Today's News: Jurassic's wonder posters

It was a good week for Jurassic imagery, but not so much for the production of Wonder Woman.

Nieuwe poster Jurassic World

Wederom nieuwe poster Jurassic World

That's what I'm talking about! Less logo (awesome and iconic though it may be) and more striking visuals to entice folks from visiting the new park. Two down, one more to go, and the second trailer just around the corner. Even though the creature is wholly incorrect from a scientific viewpoint, I cannot help but drool over the Mosasaurus one-sheet. The thought of a giant marine reptile - not a dinosaur, as the studio would like you to think - in a tank is such a simple concept, but it totally works. I feel as excited as the little boy on the poster beholding this critter. The shark, less so, I imagine. From what I hear from the script going round, these fish have to be cloned to serve as the Mosasaur's food, since they're on the endangered species list. A fun little side notion with little to no plot consequences, but also a delightful little inside look at the awkward logistics of a dinosaur theme park. The I-Rex poster serves as a decent reminder of the whole man versus nature dichotomy, basically the franchise's philosophical routine. I like the set-up, though if it was applied to hide the appearance of the Indominus Rex, it's a wasted effort, considering the merchandise and I-Rex action figures are already available in many stores around the globe. Of course, the general audience may not be aware of that fact (yet), but it's also not very courteous to misdirect them into thinking the I-Rex is as large as suggested on this poster, as it actually isn't judging from the trailers. But hey, it's a fantasy creature, so some artistic license are allowed, not to mention copyright is installed on the creature's name and likeness. So what's on the third poster? It's gotta be the T-Rex. I guess many fans will still feel it needs to reassert its dominance as the Tyrant Lizard King after JP III, even though that's a moniker bestowed on it by man rather than by nature. Obviously the T-Rex is gonna kill the I-Rex in some spectacular climactic battle, as it doesn't take kindly to people cloning rival superpredators. So it does deserve a poster of its own, and tomorrow we may find out whether JW's plot and promotional campaign are that predictable. But it's gonna be awesome regardless.

Regisseuse Wonder Woman stapt op

And then there's this less predictable story. Sucks too, as I considered Michelle MacLaren the finest choice to direct Wonder Woman, if a female director is obligatory. Someone who helped make The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones to be as great as these shows are would have been a damn fine asset to this picture. But of course, the studio had to screw it up by restricting her input over the story. The usual creative differences ensued, and the best choice departed the project. So who did they pick as her replacement? Patty Jenkins of all people. Ironic to say the least, considering she herself walked off the set of Thor: The Dark World a few years ago because of the same creative differences. Who's to say Jenkins will know any greater liberty directing for DC than she did for Marvel? Then again, she likely knew this when she signed up for WW, so maybe she has finally grown to accept the restrictions placed on the creative input of directors picked for these pieces of the larger superhero cinematic universe puzzles. Man or woman, when working for Marvel or DC, a director must know his or her place, subject to the whim of the studio. No room for emancipation here.

Today's News: Fifty Shades of a Wonder Woman

Here's the second batch of last week's reported news:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157982/breaking_bad_regisseuse_beoogd_voor_wonder_woman

I find the whole notion of an apparent necessity to score a superheroine picture a female director more sexist in itself than the supposed lack of superheroines. As if male directors are totally incapable of understanding female sensibilities! However, I agree the lack of female directors as a whole begs an explanation, and I have none to give. Their numbers are surprisingly low, especially in but not limited to Hollywood. So it's not surprising there's only so many directrices to pick from for Wonder Woman. Warner's list of choices was basically a list of all women who directed an action flick in the last two decades, and it was still quite a short list at that. I think they made the right choice though (if the deal doesn't fall through, which it still might). These days, television directors making the switch to the big screen (and vice versa, too) is much more accepted than it once was. And of course in such a scenario you want a director who worked on the most acclaimed and popular shows. So finding someone who directed episodes of the current 'Big Three' - Breaking Bad (which is not so current anymore, I'll grant you that), The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones - is basically striking gold. With such a rich texture of compelling drama and genre aesthetics under her belt, Wonder Woman is likely to be a smooth ride for Michelle MacLaren. And hopefully she'll get a chance to direct a male supercharacter movie as well some day, just so we know female directors understand male sensitivities too.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157995/nieuwe_trailer_fifty_shades_of_grey

Speaking of sexist, this is a part of the female mindset the appeal of which I will never understand. Call it male narrowmindedness if you must. This seems like total melodrama, and not the least bit sexy. But of course, I'm not the target audience, and from what I gather so far the target audience itself has a hard time explaining why they remain so drawn to Fifty Shades of Grey itself. If you call it a subconscious female desire for male domination, you're a chauvinist pig, but I still can't see much in this other than that. But I'm not supposed to: this is female pornography, a deep felt sense of eroticism enticing to women but wholly unintelligible to men. Or so it's written off. Doesn't stop me from watching the film upon its release, needless to say while bringing along a healthy dose of male scepticism. But at least this is one ruthless hype I simply cannot be drawn into, thanks to my gender.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158001/daniel_bruhl_nieuwe_schurk_in_captain_america_3

Oh, very sensitive! Casting a German to play a bad guy in a movie about WW II hero Captain America! The previous German villain at least was played by an Aussie actor. That's Australia, not Austria, mind you. But hey, at least he ll get the accent right. He might actually even talk German, which would make sense. That is, if he's indeed playing a German character, which is likely but by no means certain. There's still a large rogues' gallery for Cap to pick baddies from, and not all of them (but still many) are of the Germanic persuasion. My money is on Baron Helmut Zemo, in this case. Brühl has that air of aristocratic sophistication with a hint of megalomania to him, though maybe that's just me seeing more in him than there is; which only means he's a good actor, a fact we already were made aware of before on numerous occasions. Or maybe Marvel will surprise us and Brühl will play someone totally different. After all, rumours suggest his character is also a Doctor Strange nemesis, which narrows it down considerably (and effectively rules out Zemo, alas). No common foe that is of major significance to both good guys springs to mind, but then, I'm not all that acquainted with the good Doctor. Maybe Brühl's participation to Captain America: Civil War will be limited to a bit part, setting him up as a major antagonist for Doctor Strange to do battle with later on. After all, Iron Man is supposed to be the primary antagonist to Cap in Civil War. Marvel could just be throwing us off-track again. Wouldn't be the first time (nor likely the last) a terrific actor is cast for a small cameo in one character's motion picture only to appear guns blazing at a later date in another's. But hey, it's the guessing game that makes for half the fun.