Today's News: murderers, redundant Sci-Fi en drop-outs

Busy start of the week, I'd say:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157832/nieuwe_trailer_12_monkeys_serie

Is there a point to this? Sure, the movie is 20 years old by now and thus it's totally time for a remake, reboot or whatever, by Hollywood standards. But why make a series out of a two hour movie? And not even a miniseries at that, but what the network hopes will develop into a regular running show. I simply don't see that happen, it seems there's far too little source material available for that. Plus, the strong climax of the movie is not something you can hold off indefinitely episode after episode, while revealing it would mean the emotional core of the story is done and over with and there are no more surprises left. Maybe the writers have thought of ways to flesh out characters and situations, but even then it just doesn't seem to offer much more than its premise. And of course it has to live up to its forebear, a movie many people already have seen so they know how it ends and what it's basically all about. Then of course it must survive being compared to the original movie in terms of visuals, which is also a tough act to follow (it was one of them wacky Terry Gilliam movies, remember?). There's just too many elements working against the series from its inception. I'm surprised it was ever made into a series in the first place. No offense, monkeys. but I just don't see this running for more than a season.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157831/trailer_murder_of_a_cat

Looks like a charming indie-comedy. As a cat owner, I can sure understand the protagonist's plight. I would find it quite abhorrent, disturbing and emotionally scarring to find my cat shot with an arrow - though that is not a likely scenario in my area, you can never rule it out entirely - and the police not taking it seriously because it's "just a cat". And I know full well the natural duplicity of cats, their tendency to have relational affairs around the neighbourhood with whomever is willing to stroke their fur and give them a bite. So I can definitely relate to this. Otherwise it seems like a fairly trite but true concept: a socially awkward guy is shaken out of his cocoon by unfortunate circumstances that brings him into contact with a nice girl. Not particularly original, the stuff of many indie-comedies in fact, but sympathetic enough. I'm glad to know Fran Kranz is still actively acting, I haven't heard or seen a thing from him since his delightful performance in the brilliantly unpredictable horror flick The Cabin in the Woods. Sure, he's playing a nerd again, but that suited him last time, so I see no reason why it shouldn't now. Nerds, also a thing I can definitely relate to. *sighs*

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157825/leatherface_vindt_regisseurs

Here's another thing most of us don't need, except for the people who'll just swallow anything containing blood & gore around Halloween. It's not like the previous Texas Chainsaw Massacre prequel was any good or worth remembering. I don't see why it would this time, as the notion of a teenage Leatherface doesn't intrigue me at all. In fact, I'm much averse to the idea of prequels exploring the origins of great villains in the first place, as it tends to demystify them more than benefits their persona. How often have we seen a film like this where delving into his younger psyche made the evil in question even more sinister? Why do we constantly need to be reminded that the monster was once just a guy like the rest of us, telling us we could all go down that route if we're unlucky? We have history to remind us of such distressing facts. I can think of no horror prequel where exploring the background of the menace helped sustain its sense of dread and frightfulness to the same degree it would have done without such a background. Darth Vader, Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, Hannibal Lecter, Dracula, all of their reputations as phenomenal villians suffered from telling too much about their past. And since Leatherface already underwent such a treatment, I don't see the need to make things even worse. Now that's the true evil only money hungry studio executives can cause.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157850/syfy_maakt_vervolg_op_2001_a_space_odyssey

Another production of which the validity can be questioned. Especially as a separate entity, rather than a retelling of the long story that preceded it. Now any comparison with the two Odyssey movies - one an undying classic, the other one, not so much - is inescapable. After all, this will basically serve as the conclusion of a tale unfinished for 30 years. Wouldn't it have made more sense to start from scratch? I guess the thought of actually remaking 2001: A Space Odyssey first would be too sacriligious even for Hollywood. That's a good thing, but it does make it harder for audiences to get a grip on the story, as I doubt that many are familiar with the sequel 2010 (1984). Rightly so, as it simply wasn't a very good film. But since there's no new material introducing this new miniseries, we  dive right into a deep story that's been laying dormant for decades. We'll either to have to brush up on prior events by our own accord, or just roll with it. And I bet most spectators will go for the second option, just because they're lazy and they can't be bothered to check out old films. I think it's gutsy to produce this show, particularly so late in the game, but whether it's a smart move remains to be seen. No matter what talent attached to it (Sir Ridley!!), I wouldn't hold my breath on too stellar a result just to be on the safe side. But hey, if its fails, at least it's a miniseries rather than a regular one, so it won't leave us hanging in the dark of space as its predecessors did (and as the 12 Monkeys series is likely to end up doing, except for the space bit).

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157848/bale_uit_biopic_steve_jobs

Wow, that was fast. Usually it takes actors quite a bit longer to admit to themselves they're not right for a part and drop out. It's both a blessing and a curse Bale left when he did. This Steve Jobs film is still early in production, so there's time as yet to find a suitable replacement. However, a solid actor like Bale leaving is simply a negative thing in the eyes of most people, there's no denying. Then again, the project survived both David Fincher and Leonardo DiCaprio calling it quits, and their replacements turned out alright. I doubt Danny Boyle is gonna depart simply because Bale just did. Maybe all these stars dropping out is a good sign to the studio they need to find someone less picky for the part. How about a talented but relatively unknown actor instead? It would sure help the budget. Looking at it in such a fashion, this is not a loss, but a great opportunity instead. And at least they still have Seth Rogen as Steve Wozniak. Unless he drops out, too. And even if the project now fails entirely, we'll always have that lovely jOBS movie with Ashton Kutcher.

Today's News: business as usual

It's been a slow second half of the week for posting movie news. Good thing too, it won't cause me to get behind again:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157681/nieuwe_john_carter_in_de_planning

I had hoped for this, so I'm glad the estate of Edgar Rice Burroughs isn't letting a second John Carter of Mars movie gestate for another 70 years. I was really disappointed Disney's John Carter flopped so hard at the boxoffice. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but it was a damn fun movie with great visuals and it had solid franchise potential. Maybe I liked it more than I should, but subject material like this - strange aliens, exotic alien worlds, sexy alien chicks, etc. - really is my cup of tea, always has been. Granted, the movie made its fair share of mistakes both in terms of development, narrative and marketing, but in my mind it truly deserved a better fate. And so ERB, Inc. thinks, too. The original books were groundbreaking, swashbuckling rollercoasters of adventure novels that have endured for many decades, so there must still be an audience for them somewhere. No harm in trying again, starting from scratch, maybe not spending such excessive amounts of money on them this time. I'm really hopeful the company can find a new partner, a studio that still feels there's room for old fashioned Sci-Fi adventures like these. At least this time they know what not to do to make it work. Though it would make sense for both the estate and the studio to wait a little longer, after Jupiter Ascending and Star Wars Episode VII have hit theaters, so they can see whether there's still an audience for grandiose space opera in the ERB tradition.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157701/nieuwe_trailer_the_woman_in_black_2

Seems like more of the same. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, as the first Woman in Black was quite a decent horror flick with its wonderfully creepy and moody period look. Trading in a late Victorian style for a WW II era visual look is not a bad thing. From a story point of view, it makes sense as to why people would allow kids to visit that horribly haunted house again. It seems a better place for children to be than a bombed-out London, any regular parent would think. City folks don't believe in countryside ghost stories after all. And not having Daniel Radcliffe as the protagonist is probably a good notion too. His post-Potter presence in the previous part tended to overshadow the movie as having its own identity. The Woman in Black is still commonly referred to as 'that spooky film featuring Harry Potter', and I don't think that does it any justice at all. Then again, the second installment stars Potter's Narcissa Malfoy, for those who weren't aware. Hopefully it doesn't mean the movie will soon be acknowledged as 'that spooky movie starring Draco's mum'. That is, if Angel of Death turns out as decent a scary movie (or more so) as its predecessor. Otherwise, I couldn't really care less anyway.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157700/_bale_speelt_steve_jobs_in_boyles_biopic

Another Steve Jobs biopic? There was one in theaters only a year ago. Than one, however, didn't win much favour with audience or critics with its rather bland and straightforward approach. Nor are its director and main star (Ashton Kutcher, if you recall) considered such bankable talents as Christian Bale and Danny Boyle. So yeah, why not make another? There's still plenty to tell about so inspiring and innovative a man, no doubt. Plus, there's better storytellers available, and Boyle sure is an intriguing choice. I don't mind Bale, though he tends to go a little too far in his acting, reminding you that you're not watching the character he plays, but that you're seeing Bale doing his extreme thing again. The script is in the capable hands of Aaron Sorkin, who seems to be in danger of being typecast as the screenwriter for penning biopics about important folks in the digital industry for hugely talented directors (he also did The Social Network, after all). You think we'll get multiple Bill Gates motion pictures when that Microsoft man logs out of this life? If so, Sorkin is likely to be Hollywood's go-to guy to pen a script about Gates' life.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157709/jesse_eisenberg_in_dcs_suicide_squad

Hopefully poor Jesse Eisenberg fully realized what he got himself into before signing on as Lex Luthor in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Considering DC's overly ambitious plans for its own cinematic universe - clearly copying Marvel's designs, but still - it would be natural for a bad guy of Luthor's stature to appear in multiple DC movies soon. Luthor, after all, has his greedy conniving arms wrapped aroud a lot of shady businesses in the DC comics, and has had them there for decades. The movie version is expected to be just as busy controlling an evil empire, one that's not restricted to simply plaguing his nemesis Superman, but many of his fellow heroes as well. Right now the most apt comparable character available in the Marvel Cinematic Universe villain would be Loki, who also started out the archenemy of one but soon demanded a bigger piece of the superhero pie. Luthor is likely to do the same. Nevertheless, his skills would make him more of an evil Nick Fury, controlling strings of a lot of other baddies behind the scenes, as Fury does with good guys (or what he considers to be such, at least). In this case, it seems he's the guy responsible for forming the supervillain team called Suicide Squad, soon to give the Justice League a hard time. I wouldn't be surprised to see him, and thus Eisenberg, make regular appearances, both minor and major, in many upcoming DC movies. And I'm sure Eisenberg won't particularly mind, it just keeps him occupied while the pay checks keep coming in at a steady flow.

Today's Triple News: amazing dragon jobs

Let's put an end to MovieScene news posts by my hand accumulating indefinitely right here, right now:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155304/danny_boyle_beoogd_regisseur_voor_biopic_steve_jobs

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155276/eerste_vijf_minuten_how_to_train_your_dragon_2_online

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155262/x-men_in_aftiteling_amazing_spider-man_2

Good going, Fox and Sony... As if the situation with the various Marvel properties isn't complicated enough for non-fans to grasp, you two just had to go and muddy the waters some more. This is bound to be getting people's hopes up needlessly. The X-Men and Spider-Man are never gonna team up in a movie. Period. Like Marvel big-shot producer Avi Arad said only last week, interstudio team-ups are a last resort for when the studios have run out of ideas with their franchises. And considering the amount of work currently being done to ensure smooth internal crossovering, there's simply no room yet for adding characters of other franchises to the mix for at least two decades or so. Fox is too busy making sense of the larger X-universe and looking for ways to also incorporate the Fantastic Four in there somehow, while Sony is reworking the Spider-Man legacy to explore ways of producing spin-off movies without the webhead himself, like Sinister Six and Venom. At this point, the whole notion of Spider-Man joining the X-Men in a mutually shared adventure just makes no sense, and putting a scene for an upcoming X-flick in the end credits of the latest Spider-flick ought to be considered false advertising. Better to introduce an exclusive clip from Days of Future Past in advance of screening the actual Spider-film, so lay people understand it's not connected at all, as it isn't. Sony's cause would be better served including a teaser for The Amazing Spider-Man 3 in their latest blockbuster, as the studio did in the case of its predecessor (even though in hindsight, judging from the second film that particular scene now raises more questions than it answers, which might point at Sony's long term strategy not being so clearly envisioned as the studio would have us believe). So far, indications seem the X-clip in question is not part of the Dutch release of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Good thing too, since I don't feel like snapping all those clueless cinemagoers going in to see Spidey and coming out hoping for his showdown with them mutants out of their big Marvel dreams. That would be cruel, even though I'm not to blame for this poor marketing move on the studios' part.

Coherency seems better handled in the How to Train Your Dragon franchise, judging from the first few minutes of the new film which are now widely found online, two months prior to the film's actual release. A common strategy as we've seen of late, as other big budget movies took the same route in the hopes of convincing people to go and check out the rest of the film soon. This opening of the sequel bears more than a minor similarity to the start of the first film, which is of course the idea. It parallels the former status quo wherein dragons were a threat to the inhabitants of Berk to the new situation in which both parties have formed a mutually beneficial alliance. A symbiosis which of course comes under threat from the movie's new antagonist, who's out of the picture here just yet so as to not spoil what the movie is actually about, other than providing us with some more adventures of Hiccup and Toothless to get us interested. How to Train Your Dragon 2 seems a typical sequel to its original, which is not a bad thing at all as that was a fun, high spirited family film with a heartfelt message of looking past differences and promoting universal understanding of others. At least this movie won't claim random ties to  computer animated films from rival companies where non exist.

Speaking of companies, Steve Jobs co-founded a notable one (bad segue, I know). Now he's dead and apparently Hollywood isn't done just yet telling the story of the man who created Apple. One biopic isn't enough, especially as jOBS apparently didn't do justice to the great man. Now Sony attempts to draw in the bigger names in order to produce a more prestigious film about Mr. Jobs. Danny Boyle is in the spotlight as director after David Fincher left the project, while Leonardo DiCaprio is sought to replace Christian Bale portraying the main character. Strong names all, but is there a real need for another Jobs film in so short a time span? Or is Hollywood still trying to cash in on the demise of the man? Granted, jOBS was a fairly low budget film and did bring in thrice its budget at the box office, but it still didn't draw huge crowds, despite the continuing popularity of Apple products. It seems those big shot names are more suited for enticing the audience to come see the film. In DiCaprio's case, if it worked on a sleazy fraud like Jordan Belfort, who's to say it won't do the same for a revolutionary inventor/entrepreneur like Steve? Guess DiCaprio needs to show off he can run a company in a responsible manner as well.