Today's News: more and more

News just keeps piling up. At times it seems like I'm the only one posting any on MovieScene lately. Which is one of the reasons my blog is witnessing a decrease in updates. Oh well, at least all this news means there is always something to post on my blog when there is time available.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156615/marvel_voegt_nog_vijf_films_toe_aan_huidige_planning

Seems overkill, to announce movies so far ahead without anything to go on but a title (at least, I hope Marvel has some to fill in those release dates, though they're not spilling those beans just yet), and of course, a plan. However, this is not so much about the movies, as it is a show of strength and confidence. Marvel flexes its muscles to let the world know they're totally prepared to accept DC's recent challenge in annual cinematic universe crafting. DC has so far revealed they're planning ahead up till 2019, now Marvel does the same. You didn't think it was a coincidence this latest planning of the House of Ideas ran until 2019, did you? Plus, DC so far sticks to one movie a year, while Marvel eagerly doubles that amount, and in case of 2017 even triples it. With this slate of release dates, Marvel is making a statement they mean to stay the biggest player in terms of superhero movies. And backed up by the ever expanding might of Disney, they can make good on it. However, unlike DC, Marvel hasn't named any properties yet that can fill those slots. They better put their money where their mouth is soon, because (most) people don't remember release dates, they remember names. Like The Batman in 2019. I wonder what marvel hero gets to go up against that one, DC's strongest franchise still. Ant-Man 2 maybe?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156632/nieuwe_comic-con_poster_jurassic_world

The first real Jurassic Park poster since 2001. And it's both beautiful and bad news. Of course, this is a great mix between the old - the thrashed Explorer vehicle, the beloved Velociraptor, the Isla Nublar setting - and the new - Jurassic World being built on the bones of the previous park in the background, but it also displays a disturbing, deeply rooted conservative attitude towards the JP dinosaurs. This is 2014. No respectable paleontologist will back that retro dinosaur as being an accurate representation of a Velociraptor. It worked in the early Nineties, but today's Raptors don't have arms like that and they are covered in feathers. However, Colin Trevorrow seems more adamant to recapture the glory of the first Jurassic Park film by reintroducing that vintage dinosaur look than by adhering to one of the elements that made JP great: making realistic animals of what otherwise would have been typical movie monsters. Say about Jurassic Park III's narrative quality what you will, at least it dared to show progression by adding feathered dinosaurs, and thus up-to-date science, to the mix. It would be a definite step back if Trevorrow chickened out on that just because audiences didn't think that much of JP III. Why? Because JP's representation of dinosaurs resonates strongly through popular culture. It's basically the dinosaur franchise that all others tend to copy. So if JP gets it wrong (and they admittedly have a few times), others will copy those mistakes and audiences are spoon fed the wrong notions about actual dinosaur looks and behavior. After two decades, Dilophosaurus is finally showing signs of ridding itself of that nonsensical neck frill and venom spitting action in the collective mind of the general audience. Does Trevorrow mean to reuse such silly concepts too, just because they look cool? If so, Jurassic World's dinosaurs are just that indeed: living theme park monsters, not actual animals. Maybe I'm just jumping to conclusions here though. I know that Raptor image on the poster is copied from a still of the kitchen scene from the first movie. It's probably too early to apply one of the final dinosaur designs for Jurassic World on any promotional material yet. So for now I'll keep my faith in Trevorrow. And I want one of those posters, but I'm not gonna get it as I don't care to visit San Diego just to pick one of these up.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156631/eerste_trailer_the_imitation_game

Benedict Cumberbatch adds another socially awkward genius to his repertoire. This time it's Alan Turing. And once again he excels in playing such a character, it would appear. This trailer makes me very interested about the actual movie. There's some terrific actors in there and a fascinating historical background to serve as a dramatic narrative. I'm not at all familiar with the director - the Norwegian Morten Tyldum - but this type of film seems to suit him. Or the studio's had some great trailer editors working on it, that's also a possibility. And already there is Oscar buzz generated around this film. Kinda obvious; solid actors, war story, gay emotional conflict, all typical Academy Award ingredients. I'm always put off by people dropping the word 'Oscar' around a movie that is still so far from its release date. It goes to show just what a political game the Oscars are. Then again, people suggested Oscar buzz for The Monuments Men well in advance too, but they haven't been doing that again since its release. Was it because it was a disappointing movie, or maybe because there was no homosexual aspect to any of it? Nevertheless, this trailer suggests a good film to me, so until I see it in theaters, that will suffice. But I'm not prematurely jumping on the Oscar bandwagon until the nominations are in. I am increasingly getting in on the Cumberbandwagon though. Ever since Sherlock, I developed a much more appreciative sentiment towards the man, and I'm even willing to forgive him his transgressions partaking in the further exploitation of the Star Trek franchise.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156643/nieuwe_trailer_star_wars_rebels

Speaking of exploitation, Star Wars has experienced that ever since 1978. And since Disney has bought the franchise, exploitation has been turned up a few notches. However, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Disney scrapped the then running animated series The Clone Wars and is now replacing it by Star Wars Rebels, which is... another animated series from the same creators! And it's set only a few years after Clone Wars, allowing the series to reintroduce some of that show's characters (like Obi-Wan Kenobi, as this new trailer shows). Other than that, the sense of adventure in a war torn galaxy remains the same, though this series does go for a slightly younger target audience. However, both this show and its predecessor feature a young Force sensitive protagonist, while the style of animation hasn't changed a bit. It basically makes you wonder why Disney didn't just pick up with Clone Wars where it left off. It makes little difference to me. I didn't watch Clone Wars, I have little interest in Rebels either. I prefer to stick to the big screen, even though I'm dreading what J.J. Abrams is doing to the franchise.

Today's News, and plenty of it

Time restraints prohibited me to repost some of my news items for MS on this blog, so today there's more than usual:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155538/mole_man_gecast_voor_fantastic_four_reboot

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155565/eerste_trailer_star_wars_rebels

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155587/frank_lammers_speelt_michiel_de_ruyter

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155616/spring_breakers_2_aangekondigd

Let's just start with the oldest bit of novelty and work our way to the latest, shall we?

Hopefully Nelson will fare better in this Marvel movie than he did in the last, where we only witnessed the beginning of his rise to supervillainy, but were withheld the result. Apparently Fox has bigger events in store for the seasoned character actor this time, already outing him as the Mole Man-to-be, though underscoring he won't be used as such in the first upcoming installment in the FF's reboot franchise. After all, Dr. Doom is slated to take centre stage as the primary antagonist for that film, as it ought to be, as he's the Fantastic Four's most appreciated and recognizable foe. The Mole Man is indeed a decent baddie for a later film, and since a second movie has already been announced, it's likely that's where we will first see Nelson assuming the mantle of the dimunitive underground monarch. Nelson is a bit taller than we're used to seeing the Mole Man, so either the studio fits the character to the actor - which may not be such a bad idea as an evil midget is the stuff of both political incorrectness and silliness - or Nelson will undergo a bit of a CG transformation to make his appearance adhere more to what the comic book fans will most likely expect.

As for computer generated imagery, Star Wars has had lots of it over the last fifteen years, but nowhere near as much as on the small screen in various animated shows. This fall, a new one will be added to the Disney XD channel, called Star Wars Rebels (no colon). This first brief trailer adequately shows it's from the same creators as The Clone Wars series, and as such the franchise stays consistent in terms of animation style on telly. However, this is the first Disney produced Star Wars show, and a dreaded feeling of childishness cannot be denied upon viewing the promo above. Bumbling droids and cheesy oneliners have been a staple of the franchise since its inception, though more frequent in use since the prequel trilogy. It seems Disney has no trouble continuing this trend to appeal to kids, though older audiences may not find it as agreeable. Of course, most adults were largely done with any new Star Wars material after Episode III, and those that remain hopeful of improvement will no doubt focus all of their attention on the next true event, the release of Star Wars Episode VII. Until such time, Rebels is as good a way as any to ensure Disney keeps its publicity running and guarantee the current generation gets indoctrinated into Star Wars, so they can be influenced to run to toy stores and buy every conceivable tie-in merchandise items Disney has licensed. And if Episode VII proves any good, the older generation will no doubt do likewise.

I wasn't aware a movie about the life and times of Michiel de Ruyter was in production, but as he's one of the most iconic Dutch historical heroes around, it had to happen sooner or later. Historical epics that tell of other chapters of Dutch history than the events in WW II have been kind of a trend since the successful Nova Zembla, though for every hit there is a painful flop to remind us of the challenge. Remember Kenau? Most likely you don't. Considering the abundance of naval battles De Ruyter fought, the producers have their job cut out for them keeping the budget in line. Which is no doubt why they had to let Yorick van Wageningen go. He was the perfect choice in my mind, but even the finest piece of casting is only a small piece of the whole the budget allows for. Frank Lammers is a fine second choice: he's fairly well known to Dutch audiences but hasn't had a breakthrough internationally, making him more affordable than Van Wageningen who has co-starred in various big Hollywood productions. Plus, Lammers has proven himself to be a capable, reliable actor, and not just for his role on Nachtrit for which he won a Gouden Kalf. If he can fight his way through taxi wars, naval battles should be an easy labor for him.

A sequel to Spring Breakers? That's the attraction of the less artsy elements of that particular movie, tits and ass and young Hollywood starlets, speaking. Those are no doubt the ingredients that drew in the majority of the audience for the first film. Nevermind the director's weird and hallucinatory montage and lighting, the dreamy visual quality and the simple plot of sex and violence, crime and drugs relaying the greatest imaginable culmination and therein the demise of the American Dream. Mr. Korine told his tale and presented his warning of lust and doom, and that suffices for him (apparently, as he's not inclined to participate in this sequel). Not so for the studio, who is now pressing for a second movie containing more of the same. Which is not to say there's not more to state on the subjects Korine discussed. Religion is certainly a subject that would fit in easily in a tale of Sodom and Gomorrah like this one. In fact, it was already lightly touched upon in the predecessor via one of the female protagonists who disappeared early on in the film (and for the better no doubt). There's more controversy to tackle in that department, plus a potential to bring back that character. Whether or not the studio cares about these possible ideological overtones or not, a Spring Breakers 2 could work. But considering most audiences thought of the first film as a disappointment (most of them probably just didn't get its intentions, even though this sounds horribly elitist of me to say), is there any public interest in a second coming? Then again, sex always sells. Isn't there another batch of former Disney starlets ready to exploit?