real work (kind of an reverse Black Pete, for Dutch people). The core members with their own films, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk and Captain America, are all white. Except for the Hulk occasionally, but there's no actual green people to be represented as far as I'm aware. In this light, the four Defenders can make quite a difference, even though they're otherwise not so different. Nice metaphor for humanity me thinks.

And if it doesn't work, Marvel can simply change the Defenders' roster and introduce new characters as they like. After all, the team went through quite a few iterations over the years, just like the Avengers did. As you can see on the picture above, none of the four Defenders you'll see on Netflix appeared in the original first issue. However, the Hulk did, so there's you first potential Defenders/Avengers crossover (even though using the Hulk as a character would probably be too expensive in terms of FX). And then there's the Sub-Mariner and Doctor Strange, both of which have been rumoured to get their own movies. Introducing them in these shows could be explained as testing the waters for a potential movie, or yet another TV series or miniseries. So many characters, so many possibilities and opportunities. One thing's for sure: whether on TV, in theaters or online, the future is gonna be marvelous.