Today's many little bits of News

Here's a few scoops I posted on MS in recent days. They just keep piling up, don't they?:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155773/eerste_teaserposter_minions

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155772/nieuwe_poster_guardians_of_the_galaxy

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155749/trailer_monsters_dark_continent_online

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155708/channing_tatum_wordt_x-man_gambit

Channing Tatum as Gambit? I vehemently object to this, though I get the reasons why he might be considered suitable for the role. Gambit is girlbait, he's a rogue (get the pun there?), he's charming and sultry, and these are all qualities the female part of humanity generally agrees Tatum possesses. The argument Tatum 'understands Gambit because they're both from the American South' is baloney: there's a vast difference between Gambit's home state of Louisiana and Tatum's native Alabama, even though they lie next to each other. My major issue with Tatum's casting is they didn't ask my opinion beforehand.

No, that's not it.

It's what Tatum brings to the franchise in terms of starpower that vexes me. Tatum by now is a firmly established hot moviestar that mostly appeals to the female demographic (not X-Men's main audience for sure), more so for his looks than for his ability to act. X-Men by now is a firmly established hot movie franchise that mostly appeals to the male demographic (age 12-35 or thereabouts). Obviously adding Tatum to the mix is a tactic by the studio to attract new audiences, and given Tatum's status he's very likely gonna play a major role (he'll no doubt take a major salary too). So far, the franchise hasn't resorted to casting big Hollywood stars. Sure, Hugh Jackman is one now, but he wasn't when he first started playing Wolverine. Plus, Jackman cares about his character, which is why he keeps coming back to play him even though he has no contractual obligations or acting challenges in store for him to do so. That's character loyalty. Tatum has gone on record stating he's not all that much into X-Men, though he claims to like Gambit. Duh, otherwise he wouldn't have accepted the part. But this is likely just promotional bull. I doubt he read the comics or watched the cartoons just because Gambit occasionally appeared in it. I fear Tatum is gonna detract audience attention away from what really matters about X-Men. In Gambit's solofilm this is not that big an issue (though Wolverine's solofilms left a lot to be desired compared to the proper X-movies). But in X-Men: Apocalypse, you need a strong ensemble of characters performed by team players who don't mind taking a backseat if the plot demands it (Anna Paquin's Rogue being scrapped from Days of Future Past without the actress complaining because it's for the greater good is a good example of taking one for the team). That's not something I think Tatum easily accepts. Also, the movie is likely to be built around Tatum (and Jackman too, still) to accomodate his star status. Certainly for X-Men: Apocalypse, that doesn't bode well, as this story deals with a team of mutants more than ever instead of it centering around a single character (apart from Apocalypse himself in a way). It seems a wrong time to start calling special attention to one character, especially one that was seen before but played by another actor (Taylor Kitsch). I would much prefer it if Gambit was re-introduced in his own film first, then appeared in a group effort later. Kinda like The Avengers, from which every studio owning Marvel property takes a page these days. In this case, the wrong page I'd say.

Monsters was a small film shot on a low budget in a guerilla style of filmmaking. It seems the sequel Dark Continent takes a different route. I didn't even think this unusual creature feature got enough audience attention to warrant a successor, but on that small a budget, profit isn't hard to accomplish and so a sequel is a given by the rigid laws of Hollywood. Obviously on a bigger budget, considering the visual effects (and this is still only the trailer too). It seems that's where most of the money went, since the plot feels fairly generic and there's no big names attached (playing a bit part in Game of Thrones gets you noticed but doesn't make you an instant star, Joe Dempsie). I don't think a second film was needed or desired by those who saw the first film, and it seems the original director Gareth Edwards agreed with me, as he's hardly involved with the production of Part 2 at all. He's listed as 'executive producer', but that's saying nothing. Stan Lee is listed under the same credit for virtually every Marvel movie, only for coming up with the characters back in the days, but otherwise doesn't do a thing, other than appearing in his cameos for fun. Edwards of course traded a shot at directing the sequel to his baby in for doing the remake of Godzilla. Good thing too, since you'd need a monster enthusiast to get the King of Monsters right, which I hear he has done. It seems there was little more to add to Monsters though, and so far the trailer for Monsters: Dark Continent proves just that.

Now that's what I call a bitchin' poster! Okay, so it's in many ways identical to the previous posters for Marvel Studios' movies, save for the different setting and characters of course. For now, I like to think of that as studio consistency, which is something Marvel excels in as it's continuously expanding its Cinematic Universe. And it works on this poster better than ever. There's also more than a little resemblance to the way Star Wars posters were composed (especially the classics by Drew Struzan), and that's also not a bad thing to say about promotional material for an ambitious space opera like this. This poster is colourful, appealing and otherwise just plain badass. I hope the movie delivers on the goods promised here.

The first poster for Minions, that's a different thing entirely. All it shows are a few characters, a title and a date set against a plain white background, but nothing else is needed for a teaser poster. At the sight of the minions, kids will know enough. And their parents who will pay for seeing the film in theaters too, poor things. But is a film about the minions themselves a good thing? Don't they work better as supporting characters? I see a kind of Smurf motive here. Other than the fact these little creatures already feel similar to the Smurfs by their simple but easily recognizable colour coding and their own invented language, the Smurfs first appeared in a comic album in which they were not the main characters, but they soon came into their own and few people remember the names of the characters in whose story they co-starred (naturally, I do). Since then, they have taken popular culture by storm worldwide. I doubt the minions will witness a similar fate, but it's hard to deny they steal the show in these Despicable movies. It's up to the first Minions film to prove they can do without their evil master in the future. And if they fail, we still have the Smurfs.