Cube Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 The first series of Dollhouse could definitely have been better. And the network really was to blame for Firefly. They didn't show the pilot and aired the rest in the wrong order. The DVD sales spoke for the quality of the series when watched properly.
Happenstance Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Yeah I know, its just something about him lately thats been nagging me. Like with Alien Resurrection, a terrible movie that once again he blamed others for. Anyway thats too much negetivity, we know he can do a great job and he had a brilliant run on Astonishing X-Men so I will try to remain hopeful and just see how Captain America turns out if he does end up re-writing it.
Ashley Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Yes ive seen all of Dollhouse and while some of it was good it still did have problems. One thing ive noticed with Whedon is that he always manages to blame the network for things going wrong and rarely takes any blame himself. Yes im sure it didnt help having Fox do that but he could have made it better than it was. I think he apologised for the first five episodes of S1 not being very good. Yes he said it was network issues, but I think he said he could have done it better. Or maybe not. I tend to imagine things. The first series of Dollhouse could definitely have been better. Its a perfect season...if you only watch the unaired pilot and Epitaph One.
Happenstance Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 Marvel plots low-budget series of films Marvel is planning to produce a series of low-cost movies based on some of its lesser-known characters, reports CHUD. The studio is eyeing movie adaptations of the Dr. Strange, Ka-Zur, Luke Cage, Dazzler and Power Pack properties and is meeting with writers and directors to develop them for the big screen. Budgets of $20-40 million (£13-26 million) are being touted for each movie, a sharp contrast to the nine-figure tags of the Spider-Man and Iron Man movies. Hot Fuzz director Edgar Wright is currently working on a film version of one of Marvel's second-tier characters, Ant-Man. The next Marvel film, Iron Man 2, opens later this month. Thor, The First Avenger: Captain America and The Avengers are also due out in the next two years. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a215951/marvel-plots-low-budget-series-of-films.html
Ellmeister Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 $20-$40 million that's nothing! Small time low budget stuff... >_> These directors really need to become a part of the real world instead of spending huge amounts of money and thinking they can do whatever with however much money.
Paj! Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 It's not a huge amount for an action film that will require a lot of cgi and post-production stuff. As well as set-construction etc.
Ashley Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 And t'actors. $20-$40 million that's nothing! Small time low budget stuff... >_> These directors really need to become a part of the real world instead of spending huge amounts of money and thinking they can do whatever with however much money. If the film does well it reaps that back anyway. Its an investment. Its not like football where players are payed 200 billion trillion pounds for seemingly no logical reason.
Ramar Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 And t'actors. If the film does well it reaps that back anyway. Its an investment. Its not like football where players are payed 200 billion trillion pounds for seemingly no logical reason. Someone doesn't understand sports investment.
Ashley Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 Someone doesn't understand sports investment. That's pretty much the case. But if you're willing to quickly (as its off topic) explain how the salary of a player like Ronaldinho is justified (particularly when even football teams are being bitch slapped by financial problems) then please feel free. The more you know and all that.
Daft Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 I can't even begin to imagine how much merchandise Ronaldinho sells. Not him personally. ...the gangly faced fook.
Ramar Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 That's pretty much the case. But if you're willing to quickly (as its off topic) explain how the salary of a player like Ronaldinho is justified (particularly when even football teams are being bitch slapped by financial problems) then please feel free. The more you know and all that. I don't really want to derail this thread, so I'll try keep this brief (come to the football thread to discuss it further). Your point above was "If the film does well it reaps that back anyway. Its an investment. Its not like football where players are payed 200 billion trillion pounds for seemingly no logical reason." Thats not justifying the actors wages now, so I won't try justify the footballers. But what I will say, for what ever insane amounts a player is on the club will reap the rewards back if they're successful (similar to films). Be that through merchandise, advertising, gate receipts and/or sponsorship. I can't even begin to imagine how much merchandise Ronaldinho sells. Not him personally. ...the gangly faced fook. If I'm not mistaken fat Ronaldo paid for his time at Real Madrid by shirt sales alone.
Dan_Dare Posted April 23, 2010 Posted April 23, 2010 Back to low budget Marvel....hmm Luke Cage could work. You don't need a great deal of money involved to tackle his decidedly un-flashy brand of super heroics. He wears no costume, has a very mundane power and traditionally spends most of his time fighting gangsters and such rather than costumed badshits. I can see a Heroes for Hire movie working out easily without massive cash reserves. Dr Strange, on the other hand....eurgh. No. You can't do an inter-dimensional adventure with the master of the mystic arts on a shoe string. No way. It'll be shit.
Happenstance Posted April 23, 2010 Posted April 23, 2010 Hopefully we'll get Cage looking like he used to
Retro_Link Posted April 23, 2010 Author Posted April 23, 2010 Personally I'd rather they didn't make any of those franchises into films and put the money into 1 or 2 of their high budget Marvel titles! I just can't see the little known characters getting all that much interest at the cinema. You could say Iron Man was a relative unknown to the average person, but that film got the budget to make it the masterpiece it is... without a good budget, aren't these a bit of a waste of time?
Hamishmash Posted April 23, 2010 Posted April 23, 2010 Monsters Inc 2 being made. So Pixar's next films are Toy Story 2, Cars 2 and Monsters Inc. 2... where did their originality suddenly go?
Guy Posted April 23, 2010 Posted April 23, 2010 I bet they still nab an Oscar with every one of them. Although I hear How to Train Your Dragon is a serious contender this time around. Then again initial screenings of Toy Story 3 have received ultimate praise for being a worthy conclusion to the trilogy that is both hilarious and heartbreaking, so we'll see. My money is on Japan's Evangelion 2.0 - You Can (NOT) Advance taking the statue. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking.
Razz Posted April 23, 2010 Posted April 23, 2010 Cars? Cars? Why Cars?! Such an awful movie, based around...Cars ffs!
Paj! Posted April 23, 2010 Posted April 23, 2010 I'd rather a Finding Nemo 2, tbh. Finding Nemo: Relishing The Fact. Cars was so meh. I didn't hate it, but it didn't get a positive reaction either.
Ramar Posted April 23, 2010 Posted April 23, 2010 I'd rather a Finding Nemo 2, tbh. Finding Nemo: Relishing The Fact. Cars was so meh. I didn't hate it, but it didn't get a positive reaction either. Oh my gosh, Nemo's swimming out to sea!!... again... No thanks.
Hamishmash Posted April 23, 2010 Posted April 23, 2010 I think The Incredibles 2 could work. I didn't think the first was perfect, but seeing the family grow up and with new villains and more Edna there's endless possibilities if it was tighter. Cars is really the lovechild of it's director (I can't remember his name). He loves Cars, so he demanded they make a film about Cars he thinks everyone loves Cars as much as him. The film after Monsters Inc. 2 though (summer 2012 apparently) is called 'Brave" and is about a Scottish girl who wants to be an archer.
Ashley Posted April 23, 2010 Posted April 23, 2010 Cars? Cars? Why Cars?! Such an awful movie, based around...Cars ffs! Its Lassetter's pet. The next one takes place all across the world so at least we get pretty backdrops. I'd rather a Finding Nemo 2, tbh. Finding Nemo: Relishing The Fact. Cars was so meh. I didn't hate it, but it didn't get a positive reaction either. Doctor (I think it was Doctor who was the director of FN...or whoever it was) said something along the lines of: We won't do a Finding Nemo 2. If Nemo gets lost again he doesn't deserve to be found MI hinted at a sequel anyway, which is why the rumours have been so persistent. Perhaps the reason for sequels (other than TS3 which has been knocking around in some stage since TS2) is because of the economic pressure. Its a safer option. But it means Newt seems to have gone down the pan and The Bear and the Bow (now 'Brave') has been pushed back. Although interestingly to 2012 as well, which means two Pixar films in one year.
ReZourceman Posted April 24, 2010 Posted April 24, 2010 Oh lord above, nooooooooooo! Hopefully we'll get Cage looking like he used to Sweet Christmas!
ReZourceman Posted April 27, 2010 Posted April 27, 2010 They are making The Ring 3 In 3D. (ugh) (hate) But it has the kid in. Hopefully won't be shit, but probably will. I don't want a 3D The Ring. Thats not the point. Its not. I can't express my love for The Ring. I liked The Ring 2, but it was obviously not really in the same league. But I still respect it for continuing the story. I hope they don't fuck it up too much. But they will. PS Theres apparently a second Alien prequel in the works. I am going to buy Alien Quadrilogy for my period known as "The Impending Redundancy" I've seen each Alien film either just once or never. So it might be nice.
Recommended Posts