They could make a million of these movies and they still couldn’t get me to watch them. I saw the first one for the genius that it was. Great hook, over the top violence and gore. Lots of cringing moments. But then I lost interest.

But there appears to still be a market for it and people flock to these torture porn movies in droves so they make money. So I guess they have to push out as many as they can before the subgenre loses steam and some other type of horror becomes the “in thing”

Via

They could make a million of these movies and they still couldn’t get me to watch them. I saw the first one for the genius that it was. Great hook, over the top violence and gore. Lots of cringing moments. But then I lost interest.

But there appears to still be a market for it and people flock to these torture porn movies in droves so they make money. So I guess they have to push out as many as they can before the subgenre loses steam and some other type of horror becomes the “in thing”

Via

Alex Proyas was rumoured to be directing the Silver Surfer spinoff, but he shot that down in a hurry. He even says that despite it only being a rumour, he wouldn’t do it if they offered it to him now anyways.

Cinematical

But as reported by Slashfilm, Proyas shot that down at ComicCon. He didn’t even know where the rumor originated. And while he’s very fond of the character, he told MTV this week that he will never even consider directing a Silver Surfer movie. Why? “Because it’s a Fox picture. And I’m determined never to work with them ever again because of my experience on I,Robot.”

He also continues on to talk about how he didn’t like how Surfer was handled in the less than popular Fantastic Four sequel.

I have to agree. Although I didn’t hate Fantastic Four 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer, I really didn’t care for how unepic they made the conflict of the Fantastic Four’s greatest enemy. I won’t even get into the whole “storm cloud” bullshit.

Surfer is a passionate guy who is carrying the burden of so many deaths on his shoulders, but in FF2 he was truly flat. And I am not talking about the board. There was so much potential lost there.

I honestly don’t need to see a Silver Surfer movie without the Fantastic Four in it. They were key to his redemption. And an origin story would seem a little weak since we all know how that ends up. Kind of a bad story when you give yourself to the service of your enemy to save your planet, he makes you Godlike in powers, and then makes you pick planets for him to eat instead. Yay, you saved millions so you could pull the trigger on millions and millions more. No resolution. Roll credits.

With any luck, Fox will let the Fantastic Four franchise rights lapse, so Marvel films can reboot it like the Hulk and bring them into the crossover movie world they all belong in.

Alex Proyas was rumoured to be directing the Silver Surfer spinoff, but he shot that down in a hurry. He even says that despite it only being a rumour, he wouldn’t do it if they offered it to him now anyways.

Cinematical

But as reported by Slashfilm, Proyas shot that down at ComicCon. He didn’t even know where the rumor originated. And while he’s very fond of the character, he told MTV this week that he will never even consider directing a Silver Surfer movie. Why? “Because it’s a Fox picture. And I’m determined never to work with them ever again because of my experience on I,Robot.”

He also continues on to talk about how he didn’t like how Surfer was handled in the less than popular Fantastic Four sequel.

I have to agree. Although I didn’t hate Fantastic Four 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer, I really didn’t care for how unepic they made the conflict of the Fantastic Four’s greatest enemy. I won’t even get into the whole “storm cloud” bullshit.

Surfer is a passionate guy who is carrying the burden of so many deaths on his shoulders, but in FF2 he was truly flat. And I am not talking about the board. There was so much potential lost there.

I honestly don’t need to see a Silver Surfer movie without the Fantastic Four in it. They were key to his redemption. And an origin story would seem a little weak since we all know how that ends up. Kind of a bad story when you give yourself to the service of your enemy to save your planet, he makes you Godlike in powers, and then makes you pick planets for him to eat instead. Yay, you saved millions so you could pull the trigger on millions and millions more. No resolution. Roll credits.

With any luck, Fox will let the Fantastic Four franchise rights lapse, so Marvel films can reboot it like the Hulk and bring them into the crossover movie world they all belong in.

Mark Wahlberg is one of my favourite actors. I typically enjoy just about anything he is in. Well recently he got some advice from a guy he respects and calls him “a true artist”, M Night Shyamalan. But he calls that advice the worst he ever heard.

MTVMovies Blog

Because as Wahlberg related, when he saw his ucpoming weapons-toting hero Max Payne in the editing room, “I was like, ‘Yes! This is the sh-t I need to be doing! This is the stuff that makes people say, ‘You know what, you’re the man!’ This is it!’”

Which brings us to M. Night’s probably ill-fated recommendation. “[Night] gave me the worst advice he could have ever given me. He said, ‘After [‘The Happening’], you can never hold a gun again. You know that, right?’ I said, ‘Are you crazy?’ He said, ‘I’m serious, don’t ever hold a gun again.’ And I said, ‘I don’t know about that, man.’”

I don’t know. That’s like telling Van Damme to never do the splits again. Or telling Swayze, you got cancer, you should quit.

Just because he did it in a film that flopped doesn’t mean he should avoid those roles altogether. And it seems a little specific. Its not like he advised him never to do action again. It was just about guns.

If Max Payne flops (its potential success is hotly debated) then the ShamHammer might bark back a “toldya so” but I still don’t think it would hold much weight.

Imagine how many movies Walberg held a gun? Id wager its at least a third of his movies. Just sounds right. So one movie with a gun in hand that flops and his advice is to never go there again?

I haven’t seen the Happening, so I don’t know if there is some deeper meaning to his character and the gun, but this just sounds so random that it doesn’t make sense.

Mark Wahlberg is one of my favourite actors. I typically enjoy just about anything he is in. Well recently he got some advice from a guy he respects and calls him “a true artist”, M Night Shyamalan. But he calls that advice the worst he ever heard.

MTVMovies Blog

Because as Wahlberg related, when he saw his ucpoming weapons-toting hero Max Payne in the editing room, “I was like, ‘Yes! This is the sh-t I need to be doing! This is the stuff that makes people say, ‘You know what, you’re the man!’ This is it!’”

Which brings us to M. Night’s probably ill-fated recommendation. “[Night] gave me the worst advice he could have ever given me. He said, ‘After [‘The Happening’], you can never hold a gun again. You know that, right?’ I said, ‘Are you crazy?’ He said, ‘I’m serious, don’t ever hold a gun again.’ And I said, ‘I don’t know about that, man.’”

I don’t know. That’s like telling Van Damme to never do the splits again. Or telling Swayze, you got cancer, you should quit.

Just because he did it in a film that flopped doesn’t mean he should avoid those roles altogether. And it seems a little specific. Its not like he advised him never to do action again. It was just about guns.

If Max Payne flops (its potential success is hotly debated) then the ShamHammer might bark back a “toldya so” but I still don’t think it would hold much weight.

Imagine how many movies Walberg held a gun? Id wager its at least a third of his movies. Just sounds right. So one movie with a gun in hand that flops and his advice is to never go there again?

I haven’t seen the Happening, so I don’t know if there is some deeper meaning to his character and the gun, but this just sounds so random that it doesn’t make sense.

Ah the internet is all the buzz about WB’s apparent hypocracy. See they filed against a movie titled Hari Puttar because “Warner Bros. values and protects intellectual property rights” and then news came out that Fox has not filed last minute against the Watchmen, in fact they have been trying to get WB to recognize their claim for a couple years now. Before WB even moved forward on production. Seems they didn’t “value intellectual property rights” unless its already theirs. They have no problem crossing the line of OTHER properties, but don’t dare come close to their own.

Fox paid for the rights to the intellectual property of Watchmen, and though WB owns Watchmen, they have a legal agreement with Fox to produce it which Fox alleges is still in place.

IESB.net says:

Stop a film’s release?! Even though WB (allegedly) illegally moved forward on the property when perhaps it wasn’t supposed to? YES! It’s called THE LAW!

I checked around town to nail down when exactly 20th Century Fox contacted WB in regards to Fox’s Quitclaim. I am told it was months before production even started and that Fox made plenty of attempts via e-mail, snail mail and phone to get WB to address the issue.

It’s hard to understand exactly what WB was thinking when they decided to move forward on Watchmen without first taking care of all the legalities. A source close to both studios tells the IESB that, “Fox reached out to WB in 2007, early 2008 and that WB simply dropped the ball, someone over at WB legal didn’t do his job.”

WB may have been caught with their pants down. I originally pointed the finger at Fox saying they were being the bitches starting the lawsuit over the rights to Watchmen at the last second when the WB was making the film over the last year. Well apparently proof comes out that Fox HAS been calling them on it and the WB just ignored them.

But the instinct is to side against WB in their OTHER lawsuit against Bollywood producers releasing a film called Hari Puttar for similiarities to their wizarding mega franchise Harry Potter. Its just not right that WB can (allegedly) violate intellectual property law on one day, and then sue someone for doing it to them the next. But you cant.

It sucks, but it is the law. Just because someone might be breaking one law doesn’t make them immune to the same law. Much like if someone breaks into your house, you might feel legally justified to beat the fuck out of them, but that is still considered assault.

Justice is blind. Not in that it doesn’t see what is happening, but in that it is blind to all other influences that might deviate it from its cause. Justice is the execution of the law. If the law is discarded because you feel bad, then Justice isn’t served.

So while I would agree with you, that if someone was to break into my house and I was home he would pay. Dearly. And I would likely face assault charges. Sounds stupid, but its the law.

The result of the Hari Puttar case will not have any bearing on the Watchmen Case. It sounds like Fox might have them by the short hairs, but that doesn’t mean WB cannot pursue its other legitimate cases.

Ah the internet is all the buzz about WB’s apparent hypocracy. See they filed against a movie titled Hari Puttar because “Warner Bros. values and protects intellectual property rights” and then news came out that Fox has not filed last minute against the Watchmen, in fact they have been trying to get WB to recognize their claim for a couple years now. Before WB even moved forward on production. Seems they didn’t “value intellectual property rights” unless its already theirs. They have no problem crossing the line of OTHER properties, but don’t dare come close to their own.

Fox paid for the rights to the intellectual property of Watchmen, and though WB owns Watchmen, they have a legal agreement with Fox to produce it which Fox alleges is still in place.

IESB.net says:

Stop a film’s release?! Even though WB (allegedly) illegally moved forward on the property when perhaps it wasn’t supposed to? YES! It’s called THE LAW!

I checked around town to nail down when exactly 20th Century Fox contacted WB in regards to Fox’s Quitclaim. I am told it was months before production even started and that Fox made plenty of attempts via e-mail, snail mail and phone to get WB to address the issue.

It’s hard to understand exactly what WB was thinking when they decided to move forward on Watchmen without first taking care of all the legalities. A source close to both studios tells the IESB that, “Fox reached out to WB in 2007, early 2008 and that WB simply dropped the ball, someone over at WB legal didn’t do his job.”

WB may have been caught with their pants down. I originally pointed the finger at Fox saying they were being the bitches starting the lawsuit over the rights to Watchmen at the last second when the WB was making the film over the last year. Well apparently proof comes out that Fox HAS been calling them on it and the WB just ignored them.

But the instinct is to side against WB in their OTHER lawsuit against Bollywood producers releasing a film called Hari Puttar for similiarities to their wizarding mega franchise Harry Potter. Its just not right that WB can (allegedly) violate intellectual property law on one day, and then sue someone for doing it to them the next. But you cant.

It sucks, but it is the law. Just because someone might be breaking one law doesn’t make them immune to the same law. Much like if someone breaks into your house, you might feel legally justified to beat the fuck out of them, but that is still considered assault.

Justice is blind. Not in that it doesn’t see what is happening, but in that it is blind to all other influences that might deviate it from its cause. Justice is the execution of the law. If the law is discarded because you feel bad, then Justice isn’t served.

So while I would agree with you, that if someone was to break into my house and I was home he would pay. Dearly. And I would likely face assault charges. Sounds stupid, but its the law.

The result of the Hari Puttar case will not have any bearing on the Watchmen Case. It sounds like Fox might have them by the short hairs, but that doesn’t mean WB cannot pursue its other legitimate cases.

Numerous sources are reporting that Sam Taylor-Wood, a visual artist whose 2008 short film Love You More was nominated for the Short Film Palme d’Or, is slated to direct Nowhere Boy, a biopic based on the life of John Lennon. The project is now moving forward, and according to Screen Daily, the film will cover the story of John’s early life, with prominent roles for his mother and aunt, as well as for Paul McCartney, whose musical partnership with Lennon ending up being a fateful one (to say the least). This will be Taylor-Wood’s feature-length directorial debut.

Taylor-Wood described the focus of the film:

The women in John’s early life truly shaped who he became and the strengths and weaknesses of their relationships are central to this film.

The film will be written by Matt Greenhalgh, the BAFTA-winning writer behind musician biopic Control. Although no casting has begun for the film, the Daily Mail is reporting that Kate Winslet is one of the actresses being sought for the role of Lennon’s mother, while Emily Watson is a possibility for Aunt Mimi.

The musician biopic genre has grown rather tired around these parts, to the point where Hollywood was able to make a movie about how they all have the same exact storyline. Nonetheless, with Greenhalgh writing and Taylor-Wood directing, Nowhere Boy seems like it has the potential to offer us something different (from a plot perspective) and visually interesting at the very least.

Discuss: Any John Lennon fans out there? If so, how do you feel about a John Lennon biopic?

Related Stories

• No Related Post

Numerous sources are reporting that Sam Taylor-Wood, a visual artist whose 2008 short film Love You More was nominated for the Short Film Palme d’Or, is slated to direct Nowhere Boy, a biopic based on the life of John Lennon. The project is now moving forward, and according to Screen Daily, the film will cover the story of John’s early life, with prominent roles for his mother and aunt, as well as for Paul McCartney, whose musical partnership with Lennon ending up being a fateful one (to say the least). This will be Taylor-Wood’s feature-length directorial debut.

Taylor-Wood described the focus of the film:

The women in John’s early life truly shaped who he became and the strengths and weaknesses of their relationships are central to this film.

The film will be written by Matt Greenhalgh, the BAFTA-winning writer behind musician biopic Control. Although no casting has begun for the film, the Daily Mail is reporting that Kate Winslet is one of the actresses being sought for the role of Lennon’s mother, while Emily Watson is a possibility for Aunt Mimi.

The musician biopic genre has grown rather tired around these parts, to the point where Hollywood was able to make a movie about how they all have the same exact storyline. Nonetheless, with Greenhalgh writing and Taylor-Wood directing, Nowhere Boy seems like it has the potential to offer us something different (from a plot perspective) and visually interesting at the very least.

Discuss: Any John Lennon fans out there? If so, how do you feel about a John Lennon biopic?

Related Stories

• No Related Post