Summer Flicks!

[barsoomcore]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Summer Flicks!

All you have to is look around boards like these to find MATRIX hate.

Gotcha. I had images of angry marches on Washington and suchlike.

I think you said that you liked the MUMMY movies and DEEP RISING. I LOVE DEEP RISING. That's a fun little movie. Stephen Summers gets it and I'm looking forward to VAN HELSING with Hugh Jackman next summer...

Now look at us, all agreeing n' stuff.

One of my favourite moments in Deep Rising is when the soldiers burst into the elevator where Treat Williams, Famke Janssen and Kevin O'Connor are, and start pointing machine guns and yelling "Drop your weapons! Drop them now!"

Cut to close-up of Williams, dropping his machine gun. O'Connor, dropping the wrench.

...

And Famke dropping the SHOE she just clocked O'Connor with.

That's funny.

 

[Grifter86]

Hold on a second. I think I'm going to say something snobby...

First off, I have to say that I am going to try and see Matrix: Reloaded in theatres, with some reservations, along with Kill Bill and X2.

I liked the first X-Men movie. Well, I liked it right up to the point when I read the rejected script.

Shortly after the movie came out I believe the Atlantic Monthly published an article on the author of the rejected X-Men script, a writer who embraced the darker, edgier rebel side of comic books that appears here and there.

The original X-Men script was a ballad about consumer culture, man bowing down to the plastic idol, and the dark things those men hold in their hearts. It was about the purest representation of diversity, the mutants, facing off against the grand lie of modern living, about the micromanaging of reality. I think it was brilliant.

I am a friend of campy films, but I dislike seeing a genuinely creative vision stamped out in favor of camp.

 

[John Crichton]

Matrix-lash

All you have to is look around boards like these to find MATRIX hate. It seems anytime someone posts a pro matrix topic someone has to show up and start bashing. It sucks, so yeah there is a backlash. Most notably "It's not as smart as it thinks it is" and " Dark City was better". Hell people were saying this after a few weeks of THE MATRIX inital theatrical run.

I see where you are coming from conserning the "Matrix-lash" here @ ENworld. Despite my rantings and pannings of The Matrix I am very much looking forward to the next 2 films. I thought the first was entertaining and have enjoyed it more than once. I also know that the negative people tend to be louder and post more than others (I do it, too). However, I don't mind all the negative posts because they are usually well reasoned. It's when things start to degrade into flame wars that negativity needs to stop.

But overall, I think the majority of the people around here are looking forward to all the big summer releases. I don't speak for everyone, but I know I am.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

Re: Hey Barsoom...

Sorry... double post. See the post below.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

Re: Hey Barsoom...

[BFor the record, I liked The Usual Suspects. Thought it was well done. There just wasn't much that kept my fires stoked after I saw it, there was nothing to revisit. I suppose you could make an argument that it was an examination of the desire to suspend belief and the power of narrative to convince despite mounting evidence that the narrative is a load of crap... [/B]

Also for the record, I thought it was all right as well. It just wasn't, IMO, the tour de force that lots of folks made it out to be. It wasn't worth rewatching, for me.

Part of that is certainly that I saw the twist coming.

I also like the first X-Men film, though, again, I didn't think it was the phenomenal film (or adaptation) some people thought it was. Like I said, I think Singer is an adequate (not bad) director, and I'll certainly see X2, which does look very cool.

By the way, the producer is just as often the ultimate boss on a film. It's the producer who puts the most of the team together and orders rewrites, etc. This does, of course, vary by project and director. Somebody like Martin Scorcese has a lot more influence than Johnny Fresh-Out-of-Film-School.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Bruce Almighty looks like fun.

The Italian Job would have Michael Caine turning in his grave, if he was dead. As it stands, Noel Coward will be turning in his. But I'll still probably go see it, just because of Ed Norton's incredibly awful mustache.

I would like to apply to be in that American Wedding trailer *ahem*

Matrix 2 + 3, Xmen2 are must sees.

28 Days Later is well worth seeing for all you poor Americans that haven't seen it yet

 

[WizarDru]

The original X-Men script was a ballad about consumer culture, man bowing down to the plastic idol, and the dark things those men hold in their hearts. It was about the purest representation of diversity, the mutants, facing off against the grand lie of modern living, about the micromanaging of reality. I think it was brilliant.

Doesn't sound much like the X-men, though. I've got to admit, there were some years in the late 80's and early 90s where I didn't follow the X-men that closely...maybe that's when the grand battle against consumer culture began in the comic, instead of the metaphor for civil rights, class disputes and alienation that I associate with them. The X-men isn't about sticking it to the man, it's about a dream for unity and freedom from hate. What you're describing is The Invisibles.

It may have been pure genius on paper, but that doesn't translate to a brilliant movie. Your description of the writer and his script comes across as an autuer putting his vision ahead of the material.

 

[Black Omega]

Doesn't sound much like the X-men, though. I've got to admit, there were some years in the late 80's and early 90s where I didn't follow the X-men that closely...maybe that's when the grand battle against consumer culture began in the comic, instead of the metaphor for civil rights, class disputes and alienation that I associate with them. The X-men isn't about sticking it to the man, it's about a dream for unity and freedom from hate. What you're describing is The Invisibles.

It may have been pure genius on paper, but that doesn't translate to a brilliant movie. Your description of the writer and his script comes across as an autuer putting his vision ahead of the material.

Truth. I was following this and shaking my head, wondering exactly what that had to do with the X-Men. Certainly someone with wanting to do X-Men because it was a chance to push his own vision rather than actually doing an X-Men movie.

 

[Mallus]

I wonder if Grifter was talking about Michael Chabon's X-Men treatment...

It was rejected flat-out, but he eventually found an outlet for his love of comics with the Pulitzer Prize winning "Adventures of Kavalier and Klay" {which any fan of old comics or reading in general should check out}.

And an Invisibles film would be a hideously misguided undertaking... but a BBC miniseries... now that would be nice...

 

[Grifter86]

Hey, what you got against the Invisibles, bub?

Not necessarily about sticking it to the man either, never said they were doing battle with the government, interesting that you associate darks things in mans heart with it though. Gives an old gamer some hope...

Actually, the Invisibles is a dead on comparison, because in the Invisibles the action takes place in a laboratory where AIDS was bioengineered, and in the X-Men it has Wolverine and the gang storming into the secret conspiracies laboratory, seeking a cure for the legacy virus.

Never noticed that before. Thanks.

I think what appears on paper is a pretty clear indication of what will appear onscreen, though. I mean, a solid script is pretty obvious. If you were to take Fritz Lang's "M" and compare it to another artsy flick like "The Ice Storm" it's pretty obvious which one will come out on top.

And I would argue that the source material is immediately transmuted by work done by anyone other than the original author. Take a look at Superman, Batman, and even the X-Men. They've gone through so many different treatments that they've been effectively bastardized if you compare them to the original material.

When you enjoyed the X-Men, was the original Stan Lee? Or was it another author? And do you despise the current story arc of the X-Men?

Obviously "source material" is a phrase difficult to define. Whose source is it?

Do you prefer the first issue of Batman, or do you like Frank Miller's Batman?

Which Green Lantern do you prefer? Hal Jordan or Kyle Rayner? Neither is an original.

The comic book writer doesn't necessarily stay true to the material, in fact people enjoy it when their favorite are reinvigorated or reincarnated.

Edited: For being mean.