BafflingBeerMan

Forum Cartel
  • Posts

    1223
  • Joined

  1. And don't forget that Halle Berry won an Oscar between the first X-Men movie and the second and that truly launched her into A-list status.

    So whether or not Berry could handle a bigger role/was suited to play Storm, the fact that the franchise now had an Academy Award winning actress dictated that she would be getting more focus/lines, whether it be because of interal studio pressure for marketing reasons or pressure from herself and publicist.

    I have always heard that Singer really wanted Angela Basset to play Storm, but had to settle for Berry instead.
  2. Isn't this how the Red Queen in the first Resident Evil movie got her start?
  3. Quote:
    Originally Posted by CaptainFoamerang View Post
    X3 sucked and only really leached off the success of the first two films by Singer. If Singer hadn't done so well with those first two and set the franchise up for an epic third film, it wouldn't have done so well.

    In some cases they actually do pay attention to more than just the box office. Everybody saw that Spider-Man 3 wasn't as good as the first two, and the experience put a bad taste in the mouth of the creative team and stars, so they had to reboot. People didn't like the Superbastard angle of Superman Returns and now they've sent Nolan over to attempt to right the ship.
    Interesting to note that Raimi and Maguire were all ready to do a fourth film and I think even signed to do it, but then Sony pulled the plug and went with the reboot.

    If the rumors were correct that Venom was thrust upon Raimi by the studio, I can see the talk about the fourth film focused on who gets to control the story. Raimi and Maguire probably said that Sam should have final say, pointing out that most fans and critics panned Eddie Brock, while Sony probably said that Venom drew in fans, that Sandman alone couldn't have carried the film, and any problems with the Venom character was Raimi's fault and the studio should still be able to dictate story points. Since the parties involved couldn't agree upon on who should control the story, they parted ways.

    At least, that's my theory.

    Also, back on the topic of X-franchise, remember that the first two X-films were highly regarded critically. A lot of critics* saw the X-Men movies as "serious" fare. I bet if Nolan/Batman hadn't come along and Singer would have stayed on for X3 and beyond, we would be hearing about how the X-franchise would be the superhero franchise competing at the Oscars. X3 sorta went back on that tone and was more blow-em-up.

    *NOTE: I use the term "critics" to mean both reviewers and those who are insiders or human barometers in Hollywood. Are their opinions the only ones that count? Not at all. But they are certainly more knowledgable about the "How" and "What" of Hollywood than I.
  4. Which is what I am saying, you can't just look at the BO and say "Oh, this movie was a success!" Or even look at the production budget versus the final BO. You said it yourself, a movie can "underperform." And I am not talking about the impact of geek fans, I am talking about the decision to continue a movie franchise in one direction over another goes beyond the final gross. X3 got poor word of mouth, poor critical reception. It had a huge opening weekend, but then again, as I have said, that is indicative of the popularity of previous movies and hype, and says little of the impact the current movie has on the franchise's health.

    X3 made lots of money, but are we getting an X4? The movie didn't exactly close the book, what with the ending showing that both Magneto and Prof. X are living to fight another day. Storywise, there are still many tales to be told with that line. Instead, we are getting a prequel of sorts. Just like you said is happening to Wolverine due to it underperforming, changes had to be made to keep the X-franchise commercially viable, despite X3's huge haul. Just like what happened with Batman and Robin and then Batman Begins. Or now with the Spider-Man franchise. Fox decided that forcing Singer to choose between the X-franchise and Superman was a dumb decision, so they went back to him (and he went back to them, seeing that he probably won't be returning to direct a sequel to Supes). It is clear that Fox didn't think a sequel to X3 would do so well, despite it being the highest grossing sequel. That particular facet of the franchise is a little worn out.

    Also, rebooting a franchise isn't necessarily safer. In many ways it is a bit riskier if the franchise is still realitively new. You risk losing the fanbase you built up with the previous movies by inserting new actors and rehashing previous plot points, like their origins. It may be less expensive though, with fresh actors and directors not demanding as much salary.
  5. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Divus View Post
    X3 made more money than X2. It is a success for the studios. Only the fanboys hate it (and hated it since Ratner signed on) and the hate did not affect the box office. If the mainstream movie going public likes FC, then expect more flashbacks.
    Just like how Wolverine made lots of money, but was critically panned (for the most part) and the fans complained about it, so now, no more Magneto origin movie. And the Wolverine sequel is going to have a different director.

    Just because a movie makes lots of money doesn't mean it would be considered a "success" by the studio. Superman Returns made a ton of money, but failed to live up to expectations, both with its final take and with critical reception, so now there is talk about rebooting it once again. Also, remember, most money is made in the opening weekend, which is indicative of hype and goodwill from previous movies.

    There is a reason why Fox went back to Singer. They want good word of mouth, like the first two X-movies, and not the bashing they got for the third movie.

    For better or worse, studios don't only look at the final BO tally, but also what they expected, word of mouth, if the movie damaged the brand (Batman and Robin made lots of money, but WB wasn't rushing to do another Batman movie after that), and so on.
  6. Quote:
    Originally Posted by ChrisMoses View Post
    That's not stopping the Hulk.
    Thing is with the Hulk is that there is less "poison" to deal with. Even if you say the two movies are terrible, the X-Men franchise would be in more dire straits, if First Class bombs, because it would have 3 terrible movies (X3, Wolverine, and FC) to deal with. And if it does revert to Marvel after FC, those three movies are all on Marvel to overcome, as opposed to the initial attempts at Hulk for Marvel, which only had to differentiate itself from Ang Lee's attempt.
  7. Not that I think it is more interesting than the main plot, but I enjoy Willam's side quest to see the 3-D picture in Mallrats.
  8. BafflingBeerMan

    Obi-wan Caine

    Funny, but usually Caine says something pithy and really unrelated to the crime at hand before The Who kicks in. Obi-Wan Caine is too on-topic!
  9. The sustained note at the end (I think it is a violin, it is definitely a string instrument) never fails to remind me of Jack's closing eye, no matter how many times I listen to it.

    Then again, I did rewatch the finale last night (before I found this).
  10. BafflingBeerMan

    Capt America Pic

    Yeah, I can see a scene in the Avengers movie where the modern guys rib Cap for his look and he gets an update.
  11. The GPA required to take that class has got to be pretty high.

    I mean, I am sure they only want BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAINS
  12. Poor January Jones, will she ever play a character that's not living in the 60s?
  13. It actually looks very intering to me. Written by Aaron Sorkin, directed by David Fincher, and it is supposed to be Rashomon in its delivery, telling the story from three different perspectives.
  14. And Pierce & Pierce!



    Though I prefer my cards in an eggshell white.
  15. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Obsidius View Post
    As much as I didn't want to, I kinda took offense to that remark, because I felt that the ending was fitting. But it's a silly thing over which to be offended.

    That being said, if this pans out, I'll be eagerly awaiting and hoping that it stays true to the source material, or as true as the medium allows.
    Hey, that was coming from a fan of Lost who thought its ending was perfect. So take it with a sardonic tone towards the dissenters, not towards the fans
  16. TV and Movie News are still allowed. It is just Video Game stuff that is verboten.

    It's a shame that J.J. Abrams, Carlton Cuse, and Damon Lindelof had to give up the rights to do the movies. Because who better to adapt a series of novels that some say ended poorly and frustratingly than the brains behind Lost?
  17. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lastjustice View Post
    As my friend said, (which others have said about The watchmen) Scott Pilgrim probably would done better as a Mini series than a full length film. I agree you can't do it both ways most times. I'm sure was some way of getting more money out of this...but that probably won't be the lesson taken as someone will be burnt by this ordeal.
    I said elsewhere that perhaps it would have worked better as an hour-long series on HBO, where it would air weekly for 7 straight weeks, with each episode ending with an Ex battle.

    Even if each actual battle was 15 minutes long, you'd still get about 40 or so minutes to spend on the characters and that might help the audience to connect with them more.
  18. Where are you getting the $90m spent on making the movie, before marketing? All I have heard is that it cost $60m, plus, apparently, $30m for marketing.

    And I doubt very much that making the movie more "broad" (explaining why Scott Pilgrim fights like he is in a video game, etc.) would have made the movie a more significant amount of money. It was a niche project that the studio hoped would ignite the geeky fanbase and appeal to a wider audience through, I guess, sheer enthusiasm of that original geeky fanbase and good reviews. Like Serenity. It was a niche movie given X amount of money to be made to both fill that niche (so it can't deviate significantly from the source material) and to, somehow, get more mainstream appeal. And as we have seen with both this movie and Serenity and to a lesser extent Kick-*** and Watchmen, you can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you try.
  19. ESPN does a mini-doc on some students' effort to elect Akbar as new mascot of Ole Miss

    I think that video shows clearly how the line is drawn. Between the awesome kids and those losers, you know, the ones who have two X chromosomes
  20. I meant shallow in the sense that I could see how the story/background was a bit shallow, not that I was shallow

    Because I don't even know what the meaning of that word is ::flips hair::
  21. InGen is the rival company to Hammond's company in Jurassic Park, I believe.

    PrimaTech is the cover company for The Company that HRG used in Heroes

    The soap is from Fight Club (hence the in-joke of "Name Withheld")

    Bluth Company is indeed AD
  22. Quote:
    Originally Posted by ChrisMoses View Post

    My wife thought it was okay and didn't bother questioning, "Wait, why is he shooting fireballs and flying now?" so I think she accepted it.
    I forgot who said it and on what board, but someone said until the scene where Ramona was rollerskating away from Scott and the ice was melting, they didn't like the "style" of the movie. But with that scene, they saw that the universe Scott inhabits (whether that is his mind or the actual world) is not our "reality" and was able to take the fighting/special movies/video game characteristics at face value.
  23. I will also add that I like watching shows and movies where everything isn't spelled out and I can think about and ponder motivations for characters that make sense, if the movie leaves that door open or if they purposively want us to do down that avenue. That's why I loved Lost and that's why I love discussing it with people.

    I do think some films have plot holes or vague motivations just because of poor writing. I did not get that feeling from SPvsTW.
  24. Of course, I've also seen a number of reviews that make no mention of any confusion, and I went into the movie stone cold on what the story was about, past the general fighting of 7 evil exes, and found it easy to follow.

    In fact, this conversation is entirely suprising to me because I thought the story and background was pretty clear. Maybe a bit shallow, but even thinking heavily about it, I am not left with the feeling of "Why?"

    Which is what I think Captain Foamy is talking about. Different levels, different strokes, and different avenues for different folks.