Movie News & Trailers: the sequel

Topic

Talk about upcoming movies here.

Replies

I thought the Matrix 2 & 3 were 50 % great, 50 % crap. They could have turned it into one fantastic movie.

 

This trailer looks good but I’m going to wait for reviews.

1 user thanked author for this post.

On-screen couples with zero chemistry

[Sean Robinson]

So I finally watched the trailer for the new Matrix.
Wow! Color me excited!

I wasn’t going to get my hopes up and was rolling my eyes when I first heard the news.
One trailer and It’s a complete turnaround. I don’t know how I’ve lived my life without it.

Fingers crossed, but I could throw on the first movie anytime and know I’ll love it.
This has me convinced they’ll get that magic back.
Maybe it’s time to give the second and third movies another view (with lowered expectations).

• This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by Sean Robinson.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by Sean Robinson.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket

Christopher Nolan’s Next Movie About Robert Oppenheimer And The Atom Bomb – Deadline

Could be interesting though, honestly, Oppenheimer’s personal life after Hiroshima and Nagasaki was actually more dramatic and interesting than his work managing the invention of the A-Bomb.

Maybe, like in The Imitation Game, the 40’s Manhattan Project A-story will be intercut with the 50’s Oppenheimer security hearings B-story. It would be a good contrast between the “we’re in this together” culture of WW2 vs the “don’t trust your neighbors” culture of the Cold War. At the same time, there is a lot of comparison as the paranoia and secrecy of the Manhattan project ended up preventing the scientists from actually providing necessary safety details on the radioactive material to the workers refining the uranium or the technicians producing the instruments they needed to make it work.

Tech: “So, what are you gonna use this for?”

Scientist: “I can’t tell you that.”

Tech” “…Okay? Do you have the specifications?”

Scientist: “Yes, of course.”

Tech: “…Can I see them?”

Scientist: “They’re classified.”

Tech: “Okay… so, what do want me to do?”

Scientist: “Well, our idea is that you and your team just start making some random instruments and we’ll tell you when you’re moving in the right direction.”

Nolan previously worked on a picture based on the life of Howard Hughes that he’s still developing, but it never got made because other people got Hughes movies in the pipeline before him. He was pretty deep into preproduction with Jim Carrey set to star as Hughes when THE AVIATOR went into production and then when he went back to it, Warren Beatty started shooting RULES DON’T APPLY (underrated film).

1 user thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson

Whitney Houston’s ‘The Bodyguard’ Gets Remake at Warner Bros. Written by Tony Nominee Matthew López (EXCLUSIVE)

"LIGHTYEAR" (MOVIE):

Pixar's "Lightyear" appears to be getting its first trailer exclusively in-theatres attached to Disney Animation's "Encanto" (SYNERGY!) on November 24th.

Not sure if this is 100% true but makes relative sense, I'm really excited to see this trailer: pic.twitter.com/OgPG6lUhJh

— Jack (@JackTweets44) September 14, 2021

New ‘Lost Boys’ Movie in the Works with Noah Jupe, Jaeden Martell to Star (Exclusive)

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/new-lost-boys-movie-noah-jupe-jaeden-martell-1235015779/

Ashton Sanders To Play Bobby Brown In Whitney Houston Biopic As Black Label Media Joins As Co-Financier

Eddie Murphy Signs Three-Picture & First-Look Film Deal With Amazon Studios

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

Well, looks like Chris Pratt’s career has peaked.

Animated only, but let’s be honest, a live action version with this cast would be something else.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Already people have been voicing complaints that Mario and Luigi aren’t being played by Italian actors, and it’s testament to the world we live in that I can’t be absolutely 100% sure they’re joking.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, njerry, garjones

Keegan-Michael Key playing Toad is absolutely the something he’s going to make self-deprecating jokes about while hosting SNL in about three years time (see Jon Stewart in the Magic Roundabout movie).

This thing has trainwreck written all over it. You’d think Nintendo would have learnt from last time and done a deal that gave them more control. I really thought they were going to avoid doing another bit of stunt-casted nonsense, but here we are.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Dave wrote:

Already people have been voicing complaints that Mario and Luigi aren’t being played by Italian actors, and it’s testament to the world we live in that I can’t be absolutely 100% sure they’re joking.

I think it’s a fair complaint though.

… I am not joking.

DavidM wrote:

Dave wrote:

Already people have been voicing complaints that Mario and Luigi aren’t being played by Italian actors, and it’s testament to the world we live in that I can’t be absolutely 100% sure they’re joking.

I think it’s a fair complaint though.

… I am not joking.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Rocket

Technically a remake, but really adapted from the novel.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Rocket

3 users thanked author for this post.

Andrew, JRCarter, lorcan_nagle

Cast Announced for Big Screen SALEM’S LOT Remake

Jake Gyllenhaal, Director Sam Hargrave Team for Studio 8’s ‘Prophet’

This Prophet:

3 users thanked author for this post.

Andrew, njerry

Interesting, I liked the reimagining of the character in the recent relaunch of Leifeld’s creations.

Sarah Silverman Compares Joan Rivers Biopic Casting To Blackface

https://www.suggest.com/sarah-silverman-compares-joan-rivers-biopic-casting-to-blackface/2592709/

That’s an interesting question. I am more inclined toward Shalhoub’s point of view. Even if you cast a Jewish actor in the role, they obviously would not be a Jewish comedian from the 1950’s either. Nevertheless, there is an interesting distinction in that Rivers was a person and Miriam Maisel is fictional character. If someone cast a Dick Gregory biopic with a British actor, we’d probably see Samuel Jackson or Chris Rock make a similar point. Certainly, casting heterosexuals in gay roles is becoming less frequent.

Still, it is also a labor rights matter. If the company actually made it a requirement that the actor be Jewish, that is obviously unfair. It gets complex as, like in a lot of British media, there is a push for colorblind casting with all actors of every ethnicity considered for roles that would have historically been a certain race, though it still would be rare to see a white actor cast as any other race, to be honest. Also, it is still unlikely trans actors would be cast as anything other than trans, but that’s probably going to change – Elliot Page will likely be cast as a any young male role and not simply trans in future projects. I think today it may even be more of a case that there just aren’t that many trans actors available rather than unwillingness to cast.

I do wonder if some of Silverman’s ire is professional jealousy as she was not cast as Rivers or has difficulty getting roles beyond a certain type.

I just hope Silverman doesn’t ever play non-Jews because that would be hypocritical as hell.

Honestly, I think Hahn is perfect casting for the role of Joan Rivers.

1 user thanked author for this post.

I get both sides I suppose. And Hollywood probably still needs to be called out for their problematic history of diversity casting (or lack thereof). But at the same time I certainly don’t think Elliot Page should be stuck playing trans characters forever (unless that’s what he wants) anymore than Scarlett Johansson should only play Jewish characters. I also had no clue Rachel Brosnahan wasn’t Jewish. Hard to imagine anyone else in that role. But hey, I’m a straight white dude with no skin in this game so what do I know?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Chris D wrote:

I get both sides I suppose. And Hollywood probably still needs to be called out for their problematic history of diversity casting (or lack thereof).

Yeah but it’s a bit weird coming from a jewish actress, because let’s be honest, jewish actors haven’t really dealt with that problem in Hollywood. Also, yeah being jewish is not a race as much as they want to believe that, and starting to restrict actors by their faith is a VERY dicey situation that should probably be avoided. That would be the real concern here.

Oh and, also, specificially, Silverman is infamous for having done blackface, among other rather offensive shit, throughout her career… so yeah, this whole thing is icky.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, Chris D, Todd

I have to agree with what Denzel Washington says here:

He mentioned a cultural angle when it comes to Scorcese doing Goodfellas and Spielberg doing Schindler’s List.

I heard what Sarah Silverman said and she may have a point in implying that a Jewish actor might do the Jewish role more justice.

I think of the examples of Mickey Rooney’s role as the Japanese neighbor in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Or Ricardo Montalban playing a Japanese man in another movie role. Let’s not go back to those days…

1 user thanked author for this post.

That is interesting point. I mean, no one can seriously criticize Paul Newman or Natalie Portman for playing prominent Catholic characters and it shouldn’t be an issue. Though Catholics have faced similar discrimination in America.

3 users thanked author for this post.

njerry, Chris D, Todd

Anonymous wrote:

Still, it is also a labor rights matter. If the company actually made it a requirement that the actor be Jewish, that is obviously unfair. It gets complex as, like in a lot of British media, there is a push for colorblind casting with all actors of every ethnicity considered for roles that would have historically been a certain race, though it still would be rare to see a white actor cast as any other race, to be honest.

Yes albeit because it started at Branagh’s RSC where Shakespeare only has one major character of colour across his plays and it’s extremely rare to find any in material pre Windrush in 1947 it’s not difficult to avoid that scenario.

The labour rights thing is also interesting because acting as a profession does get to break most of those laws, they do ask for particular age, gender and ethnicity for parts in a way no other industry can. They also ask people to take their clothes off and simulate sex with co-workers which probably wouldn’t get past the HR policies at the local supermarket.

Like others I am a little torn on this, I think it’s important that we have fair representation across the industry but acting is inherently being paid to pretend you are someone else. I find it can also hit issues if you propose a very strict level of purity in casting because of a rapidly growing population of mixed race children. A group that could be excluded from any parts of that kind and have faced criticism for taking on parts with half their heritage, going back at least to Ben Kingsley in Ghandi.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

garjones wrote:

Like others I am a little torn on this, I think it’s important that we have fair representation across the industry but acting is inherently being paid to pretend you are someone else.

I think this sums up the tensions. And I think there’s a need to find workable middle ground between a lot of different competing concerns here.

We’re currently in a situation where these arguments are happening mainly because of the need to increase visibility of actors and characters from certain backgrounds. So we’re at a point where people are both actively seeking acceptance of “colourblind” casting (in terms of minority actors being able to play roles previously reserved for white actors), while also simultaneously voicing outrage if a person from what is perceived to be a more privileged group plays someone from a less privileged group – say, a white actor playing a non-white character, a non-trans actor playing a trans character or a straight actor playing a gay character.

I don’t think that on a purely intellectual abstract level you can really square that circle, and that’s even before you get into the idea of acting essentially being all about pretending to be someone that you’re not.

But once you take into account that this is all happening against a backdrop of an uneven playing field in the first place – in terms of employment opportunities for minority actors and visibility for minority characters, and attempts to recalibrate the industry so that some of those inequalities are removed – then I think it starts to make more sense and you can see why these positions are adopted and how they can be useful.

I do think though that while this mindset is useful in broad strokes it can start to become a bit of an obstacle once you get down to very narrow groups and very specific characteristics, especially in combinations. Let’s say that you were casting a biopic of Sammy Davis Jr – would you have to insist on an actor who was black and disabled and jewish? Does there come a point at which you’re actually closing down opportunities for certain groups of actors rather than broadening them? And that’s before you even get to the “just choose the best person for the job” type argument.

Like I say, broadly I think this mindset and these initiatives are positive and are creating more opportunities (and in the case of something like Shakespeare, opening up the material to a broader range of interpretations). But I do think there’s a risk that the more specific and strictly-applied that the who-can-play-who criteria become, the worse it ends up being for everybody, and probably in some cases detrimental to the end product.

1 user thanked author for this post.

garjones

Should award-winning actor Oscar Isaac, a Guatemalan (his full name is Oscar Isaac Hernandez Estrada), be limited to playing only Hispanic characters, or only Guatemalan characters, since playing any other ethnicity is prohibited? He has previously been acclaimed for portraying Saint Joseph in The Nativity Story, the former president of East Timor in the Australian film Balibo, and the Slovakian-American mayor of Yonkers, NY, in Show Me a Hero; and he will star as Jewish superhero Marc Spector/Moon Knight in an upcoming Disney+ MCU miniseries.

Well there’s an argument to be made for representation of minorities (in terms of race), genders, disabled people etc… But I’m really gonna have to draw a line where faith/religion is concerned, because that’s waaaaaaaay too problematic.

I mean, in the end this is just Sarah Silverman’s pathetic attempt to stay relevant, so we shouldn’t really pay her much attention, but yeah, it’s a bit worrisome when people start getting into dumbshit extremes like this one, but I suppose it’s also inevitable.

Right now we’re in a pretty good place in terms of representation in entertainment in general, so it’s kind of a shame that some people just wanna keep pushing too much, that’s only gonna be counterproductive.

Also, best reply I’ve seen to this and to her specifically was: “only funny people should be allowed to play comedians”… made me chuckle, and that much is true =P

Jon wrote:

But I’m really gonna have to draw a line where faith/religion is concerned, because that’s waaaaaaaay too problematic.

To be fair the  repeated issue with a Jewish identity is that both are strongly intertwined. Judaism is not an evangelical religion like pretty much all of the others, belonging to it comes from heritage and the path in is not conversion but marriage. I don’t know too well but I don’t think Silverman is a practicing Jew, I know David Baddiel in the UK who has written extensively on issues like anti-semitism does not follow the religion.

So unlike Christianity or Islam in particular which are very driven to spread the concept as far as possible being Jewish is often simultaneously a belief system and an ethnic identity.

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

I understand, but it’s still a slippery slope that would be best avoided.

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Al-x

garjones wrote:

So unlike Christianity or Islam in particular which are very driven to spread the concept as far as possible being Jewish is often simultaneously a belief system and an ethnic identity.

In a lot of ways, being Catholic is expressed ethnically. People can convert to Catholicism, but for the most part it is tied to their cultures. Italian, Irish and Latino in America, for example. There are a lot of “Catholic” families where the majority don’t go to Church but it is still part of their identity. With Islam it’s even more tied in to the culture of groups like Arabs and Iranians where even if a person isn’t a practicing Muslim, the culture they grew up in was completely influenced by Muslim practices.

Even with Judaism, there are great differences between the ethnic groups from Hasidic to Orthodox to completely secular and in the different nationalities as well.

In that sense, does it really make more sense that a Jewish American actor would be a better choice to play a Hasidic Israeli character than any non-Jewish actor would? There are some actors who’ve played Armenian, Israeli, Catholic Latinos and straight white Americans in their careers. It’s really these lead roles that get the attention, while actors in supporting roles generally don’t have any questions about it.

That’s pretty much my point about slippery slopes… should atheists be barred from playing religious characters? Should religious actors be barred from playing atheist characters? It gets really stupid really fast.

Plus, the actor’s job IS to learn how to become another person, that’s their whole shtick, that’s “acting”, it’s in the name FFS… so there’s no difference between learning about judaism for a role and learning kung-fu for a role…

How about just getting the best person possible for it, while sure, minding some degree of diversity and all that.

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM

I’m somewhat suspect of the value of representation in entertainment as entertainment itself is hardly representative. Which is sort of the point of it. No high school in a movie is like high school. Doctor’s, lawyers, cops, criminals, priests – none of them are representational. There are probably more Russian mobsters in movies than actual Russian mobsters. If you watch a movie supposedly about some real event or actual people, you’ll probably know less about the real people after watching the movie than before.

When it comes to any multi-million dollar production, the primary casting decision for the lead is based on whether that actor can help convince people to pay to see it. Or get someone to buy it for their streaming service – it is getting increasingly hard to accomplish that and make a profit. As we’ve seen, diversity in casting is not a selling point for many audiences, and it really doesn’t matter who plays the lead if no one sees it.

My concern is more that the labor practices are more fair and inclusive representing the actors out there looking for work.

Speaking of labor practices:

Hollywood crews will strike on Monday if deal is not reached (cnbc.com)

 

 

Anonymous wrote:

I’m somewhat suspect of the value of representation in entertainment as entertainment itself is hardly representative. Which is sort of the point of it. No high school in a movie is like high school. Doctor’s, lawyers, cops, criminals, priests – none of them are representational. There are probably more Russian mobsters in movies than actual Russian mobsters. If you watch a movie supposedly about some real event or actual people, you’ll probably know less about the real people after watching the movie than before.

When it comes to any multi-million dollar production, the primary casting decision for the lead is based on whether that actor can help convince people to pay to see it. Or get someone to buy it for their streaming service – it is getting increasingly hard to accomplish that and make a profit. As we’ve seen, diversity in casting is not a selling point for many audiences, and it really doesn’t matter who plays the lead if no one sees it.

That’s a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy though isn’t it. If the only big star actors who have been proven to be able to ‘sell’ a movie on that level are white and mostly male (which they would be, historically), then you might logically conclude that you should stick with that pool of actors, as anything else risks financially under-performing.

But what that then does is reinforce a culture where those lead roles are closed off to minority actors and there’s a sort of caste system in place (no pun intended) that justifies that lack of opportunity on a financial basis.

It’s why I think movies like Black Panther are important beyond just an abstract “representation” aspect. They are empirical proof that, yes, audiences will show up in massive numbers for a movie with an almost entirely black cast, enough to make it a billion-dollar film. And that maybe those ideas about sticking to the kind of star actors who can open a movie are somewhat outdated.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, DavidM, lorcan_nagle

Anonymous wrote:

In a lot of ways, being Catholic is expressed ethnically. People can convert to Catholicism, but for the most part it is tied to their cultures. Italian, Irish and Latino in America, for example

There are lots of Catholic converts in Asia or Africa. The most populous Muslim nation is Indonesia who follow very different norms to Iran.

I don’t disagree there’s a cultural aspect involved, the non-practicing Catholics who identify culturally still but I think maybe we are butting up against the slightly different definitions of ‘ethnic’ in UK and US English. The argument Baddiel makes is whatever he does he’s racially a Jew. D’Israeli was a church goer but is now defined as an ‘ethnic jew’ which doesn’t really mean a set of cultural behaviours but his genetic heritage.

Visually this looks good but I don’t love the reality TV style editing, where dialog is laid over footage where we can’t see that the guys are talking, meaning the words and pictures weren’t captured at the same time.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

That looks like it’s going to be well worth a watch.

garjones wrote:

I don’t disagree there’s a cultural aspect involved, the non-practicing Catholics who identify culturally still but I think maybe we are butting up against the slightly different definitions of ‘ethnic’ in UK and US English. The argument Baddiel makes is whatever he does he’s racially a Jew. D’Israeli was a church goer but is now defined as an ‘ethnic jew’ which doesn’t really mean a set of cultural behaviours but his genetic heritage.

However, there are plenty of Muslims, especially Palestinian that descend from Jewish converts to Islam. Genetically, Palestinians, Druze and Israelis are the same race. However, no one – especially the Palestinians – would claim that the Palestinians are ethnically or even racially Jewish.

My point is that the diversity inside Judaism, racially, ethnically and religiously, compares to the ethnic, racial and religious aspects of religions like Hinduism, Catholicism and Islam. Also, interestingly, the idea that Judaism is not evangelical requires some nuance. In the US recently, there was a report that 17% of Jewish Americans had converted from other religions and not simply due to marriage, which was the primary factor in the past. If that trend continues, Judaism will even more resemble other religions. Certainly, I’d say Armenian Christianity, Sikh and Druze religions are considerably more racial and ethnically determined than Judaism in America today.

garjones wrote:

D’Israeli was a church goer but is now defined as an ‘ethnic jew’ which doesn’t really mean a set of cultural behaviours but his genetic heritage.

Any excuse:

Dave wrote:

That looks like it’s going to be well worth a watch.

Yeah, I’ll certainly watch it. I forgot that it’s no longer a film but a short series so doesn’t really belong in this thread – sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

If that trend continues, Judaism will even more resemble other religions.

Which you said it already does in the previous paragraph.

Factually you are right on many of the points but even if it’s mainly as a social construct both Jews and anti-semites recognise the term to consistently be a racial grouping as well as a religious one. Something you cannot say about Christianity or Islam outside of a very local reading (e.g. In Boston Catholicism may be viewed in unison to Irish heritage but it certainly doesn’t in Manila or Lagos).

Jon wrote:

That’s pretty much my point about slippery slopes… should atheists be barred from playing religious characters? Should religious actors be barred from playing atheist characters? It gets really stupid really fast.

Plus, the actor’s job IS to learn how to become another person, that’s their whole shtick, that’s “acting”, it’s in the name FFS… so there’s no difference between learning about judaism for a role and learning kung-fu for a role…

How about just getting the best person possible for it, while sure, minding some degree of diversity and all that.

I get what you are saying above about the actor’s job, but the blame goes to the casting staff. I would blame the casting decisions before anything else really.

You said Kung-Fu which reminds me: David Carradine instead of Bruce Lee?

I also stand by what Denzel said in the opening minute of that video. A cultural thing does a production true justice.

Al-x wrote:

You said Kung-Fu which reminds me: David Carradine instead of Bruce Lee?

Al, you’re talking about something that happened almost literally 50 years ago. I’m talking today.

Oh, also, the casting folks work according to the director/studio’s directives, so no, they’re not to blame… at least not entirely.

[Al-x]

Jon wrote:

Al, you’re talking about something that happened almost literally 50 years ago. I’m talking today.

So in your opinion… How much has it changed?

Look at ScarJo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/07/14/scarlett-johannson-who-has-history-casting-controversies-says-i-should-be-allowed-play-any-person/

https://www.insider.com/scarlett-johansson-controversy-timeline-most-divisive-moments

• This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by Al-x.

I still remember the story of the studio executive who wanted Julia Roberts to play Harriet Tubman.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Al-x

[Al-x]

Then there is this current controversy of the casting of this light skinned actress to play a historical dark skinned woman.

https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/09/30/start-turning-down-roles-that-are-meant-for-a-dark-skin-actor-netflix-gets-called-out-for-colorism-after-zazie-beetz-is-casted-as-stagecoach-mary/

Then again, aren’t the majority of black roles done by lighter skinned women like Zendaya and a few others on the cute side?

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/hollywoods-colorism-problem-cant-be-ignored/amp

• This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by Al-x.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by Al-x.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Al-x wrote:

So in your opinion… How much has it changed?

A lot… A LOT.

garjones wrote:

Factually you are right on many of the points but even if it’s mainly as a social construct both Jews and anti-semites recognise the term to consistently be a racial grouping as well as a religious one. Something you cannot say about Christianity or Islam outside of a very local reading (e.g. In Boston Catholicism may be viewed in unison to Irish heritage but it certainly doesn’t in Manila or Lagos).

However, like you said, it may be a difference of perception from England to Europe to America, but my point is that the most people who see Jews as a racial group are actually the anti-Semitic groups much more than the various individuals that are actually Jewish. In America, which relates to Joan Rivers, they are most often Americans with Jewish heritage rather than Jews in America. In Germany and Austria, for example, many of the Jewish people that would become victims of the holocaust identified primarily as Germans with Jewish heritage in German and Austrian society and not as Jews in those nations. The ideal of Jews as a race is essential to the Anti-Semitic perspective far more than the Jewish individual experience.

In America, while anti-Semitism was as strong as many European nations, anti-Catholic sentiment was far more prevalent and influential and it was also tied into the anti-Immigrant movements against the Irish, Italian and Mexican/Spanish as America was conceived as a primarily protestant nation – an identity inherited from England where, obviously, it was often far worse to be a Catholic than Jewish. So, when it came to the actual discrimination against Catholics in America, it was directly connected to the ethnicity of the Catholics far more often than simply discrimination against the religion – especially in the case of the Irish who were essentially white except for their religion and as a result treated worse than Jews or even African Americans especially in the Northern United States of the 1800’s.

Mainly though, in relation to casting, I think it is more stereotypical to believe that a person of the same race today is somehow more fit to portray a person of the same race from an entirely different generation or that actors are incapable of effectively doing that because of their personal identity. Also, I have to think that America, the UK and Europe are actually far more diverse in casting in general than any other major center of entertainment production like China or Korea, for example.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Al-x wrote:

You said Kung-Fu which reminds me: David Carradine instead of Bruce Lee?

Have you heard Bruce Lee speaking in the 70s? His English is good, but his accent is pretty strong. I think American audiences would have struggled with him carrying a TV series because of his accent.

Lee’s advantage over Carradine is obviously that he could really fight. But Kung Fu had almost no fights. That was its whole point: the protagonist was a pacifist. So you have 50 minutes of Caine talking to people followed by one very brief fight with the antagonist of the week. So which actor would carry that format better, Lee or Carradine?

Carradine wasn’t half-American/half-Chinese like the character, of course. But then, neither was Bruce Lee

 

BTS photo from the set of Rob Zombie’s Munsters movie

1 user thanked author for this post.

Rocket

Who keeps producing Rob Zombie movies? And why?

Chris D wrote:

Who keeps producing Rob Zombie movies?

Rob Zombie

3 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, DavidM, Chris D

Dave wrote:

Chris D wrote:

Who keeps producing Rob Zombie movies?

Rob Zombie

And how interesting a coincidence is it that the female lead has the same last name as Rob Zombie. WHAT ARE THE ODDS??

2 users thanked author for this post.

Chris D, Todd

Chris D wrote:

Who keeps producing Rob Zombie movies? And why?

It’s very easy to make cheap horror movies and turn a profit on them.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Chris D, Todd

1 user thanked author for this post.

njerry

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Chris D wrote:

Who keeps producing Rob Zombie movies? And why?

It’s very easy to make cheap horror movies and turn a profit on them.

True. And I’m sure Zombie keeps costs extra low by just casting his family and friends. Looking at his last couple of movies, kind of sounds like he’s just making stuff and hoping it gets released. One was crowd funded. The other looks like it got a 3 day theatrical release? So I guess good for him for just sticking to his passion projects.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Normally I wouldn’t raise an eyebrow at a film about Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz, but BEING THE RICARDOS has an incredible pedigree.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Andrew, JRCarter

Sylvester Stallone bows out of Expendables franchise

https://www.djournal.com/lifestyle/arts-entertainment/sylvester-stallone-bows-out-of-expendables-franchise/article_7aa2d576-3217-52ac-8ed0-de0ad2b77f73.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/22/alec-baldwin-fired-prop-gun-woman-death-movie-rust-sheriff

Bloody hell.

1 user thanked author for this post.

I would think that any actor who works with prop guns understands that they can kill people and you don;t mess around with them.

There was a TV actor in the 80s who put a prop gun to his temple as a joke and killed himself. After that happens once, how is the danger not drilled into every person on a set, and how can someone as experienced as Baldwin not be aware of it?

1 user thanked author for this post.

It is amazing that they still use these prop guns on film sets nearly 30 years after Brandon Lee’s death. Surely we’re at a point now where a safer CGI approach to such dangerous props can be used instead?

1 user thanked author for this post.

I’m sure I’ve read that there is an alternative where they don’t fire blanks and the flash/bang are added in later, but they are disliked because the actor then has to act out the recoil, and apparently that’s hard to do?

1 user thanked author for this post.

And I’d completely forgotten about Branden Lee. That must have been about five years after the incident I was thinking of, so if any lessons were learned they were forgotten very quickly.

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidM wrote:

I’m sure I’ve read that there is an alternative where they don’t fire blanks and the flash/bang are added in later, but they are disliked because the actor then has to act out the recoil, and apparently that’s hard to do?

True – there are many movies where it is just hilariously obvious that the actor is miming the recoil, to the point that he might as well be shouting “bang! bang!” but it seems like it would be cheaper and safer to produce prop guns with strong spring recoil or electronic mechanisms built in rather than relying on blanks and then using the CGI to add the muzzle flashes and cartridges. Basically with all the electronic components available that you see mass produced in everything from tools to toys, making a truly fake gun that feels like you’re firing an actual firearm should be simple. It seems like this is a good time rethink the entire firearm prop philosophy.

If it really was just a prop incapable of firing anything and not some modified firearm or, in many cases, a real firearm using blanks, it would obviously be safer, but also much easier to transport to all the various locations and nations production companies rely on.

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidM

DavidM wrote:

I’m sure I’ve read that there is an alternative where they don’t fire blanks and the flash/bang are added in later, but they are disliked because the actor then has to act out the recoil, and apparently that’s hard to do?

I don’t think that it’s culturally acceptable for a non-firing gun to play a firing gun in a movie anymore.

It’s nowadays referred to as Blankface.

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM

That’s great! Good job!

Ironically, back in the silent days, they used former cowboys who were all fairly good at firing pistols and they’d just miss each other in the gunfight scenes. In fact, when blanks came in, there were actually more injuries because often, the wax they used to seal the blank cartridges would harden over time. So if your director bought a cheap box of old blanks, all the stuntmen, real sharpshooters, would think it is safe to actually shoot at each other and end up doing some real damage with all these old hard wax bullets.

Jon-Erik Hexum

On October 12, 1984, the cast and crew of Cover Up were filming the seventh episode of the series, “Golden Opportunity”, on Stage 17 of the 20th Century Fox lot. One of the scenes filmed that day called for Hexum’s character to load bullets into a .44 Magnum handgun, so he was provided with a functional gun and blanks. When the scene did not play as the director wanted it to in the master shot, there was a delay in filming. Hexum became restless and impatient during the delay and began playing around to lighten the mood. He had unloaded all but one (blank) round, spun it, and—simulating Russian roulette—he put the revolver to his right temple and pulled the trigger,[6] apparently unaware of the danger.

Blanks use paper or plastic wadding to seal gunpowder into the cartridge, and this wadding is propelled from the barrel of the gun with enough force to cause injury if the weapon is fired within a few feet of the body, particularly a vulnerable spot, such as the temple or the eye. At a close enough range, the effect of the powder gases is a small explosion, so although the paper wadding in the blank that Hexum discharged did not penetrate his skull, there was enough blunt force trauma to shatter a quarter-sized piece of his skull and propel the pieces into his brain, causing massive hemorrhaging.[1][7]

Hexum was rushed to Beverly Hills Medical Center, where he underwent five hours of surgery to repair his wounds.[7] On October 18, aged 26, six days after the accident, Hexum was declared brain-dead.

With his mother’s permission, his body was flown to San Francisco on life support, where his heart was transplanted into a 36-year-old Las Vegas man at California Pacific Medical Center.[8] Hexum’s kidneys and corneas were also donated: One cornea went to a 66-year-old man, the other to a young girl. One of the kidney recipients was a critically ill five-year-old boy, and the other was a 43-year-old grandmother of three who had waited eight years for a kidney. Skin that was donated was used to treat a 3½-year-old boy with third-degree burns.[9]

Hexum’s body was then flown back to Los Angeles. He was cremated at Grandview Crematory in Glendale, California, and a private funeral was held. His ashes were scattered in the Pacific Ocean, near Malibu, California, by his mother. He left an estate estimated to be worth $255,000.[10] The death was ruled accidental.[11] His mother later received an out-of-court settlement from 20th Century Fox Television and Glen A. Larson Productions, the production team behind Cover Up.[1]

The episode on which Hexum had been working was broadcast on November 3, 1984, two weeks after his death. Cover Up continued production without Hexum’s character. Three weeks later, in the episode “Writer’s Block”, aired on November 24, Antony Hamilton was introduced as agent Jack Striker, posing as a new member of the modeling team.[12] Hexum’s character Mac is noticeably absent, said to be on another mission. At the end of the episode, Henry Towler (Richard Anderson) breaks the news that Mac has been killed on the other assignment and would not be coming back.[13] As the tears flow, the camera pans back, and a memoriam written by Glen Larson appears onscreen:

When a star dies, its light continues to shine
across the universe for millenniums (sic).
John Eric (sic) Hexum died in October of this year … but the lives he touched will continue to be brightened by his light
… forever … and ever.

Brandon Lee

On March 31, 1993, Lee was filming a scene in The Crow where his character is shot and killed by thugs.[97] In the scene, Lee’s character walks into his apartment and discovers his fiancée being beaten and raped, and a thug played by actor Michael Massee is to fire a Smith & Wesson Model 629 .44 Magnum revolver at Lee’s character as he walks into the room.[98]

In the film shoot preceding the fatal scene, the prop gun, which is a real revolver, was loaded with improperly-made dummy rounds, cartridges from which the special-effects crew had removed the powder charges so in close-ups the revolver would show normal-looking ammunitions. However, the crew neglected to remove the primers from the cartridges. At some point before the fatal event, one of the rounds had been fired; although there was no powder charges, the energy from the ignited primer was enough to separate the bullet from the casing and push it part-way into the gun barrel, where it got stuck (a condition known as a squib load). For the fatal scene, which called for the revolver to be fired at Lee from a distance of 3.6–4.5 meters (12–15 ft), the dummy cartridges were replaced with blank rounds, which contained a powder charge and the primer, but no solid bullet, allowing the gun to be fired with sound and flash effects without the risk of an actual projectile. However, the gun was not properly checked and cleared before the blank round was fired, and the dummy bullet previously lodged in the barrel was then propelled forward by the blank and shot out the muzzle with almost the same force as if the round were live, striking Lee in the abdomen.[99][100]

After Massee pulled the trigger, Lee was supposed to fall forward instead of backward. When the director said “cut”, Lee did not stand up and the crew thought he was either still acting or kidding around. Jeff Imada, who immediately checked Lee, noticed something wrong when he came close and noted Lee was unconscious and breathing heavily. Medic Clyde Baisey went over and shook Lee to see if he was dazed by hitting his head during the fall, but did not think Lee had been shot since there was no bleeding. Baisey took Lee’s pulse, which was regular, but within two to three minutes it slowed down dramatically, and stopped.[101]

Lee was rushed to the New Hanover Regional Medical Center in Wilmington, North Carolina. Attempts to save him were unsuccessful and after six hours of emergency surgery, Lee was pronounced dead at 1:03 pm on March 31, 1993. He was 28 years old. The shooting was ruled an accident due to negligence.[102] Lee’s death led to the re-emergence of conspiracy theories surrounding his father’s similarly early death.[103] Lee was buried next to his father at the Lake View Cemetery in Seattle, Washington. A private funeral attended by 50 took place in Seattle on April 3. The following day, 200 of Lee’s family and business associates attended a memorial service at actress Polly Bergen’s house in Los Angeles. Among the attendees were Kiefer Sutherland, Lou Diamond Phillips, David Hasselhoff, Steven Seagal, David Carradine, and Melissa Etheridge.[104][105]

In an interview just prior to his death, Lee quoted a passage from Paul Bowles’ book The Sheltering Sky[106] which he had chosen for his wedding invitations; it is now inscribed on his tombstone:

Because we don’t know when we will die, we get to think of life as an inexhaustible well. And yet everything happens only a certain number of times, and a very small number really. How many more times will you remember a certain afternoon of your childhood, an afternoon that is so deeply a part of your being that you can’t even conceive of your life without it? Perhaps four, or five times more? Perhaps not even that. How many more times will you watch the full moon rise? Perhaps twenty. And yet it all seems limitless…[107]

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidM wrote:

I’m sure I’ve read that there is an alternative where they don’t fire blanks and the flash/bang are added in later, but they are disliked because the actor then has to act out the recoil, and apparently that’s hard to do?

Here’s an idea, take your actors to a shooting range to let them learn what the recoil is like. Or, you know, keep risking people’s lives for stupid action scenes in movies. Whatever.

JOHN WICK did that pretty well. Still a little phony but a helluva lot safer. Honestly, though, if they can CGI all this stuff, they can CGI realistic recoil as well.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Chris D

Alec Baldwin ‘Canceling Other Projects’ After Rust Shooting Death, ‘Inconsolable for Hours’ Says Source

https://people.com/movies/alec-baldwin-canceling-other-projects-rust-shooting-halyna-hutchins-death-source/

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I do get the sense that public opinion is turning away from sympathy to casting Baldwin as the heel of the story. Generally, the entertainment press has the tendency to turn real tragedies into unreal dramas.

‘Soul Man’ at 35: How a young Spike Lee helped take down ‘the most offensive movie ever’

It still amazes me that that movie was ever greenlit.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd

Not sure if it really beats TIPTOES as the most misguided movie about minorities, though. I can understand the thinking behind SOUL MAN, but TIPTOES baffles me.

In any case, it is hard to make a case that anyone involved in movies like this have any malicious intentions. It’s hard to argue that it is egregiously offensive when no offense was intended. I wonder what the African American cast members were thinking while they were filming. James Earl Jones was in this and he acted back in the days when productions were overtly racist.

1 user thanked author for this post.

JRCarter

All the details we know about ‘Rust,’ the Alec Baldwin movie halted by fatal shooting

https://www.insider.com/alec-baldwin-movie-rust-plot-cast-details-2021-10?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=topbar

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

And Dune, Part 2 has been greenlit! Planned release October 2023

4 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Uncle Retrospective, Todd

lorcan_nagle wrote:

And Dune, Part 2 has been greenlit! Planned release October 2023

In all seriousness, they probably should have filmed the planned trilogy and released one per year for three consecutive years. That’s a lot of time to lose momentum.

1 user thanked author for this post.

It is a while. This is hard to say as the HBO Max side of it skews expectations. You could see more of a build to interest over time as people can easily watch it at their leisure. Still, it’s a property that can still generate profits over a longer term.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Todd wrote:

lorcan_nagle wrote:

And Dune, Part 2 has been greenlit! Planned release October 2023

In all seriousness, they probably should have filmed the planned trilogy and released one per year for three consecutive years. That’s a lot of time to lose momentum.

From a business perspective it makes sense short-term at least to use Part 1 as a test to gauge the appeal of Dune. The prior movie was not a success and while the mini-series remains Syfy’s most popular original show, it was a relatively low-budget TV adaptation. It’s easier to commit to 150 million in the hopes of getting 300-450 back than it is 300 or 600 in the hopes of getting 500-a billion back.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Maybe this is me showing the symptoms of getting old, but two years doesn’t seem all that long to me. I would’ve kind of expected it to take three years to make the next chapter. So, good news all around!

7 users thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson, Ben, Chris D, DavidM, Todd, Dave, lorcan_nagle

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe this is me showing the symptoms of getting old, but two years doesn’t seem all that long to me. I would’ve kind of expected it to take three years to make the next chapter. So, good news all around!

Yeah, I assume it helps that the sets, costumes, etc are already done from the first movie.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

That’s a lot of effort to put into a gag trailer.

It’s a gag trailer… right?

lorcan_nagle wrote:

From a business perspective it makes sense short-term at least to use Part 1 as a test to gauge the appeal of Dune. The prior movie was not a success and while the mini-series remains Syfy’s most popular original show, it was a relatively low-budget TV adaptation. It’s easier to commit to 150 million in the hopes of getting 300-450 back than it is 300 or 600 in the hopes of getting 500-a billion back.

True, and DUNE isn’t exactly STAR WARS. It doesn’t need to sell Lego sets, videogames and action figures to kids before they’re too old (and turn into “collectors” )

honestly, though, not sure the current Star Wars trilogy is selling many action figures at this point. Classic SW seems to be doing okay though.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Anonymous wrote:

honestly, though, not sure the current Star Wars trilogy is selling many action figures at this point. Classic SW seems to be doing okay though.

That’s partly because interest in action figures is quite a generation-specific thing. Action figures (in the sense of the original Star Wars Kenner-style small plastic dolls) aren’t such a big thing for the current generation of kids. Not like in the 70s and 80s for sure.

We could also say that the recent trilogy hasn’t sold many VHSs.

Modern Star Wars still sells shitloads of Lego and video games though, so it’s doing ok.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle, Ben

Dune part 2 huh? OK, now I’m interested as the film out now is only half the story.

As to SW, it’s still a licence to print money.  Loads of people want to slag the sequel films but, like it or not, those three films still racked up around $4bn.  If that’s failure, Disney can easily live with it.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave, lorcan_nagle

Dave wrote:

That’s partly because interest in action figures is quite a generation-specific thing. Action figures (in the sense of the original Star Wars Kenner-style small plastic dolls) aren’t such a big thing for the current generation of kids. Not like in the 70s and 80s for sure.

100%. Kids don’t care about action figures like they did then. Neither of my kids or their friends too any interest and they don’t hold a very prominent place in toy shops any more.

I suspect the most lucrative market is selling collectibles to adults so with that in mind Dune might actually do quite well in that market.

It doesn’t really change Johnny’s main point though, you just swap action figures for Lego kits, pyjamas, bedding and lunch boxes.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd

STAR WARS has also been a pretty profitable license in the Videogames market. DUNE had a few successful and failing games as well from the 90’s. There may be some interest in updating those.

The major complication with the DUNE series is that it already has its own version of the “Star Wars prequels” in Brian Herbert’s series often departing or contradicting the original series. They are pretty divisive and disliked by many fans of the original series, so I don’t think they’d work incorporated into this one – AND much of Dune in general is very dated culturally. Though Herbert was criticizing it, that sometimes doesn’t communicate, so it comes off as promoting dictatorial authoritarianism, eugenics and war while most the women in the novels are either governed by their emotions or supremely cold and manipulative or just plain crazy evil and dedicated to enslaving men with their sexuality (a recurring theme in Herbert’s fiction actually).

garjones wrote:

Dave wrote:

That’s partly because interest in action figures is quite a generation-specific thing. Action figures (in the sense of the original Star Wars Kenner-style small plastic dolls) aren’t such a big thing for the current generation of kids. Not like in the 70s and 80s for sure.

100%. Kids don’t care about action figures like they did then. Neither of my kids or their friends too any interest and they don’t hold a very prominent place in toy shops any more.

I suspect the most lucrative market is selling collectibles to adults so with that in mind Dune might actually do quite well in that market.

It doesn’t really change Johnny’s main point though, you just swap action figures for Lego kits, pyjamas, bedding and lunch boxes.

I think a lot of toys, especially ones based on nostalgia properties like Transformers, are purchased by adults for themselves.

In the glory days of the original Star Wars trilogy, GI Joe, He-Man, and the like (late 1970s – 1980s), it was not just action figures that were sold. You had to get the vehicles and playsets to go with them. It created a comprehensive play experience. The figures were relatively cheap but the accessories had the higher price point. And often, the accessories had exclusive figures you couldn’t buy seperately.

Nowadays, I’ll see figures and to me, they seem a bit pricey. And there are no vehicles and playsets. Adjusting for inflation, maybe the prices for figures are in line or they could have a higher price to make up for the lack of accessories.

I think a lot of toys really are for adult collectors, rather than for kids to play with. I look at Dune and that really isn’t a movie kids would go to so any merchandise would be targeted for adults.

Todd wrote:

Nowadays, I’ll see figures and to me, they seem a bit pricey.

They are and I’ve not made the inflation adjusted comparison either but I think other toys and games are generally better value.

I think the main driver when we were kids too was the collectability, the playground discussion was around which figures or which football stickers (probably baseball cards in the US) and comparing collections. Nowadays a lot of that activity is virtual, Pokemon being the most obvious example.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd

Dave wrote:

Modern Star Wars still sells shitloads of Lego and video games though, so it’s doing ok.

And stupid-big-head dolls. Don’t forget them.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Uncle Retrospective

Things are happening. pic.twitter.com/SNYzTqc9uz

— Jackson Publick (@jacksonpublick) October 29, 2021

2 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, Todd