MovieChat Forums > replicant4 > Replies
replicant4's Replies
Yes, I liked his take on Superman. But I don't think the masses like the dark and brooding approach the director's gave the character. It worked for Christian Bale's Batman, so it was worth a try with the Superman reboot. In any case, I think Henry has outgrown the role. I really hope he gets a second look for Bond. He has a very strong screen presence. And having seen him in interviews, he has a great, likable charm...which just needs to be brought out in the right role. Check him out in his recent interview on Jimmy Kimmel. This guy should be a huge star.
Bringing Nick Castle back was probably mostly a ceremonial gesture of respect, similar to how they brought Peter Mayhew back to don the Chewbacca suit (for just a couple scenes) in The Force Awakens.
Agreed. The whole reason the show worked was the great chemistry between the 2 actors. Plus, Crawford was likable and a great actor. The Stiffler guy just seems like a dope, and anytime I ever see him onscreen, I just see Stiffler. What a shame they couldn't have worked through the behind-the-scenes issues. It was a rare GREAT show on network TV. Now, I'm betting it will die rather quickly....
I think Idris Elba would be very good in that kind of role....but Bond was written with a very specific description. It would be odd to see a Chinese Bond.....or a redheaded Bond.....or a little person Bond.....or a Pakistani Bond.....etc, etc.
Not saying it's impossible. And, I'm not saying Elba wouldn't be great. But it would be like redefining Superman. He has always been a very, very specific description. It would be odd to see an Iranian Superman, for example.
What would be better would be....develop a new franchise for Elba, similar to Bond....kinda like the Mission Impossible franchise for Cruise. Don't try and retrofit him into the Bond cannon....simply because "It's Time".....to replace any white male role with a female or minority.
One Word: Bond?
Supine--meaning...he was laying on his back.
They got the guy from the original Halloween for a few scenes...which I think is a nice touch (and tribute). That guy sure nailed it in '78. His movements were perfect. Even the slight head tilt...when he nails the guy up on the wall with the knife and he sticks there. That subtle head tilt...MAKES the scene. Or, in the scene near the end, in the bedroom....when Laurie thinks he's laying there dead......the way he rises up from the supine position, solely by bending at the waist....and then almost robotically turning his head on a swivel to face Laurie. There should be an Oscar award for body movements and physical acting. Andy Serkis would have 10 by now.
I like the Sarah Connor analogy. I think Laurie definitely plays better being vulnerable and an unwilling participant. When they try to make her a toughened-up, laser-focused vigilante....it just doesn't work for me. And I agree about the trailer...it tips the cards way too much. All Pavlov's dogs needed was the sound of a bell. All we needed was that iconic piano score.....plus show John Carpenter's name on screen....and end it with MM breathing in that mask. The one thing I DID think worked well, and had an erie factor to it...was the scene at the outdoor area of the asylum.
It's funny....even the younger generation, used to sensory overload (and overkill) in movies (for example, ANY Fast & Furious movie).....even they appreciate how great the original was, with all its minimalism. I wish producers, writers and directors would give them more credit, and not feel so much like they need to up the ante....in order to keep attention spans who are used to super hero movies.
dmac--Right again.
While it is indeed a shame that MM has been played out (thanks to Moustafa Akkad milking the concept, sequel after cookie-cutter sequel).....there still can be an artful way of executing a film like this. Carpenter's original was a masterpiece, and lightning in a bottle. A perfect blend of era (just like with Jaws, the 70's was the perfect era for a film like this), look & feel, actors (Donald Pleasance in particular--was amazing), sound, and artful direction. Granted, it also had the advantage of being the first....the advantage of us never knowing a "Michael Meyers" in our lexicon. But still, Carpenter just...gets it. I don't even consider the original a "horror film"....so much as I consider it a scary movie, and a classic one at that. Very little blood or gore....or even jump scares. He just plays on the inherent fears the little kid in all of us has always had of....The Boogeyman. The sequels never came close to recapturing that magic. Once MM became a serial killer...(always wearing the same mask and jumpsuit)....it became as silly as the Friday the 13th films.
However, with Carpenter loosely involved with this one.....with JLC back....and, with the fact that they very wisely throw out all those awful sequels in this storyline....I have hope it may be pretty decent. But I agree, the trailers should have only been around 30 seconds each. Just show us a hint of JLC.....show us Carpenter is involved....give us a hint of that mask in the shadows....and play that iconic piano sound. And maybe for the second trailer, have that amazing Loomis monologue as a voiceover: "I spent 8 years trying to reach him....." That would have been enough to get everyone excited. MM walking around amongst a crowded neighborhood of trick or treaters did nothing for me. Oh well, we'll see soon enough. It can't be worse than what Rob Zombie did. He just never understood the spirit of Carpenter's classic.
Well said, and totally agree.
Part of the magic and mystique of the original was how much of a mystery MM was. He was the boogeyman, lurking in the shadows. No sequel since....(and certainly not the remakes) have understood the brilliance of Carpenter's minimalist approach. Very little blood or gore....and don't show the boogeyman until you absolutely have to. (We sure as f--k don't need to see his childhood and backstory). Jaws, BTW....is a great analogy.
I agree. Sometimes, when a producer (like Barbara Broccoli) says something like: "It's time...for diversity in the Bond role", I say: Really? Why? Is it also "time" for an Albanian Superman? How about a Pakistani Wonder Woman? How about a white Shaft and a black Santa Clause?
Why not just create new, dynamic and original characters and superheros who happen to be diverse and ethnic....rather than ALTERING the ethnicity of an established character, simply to to be a SJW?
Rob Zombie completely missed the point, and the mystique....of Halloween, and what makes Carpenter's version such a masterpiece. For starters, as others have said, the less we know about MM, the better. When I first saw the original as a kid, I was mystified by Michael Myers. He didn't seem human. Just an unstoppable force, looming in the shadows. And the brief glimpses of his background that we get are just enough. For example, Dr. Loomis' monologue:
"I met him, 15 years ago; I was told there was nothing left; no reason, no conscience, no understanding in even the most rudimentary sense of life or death, of good or evil, right or wrong. I met this... six-year-old child with this blank, pale, emotionless face, and... the blackest eyes - the Devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up, because I realized that what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil."
That's all the backstory we need on MM. I think Zombie blew it in so many ways with his remake. Especially by humanizing MM and showing him as a kid. To me, MM is a faceless, soulless demon. Not some kid with a bad, trailor trash childhood. Zombie also didn't understand how impactful and artful the minimalist approach was in the original. There was almost no blood at all in Carpenter's film. Whereas in the remake, Zombie gets off on the blood and gore, which makes the movie no better than any other cookie-cutter gorefest.
"Was that the boogeyman?"
"As a matter of fact, it was."
Cue the music.
Masterpiece.
I'm always leery of the use of dreams as a means of covering for something. It feels like a cop out, and has already been done too often. (No offense, it's still a valid idea). I just like that they are taking the high road and pretending those sequels never happened. Compared to the original (which I consider a masterpiece), the sequels seem so bad they're embarrassing.
Source?
Indefinitely? For the next 15 years?
Or....for one last movie?
Well, it's always interesting when an actor is called "wooden". Clint Eastwood was often called that. When really.....he simply played a lot of stoic characters....who happened to be...."wooden". You'd go to Clint for a quiet, stoic cowboy role....not Nathan Lane. Conversely, if you needed a loud, goofy and flamboyant character, you more likely go with Nathan than Clint.
With Henry Cavil, he has been somewhat handcuffed to quiet, stoic roles (like Superman). Plus, much has to do with how he is DIRECTED to play the character. If you watch some YouTube videos of recent interviews (for example, check out his recent appearance on Jimmy Kimmel), he is actually quite charming, and has a great sense of humor. He just needs more roles that show that off. Besides.....the character of Bond has typically been a cool, low-key character, not loud and full of personality, if you really think about it. The important thing is that he's cool, charming and looks like a capable spy/assassin. And Henry showed us he can pull that off, in Man from U.N.C.L.E.
MCM...I think speculating, and offering opinions on the latest rumors, trends and industry insights for our favorite films and franchises is certainly within the norm on movie industry message boards. We don't need to wait for things to actually happen first, before offering opinions on various actors who may get the role...and how we think that would play out. Speculation about who will be the next Bond has been a movie industry tradition for 5 decades now.
Wow, angry much? I'm saying....the producers would cast someone based on strategies that would make money. One of those strategies would be current trends, movements, and demographic shifts. Idris would be quite good in the role. But so would quite a few other actors. And after having seen Cavil in MI and The Man from U.N.C.L.E., I think he'd be the best choice. But I think Idris will get the nod, for reasons mentioned. Even the producers themselves have indicated "It's time"....for diversity in the Bond role. If they go with Idris, I'm sure he'd do quite well.
My guess is....this was primarily a money decision. It is SUCH an iconic...and SYMBOLIC role, it would be a huge statement to the AA community to get this. When BP came out, there was a huge push....essentially a movement, in which parents made a point of taking their kids....teachers made a point of taking their classes....movie stars rented out entire theaters so AA kids in poor areas could go....because AA wanted kids to see a cast of AA in positive, heroic roles, leading a movie. The role of Bond has always been a similar goal....a benchmark. It would be a huge win and I think the rejoicing would be almost as big as with BP. It will be on the cover of Time. (BTW....I don't blame the AA community one bit for celebrating these things in such a way. Who wouldn't?) BP was a great movie, and the cast did a great job. Likewise, I think Idris would make a good Bond. But I still think Cavil would be better. He won me over in Mission Impossible.
I also think the current producers of the Bond films (one of them is the daughter of the original Bond producer, "Cubby" Broccoli) are caught-up in current social trends and movements. You can tell by the language they use: "It's time for diversity in the Bond role."...or something to that effect. I wouldn't be surprised to see a female Bond in my lifetime. Spielberg is even talking about a female heir apparent for Indiana Jones. The times...they are a changin'......
I can't believe he's going to lose out to Idris Elba as the next Bond. I'm guessing it's for 2 reasons, mainly:
1) The producers don't want a Bond who is also playing Superman at the same time.
2) ALso...they figure, the African American audience really CAN carry a movie over the $500 Million mark. The producers saw what happened with Black Panther...and figured the same could happen with the next Bond films. With Black Panther, the filmmakers knew the general comic book movie fans would turn out, regardless. But by having a mainly black cast, it would ALSO bring out the African American audience, big time.....opening up an entirely untapped audience segment. And it worked. The Bond producers took notice.