Am I the only one who ever imagine the different networks as being like competing siblings? Whenever one comes out with a cool show that is creative and kind of different, at least one of the other competing networks has to jump on it and make their own version. For instance, ABC has Once Upon a Time, NBC has Grimm, the CW has Supernatural, and now Fox has their latest entree, Sleepy Hollow. Each of these shows have the premise of taking some old stories or mythology and bringing them into a modern day context, as is the case with today's show. In Sleepy Hollow's case, they have taken the characters or the Headless Horseman and Ichabod Crane and brought them into modern day New York. I know, it sounds lame, but then again, so did the other shows I listed above when I first heard about them, and they all seemed to have done well for themselves. I have to admit, I even find Once Upon a Time to be kind of fascinating, but I digress.
I went into watching the pilot episode thinking it was either going to be cool and creative or just flat out lame. And I was actually rather surprised. Going into it, I learned that the head writers of the show were also the brains behind such success as Lost, Cowboys and Aliens, Prometheus, and the recent Star Trek movies. Now, whether you like or dislike all or any of those endeavours, you at least have to admit that the writing that went into each of them was really creative and there was a lot of thought put into them. As is the case with Sleepy Hollow. The plot is much deeper than you would expect, and the dialogue is witty and well written and the ending of the pilot episode did leave me wanting to see more next week. One of the more major strengths of the show is that it tackles the time-jump element really well. There are a number of good jokes and one-liners regarding Ichabod's struggle to adapt to the 21st century, and the Headless Horseman, while he does start out with the classic Big Fucking Ax, he eventually upgrades to toting a shotgun and assault rifle. Is it cheesy? Undoubtedly. Is it cool as fuck to see? Hell yeah!
My only concern is that maybe a little too much thought went into the show. I know it sounds odd, but the plot of the show is if you took National Treasure, Da Vinci Code, Dark Shadows and the book of Revelations and all shoved it into one. It's creative, but it feels a little crowded. Though then again, I guess that's why they decided to make a show instead of a feature-length movie. And besides, we already have a movie.
So, my final word on the show is while it hasn't gotten me hooked in the way that Walking Dead, Game of Thrones or even Hannibal has me hooked, it is still intriguing, though I wouldn't be totally crushed if it went off the air in a season or two.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Ben Affleck as the next Batman
It's not the same as Heath Ledger! And I am sick of people who keep telling me that. Sorry, I just had to get that out of my system. Moving on, I have to say that the casting of Ben Affleck as the Caped Crusader in the sequel to Man of Steel is probably one of the most baffling casting decisions of the past few years. And today, we are going to address the reasons for my concern on this casting choice.
1. Christopher Nolan- This is really the key difference between Heath Ledger and Ben Affleck. Christopher Nolan was one of the main brains behind the creation of the Joker that we saw in The Dark Knight, and while he was the producer and the story writer behind Man of Steel, it has been reported that he won't be involved in any further projects in the DC universe, which means that he won't be writing anything for the upcoming movie. You see, Nolan was a man with a specific vision and a specific writing for the Joker, which is why so many people had faith in him and why people came to love what he and Ledger put together when the Joker first came on the screen. Zack Snyder, on the other hand, while he is a competent director, is not a writer. That's not really his area of expertise. He can create a really visually dazzling image for each frame but story wise, he's not as gifted. That's why I'm not as confident in either Affleck or Snyder. Plus, we won't have the back story that was built up and well thought out from Batman Begins, I guess he's just gonna show up in the suit and say "I'm Batman from Baastin". One of my facebook friends told me that if I'm a fan of Batman, then I should love whoever plays him no matter what. And to that, I say this "Arnold as Mr Freeze" Fuck off.
2. Christian Bale- Say what you will about his performance, but I thought Christian Bale was a damn good Batman. Whether he is the best is up for debate, but he was certainly a great one, and he more than made up for the atrocity that was George Clooney in that movie that doesn't exist. Now, I really respected Bale's decision to end it at 3. My feeling has always been that 3 is the safest number to cut it off at, once you hit 4, you run the risk of your audience losing their emotional interest in what you are giving them, until you finally hit 6 and people have just stopped giving a crap. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but 3 is usually the best place to end it. However, if I had known that Ben Affleck was going to be the next choice, I would have asked Christian how strong his commitment to this decision really was. Plus, I've always thought that every generation never needed more than one of something, especially when it came to an iconic role. For example, I've always seen Daniel Craig as my generation's James Bond because Pearce Brosnan made his last 007 movie just as I was old enough to get into James Bond, and then along comes Daniel Craig. In that sense, Christian Bale is my generation's Batman. He's the definitive one. Before him, it was Kevin Conroy, before him, it was Michael Keaton and before him it was Adam West. If we cast someone else as Batman this soon after Christian Bale has finished, we'll just get confused as to who is the real Batman.
3. Ben Affleck- About a year ago, I said that while I hated Ben Affleck years ago, I have come to be more kind to him in recent years. When he's acting in movies that aren't Gigli or Daredevil, he's actually not that bad of an actor. And with only 3 movies under his belt, he's proven that he's actually a pretty good director as well. But is he Batman? My answer is doubtable. While Ben Affleck is a competent actor, I don't see him being the Dark Knight. If anything, I always saw him as being closer to Superman than Batman. Plus, he's already played one superhero in his career. Yeah, it was a piss poor one, but it still counts. I feel like you would be stretching yourself if you tried donning two different pairs of tights in your career.
So ther you have it, my reasons on why I'm doubttful about Ben Affleck being cast as Batman. If it turns out that I'm wrong and he plays a freaking fantastic Batman, then great! I am always open to being proven wrong. In fact in times like this, I would welcome it.
1. Christopher Nolan- This is really the key difference between Heath Ledger and Ben Affleck. Christopher Nolan was one of the main brains behind the creation of the Joker that we saw in The Dark Knight, and while he was the producer and the story writer behind Man of Steel, it has been reported that he won't be involved in any further projects in the DC universe, which means that he won't be writing anything for the upcoming movie. You see, Nolan was a man with a specific vision and a specific writing for the Joker, which is why so many people had faith in him and why people came to love what he and Ledger put together when the Joker first came on the screen. Zack Snyder, on the other hand, while he is a competent director, is not a writer. That's not really his area of expertise. He can create a really visually dazzling image for each frame but story wise, he's not as gifted. That's why I'm not as confident in either Affleck or Snyder. Plus, we won't have the back story that was built up and well thought out from Batman Begins, I guess he's just gonna show up in the suit and say "I'm Batman from Baastin". One of my facebook friends told me that if I'm a fan of Batman, then I should love whoever plays him no matter what. And to that, I say this "Arnold as Mr Freeze" Fuck off.
2. Christian Bale- Say what you will about his performance, but I thought Christian Bale was a damn good Batman. Whether he is the best is up for debate, but he was certainly a great one, and he more than made up for the atrocity that was George Clooney in that movie that doesn't exist. Now, I really respected Bale's decision to end it at 3. My feeling has always been that 3 is the safest number to cut it off at, once you hit 4, you run the risk of your audience losing their emotional interest in what you are giving them, until you finally hit 6 and people have just stopped giving a crap. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but 3 is usually the best place to end it. However, if I had known that Ben Affleck was going to be the next choice, I would have asked Christian how strong his commitment to this decision really was. Plus, I've always thought that every generation never needed more than one of something, especially when it came to an iconic role. For example, I've always seen Daniel Craig as my generation's James Bond because Pearce Brosnan made his last 007 movie just as I was old enough to get into James Bond, and then along comes Daniel Craig. In that sense, Christian Bale is my generation's Batman. He's the definitive one. Before him, it was Kevin Conroy, before him, it was Michael Keaton and before him it was Adam West. If we cast someone else as Batman this soon after Christian Bale has finished, we'll just get confused as to who is the real Batman.
3. Ben Affleck- About a year ago, I said that while I hated Ben Affleck years ago, I have come to be more kind to him in recent years. When he's acting in movies that aren't Gigli or Daredevil, he's actually not that bad of an actor. And with only 3 movies under his belt, he's proven that he's actually a pretty good director as well. But is he Batman? My answer is doubtable. While Ben Affleck is a competent actor, I don't see him being the Dark Knight. If anything, I always saw him as being closer to Superman than Batman. Plus, he's already played one superhero in his career. Yeah, it was a piss poor one, but it still counts. I feel like you would be stretching yourself if you tried donning two different pairs of tights in your career.
So ther you have it, my reasons on why I'm doubttful about Ben Affleck being cast as Batman. If it turns out that I'm wrong and he plays a freaking fantastic Batman, then great! I am always open to being proven wrong. In fact in times like this, I would welcome it.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Favorite Characters pt 4- Rick Blaine
What can you say about Casablanca? Nothing that hasn't alreay been said to be honest. It's known for being one of the greatest love stories of all time, in my opinion, it's THE greatest. Why? Because it's the ultimate example of someone who was willing to put aside their own pride and self interests to truly help someone who had hurt them.
Rick is a club owner in the city of Casablanca, which is currently being occupied by the Nazis. He's the kind of character that really only looks out for number one, everyone else doesn't really seem to warrant. Whether the Germans or the French hold the city is of little concern for him. He's a mysterious man with a shady, and more than likely troubled past who is just looking to live comfortably and that's about it. Things seem to be working out for him until the love of his life, the one that got away, Ilsa walks through the door of his club with her husband asking for his help getting out of the country. At first, he turns them down and wonders why "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in the world, she walks into mine". Eventually, he swallows his pride and decides to help them leave town to find friendlier skies. Even at the end, when Ilsa wants to stay with him rather than leave with her husband because she still has feelings for Rick, he forces her to go because of how much danger she will be in if she stayed with Rick. One of the best moments of the movie is when he says "If you don't get on this plane, you'll regret it. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow, but soon". I know it's a cliche for people to say "If you love her, let her go" when someone breaks up with them, but in Rick's case, that is literally what he had to do. The best kinds of characters are those that decide to make sacrifices when it would have been just as easy to take what they probably deserve. I only saw this movie about a year ago, and didn't know that much about it going into it, so I was genuinely shocked when I saw the ending. I don't think anyone would have blamed Rick if he let Ilsa stay with him because that's all he wanted, the only moments when you see Rick smile are in the Paris flashbacks and when you see the difference between him then and now, you have to feel bad for the guy. In the end, it's hinted that he and the corrupt police chief are leaving their cushy lives in Casablanca to go join the French resistance, both now having found reasons to pick a side. Renault because he's fed up with the Nazis and Rick because he wants to follow Ilsa's example of courage.
Rick is a club owner in the city of Casablanca, which is currently being occupied by the Nazis. He's the kind of character that really only looks out for number one, everyone else doesn't really seem to warrant. Whether the Germans or the French hold the city is of little concern for him. He's a mysterious man with a shady, and more than likely troubled past who is just looking to live comfortably and that's about it. Things seem to be working out for him until the love of his life, the one that got away, Ilsa walks through the door of his club with her husband asking for his help getting out of the country. At first, he turns them down and wonders why "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in the world, she walks into mine". Eventually, he swallows his pride and decides to help them leave town to find friendlier skies. Even at the end, when Ilsa wants to stay with him rather than leave with her husband because she still has feelings for Rick, he forces her to go because of how much danger she will be in if she stayed with Rick. One of the best moments of the movie is when he says "If you don't get on this plane, you'll regret it. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow, but soon". I know it's a cliche for people to say "If you love her, let her go" when someone breaks up with them, but in Rick's case, that is literally what he had to do. The best kinds of characters are those that decide to make sacrifices when it would have been just as easy to take what they probably deserve. I only saw this movie about a year ago, and didn't know that much about it going into it, so I was genuinely shocked when I saw the ending. I don't think anyone would have blamed Rick if he let Ilsa stay with him because that's all he wanted, the only moments when you see Rick smile are in the Paris flashbacks and when you see the difference between him then and now, you have to feel bad for the guy. In the end, it's hinted that he and the corrupt police chief are leaving their cushy lives in Casablanca to go join the French resistance, both now having found reasons to pick a side. Renault because he's fed up with the Nazis and Rick because he wants to follow Ilsa's example of courage.
Favorite Characters Part 3- Chris MacNeill
I've always wanted to include a parent in my favorite characters list, and while I could include Liam Neeson's character from Taken, it makes a lot more sense to include Chris MacNeill, the mother of Regan the possessed girl from The Exorcist. To me, there is nothing better to see than a parent who is willing to put it all on the line for their child, and what is more ballsy than putting it all on the line when your daughter is possessed by the devil? At the start of the story, she is a loving mother who, despite being a well-known actress, still finds time to raise young Regan. And for once, you have a parent that isn't completely clueless about their child's condition in a horror film. That's what always bugged me about evil kids, the parents area always really reluctant to face reality until it's far too late. Chris here immediately jumps on the situation and only suspects for a second that her sudden changes are due to puberty or a mental disorder. Even after the doctors continuously tell her that it may just be a problem with the temporal lobe or whatever, she yells at them "Are you serious? Did you not hear my daughter speaking with a creepy man's voice?". Throughout the course of the story, it is taking a physical tole on her as well. By the time she goes to Damien for help, she looks old and tired and just really worn out.
And considering that she is going up against the greatest evil of all, that being the devil, you can't discount the measures that she takes to save her daughter. Even though the movie is technically named after Max Von Sydow's character, it really is Chris that stands front and center along with Father Damien for the rest of the story, both are very strong characters. We are sympathetic to Damien for his recent plights and you want to be in Chris's corner as she continues to tackle realities that were long dismissed as fantasies, even to the Catholic church.
I hate to sound like a broken record but The Exorcist is one of the best horror films of all time, and it's not just because of the scary girl, but all of the effort that was put in by the rest of the actors, especially Ellen Burstyn, who is the emotional weight of the movie
And considering that she is going up against the greatest evil of all, that being the devil, you can't discount the measures that she takes to save her daughter. Even though the movie is technically named after Max Von Sydow's character, it really is Chris that stands front and center along with Father Damien for the rest of the story, both are very strong characters. We are sympathetic to Damien for his recent plights and you want to be in Chris's corner as she continues to tackle realities that were long dismissed as fantasies, even to the Catholic church.
I hate to sound like a broken record but The Exorcist is one of the best horror films of all time, and it's not just because of the scary girl, but all of the effort that was put in by the rest of the actors, especially Ellen Burstyn, who is the emotional weight of the movie
Saturday, August 10, 2013
2 Guns
So here we are. The summer is winding down, all of the movies that we were absolutely hyped to see have come and, in some cases, left the cinemas, and now we are stuck with the left overs. If you accept that fact before you go into 2 Guns, you'll enjoy it so much more than if you went into it with the same hype that you went into say, Star Trek Into Darkness or The Wolverine. That's all I can really say about today's movie because there isn't really that much left to it. All you really need to know going in is that it stars Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg, two of the coolest, most charismatic dudes in America, and they shoot shit and blow shit up, they exchange funny dialogue, and they are being shot at by Bill Paxton, James Marsden and that weird guy from Bladerunner that had all the origami. The plot is a bit convoluted and there are some things that I wasn't really clear on, but the movie was enjoyable enough. I don't really see anybody's career being made or broken on this movie. Besides, all you're really paying attention to the whole time is the two leads, which is what you should be doing because the scenes with the two of them saying funny shit is the best part of the movie because they are both very good actors and they share some great chemistry.
Final Grade: C+, I could have done dollar theater on this one and not lost anything
Final Grade: C+, I could have done dollar theater on this one and not lost anything
Friday, August 9, 2013
People of the Chair- George Lucas
So, I started out this series by talking about someone who I have always admired, I guess it only makes sense to follow it up with someone I... Well, I don't despise him exactly, but I definitely don't think that highly of him as a filmaker, even though his brainchild is three of my favorite movies.
With the selling of Lucasfilm to the mouse and the coming of Episodes VII-IX on the horizon, I thought it was time that I gave my thoughts on the man behind the sale. George Lucas is one of those people that everybody seems to have an opinion on. Some people love him, a lot hate him. But our feelings for him really started to take shape after the release of the prequels because it showed audiences his true prowess (or lack thereof) as a director. So what are my thoughts on the guy? I don't like him as a filmaker, but as a businessman, you have to give the guy credit. So much so that I think of him as a businessman first. Which would be great except that you are in show business, and you are trying to sell toys. Not always the best goal to have because one is always going to suffer. In his case, his movies suffered. If you look at a lot of the creatures and machines in the prequels and the remastered originals, you may find yourself coming to the conclusion that it was there for the sake of selling action figures, which is really sad. When you start thinking more about the profits of the movie rather than the integrity of the piece, you lose your credibility as an artist in my opinion. Now, I'm not going to turn this into a review on the prequels, though we will get to that eventually.
And it seems that his way of thinking only became that way in the mid nineties when the prequels were being written because in his earlier days, he appeared to at least be somewhat passionate about what he was doing. These days, filmakers like James Cameron and Zack Snyder have been known for pushing the envelope in terms of the visuals of a movie, but George Lucas was the first person to do that. A New Hope was one of the first big sci-fi movies that had such a big and grand scale, which is why it has become a cultural phenomenon in the years following its release in the 1970's, and for that you do have to give George Lucas credit. Story wise, though, you would have to credit the legions of writers who had to go through rewrite after rewrite in order to make the story work. You see, while Star Wars had the scale to dwarf all other sci-fi adventure movies, it certainly didn't have the story. You remember the movie they were faking in the movie Argo? From what I understand, the original draft by George Lucas was on par with that, which would not do. IF the visuals were going to be grand, then the story needed to match it. Now, thankfully it went through the treatment that it did because not only has it been a cultural phenomenon, but some people are saying that, along with comic books, Star Wars is American mythology. Unfortunately for George, it wasn't the story that he had wanted, and when it came to writing the stories for the sequels, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, he found his ideas getting rejected more and more. I've heard that one of his ideas was so stupid that he got laughed out of the writer's meeting. I don't know that to be true, but when you hear stories about what the original was supposed to be like, then I wouldn't be surprised. I know that these days, George Lucas has all of the credit to be had for creating Star Wars, but I think that it is wrongly placed. Now, I know what some defenders of George Lucas would want to say, that even if he was entirely responsible for the original Star Wars, it's possible for him to make a bad movie. And yes, thta is true, not even Martin Scorsese has a hit every time. But to make two bad movies, a mediocre third, and then produce a fourth movie in another franchise that sucked... and then a few years later produce another mediocre movie that could have been great, you have to admit, something's not right here. Even if Star Wars was his complete brainchild, you could definitely see that there was a point where Lucas had given up on the artistic aspect of his work.
And now he says that he's retiring. Considering that since the release of the prequels, he's only made three major decisions, I have to ask... What are you retiring from? He hasn't had many hands on jobs in previous years, so what has he been doing? I was under the impression that he was already kind of retired. But I guess now that he has officially handed off the baton, I guess now he can officially stop screwing his own ideas.
With the selling of Lucasfilm to the mouse and the coming of Episodes VII-IX on the horizon, I thought it was time that I gave my thoughts on the man behind the sale. George Lucas is one of those people that everybody seems to have an opinion on. Some people love him, a lot hate him. But our feelings for him really started to take shape after the release of the prequels because it showed audiences his true prowess (or lack thereof) as a director. So what are my thoughts on the guy? I don't like him as a filmaker, but as a businessman, you have to give the guy credit. So much so that I think of him as a businessman first. Which would be great except that you are in show business, and you are trying to sell toys. Not always the best goal to have because one is always going to suffer. In his case, his movies suffered. If you look at a lot of the creatures and machines in the prequels and the remastered originals, you may find yourself coming to the conclusion that it was there for the sake of selling action figures, which is really sad. When you start thinking more about the profits of the movie rather than the integrity of the piece, you lose your credibility as an artist in my opinion. Now, I'm not going to turn this into a review on the prequels, though we will get to that eventually.
And it seems that his way of thinking only became that way in the mid nineties when the prequels were being written because in his earlier days, he appeared to at least be somewhat passionate about what he was doing. These days, filmakers like James Cameron and Zack Snyder have been known for pushing the envelope in terms of the visuals of a movie, but George Lucas was the first person to do that. A New Hope was one of the first big sci-fi movies that had such a big and grand scale, which is why it has become a cultural phenomenon in the years following its release in the 1970's, and for that you do have to give George Lucas credit. Story wise, though, you would have to credit the legions of writers who had to go through rewrite after rewrite in order to make the story work. You see, while Star Wars had the scale to dwarf all other sci-fi adventure movies, it certainly didn't have the story. You remember the movie they were faking in the movie Argo? From what I understand, the original draft by George Lucas was on par with that, which would not do. IF the visuals were going to be grand, then the story needed to match it. Now, thankfully it went through the treatment that it did because not only has it been a cultural phenomenon, but some people are saying that, along with comic books, Star Wars is American mythology. Unfortunately for George, it wasn't the story that he had wanted, and when it came to writing the stories for the sequels, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, he found his ideas getting rejected more and more. I've heard that one of his ideas was so stupid that he got laughed out of the writer's meeting. I don't know that to be true, but when you hear stories about what the original was supposed to be like, then I wouldn't be surprised. I know that these days, George Lucas has all of the credit to be had for creating Star Wars, but I think that it is wrongly placed. Now, I know what some defenders of George Lucas would want to say, that even if he was entirely responsible for the original Star Wars, it's possible for him to make a bad movie. And yes, thta is true, not even Martin Scorsese has a hit every time. But to make two bad movies, a mediocre third, and then produce a fourth movie in another franchise that sucked... and then a few years later produce another mediocre movie that could have been great, you have to admit, something's not right here. Even if Star Wars was his complete brainchild, you could definitely see that there was a point where Lucas had given up on the artistic aspect of his work.
And now he says that he's retiring. Considering that since the release of the prequels, he's only made three major decisions, I have to ask... What are you retiring from? He hasn't had many hands on jobs in previous years, so what has he been doing? I was under the impression that he was already kind of retired. But I guess now that he has officially handed off the baton, I guess now he can officially stop screwing his own ideas.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Why we need a Pirates vs Ninjas movie
I am of the generation that was given the internet at the right time. We had our childhoods to be imaginitive and creative and we had our teenage and adult years to enjoy the perfect thread to express that creativity. One of the longest running gags on the internet is proof of that creativity. Since my early high school years, people have long debated one of the greatest mysteries of the universe: Who would win in a war between the two greatest badasses of history, pirates and ninjas.
Now, I'm not gonna sit here and tell you which side is better or who would win, though I do have my beliefs in that area, I'm going to give you my reasons as to why a movie on this subject is not only plausible, but should happen ASAP.
1. We live in a time where writers have taken concepts that would have been seen as silly or childish in an earlier time (i.e comic book heroes) and have turned in some great stories and relatable characters. And while the idea of these two forces of awesome may still be a little outlandish, it's still not entirely ludacris to say that perhaps a director like Zack Snyder (300, The Watchmen) or Jon Favreau (Iron Man, Cowboys and Aliens) could make a halfway decent film.
2. With the success of movies like Pirates of the Carribbean now is a better time than any. Say what you will about them, but they grossed a ton of money and even if there was a pirates movie without characters like Captain Jack or Barbossa, people would still pay money to see a good swashbuckler flick. Now ninjas on the other hand, have always been a popular item in pop culture, especially amongst boys, so why wouldn't you want to see a movie made with two of the things young boys spent most of their childhoods pretending to be the most?
3. And this is the most important reason, we've made dumber movies. I have 2 in mind that you could argue are dumber than a PVN movie: Machete (which is now getting a sequel mind you) and Cowboys and Aliens. Now before you go crazy, I did actually enjoy them, for as stupid of an idea as they had behind them, and there was some real talent thrwon into both of them. The former had big names like Danny Trejo and Robert De Niro while the latter had two guys that played my childhood heroes, James Bond and Han Solo. Neither of these flicks were by any means artistic achievements nor were they Oscar contenders, nor were they really intended to be, but they were fucking awesome! Okay, I know neither were huge hits at the box office, and a lot of people thought they were meh, but I liked them, I know people who liked them, and if a studio is willing to through money at a movie where the title character named himself after a knife, then why can't I see my pirates vs. ninjas? And even if you don't think those were all that good, there are still a number of films out there that frankly I can't explain the existence of. Here's a short list
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
The Expendables
Half of Jason Statham's IMDB resume, from Crank to Transporter
Any of the Fast and Furious movies except for the first one
Rock of Ages
The Smurfs
RIPD
The Great Gatsby (okay, that one doesn't apply, I just hate it)
I even hear rumors that they are working on a Nazi zombie movie with Sean Bean (oops, sorry, spoilers)
Now I reiterate, these are not movies that I necessarily consider bad, I actually do enjoy a few of the movies that I listed. But I do have to redirect you to the point I made earlier about these movies not being made for the sake of art, they were made for pure entertainment value and nothing else. If a PVN movie were approached in the same manner, they could strike gold.
So, to summarize, my message to studio heads is... I'M WAITING!!!!!!
Now, I'm not gonna sit here and tell you which side is better or who would win, though I do have my beliefs in that area, I'm going to give you my reasons as to why a movie on this subject is not only plausible, but should happen ASAP.
1. We live in a time where writers have taken concepts that would have been seen as silly or childish in an earlier time (i.e comic book heroes) and have turned in some great stories and relatable characters. And while the idea of these two forces of awesome may still be a little outlandish, it's still not entirely ludacris to say that perhaps a director like Zack Snyder (300, The Watchmen) or Jon Favreau (Iron Man, Cowboys and Aliens) could make a halfway decent film.
2. With the success of movies like Pirates of the Carribbean now is a better time than any. Say what you will about them, but they grossed a ton of money and even if there was a pirates movie without characters like Captain Jack or Barbossa, people would still pay money to see a good swashbuckler flick. Now ninjas on the other hand, have always been a popular item in pop culture, especially amongst boys, so why wouldn't you want to see a movie made with two of the things young boys spent most of their childhoods pretending to be the most?
3. And this is the most important reason, we've made dumber movies. I have 2 in mind that you could argue are dumber than a PVN movie: Machete (which is now getting a sequel mind you) and Cowboys and Aliens. Now before you go crazy, I did actually enjoy them, for as stupid of an idea as they had behind them, and there was some real talent thrwon into both of them. The former had big names like Danny Trejo and Robert De Niro while the latter had two guys that played my childhood heroes, James Bond and Han Solo. Neither of these flicks were by any means artistic achievements nor were they Oscar contenders, nor were they really intended to be, but they were fucking awesome! Okay, I know neither were huge hits at the box office, and a lot of people thought they were meh, but I liked them, I know people who liked them, and if a studio is willing to through money at a movie where the title character named himself after a knife, then why can't I see my pirates vs. ninjas? And even if you don't think those were all that good, there are still a number of films out there that frankly I can't explain the existence of. Here's a short list
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
The Expendables
Half of Jason Statham's IMDB resume, from Crank to Transporter
Any of the Fast and Furious movies except for the first one
Rock of Ages
The Smurfs
RIPD
The Great Gatsby (okay, that one doesn't apply, I just hate it)
I even hear rumors that they are working on a Nazi zombie movie with Sean Bean (oops, sorry, spoilers)
Now I reiterate, these are not movies that I necessarily consider bad, I actually do enjoy a few of the movies that I listed. But I do have to redirect you to the point I made earlier about these movies not being made for the sake of art, they were made for pure entertainment value and nothing else. If a PVN movie were approached in the same manner, they could strike gold.
So, to summarize, my message to studio heads is... I'M WAITING!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)