Today's News: trailers for everybody!

Been a busy week, here's some trailers that kept me posting:

Nieuwe trailer Minions

Everybody seems to really love the Minions. Even though they don't have much material going for them just yet. I guess the chief ingredients for success are all present in these little servants of evil: they're small, they're numerous (but just diverse enough to set them apart), they're colour coded in a simple fashion, and they're excessively cute. It worked for the Smurfs, eh? But unlike the Smurfs, they're supposedly evil, and I have yet to see any hard evidence of that. Of course, you can't sell evil to kids. So whatever villainous scheme they're involved in usually ends in failure, at least in Gru's case. It's obvious the evilness is just a pretense to get some silly story going, often interspersed with random gags (e.g. the teddy bear for example), while the main goal is to sell the Minions' cuteness to the audience so people will want to buy Minion dolls and stuff. I doubt things are gonna be any different in this semi-origin story. There's just a new baddie, who'll soon find hiring the Minions was a bad idea (that's what explains the badness of the Minions I suppose). No matter to us, as long as the Minions trollop around the screen looking utterly cute in all their zany, goofy shenanigans

Teaser Magic Mike XXL

Female audiences are gonna end up pretty satisfied in the erotic department this year. At this moment, everybody is moaning and groaning (either out of sheer lust or sheer loathing) over Fifty Shades of Grey, and in the not too distant future, that scenario will repeat itself with this second Magic Mike movie. I will not deny looking at the sweaty, undressed male torsos produces a sense of sexually insecurity for me, and I know that goes for most male audiences. The majority of those are of course dragged to theatres by the various women in their lifes (except for the homosexual portion of the populace, no doubt). Being a single man, I cannot help but wonder what tension Magic Mike hath wrought in the bedroom after a visit to the cinema. Do women press their men into trying to physically appear more like him, or do they accept that such an impressive bodily look is the exception rather than the rule? If we ignore the story line in effect for the film (which is not hard to do, since it's so overtly basic), what's left is largely nude men doing sexy dances to arouse women, which is basically softcore porn. I'm not judging, just stating the obvious. I hope the target audience realises full well that that's just all it is. But then, do men watching regular porn take the time to consider it's all just fantasies, too? Movies like Magic Mike XXL do a good job of reminding us just how small the difference between men and women actually is.

Eerste trailer Marvels Daredevil

This is more my cup of tea. Sure, there's a few good looking men (and women) in this production, too, but there's a lot more story to it. I enjoy ogling the well trained bodies of the opposite sex as much as anyone, but I prefer a good story. Too bad it's not a new story for the most part, but the previous audiovisual incarnation of Daredevil left plenty of room for improvement. It seems this new Netflix series delivers just that. This teaser also makes no mistake this is definitely going to be Marvel Studios' darkest production so far, and thus a certain amount of blood and violence is not spared. Good thing too, if they want to set the upcoming Defenders miniseries apart from the merrier, more colourful Avengers counterpart on the big screen. Sure, the following series are likely to be a bit lighter in tone, but since they all deal with fighting street crime and mob practices in New York's less pleasant neighbourhoods, some level of violence feels mandatory. Far be it from Netflix to shy away from that. For those who don't enjoy such grim superheroes, rest assured things will only brighten up after this. And if it's still not what they're hoping for, they'll always have the actually cinematic part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. No sinister sex crimes and gruesome drug wars there, only evil robots hellbent on annihilating humanity or intergalactic bad guys threatening the existence of the universe.

Nieuwe trailer Furious 7

And if you like action but not superheroes, you might consider checking this out. The typical 'get-rich-or-die-tryin'' atmosphere of fast cars and hot people (male and female) engaged in gunfights and general fisticuffs. A successful formula, so much so we've reached the whopping seventh entry in the F&F franchise. The actual death of a major player couldn't stop this production, yet there's a sense of finality to this trailer. All of Toretto's racing rivals have been added to his inner circle, his family. And now their bond will be put to the final test when the bad guy threatens to kill that family. Of course, it will prove a stupid idea and the villain will no doubt soon discover his folly. Since the merry gang of highway brigands is already rich since the fifth film, it's not about racing for money anymore, but racing for the ties that bind. And fondly remembering those ties in case of the fallen actor. For the studio however, money definitely still is the objective. So it's not inconceivable we'll be seeing more of this family in the future after all, even though it feels we're hitting an emotional climax here.

Jovovich speelt hoofdrol in Martins In the Lost Lands

And then there was this bit of non-trailer news. Of course, anything that has George R.R. Martins signature on it would be considered gold by studios hoping to cash in on the success of Game of Thrones. Doesn't mean everything Martin ever wrote is nearly as good as his most successful work. You wouldn't think the same genius was behind the majority of episodes of the second season of the Eighties' Twilight Zone show, considering their poor quality. At least In the Lost Lands is likely to appeal to the same (vast) fanbase since it's written in the same genre of epic fantasy. I had never heard of these stories before, but reading the synopsis doesn't convince me yet on whether adapting them to the big screen is a good idea. I may be entirely wrong, as I'm not familiar with the outcome, but the stories seem to lack coherency, while their protagonists seem to be subject to random elements, especially in the case of the story with the witch and the spacecraft (or maybe combining such seemingly incombinable elements is just proof of narrative brilliance beyond my comprehension). I probably should either read those stories or shout up about the topic and have faith in Martin. That said, I cannot help but wonder whether it would not be more prudent to adapt these shorts for television rather than the big screen. If they are indeed separate stories of an episodic nature, television seems suited for them. Anthology story telling isn't something you often encounter in theaters, maybe for a reason. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time Martin broke with conventions. Since GoT proved he excels at that, maybe I should simply reserve final judgment until In the Lost Lands hits cinemas.

Today's News: planning, casting, piloting and trailing

Look at the news these last few days yielded:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158580/nieuwe_trailer_chappie

Shit, this is starting to look derivative... Robot cops, the fine line between men and machine interspersed with explosive action sequences, unique robots developing a personality and starting to display Saviouresque symptoms... What's new here? You'd think RoboCop and I, Robot never happened. However, they did, and judging from this latest trailer Chappie will add little of novelty to the robot repertoire. However, this is Neill Blomkamp we're talking about, so I do hope he's got some tricks up his sleeve so he might surprise us yet. If he does, I'm betting it resides in the area of social commentary, which is rather his forte. Execution of both District 9 and Elysium proved not devoid of flaws, but the heart and the action both sure were in the right place. It's not like the dystopian future of Elysium differed that much from previously portrayed divides between a small elite and a vast multitude of have-nots. And it was still a damn fine flick. Chappie will likely at least be that. I would have hoped for some more original storytelling besides that, but I'll take what I can get. It's not like there's that much intelligent Sci-Fi directors to go round these days, so I support the few folks that try. Unless they really miss the mark completely (eh, Nolan?).

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158557/netflix_onthult_plannen_daredevil_en_marco_polo

So now we know when the devil gets his due. Even though actual footage of the series still has not been released (they better hurry with that, with only three months to go), the new poster sure sets the tone. This is definitely gonna be one of Marvels darkest projects. I wonder whether that is the best way to go when you're building a second shared Marvel universe for television. You'd think a lighter choice would be a better decision to reel viewers in. However, it's all in the name. You could start with light fare like Jessica Jones, but only the true Marvelites would know that name. Daredevil is more well known, partially thanks to Ben Afflecks crappy movie, though that was over a decade ago. Yet people likely still remember it. But the real strong name of course is Marvel. That suffices for most audiences. And if the company has its way, the same will soon ring true for Netflix, so a series like Marco Polo can count on a large enough number of spectators just because it has the Netflix logo attached to its credits. It seems to work well enough for HBO. And considering the quality the company offers thus far, I wouldn't mind if the same holds true for Netflix.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158583/casting_buzz_jonge_acteurs_voor_x-men_apocalypse

More younger versions of X-characters, more talent needed to fill their boots. Though the majority of the actors and actresses mentioned in the original article I am not familiar with, I do believe there's some fair choices here. I'm divided between Team Turner and Team Ronan. Turner does a fine job on Game of Thrones, and the populairty of that show definitely gives her a mean edge. However, Ronan has a far more impressive resumé which encompasses a wide array of dramatic roles, some of them which proved quite heavy but she pulled them off admirably. Unbiased by the GoT sympathy for Sansa Sophie, I'd say Ronan should get the part. However, GoT does make me prejudiced against any actors who didn't star in it, so I won't deny I'd love to see what Turner could do with the character of Jean Grey. Hailee Steinfeld has a similar background to Ronan, so I would not mind her winning the part either. I'm glad it didn't go to Moretz though; I like her work, but I'd hate to see her get typecasted as 'that comic book girl'. She's got Hit-Girl, let it end there. As for the guys and girls up for Cyclops and Storm, for the most part I can only say 'who the heck are all these people?'. I only know Tye Sheridan from Mud, in which he performed quite well. Here too, there's a sympathy vote working its magic, as Taron Egerton currently has buzz because of Kingsman. The fact it was directed by Matthew Vaughn who, as the director of X-Men: First Class, could pull some serious strings also adds in his favour. But then too he'd end up with a comic book stigma, even though X-Men and Kingsmen at least are wildly different, far more diverse in nature than Kick-Ass and X-Men. There's just so many elements to consider here. Since I have zero influence in the whole casting process anyway, I'm just going to let this one roll on and I'll bitch and whine about the final choice when actually one has been made. Still, I can't help it: Go Sansa!

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158585/pilot_voor_minority_report_serie_in_de_maak

Another good movie gets a follow-up for television. There's a lot of that happening these days, and not all of the titles involved are justified for the small screen treatment. I would say Minority Report is among those. Sure, there's story a few possibilities remaining after the events of the movie. However, the issue is that it follows the movie directly and thus might spoil its deliciously undefined ending. The last half hour of the film can be interpreted in two very different ways, and I'd hate to see the series ruining the movie by picking the less ingenious of the pair. And even if the series opts to ignore the matter entirely and leaves us in the dark as we should be, I still feel no particular need of watching a follow-up to a by then 15-year old flick. Even if it doesn't tread the same paths as its predecessor. Though it at least beats the prospect of a full-on remake, like 12 Monkeys is currently undergoing.

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: still behind schedule

It's gonna take me a while longer to get back on track in regard to commenting on the bits of news I posted. As usual, time is against me:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157503/nieuwe_character_posters_hobbit_3

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157522/meer_characters_posters_hobbit_3

Wow, those are some bland posters. Just the faces of some of the protagonists, that's all we have to work with. Rather disappointing, as this is the last Hobbit movie, if not the final Middle-Earth movie (ever?), so you would think they'd go out with as much of a bang as the movie itself (though I may be assuming a little too much here, I doubt this trilogy will end on a boring note). We already know what the characters look like, so we would have liked to have seen a bit more of the environment they inhabit. A grand and elaborate banner (think the Bayeux Tapestry, but its Tolkien equivalent) was released last month that did a far better job of promoting the movie, capturing our imagination and firing our desire to see this film than this dull posters would ever do. The advertising art for both predecessors too looked much more appealing by comparison. Guess the promotional execs think it's all a matter of the little things. Assumptions from the characters' facial expressions are all we are left with, which is a pointless guessing game for those who have read the book. Why does Gandalf look so disheveled? What's up with Galadriel's determined gaze? And is Bilbo finally going to go berserk with that little sword of his? We'll have to watch the movie to find out. But then, we were planning to do so anyway, and these posters at the very least won't discourage us from doing so.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157443/eerste_teaser_pixars_inside_out

Finally, a new Pixar movie that's not a sequel! I'm not entirely sold on the concept though. It's intriguing, but hardly novel. However, Pixar usually tends to make such outlandish premises work just fine, and I'm hoping post-Brave Pixar won't do any different. You won't get any clear indication of the story just from watching this teaser, which only hints at the overall story (not that much info on that has been released so far, anyway). Not to mention it does a solid but sentimental job referencing all the Pixar greats - and some less great, too - we remember oh so fondly. This teaser is playing mostly on the past emotions of pleasure we experienced watching all the company's classics, as well as stimulating a strong emotion not characterized in the film: curiosity. But there's also plenty of room left for doubt, make no mistake. Which begs the issue, how come there's only five emotions in the girl's head? What happened to the rest of them? A philosophical debate about the nature of emotions and the way they rule our mind seems to be in short order. Though it's likely Pixar still has some surprises left on Inside Out's plot and the questions this teaser throws in our path about the logic of it all.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157465/logo_daredevil_serie_onthuld

Well, at least they got the logo right. That's straight off the comic books' covers, that is. Though the usual subtitle 'The Man Without Fear' is absent, but this works equally well. A return to the comics' greatness (on-again/off-again, honestly) is sure in order after the Ben Affleck version, which showed little of that. Currently, New York Comic-Con is in full swing and so far the Daredevil panel was by far the most fascinating occurrence. The concept art looked pretty neat, the first released pictures gave some pretty sweet glimpses, except maybe for the titular character's costume. Though I have a sense it's not the final piece, but more like Daredevil's initial stab at a costume (á la Spider-Man's ludicrous wrestling attire in Sam Raimi's first movie). It would be a bit of a downer if this series' superhero ran around with a black handkerchief for a mask for the whole show. I guess Marvel has to find ways to cut the budget somewhere...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157499/toch_een_iron_man_4

And one reason the studio has to do just that involves the exorbitant pay cheques demanded by its star performers these days. Robert Downey Jr. is by far the most expensive of the lot of them, as his salary for Iron Man 3 amounted to no less than 50 million (!) dollars, reportedly. So small wonder Marvel is looking for way to dodge such excessive costs on future projects. One way to get rid of Downey Jr. would be to quit making Iron Man films. The man is still contractually obliged to assume the character's mantle for two more Avengers flicks, but they could end it there by using those films to find a narrative way to replace him with another character to fill his iron shoes. It's not like that sort of thing isn't constantly happening in the source material. Remember Thor is currently a female in the comics? Which would only entice audiences more strongly to find out what the heck is going on. Of course, that would mean spectators will have to get used to an Iron Man without Tony Stark (no way they are gonna recast that character, considering how beloved Downey Jr.'s take on him is). I have no qualms with that. The Marvel Universe is so much larger than just one popular guy, and the movies have still barely scratched the surface. I'm all for a new Iron Character if it saves Marvel from bankruptcy so they can keep on making highly enjoyable superhero movies. I doubt we're going to see an Iron Man 4 with Robert Downey Jr. in the starring role again (and he himself apparently doubts it very much as well, considering his conflicted reponses to the 50 million dollar question), and if that be the case, I don't mind. There's various ways to deal with that in compelling storytelling (in fact, the matter has already been explored in both Iron Man 2 and 3), and I have confidence that the House of Ideas will pull it off once more. Iron Woman sounds like a wonderful notion, so bring it on!

Today's Triple News: it's a Marvelous world

Here's a few more news flashes, all Marvel related (coincidence, or a sign Marvel/Disney is slowly but surely taking over the world):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156092/eerste_character_poster_guardians_of_the_galaxy

Character posters! Always fun! Attractive pieces of marketing and usually very collectible in the long run. Not often very imaginative though (all they need to do is display a character after all, without giving too much plot away), and this one proves little different. It does what it needs to do, showcasing a dynamic pose of an intriguing pair of characters in this case, designed to entice the audience to go see the movie to learn what their deal is. We're talking about a talking tree and dito armoured raccoon, so I suppose there's quite a deal to be talked about here. Otherwise this poster leaves little clues as to the movie itself. You can wonder about the affiliation of the two different types of star fighters in the background, but that would be a bit too nerdy even for me. This is one fine piece of advertising, but it doesn't make me want to watch the Guardians of the Galaxy movie any more than I already did. The new Gamora poster however... check back later for more on that.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156083/ant-man_vindt_nieuwe_regisseur

Sick and tired about all the Ant-Man buzz of late? So was Marvel I guess, and that's why they finally settled on a director. The job goes to Peyton Reed, reponsible for such noted classics like Bring It On and Yes Man. That's a joke of course, as those are not at all memorable movies. Decent enough fare for gloomy Sunday afternoons perhaps, but not something people will talk about in twenty years time. Nevertheless, if the whole departure debacle of Edgar Wright on this project showed, Marvel does not want visionary directors for their films. They want stooges that know how to direct a decent film but also know when not to interfere with studio planning, especially when it concerns long term universe building the like Marvel is currently engaging in. Wright likely did not fit in as much as Marvel at first had hoped, having too much ideas of his own that might not have sat well with the studio (came you blame the guy, he worked for nigh a decade developing this project!). Wright just isn't a gun-for-hire as much as all his potential successors, including Reed, are. They all have a background in directing contemporary basic comedies, but none of them share Wright's distinctly British finesse, or in fact, any sign of true character. However, they do know how to follow studio orders no doubt, as is the case with the majority of the Marvel directors thus far. Louis Leterrier, Jon Favreau (before he got too big for Marvel after having done two Iron Man movies, at which point he was replaced), Shane Black, Alan Taylor, Joe Johnston, the Russo Brothers... all capable directors, but none of them fan faves because of their originality, likable offbeat approach or signature style, unlike Wright. The only exception to the rule seems to be Joss Whedon, but who knows for how much longer? I'm also a little disturbed by Marvel's tendency to actively search for a comedy director only for Ant-Man. Does a movie about a shrinking superhero talking to ants have to be a comedy per se? After all, this is a man with a very serious and dark side to him. He beats his wife for crying out loud! Please don't let that comedic element dominate the others. The last thing we need is the Avengers' very own Jar Jar Binks.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156114/vincent_donofrio_gecast_als_daredevils_doodsvijand

What we do need is an enemy that gives the devil his due. In the case of the Daredevil comics, that has always been Kingpin. Sure, the stupendously obese mobster plagued Spider-Man on many occasions, but he was not his most recognizable or memorable villain (I'd say that would be Doctor Octopus, like or not). Daredevil himself may not be as recognizable or memorable a superhero as Spidey, but most people that don't know him from the source material will know him from the 2003 Ben Affleck movie, where he was also confronted with the might of the Kingpin of Crime, then played by the late (and surprisingly, African-American) Michael Clarke Duncan, who proved more fun to watch in that role than Aflleck as the titular character. This time a white guy has been casted (casting another black man would probably have invited accusations of racism, not wholly unfounded) and it's Vincent D'Onofrio. He's shown he knows how to pull off comic book baddies, if you recall the hideous Edgar (the bug) in Men In Black. Of course, Kingpin is a whole different animal. Decidedly human, supremely intelligent but utterly ruthless, cold and calculating, shadowy, out for monetary gain but still not adverse to taking over the world in a fashion... that's all Kingpin. Fortunately D'Onofrio has done enough episodes of Law & Order to know the workings of those on the opposite side of the law through and through. A fine bit of casting if you ask me, less likely to stir fan feelings in both directions than casting a Brit as an American superhero.

Today's News: daredevils and dinosaurs

Hot off MovieScene!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155944/netflix_vindt_zijn_daredevil

Despite the sudden change of guard in showrunners (see yesterday's news), the Marvel/Netflix show seems to be picking up speed. Most importantly, a principal actor has been cast to assume the mantle of the Man Without Fear, and it's Charlie Cox. Pretty good choice, even though some people might be annoyed they went with the safest route and opted for an Englishman to play a (fairly iconic) American comic book vigilante. If he can throw a convincing Irish accent, like he did on Boardwalk Empire to great effect, US slang ought not be an issue. He fits the bill in most other respects - apart from not being blind, obviously - as he's the right age, charming but able to switch to a darker, more distressing persona effortlessly. Okay, so he looks in no way like Matt Murdock as in the comics, but that's something easily remedied I reckon. I think a good casting choice was made for this show. Cox's general '(dare)devil may care' attitude would suit the show, which is still only as good as its writers. There's talent in that regard as well. For the moment, I have little doubts as to the quality of this upcoming Marvel television series.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155955/regisseur_onthult_details_jurassic_world

Douts I have aplenty about the plot of Jurassic World though. But not about its director. Most of the plot has been leaked online, and instead of firmly denying everything (which in Hollywood irrevocably ends up being an act of blatant lying), Colin Trevorrow takes his time to acknowledge unavoidable fan doubts and reassure them he respects the armies of dinosaur devotees eager for another Jurassic bite. Whether they want to hear about the plot contents he just gave away is their own affair. I for one am trying to steer clear off spoilers insofar as at all possible for someone moving in the circles I do. My duty as a movie news poster sometimes leave me little choice in the matter. Do I like what I hear about JW? Not all that much, to be quite honest. The notion of a park open for visitors, where dino shit again hits the fan in that finest of 'jaws and claws' tradition, is hardly the stuff of originality. Even though it would be nice to see the original island of Isla Nublar again (though you cannot help but wonder how anyone could be so stupid as to repeat such dreadful past mistakes: all of Ian Malcolm's ramblings seem to have fallen on deaf ears, alas!). Velociraptors I have found to be overrated in this franchise and the idea of training them to establish a 'relationship with humans' is too vague to make any impression: surely both species already have a relationship, as hunter and prey? They're not gonna train them as watchdogs or bioweapons or something silly like that, are they?

The concept I'm most uncertain about, as is the majority of the fanbase, is the 'genetically modified dinosaur', by which Trevorrow hints at a made up species rather than an existing one. Of course, this was hinted at in the books where the idea of dinosaurs suited to human needs was touched upon - like Sauropods reduced to dog size to make cute pets - thus further underscoring the notion of humanity playing God. Also, none of the dinosaurs so far were actually supposed to be accurate live reflections of the fossil record, as they were already 'theme park monsters', equipped with frog DNA to fill the gaps in their genetic code as well as those in the plot. In this case, the shady corporation pulling the strings has seemingly ordered a theropod that does justice to the popular conception of giant carnivorous dinosaurs as scary monsters rather than actual animals, allowing for the creation of a 'Diabolus Rex'. Sounds ludicrous, but in terms of the Jurassic Park ideology, not wholly without merit. On the one hand it's a logical next step in man's messing with nature, on the other I would much prefer up to date paleontological accuracy to be felt as well. Maybe we'll have both. Until such time as any of the dinosaur animatronics or digital effects shots have been revealed, don't blame me for being on the (electric) fence about this one. But my faith in Trevorrow remains.

Today's News: devils and beasts get some, lose some

More news from everybody's favorite movie website (for those who have heard of it, that is):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155901/deknight_vervangt_goddard_voor_daredevil

Apparently Marvel and Netflix traded talent for talent here. Both writers/producers have had their fair share of hits, and both stem from Joss Whedon's pool of creative talents. Both Goddard and DeKnight worked on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Similar backgrounds must yield similar results, the powers-that-be at Marvel probably thought. They're probably right. Personally I lamented the loss of the ingenious mind that came up with The Cabin in the Woods - if you haven't seen that hilariously inventive movie, that's something you ought to remedy - but I can surely live with the showrunner of Starz' delightful Spartacus series tackling a Marvel project. I would wager coin it won't be as vulgar as those raunchy Romans, but with DeKnight's evident capability to write intriguing character and plot twists, Daredevil doesn't necessarily take a turn for the worse. Also, DeKnight didn't burn his fingers on that one show called Lost, which might otherwise have left a sour taste in his career. And of course Goddard won't be gone entirely, as his scripts for the first two episodes will remain in use, plus he'll stay on as a 'consulting producer', whatever the hell that's supposed to be. So there's definitely gonna be a touch of Goddard to be felt at first. For now, I see more gain than loss here. And either way it's more likely to give the Daredevil his due than Ben Affleck's less than daring flick back from 2003.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155926/alfonso_cuaron_wijst_fantastic_beasts_af

Too bad, but I kinda saw it coming. Cuaron has spend the last five years working on Gravity, after all. To great effect to be sure, but I'm positive he's in definite need of a creative break from all that digital blue-screen material. Cuaron cares about characters and drama far more than about effects, as his quote makes abundantly clear. I'll say Gravity is the odd-one-out on his resumé in that regard: even though it was basically about two people trapped in space, the technical element to that film far outweighed the acting component. It was the effects that made the experience, not the story. So it's about time he changed back to his former routine, where the opposite held true. Even though not much is revealed about the specific plot contents of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, its very title suggests it's all about the fancy creatures and the exotic locales they inhabit, which are heavily dependant on visual effects to make them come alive on screen. Characters clearly seem to come second here. So that really doesn't sound so appealing to a director who has spent half a decade exploring the digital realm. Cuaron is better off returning to his roots and doing something small for a change, or indeed spending time with his actual biological kids rather than his silver screen babies (I've heard from parents that you have to make time for children for their own sake). And even though Cuaron is out for the first installment of this upcoming fantastic franchise, there's nothing that stops him from expressing his interests for one of the already announced sequels somewhere in later years. In the realm of Potter - which still is where we are in this otherwise Potterless project - anything is known to be possible by now.

Today's News: two powerhouses join forces for marvelous consequences

Quite the news flash was posted on MovieScene the other day, thanks to me:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151502/marvel_en_netflix_bundelen_krachten

So basically, what Marvel did on the big screen is being redone on the small screen. Though the originality has worn off, giving several TV shows the same treatment, simultaneously setting up a larger universe that leads to a new (mini)series is quite a novelty, not to matter risky business. But hey, the same thigng was said about Netflix itself, so it comes as no surprise that particular "network" opted to engage in this joint venture. At the same time, Marvel is still cooperating with a regular television network (ABC) on the currently running Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and a new show which has still to be revealed (but is probably that Agent Carter show which was suggested earlier these past few months). So Marvel is branching out on all platforms, being visibly active in theaters, on home cinemas and online. It's gonna be hard to miss the company it seems.

But will these TV shows be compelling enough for audiences? I foresee a few potential obstacles. First, there is name recognition. Daredevil people may be aware of, most likely through the 2003 Ben Affleck movie, which isn't a good thing since it wasn't a very good movie. But how many people outside the world of comic book readers are familiar with Iron Fist, Jessica Jones and Luke Cage? Getting people to embrace these could prove quite a challenge, so hopefully that Marvel brand alone is enough to pull in an audience for their shows. Secondly, there's the background of the characters, which in all four cases is rather similar. All four series will take place in the New York neighbourhood of Hell's Kitchen, so instead of battling outlandish super villains these heroes will fight more basic everyday evil, like drugs, corruption, organized crime and such. What's more, in terms of powers these characters aren't all that different either. Though there are some noticeable unique abilities, they mostly feature superhuman strength, speed and reflexes. At least their origins are rather different, but otherwise four shows dealing with the same subject matter seems somewhat redundant. Of course, the final Defenders climax could herald the end of one or more of these shows to balance things out more neatly, but so far it remains to be seen just how far Marvel and Netflix plan to take these shows. Each character gets 13 episodes, after that we'll have to wait and see where they go from there.

Though story and power diversity may not be as strong, at least the characters are fairly different in make-up, which could appeal to a broader audience. You have your heroine to appeal to a female demographic, a black character and a character dabbling in Asian mysticism (but who's not actually Asian!) to get racial minorities interested and a blind guy to engage disabled folk (okay, that last one may be highly debatable, but you never know). In this regard, The Defenders would be far different from The Avengers, which is basically all white males. True, there's Black Widow as a female role model, but she still hasn't gotten a movie of her own, while Samuel L. Jackson's black Nick Fury is only a supporting character that isn't on the Avengers roster proper but mostly overseeing stuff and letting the white people do all the real work (kind of an reverse Black Pete, for Dutch people). The core members with their own films, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk and Captain America, are all white. Except for the Hulk occasionally, but there's no actual green people to be represented as far as I'm aware. In this light, the four Defenders can make quite a difference, even though they're otherwise not so different. Nice metaphor for humanity me thinks.

And if it doesn't work, Marvel can simply change the Defenders' roster and introduce new characters as they like. After all, the team went through quite a few iterations over the years, just like the Avengers did. As you can see on the picture above, none of the four Defenders you'll see on Netflix appeared in the original first issue. However, the Hulk did, so there's you first potential Defenders/Avengers crossover (even though using the Hulk as a character would probably be too expensive in terms of FX). And then there's the Sub-Mariner and Doctor Strange, both of which have been rumoured to get their own movies. Introducing them in these shows could be explained as testing the waters for a potential movie, or yet another TV series or miniseries. So many characters, so many possibilities and opportunities. One thing's for sure: whether on TV, in theaters or online, the future is gonna be marvelous.

Today's News: one more hero returns to the marvelous fold

MovieScene got it first (thanks to me) the other day:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146577/daredevil_terug_bij_marvel

I can only say I'm pleased by this decision. So far Daredevil wasn't treated with the proper respect that should have been this devil's due at Fox. The 2003 Daredevil movie was mildly entertaining at best. And Elektra got it even worse, being a very eligible candidate for 'Worst Marvel Adaptation' yet, its lack of quality being a prime reason it didn't even get a Dutch theater release but was released straight to DVD. And even if Daredevil had stayed at Fox with that studio's intention of creating its own 'anti-Marvel' Marvel Universe, the character would have felt awkward between the other studio properties, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four. You would have two seminal superhero teams... and this one blind guy stuck in the middle as a bonus. I couldn't see that working. Still, having him join forces with some of the superheroes belonging to those teams might have worked out: a Daredevil/Wolverine crossover could have been fascinating material. But now that 'the Man without Fear' has officially returned to Marvel, that's not gonna happen.

And considering the potential alternatives we are presented with now, that's not much of a loss. Marvel Studios can go ahead and reboot Daredevil properly, carefully planning his role in the bigger Marvel Cinematic Universe as they undoubtedly intend to do. And after all, why not? Even though Daredevil isn't exactly a mighty superhero powerhouse compared to the likes of Thor or the Hulk, he fits right in with the more down-to-earth kinda heroes like Black Widow or Hawkeye that were (mostly) done justice in The Avengers. Plus, he resides in New York, which is conveniently also the location of the Avengers' base of operations, so they would be bound to run into him sooner or later. And of course, Daredevil has had a stint running with the Avengers for quite some years in the comics with which it all began (even though that was much later in the run of the series). So there's plenty of reasons to start incorporating Daredevil into the larger context, somewhere in Marvel's Phase 3 (which probably won't start until 2016). But let's start with his own movie first of course, making us forget all about the Ben Affleck flick and proving to the audience that Daredevil can still be a compelling character in his own rights. And worry about Elektra later, please. For now, it's all speaking long term, since Marvel's Phase 2 has all been planned out already.

And speaking of Marvel Phase 2, it has begun this week with Iron Man 3 hitting theaters. I haven't had the chance yet to go and see it, but I did get to see the after-credits scene (which will save me from having to sit through the end credits with that horrible tune!). I think fans of either the Hulk or Mark Ruffalo will get a kick out of it, even though it's mostly for laughs and doesn't hint at a future Hulk movie for sure. Think The Avengers' shoarma scene, but with more dialogue. I laughed.

Daredevil

Rating: ***/*****, or 7/10

One of the poorest of Marvel Comics adaptations, though still an entertaining action flick. As a kid, Matt Murdock comes into contact with toxic waste that blinds him for life but heightens all his other senses, including his need for justice. When his father is murdered by the mob, he makes it his life's cause to fight crime, by day as a lawyer, by night as the vigilante Daredevil who prowls the streets of New York in a red leather suit and beats up bad guys. This gets him on the radar of mob boss Kingpin (the huge Michael Clarke Duncan (R.I.P. 2012) is perfectly suited for the part, except the tone of his skin is not in sync with the original comic book character, but with such a neat actor, who cares?) and his crazed assassin Bullseye (Colin Farrell) who is ordered to give the Devil his due. Poor Matt also has to deal with the beautiful but deadly Elektra Natchios, a girl he has fallen in love with but who believes his alter ego to be her father's killer. Plenty of interesting characters and an abundance of solid action scenes cannot fully make up for the pale shadow this movie grew to be compared to Marvel franchises like Spider-Man or X-Men at that time. Most of the blame can be assigned to Ben Affleck, who just does a terrible job at making his character a compellingly blind guy tortured by remorse and anger over his father's demise and driven by a relentless need to avenge crime. Similarly, the romance with Elektra feels contrived and is never exposed as much as it needs to be to come over as believable or something the audience needs to care about, despite the dire consequences in store for this supposed passion. At least Kingpin feels like a true menace, while Bullseye is just a delightful amoral and wicked person Farrell plays with apparent appropriate enthusiasm. The Director's Cut, running a good half hour longer than its theatrical counterpart, is the preferred version to watch, adding more depth to the characters and a few more subplots to flesh out the whole, but it cannot compensate for Affleck's feeble performance. Marvel movies hit their lowest ebb with Daredevil's spin-off flick Elektra (2005), which was released as a direct-to-DVD feature in many territories and destroyed the femme fatale character even more eagerly. Director Johnson was responsible for a second disappointing Marvel adaptation with Ghost Rider in 2007.

Starring: Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Michael Clarke Duncan

Directed by Mark Steven Johnson

USA: 20^th Century Fox, 2003