Today's News: It's the most boring time of the year

The Holidays are never a particularly hot time for movie news (unless your movie is called The Interview). This year proves no exception. I guess it's a good thing, as it gives me less work and more time to spend with my loved ones. Or stuff.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158436/justin_lin_nieuwe_regisseur_star_trek_3

This is basically bad news in the guise of good news. Of course, the real bad news I mentioned previously, which was Duncan Jones passing on Trek 3. I guess we have to make do with an action director then, which doesn't bode particularly well for the movie's plot. Justin Lin sure isn't the worst choice as action directors go, though. He successfully and rather unexpectedly turned a franchise in decline around and crafted Fast & Furious into the powerhouse blockbuster series it is today. Obviously, Paramount Pictures is hoping he can pull off the same scheme for their ailing Star Trek franchise, which has known nothing but woe since J.J. Abrams traded in Trek for Wars. I hope Lin realized what he was in for, basically assuming command of a previously sinking ship, with little to no input on the script, as there's no time for decent rewrites, now that the 2016 date, hailing the franchise's Fiftieth Anniversary, is definitive. An approach both fast and furious is sure required here. As if the script isn't enough of an issue, I genuinely doubt Lin's capability to handle Trek. He has proven good at what he does - against all odds, the F&F movies got better and better - but he does action movies and has no experience with the science fiction genre, intelligent or otherwise. Maybe his hiring is another clear sign that Paramount isn't at all interested in decent Sci-Fi, but just wants another Star Wars like action flick that once more proves the new Trek isn't anything like real Trek. The rumour that the studio is hoping to add Rocket & Groot type sidekicks is also getting more credible, as there's various of those to be found in Lin's oeuvre thus far (though they be human as opposed to antropomorphic plants and animals). I'm glad Paramount at least went with the most sensible bad choice, but I'm not applauding their choice as a bright future for the Star Trek franchise.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158419/nieuwe_trailer_in_the_heart_of_the_sea

I also don't applaud whaling (at all!), but I cannot deny this film looks fascinating. Of course, that cannot be credited to the overly digital stupendously large whale smashing the boat. It's the story of the perseverance of man in his struggle against nature's wrath that piques my interest here. Maritime stories of men at the mercy of the wide ocean have proven a popular trend of late (e.g. Kon-Tiki, Life of Pi, et al.) and In the Heart of the Sea might make a fine addition to that list, helped by a decent 1800s period look. A good cast is in effect, though a better choice for the leading man might have been found than Chris Hemsworth, but I suppose you got to put in one popular name for the general audience (or so studios often seem to think). I doubt the story will offer many surprises with the God of Thunder leading these desperate and starving men through their hopeless plight: besides, if they had all died, it seems highly doubtful the Essex story would have been historically documented at all. I just hope the ignorant audience won't consider whalers as brave and romantic men having chosen a courageous trade slaughtering large, dangerous creatures, though I could not believe any Western bred director would consider such an ideological message in this day and age. In the Heart of the Sea mostly isn't about whaling anyway, it's about survival against impossible odds first and foremost. And history has taught us that such a whale of a tale has always intrigued mankind.

Today's News: not a very busy week for news

The end of the year is nigh, the slow flow of news is a telling sign of that. Good thing too, since I got plenty of work to do in these last few weeks of 2014.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158349/vijf_regisseurs_op_shortlist_star_trek_3

Well, that's just nice! Five eligible directors and the one I trust most to save Star Trek from going down the drain immediately says he's not interested. A damn shame, since intelligent Sci-Fi is exactly what Trek is in dire need of to once again differentiate it from the action oriented likes of Star Wars, and intelligent Sci-Fi is just Duncan Jones' forte. Justin Lin and Daniel Espinosa are mostly mindless action directors (no offense, guys!), so not the types Trek needs. I haven't seen The Imitation Game (yet), nor have I sampled any of Morten Tyldum's domestic fare, so I can't speak of his suitability for Trek 3. Considering his first overseas film stars Benedict Cumberbatch, who previously played a character I so do not want to see again in the next Trek film, I'm inclined not to give Tyldum the benefit of the doubt, though I agree that is rather narrow minded of me. That leaves Rupert Wyatt. His Rise of the Planet of the Apes indicated a compatibility with smarter science fiction, but once again, his oeuvre isn't particularly elaborate and I don't feel like judging a director's capacities for Trek on just the one film. Duncan Jones was just what the franchise needed, in my mind. Very disappointing to know he won't be involved. And if such bad news isn't enough of a downer, the news reached the Internet this week that Paramount is eager to incorporate witty sidekick characters á la Rocket & Groot into the next film because of the success of Guardians of the Galaxy. Which once again goes to show that studio execs, at least the ones working at this studio, only follow what's hot and trending, rather than appreciate 50 years of Trek history that did pretty well without such blatant attempts to make the franchise resemble other popular properties. I truly fear for the future of Trek, it increasingly doesn't seem to have one that's worthy of the lore that came before...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158377/viola_davis_gecast_in_suicide_squad

Wow, Suicide Squad really seems to have a thing for casting Oscar nominees. Guess DC's strategy to differentiate itself from Marvel is to cast mostly actors with past Oscar buzz. The majority of the main Marvel actors are well suited at what they do, but, with a few exceptions, Oscar material they are not. Director David Ayer seems to have his job cut out for him managing all this movie's talent and the unavoidable egos that come with it. I'm glad they casted Davis rather than Oprah Winfrey. That latter choice just seemed to much like the stuff of 'silly Internet rumour', even if Winfrey is serious about a solid action career. Davis is known to excel at heavily dramatic roles, but has co-starred in plenty of action movies that don't take themselves overly seriously. Suicide Squad definitely falls into that category and so does the role of Amanda Waller, the government liaison tasked with overseeing all the villainous egos in the Squad itself. Seems like she and Ayer have that much in common, hopefully they'll be able to teach each other a thing or two.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158395/nieuwe_poster_marvels_agent_carter

Hayley Atwell is also one of those actresses who's in all regards skilled at her job, but not someone likely to get nabbed for an Academy Award anytime soon. Especially in her return to the small screen for Agent Carter (maybe she'll win an Emmy though, you never know). So far, I like what I've seen of this new show, and I always like seeing Hayley anyway. Nevertheless, with this series the Marvel Universe once again emphasizes its spy stuff, something which I feel it's overdoing. We already have Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. running and that titular organization, though it took a blow recently on the big screen, is still very active in the Marvel movies as well. Now we get a show which spends a lot of its time exploring the origins of S.H.I.E.L.D. Too much espionage for my taste. Granted, the Marvel Universe is not just about superhumans, but it is hard to deny that's its most appealing aspect, so I would call for more superheroes and less shady spy organizations. Of course, with five upcoming Netflix series dealing with that subject, the future looks bright enough in that regard. And at least Agent Carter has the charming historical Fourties period to distinguish itself from the later S.H.I.E.L.D. shenanigans. So it's not just all repetition of the same thing, just variation.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158406/nieuwe_beelden_daredevil

Speaking of those upcoming Marvel titles, here's a closer look at one. After Agent Carter, Daredevil is the next Marvel series planned for 2015. And this one is a bit more super, though much more grounded in reality than his contemporaries on the big screen. He's not fighting aliens or gods, just busting criminal asses on the streets of New York. Something a bit more relatable. His outfit also isn't nearly as fancy as we're used to from superheroes. However, word is ths suit above is just an initial garment, and not the familiar final red garb, which will make its appearance later. Hopefully they'll manage to find a careful balance between fancy and gritty, the way the 2003 movie just didn't. At least Charlie Cox, like Atwell, is one of those reliable actors you can fully trust to make things work, without his demanding an Oscar in return.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158403/nieuwe_trailer_american_sniper

Bradley Cooper, however, does have his eyes fixed on an Academy Award. And he's also a part of the Marvel Universe, though not as visible as most (he's responsible for that funny raccoon from that recent space movie, remember?). Third time may prove the charm, having been snubbed for an Oscar twice already, but clearly taking a precise aim for one again in Clint Eastwood's American Sniper. Eastwood being a sort of Oscar magnet also helps his cause no doubt. Seems both director and star made a strong dramatic movie, if the trailer is to be believed. Very American too, and not just in regards to the title. Eastwood is not one to sugarcoat his country, and it apears American Sniper will make no secrets of the negative effects of American actions abroad against those citizens taking said actions. Nor will it need to defend itself from showcasing such actions, as the need for them is not without cause. Or maybe the trailer is dead wrong and the film is actually a ideologically black & white patriottic puff piece, who knows. Hopefully the movie will do this fine trailer justice.

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: falling behind

I can still find time to post news on MovieScene, but not enough additionally to comment on it here. Which doesn't stop me from trying, but it makes some of these news items older than usual, a situation which will stay that way if I can't find a balance again soon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157391/william_shatner_benaderd_voor_rol_star_trek_3

Well, this is just a bad idea. If they wanted to have Shatner and Nimoy return as a pair, they should have done it years ago in that first dreadful Star Trek reboot vehicle. Now Shatner is just late for the party and would feel even more like a gratuitous addition/story cop-out than Nimoy's appearance in the previous two installments already does. Besides, what is there to gain for the rebooted franchise by itself if they keep leeching off the classics, thus refusing to let the new movies stand on their own merits - of which, to my mind, they have few to begin with - by dragging iconic characters into the mix? Just let go off the past and let Nimoy and Shatner enjoy retirement, they said their farewells twenty years ago back when we still cared. It's bad storytelling to keep them from recurring next to their hip and cool modern counterparts Pine & Quinto. Contemporary audiences will only get confused by the oldies, while real Trekkies don't give a damn about their involvement, as the faithful and sensible fan community members among them have stopped bothering with the reboot franchise (and the rest of them isn't worth considering). It's not their Trek, goes for both the fans of the real Kirk and Spock and the actors portraying them. Abrams and co., please go write something original rather than milking the original ad nauseam just because you have no idea how to proceed otherwise.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157407/eerste_trailer_tak3n

Why wasn't Liam Neeson in any of The Expendables flicks? He's making more action movies than Statham and Stallone put together these days. Granted, they're all interchangeable and Tak3n (or Taken 3, if you prefer, which I do) doesn't seem any different. Somebody not too smart screws Neeson over, he goes berserk and hunts down the perpetrators, leaving a trail of bodies in his wake for our enjoyment. Tak3n is said to be the final installment in the Taken saga, a franchise that few people would have thought would become one judging from the first film, which was just so surprisingly successful more of them had to be produced. The trailer seems to indicate it ends on a dramatic note, not the least of which is provided by disposing of Famke Janssen (why would you do such a thing?!). From the looks of it, there is a very real chance Neeson's character himself might not survive this one either. Probably for the best, so Neeson will soon be free to start doing redundant sequels to all those other action flicks he has starred in over the last few years. Or maybe join the cast of The Expendables 4, where he will fit right in.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157416/tetris_film_in_de_maak

Yes, Tetris is getting the unasked-for and unneccesary Battleship treatment. Don't ask me what the story will be about, the producers are not commenting on that aspect so strongly the likelihood of there not being a story as of yet must be strongly considered. They found something for Battleship, feeble though it was. That too ended up as what could be described as a 'science fiction epic', which is the route the producers of Tetris say it will take. It'll probably involve an alien invasion again. But this time, rather than fighting them off with ancient WW II battleships, we'll rain down digital blocks on their heads! That'll teach them! Or stuff. I wouldn't expect too much, to be on the safe side. Except for the appearance of that darn catchy game tune, which is so iconic they'll have to keep it in or people will call shenanigans on this film. Maybe that's how the aliens will be defeated? Though that would mean stealing a plot point from Mars Attacks. I'll stick to the game on my old Nintendo GameBoy. It's the only console I have (if that term is eligible for use in this regard, I dunno) and the only game that came with it. Or I can play it on my digital calculator, which is what got me through high school (though without it, I may have gotten through high school quicker, admittedly). For some reason, playing Tetris never gets old. So why do we need a motion picture about it at all?