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: we interrupt this program to bring you something far more interesting

I've been real busy this past week, so posting news took a bit of a hit. There was plenty going round, but all I got was this:

Teaser True Detective Seizoen 2 online

Thankfully HBO provided a plot synopsis, since there isn't much of a story to discern in this teaser. It's basically a rapid succession of shots of faces. But some very intriguing faces, I'll admit. Colin Farrell certainly looks every bit as corrupt a cop as you can imagine, though that may be saying more about the sterotypical look of corrupt law enforcers in television. Can Vince Vaughn finally rid himself of the B-comedy stigma he has gained over the last decades? Taylor Kitsch still needs to make most audiences forget about his flop John Carter, which I personally liked a lot, but in that regard I place myself into a distinct minority. This cast is less of a safe bet than the likes of Season 1's ensemble, which proved spot on in every regard. But then, this show isn't playing it safe on most other levels. A totally different story line each year, with a whole new cast and new directors? That's not the usual way television gets produced, nor how audience loyalty is instilled. It worked well enough on the acclaimed first season, but making viewers wait twice as long for the second season and hope they'll accept the sweeping changes is quite a risk. In most regards, this isn't one show at all, it's a steady collection of mini-series in the same narrative style and genre under the same titular umbrella. For as the released synopsis makes all too clear, the more things change, the more they stay the same. A fixed number of protagonists stars in a story about the wheelings and dealings in the ever ongoing conflict between the underworld and the justice department, where the latter isn't portrayed in too flattering a light. No serial killers this time, but mobster battles instead. Other than that, the formula persists. And hopefully so will the quality, since the first season left some pretty big boots to fill.

Damon en Affleck produceren Incorporated

A movie about the ever more deeply embedded evils of multinational corporations, produced by two acting big shots in the giant corporate Hollywood machine? That's ironic to say the least. But then, there's a lot of messages depicted in the movies that from any executive's viewpoint are only relayed with the goal of making money. Just look at Avatar and its promotion of environmental awareness and techno-skepticism, made with the very latest technology available. This is commonplace in Hollywood. Left and liberal on the outside, the executives running Hollywood are nothing like the words their factory of dreams opts to spread. But if you want your message to reach a global audience, you have to sell some pieces of your soul to the devil. And so the story about a world run by corporations and the struggle of the individual to free himself of their grasp is presented by an industry of Big Money. Will that affect the message hitting the right chords? Not neccessarily. Stronger j'accuses than this have come out of Hollywood over the years. Will it affect the quality? It's Hollywood, when is the last time you saw a decent movie with an urgent message on the disturbing state of the world and the ever increasing loss of self? It's opium for the masses, it is! It's keeping us dumb and contented and without the desire of expression by delivering mindnumbing dreck that suggests an intelligent message but designed to keep us from rising up against the system, and...

...the first four episodes Game of Thrones Season 5 have leaked...

Excuse me for a few hours. Hold that thought, I'll post the rest of last week's news when I've had my fix of Thrones. I need my fix, I can't live without it. And now my watch begins...

At least television keeps hoi polloi from rebellion by delivering quality goods. Dragons and titties and incest and such, you know. The fun bits of life.

Today's News: a threesome of trailers

The first trailers for 2015 are in!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158543/eerste_trailer_ant-man

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158536/eerste_poster_ant-man

2015's first big trailer of course had to come from Marvel Studios. The ant-icipation for Ant-Man is slowly building, now that most fanboys have had time to get over Edgar Wright's departure. Seems Ant-Man as a project is still doing alright and traces of its original director's touch remain to be felt. The trailer sure hints at Wrightian humour, quirkiness and the necessity not to take this subject too seriously, which is reflected on the rather silly but appropriate minimalist teaser poster. Other than that, it appears a fairly thirteen-a-dozen superhero flick, with distinct overtones of a heist movie. The notion of the villain being equipped with the same powers as the hero is hardly a novel approach for Marvel, when the likes of Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk are taken into account. I guess any really new ideas that ought to set Ant-Man apart from his fellow superheroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe will have to spring from his questionable personality and his resulting status as a former delinquent. None of the other superheroes have had a criminal record thus far. Of course, we have seen flawed characters, Tony Stark's being a prime example (being an arms merchant sadly doesn't come with a criminal record). Ant-Man's strength may lie in introducing a very unheroic hero, the kind that comes home after saving the world and abuses his spouse (as per the comics). I doubt Marvel has the balls to go as far as the hilarious Irredeemable Ant-Man character on the big screen - also because that persona is a whole other character, just with the same name and powers - but there's still ample opportunity for shying away from the superhero routine here by making the titular figure a recnognizable all-too human human being. And otherwise, we'll have to make do with his talking to ants to spice things up a little.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158525/nieuwe_trailer_peanuts

This really isn't my thing. Peanuts never intrigued me much as a kid, nor does it do better in my adult years. This trailer, too, just seems to appeal too much to kids, feeling rather childish throughout, without containing any gags that would win over more mature audiences. The style of animation appears hardly enticing and not on par with contemporary animated films, though that may have something to do with the selfimposed limitations set by the producers to acknowledge the supposedly iconic style of the original comic book strips. I have to give the creators of this film credit for honoring the original work at least, rather than going all-out and making it look nothing like the Peanuts everybody knows. Maybe I'm just biased against this film because I'm a cat person.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158545/nieuwe_trailer_the_lazarus_effect

Zero fascination for this film results from watching this trailer, either. There just doesn't appear to be anything new to this premise, other than that it combines the age-old Frankenstein routine of 'don't play God and resurrect the dead just because you can' with a sort of demonic horror element where the scientists in error are picked off by some ghostly apparition one by one. The PG-13 rating also won't help, since it won't allow the movie to go for particular strong moments of scare. Heck, Frankenweenie looks more scary and original than this bloodless B-flick! You wonder why the studio thought it would be a good idea to waste a budget on this film, or why decent actors like Mark Duplass, Olivia Wilde and Evan Peters would bother performing in this one. Maybe there's just more than meets the eye here, and the trailer tells us it's one thing while the actual product turns out to be quite another. I very much doubt that though. I don't think I'll wake up for this one.