A cavalcade of good ideas

[trinityvixen]

#1: A sequel to a movie that is more than a decade old! (Yes, I've seen it.)
They are terribly specific about the budget on this. Almost suspiciously so. Either the economic downturn has forced the Hollywood bean-counter types to demand estimated costs of production with greater degrees of precision, or they've already gotten the bill for this movie because it's done and ready to slink into theaters for a weekend and disappear again. (Punisher: War Zone, you will not fade into obscurity alone!)

#2: When your star is going to jail for tax evasion, it is time to recast and remake!
This remaking modern movie thing is OUT OF CONTROL. Granted the last Blade movie was ridiculous (and, yes, I saw it and liked it anyway because I'm broken and I'm totally slutty for Ryan Reynold's body and Parker Posey's EVERYTHING), but isn't that an argument to let the thing die for at least ten years and then only maybe consider revisiting?

#3: A 'reinvention' of a genre-defining film that died when its sequels went straight to DVD! To be brought to you buy the guy who directed LXG, no less. Which, hilariously, this article mentions was the last film both he and Sean Connery worked on. I'm sure that it will be a smashing success. Everything he says fills me confidence:

"Whereas Proyas' original was gloriously gothic and stylized, the new movie will be realistic, hard-edged and mysterious, almost documentary-style."

THE MAN WHO BROUGHT YOU LXG would like you to know that his "reinvention" of The Crow is going to be totally different from the awesome, generally beloved 1990s movie. (Nowhere mentioned: the long shadow cast by the death of the promising young star of that film.) No need to worry, citizens of LJournia! You are free from the tyranny of style and the cohesive adaptation of James O'Barr's distinctive graphic novel! Free, I tell you, free!

#4: I like some of his movies, but Kenneth Branagh always sounds like a douche in interviews.
How can you read this...
“I am directing “Thor” or “The Mighty Thor’ as you might like to call it,” he said with a smile before clarifying what the title of the film will be. “I think it will be ‘Thor.’”
...and not want to immediately, like, punch him in the face. "You see, the kids have these things called 'KA-MICK BOOKS' and they have these little titles that they just take so seriously."

Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr. are already on record as giving Thor's inclusion in the inescapable Avengers movie the hairy eyeball. This is not helping:
He continued excitedly, “There’s science fiction and science fact and fantasy all woven into one. It’s based on Norse legends which Marvel sort of raided in a brilliant way.

Keep in mind that the journalist caught up with him at a Valkyrie premiere, so he must have been wetting himself with excitement to talk about how great it was that he was fighting Hitler and that much has been edited out. Also missing: any pithy connections between the title of his current film and his next project. Kudos to you, interwebs writer for those edits.

Comments

Thor

[avram]

I wonder if he'll be going with the current, post-Walt Simonson take on the character, which treats the mythology a bit more seriously, or with the earlier, kinda trippy sci-fi-ish take.

[droidguy1119.livejournal.com]

I thought the comic was called "The Mighty Thor" for early issues, and he was actually making a reference to the comic. I for one found his enthusiasm infectious.

I think people have started to lose track of the concept of recasting. Sometimes, you can just recast. A new Blade doesn't necessarily mean either a remake or a reboot. The TV show was neither (although admittedly nobody, including myself, watched it), why can't the movie be the same way?

I guess I'm the only one who was totally unenthralled by The Crow. I barely remember anything about it, although I remember being kinda bored watching it. Even more blasphemous, I'd also say the hate for LXG was way out of proportion, although I have not read either any (I believe) of the stories the characters originated from, nor Alan Moore's comic, so I did not need the movie to be faithful to either. Beyond that, it seemed like a fairly generic action movie. Neither of these factors, however, make me at all interested in seeing the project in question.

Last, but not least, Bruce Campbell explains in his book how he and Billy Zane were the last two choices for The Phantom, and it came down to auditions from both. If Campbell was playing the role, I'd undoubtedly be a lot more interested (although regardless of who was in it, I didn't make it through five minutes of The Phantom before getting bored and turning it off. I thought it was temporary, but I never returned to it). I also wish Campbell had played Darkman in the two DTV sequels, since he's the character at the end of the original, but that didn't happen either.

Re: Thor

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Having never read either, I couldn't really guess. Not to worry: I'm sure all the pretension any version in the comics had will be preserved in film.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Recasting is a thorny issue. You only ever seem to get away with it if the role is minor or the person previously in the role has died or something. Otherwise, audiences really do prefer continuity, even when some of that continuity would rely on the actor first chosen (who may not necessarily be the best).

When you recast, either you're looking to continue a story or you're ready to tell another one. That's almost entirely dependent on the story, not the actor, which is why a lot of actors don't seem all that pleased to step in when someone else has already made the role their own if the story is meant to be contiguous. Because they are locked in to certain choices. So, no, recasting Blade doesn't mean it's a reboot, but the way Goyer talks about it, he's probably going to ignore the story of the previous three movies. (In the case of the last, this would be a great idea since it made no sense.) In which case, it would be a reboot.

I love The Crow. I love everything about it, even though it is high melodrama. The sense of humor and the macabre--the latter being inescapable given Brandon Lee's death--just really improve upon the vengeance angle. More, it's a style choice that you either love or you don't. There's nothing to be done if the style doesn't appeal to you, but it's a good translation of the graphic novel, so to the extent that it's very faithful to the source, it really can't be beaten as a slick adaptation.

As for LXG...ugh. Just ugh. It has costume porn--Mina, Dorian Grey, Captain Nemo--and steampunk porn--the Nautilus, omfg--but that's about it. It's camp taking itself seriously to rather poor effect. It was generic, but it was poorly done, very telegraphed generic, which is a shame because the good elements--the design, the characters--deserved better. Oh well, it's probably due a remake in another year itself.

I have a hard time imagining Bruce Campbell as the Phantom. Then again, that movie was about as cheesily bad as his usual, so perhaps he'd be perfect.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

LXG wasn't a terrible movie--certainly not deserving the scorn it often recieves--just a flawed one. Honestly, I kinda liked a couple of the changes they made from the comic.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

Oh is *that* what LXG stands for. I was trying to figure out what Forty Grand was.

Anyway, "The Crow" done realistically would be about fifteen minutes of film:

- Eric D. Crow, who is cast because he looks kind of like Brandon Lee, is killed in his apartment while wearing eyeliner.
- A shaky camcorder being held by a Scrappy Young Girl focuses on his grave exactly one year later, where...
- NOTHING HAPPENS, BECAUSE HE DIED. AND PEOPLE IN DOCUMENTARIES DON'T COME BACK FROM THE DEAD.
- Then the bad guys win despite their obsession with creepy perverted eyeball rituals. Or maybe a drug war breaks out in the local goth rock scene. Either way I've already lost interest.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I think I just about died in that movie when Dorian Grey looked at the camera and said "Growl." It was a terrifically bad movie, but occasionally an enjoyable one. I happened to like the Invisible Man's one line a lot: "Hello my freaky darlings."

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Well, the good news for a new film, I suppose, is that in the fifteen years since the first Crow movie, Detroit has only sunk worse into poverty and crime, so it would be even more believable that anyone in the movie might be a victim.

[ecmyers.livejournal.com]

I actually liked The Phantom, though I haven't seen it in a while. It would have been better if Bruce Campbell had gotten the role.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I remember The Phantom being terrible--much like many another movie I saw at the drive-in upstate. Treat Williams was the bad guy, Kristy Swanson was the love interest, Billy Zane in a bad purple costume...

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

Well the bad purple costume was, at least, the same bad purple costume the comic-strip character wore. Otherwise, yeah, it was a goofy, campy mess. Couldn't they make a sequel to Unbreakable or something instead?

Re: Thor

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

Since they're hiring Kenneth Branagh for the direction, and the guy is best known for his Shakespeare adaptations (the only decent stuff he's done, honestly), I wonder if Marvel is pushing for a Silver Age take on the character? I'm not sure I would like that ... I'd be hard to see Stan Lee's goofy version of Thor hanging out with Downey's Iron Man.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I thought they were making a sequel to Unbreakable. Perhaps M. Night got a little too busy defending his casting a bunch of white kids for Avatar and put that on the back burner...

Re: Thor

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

As I mentioned in my post, Robert Downey Jr. is on record going "WTF are we supposed to do with NORSE GOD after we made a point of chasing realism with Iron Man?" So let's hope they go the sci-fi route instead.

Re: Thor

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I'm not sure "Norse thunder god fights space aliens" is really the best way to promote realism. :)

Seriously, there's no way to portray Thor as anything but a fantasy character, and he should face fantastic threats -- like Loki -- that are closely integrated into his pre-superheroic background.

Hopefully they'll get rid of his ridiculous costume, too.

Re: Thor

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I give up on Thor, really. I never had much stake in him, but he's ridiculous. He's the Aquaman of the Avengers.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

Smart money's on "studio execs wanted to preserve his only decent work for future generations, unsullied by whatever dump he'd take on it by way of a sequel."

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

For once, I am glad of executive meddling. Of course, if they sacked this idea, it's because they don't think, with his track record, that he's a big enough draw to justify Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson's paychecks. (In addition to the director's own.)