ecovolo
Member
Review Points: 95
"Ich bin ein Landsknecht."
Posts: 625
|
Post by ecovolo on Apr 26, 2009 18:33:22 GMT
But... the all died. What... are we talking '300 2, the unknow resuraction' or what?!?! It will be focused on Dilios, the guy who was sent back from the Battle at Thermopylae (Note: As of October 2, 2008): www.firstshowing.net/2008/10/02/zack-snyder-reveals-story-details-for-300-sequel/"Back in June we confirmed that Warner Brothers was looking to develop a sequel to 300. At first, this seemed like a terrible idea, but with more updates on the project, it doesn't sound so bad. IESB talked with Zack Snyder earlier tonight and got an update on their plans. Snyder revealed that Frank Miller is actually planning to write another graphic novel that would take place between the Battle of Thermopylae and the Battle of Plataea (that was at the very end of 300). So it's actually not really a sequel or a prequel, but a combination that would seemingly be focused on the character of Dilios, played by David Wenham in 300. When asked whether he might be interested in directing, Snyder answered that he definitely would, only on the condition that the graphic novel be completed separately from the movie. He wants Frank to finish that comic before they even start on a script. Snyder won't have any input into the graphic novel and wants it to be Frank's own creation. In regards to the story, as explained, there is quite a bit of time between the Battle of Thermopylae and the Battle of Plataea. If you recall, Dilios is retelling the story of King Leonidas at the end of 300 to a new battalion of Spartans. That battle that they're about to fight is the Battle of Plataea. My guess is that everyone only thought about the idea of a direct sequel to 300, which would be like making a sequel to Titanic - obviously that makes no sense. However, there are quite a few stories around the time of the Battle of Thermopylae that can still be told. And obviously there are numerous battles as well. I'm sure I'm not the only one that wanted to see Dilios lead those 10,000 Spartans in the fight against the Persians at the end of 300. And with both Zack Snyder and Frank Miller involved, I'm not worried at all. In the end it'll be much less of a sequel and much more of a different story set in that same time." . . . Hopefully they'll get David Wenham back in the role; he's a great actor. Also, for what it's worth, as of last reports it looks like Gerard Butler would *not* be in the sequel, for obvious reasons . --Edward P.S. I'm sure with a lot of makeup they could re-cast Butler as something else, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2009 18:43:33 GMT
A 300 Sequel or what ever one would call it would be pretty cool if it is made right
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2009 18:50:57 GMT
which is why im still gonna see it when it comes out... im just concerned for the well being of the franchise... i hate when people take something great and try to make more money off of it through crappy sequels
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2009 20:19:58 GMT
Mind the language barrier........sorry if I'm overly blatant, but I cannot say 300 is a franchise. It is a successful graphic novel by Frank Miller, that was adapted to a movie script. While its technical aspects are good, the movie if measured up by historical standards is a lame retelling full of stereotypes and historical innaccuracies. If its mirroring the graphic novel per se then, I guess it is quite good, but not THAT good...........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2009 20:24:16 GMT
why a thread about Russell Crowe and Sir Ridley Scott has degenerated into a discussion about '300' and/or its possible sequel.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2009 20:45:03 GMT
I think Russell Crowe would have been complete crap as Aragorn personally, Viggo Mortensen did an absolutely incredible job of a beloved literary character. Aragorn's screen presence was not supposed to be overwhelming it was supposed to balance with the presence of the other characters. If anything Gandalf should have had the most screen presence and he did. I also don't think that Sean Connery would have made a very good Gandalf. I think that the casting of the LoTR's movies could not have been improved. As to Russell Crowe turning down the part of wolverine, praise God for that! again he would have been complete crap in that role. Hugh Jackman was perfect for wolverine, in stature he was a bit smaller than the comic book version but he was still pretty damn close. I don't actually like Russell Crowe as an actor much, except when the movie where he plays sid, that role sends chills down my spine how alien and callous he is. He was pretty good in gladiator but I wouldn't say he makes a great period actor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2009 2:23:34 GMT
Bloodwraith I agree with you 100% Viggo was perfect for this also is a great horse man and sword man.I love Connery but he would have been crap as Gafndlaf.Jackman is the Wolfverine enough said. Its like Frank Sinatra turned Dirthy Harry thank the gods only Clint could have been Harry and thankfully Tom Selleck could not get out of this contract to play Indiana Jones
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2009 2:33:29 GMT
The one other movie I have seen with Viggo in it I thought he did an exceptional job. For him to be able to go from playing a hard arsed drill sergeant in GI Jane to playing Aragorn speaks of the depth of his acting ability.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2009 2:47:20 GMT
Bloodwraith watch Viggo in Eatern Promises he does a great job my wife loves the fight seen LOL
|
|
|
Post by Reisz on Apr 27, 2009 5:53:33 GMT
Oh man, that fight scene blew my mind, i would have been outta there in a heartbeat, he really does push the envelope in my opinion, i haven't seen any actor do what he did in promises. can't wait for more from him.
and if you haven't seen it already watch Appaloosa, Viggo is a classic strong silent type but he is damn good, excellent chemistry with Ed Harris too.
i noticed there was a quick comment on the Duellists, that was Ridley's First feature film and is to this day my favorite flick, Do yourself a favor and watch it right now, Anyone who is a fan of swords has got to see that film. In my opinion some of the most realistic sword fights I could ever imagine, I don't know enough about fighting with Rapiers but it is a far cry from everything else I have seen on the silver screen.
It was based on a short story as I understand it, and somewhat influenced by Kubrick's Barry Lyndon (another great film)
but is seriously a work of art.
What are you willing to bet that Pearlman is up for the role of Beorn, in the Hobbit? If he voices Smaug I might actually drop dead from sadness, He has done a crap load of voice acting but I really can't Imagine him as that Dragon.
looking even more forward to this new Robin having visited some of the provided links, thanks guys.
-Reisz
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Apr 27, 2009 7:21:45 GMT
I think Russell Crowe would have been complete crap as Aragorn personally, Viggo Mortensen did an absolutely incredible job of a beloved literary character. Aragorn's screen presence was not supposed to be overwhelming it was supposed to balance with the presence of the other characters. If anything Gandalf should have had the most screen presence and he did. I also don't think that Sean Connery would have made a very good Gandalf. I think that the casting of the LoTR's movies could not have been improved. As to Russell Crowe turning down the part of wolverine, praise God for that! again he would have been complete crap in that role. Hugh Jackman was perfect for wolverine, in stature he was a bit smaller than the comic book version but he was still pretty damn close. I don't actually like Russell Crowe as an actor much, except when the movie where he plays sid, that role sends chills down my spine how alien and callous he is. He was pretty good in gladiator but I wouldn't say he makes a great period actor. Hugh might not be as ripped as Wolverine....but he's certainly not shorter. Wolverine is only a bit over 5 feet tall. Edit: Marvel says he's 5'3". Meh, I was close. www.marvel.com/universe/Wolverine
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2009 10:36:56 GMT
Seen the 1995 flick the prophecy with christopher walken and elias koteas? viggo mortensen plays satan and eats walken's heart at the end...
|
|
ecovolo
Member
Review Points: 95
"Ich bin ein Landsknecht."
Posts: 625
|
Post by ecovolo on Apr 27, 2009 18:03:49 GMT
Bloodwraith I agree with you 100% Viggo was perfect for this also is a great horse man and sword man. Did you ever see the making of the 'Lord Of The Rings' movies? I remember an anecdote where Mortenson says he was handed a sword by someone (the director? The fight choreographer?), and asked how he would repel a group of armed warriors (orcs?) running at him. He said that his first reaction was something like, "Aah! I don't know what to do with this thing [the sword]!" and he put his hands up and cowered . He looks good on film wielding his weapon; I give credit to the fight choreographer . (Someone correct me on this; it's been a while since I've seen the making of Lord Of the Rings . I love Connery but he would have been crap as Gafndlaf. "You'll rue the day you crossed me Trebek!" ;D Jackman is the Wolfverine enough said. I'll admit I kind of hoped Glen Danzig would have taken the role of Wolverine. He *might* have done a good job of it if he took it up; but there's no mistaking that Jackman did an excellent job . --Edward
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2009 18:29:06 GMT
Ace great news about Boudicca . I just hope Mel dosent make in in original language or do it in Mad Max ....er Mad Maxine style . Casting will be critical .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2009 20:10:28 GMT
Kid: stature was the wrong word to use, I meant his build was not up to the comic book character (then again whose is?).
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Apr 27, 2009 21:46:23 GMT
Kid: stature was the wrong word to use, I meant his build was not up to the comic book character (then again whose is?). Very Few... Yeah, Jackman is WAY too tall to be Logan... he did a decent enough job with the material, but I was not very happy with the X-men movies. They were not bad, but not that good either. The Spiderman and Iron Man movies, as well as Nolan's Batman movies, have really set the standered for me for comic book adaptations. Ghostrider, DareDevil, Hulk, New Superman... pretty much all complete crap to me. X-men 1 & 2 were 'Meh' and 3 was 'blah'. Don't even get me started on Watchmen. I used to be a huge comic book collector/fan... so I'm kinda hard to please in this area. As for Viggo, Crowe, and Sean Connery and LotR... I am MUCH happier with Viggo in the role, he is hands down one of my favorite actors. I like Crowe fine... but I don't think he has as much emotional depth as Viggo, I think that Crowe would not have done as well. I love Connery, don't get me wrong... but he is one of those actors that, rather then take on a persona when filling a role, sort of takes OVER the persona, injecting it with his own massive charisma. I think he would not have done the Role of Gandolf the justice Ian McKellen did.
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Apr 28, 2009 6:37:42 GMT
Sean, you'd better be talking about Ang Lee's Hulk, because the Edward Norton one was very, very good. Which is a complete understatement. And Jackman played a very good Wolverine, though I was disappointed that the director wished to "tame" Logan. Jackman kept pushing for his character to be more animalistic, which I liked, though I would have liked to see more inner conflict with Wolverine's animal and human sides. Superman Returns was.....trying too hard to keep in tone with Reeve's Superman. Which I respect, but did not greatly enjoy. Superman has always been far too soft in film. I'm waiting for the rumored and mentioned Superman reboot. They have been talking about taking it to darker territory, like they did with Batman: The Animated Series and Batman Begins/Dark Knight.
Onto Robin Hood, I think this will turn out to be a top contender for film of the year. There's a lot of big released planned in the next few years, so it will be tough. But I have faith in Scott's and Crowe's chemistry together. I love Crowe's attitude and I love Scott's attention to detail and love of cinematics. It WILL be enjoyable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2009 16:07:48 GMT
They're going to do an epic on Boudicca? Did I just read that right?
As for superhero movies, I'm a huge comic book fan so...I have discerning tastes. For instance, of all the Marvel movies, I have to say that Ghost Rider was the biggest disappointment of them all, followed closely by X3. My problem has always been that the movie audience does not have the 40+ years of history that comiclovers have...who else can sympathize with me when I say hard earned coin went to that comic collection and I knew each and every story like the back of my hand...back then anyways. I still remember quite enough to know that you can't condense decades worth of lore into a distilled version and have everyone be happy. Just not gonna happen.
For what its worth, I liked Ang Lee's Hulk, insomuch as it tried to show the gentler beast side of the Hulk- it failed in not providing a suitable antagonist for the Hulk to battle; the second Hulk intro'd the Abomination which turned out to be very worthy, exciting.
I thought the first Punisher was decent, but not how I envisioned the man; Ray Stevenson's take was much more in line with how I saw Frank Castle. No offense, but Tom Jane tried too hard to be that hard.
I laughed when I first heard of Jackman as Wolvie (but who can pull off a 5'3" 195lb wildman credibly? Apparently, Hugh Jackman) but I'm a solid fan of his now. I've seen some of his other work, he's definitely believable and has a palpable presence onscreen.
BOO @ the Superman haters lol
Let me see...Viggo is perfect in anything he does- seen American Yakuza? Or the first Prophecy? History of Violence? Hidalgo? A Perfect Murder?
The guy is uber talented, for sure. I was skeptical as others were, upon hearing of the cast list for LOTR- but I have to say, they chose their actors well. John Rhys-Davies as Gimli was spot on perfect. Viggo as Aragorn is iconic now...every time I re-read the trilogy (I do it yearly) I see his face now, hear his voice and such.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2009 16:54:57 GMT
Ecovolo, Viggo was trained by sword master Bob Anderson for LOTR who said that he was one of the best students that he ever had .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2009 17:02:00 GMT
Let me chime in while I am waiting on the UPS guy to deliver my Albion:
I feel that Viggo is a great actor, but as a huge fan of the novels (that I have read yearly since I was 12 - so 26 years now), I am one of those guys that found a ton of faults with the PJ films. Don't get me wrong, I really liked the films - but Viggo was not the presence I envisioned when I read Tolkien.
In the novels, Aragorn was a much more confident character. He was in tune with the past of his ancestry, but it did not haunt him as portrayed in the films. He was almost arrogant in the novels, never for one second doubting his destiny or really even that Sauron could be defeated. He was a confident military commander, speaking with a clear command voice, and stood physically tall, as the rest of the line of Elendil - being nearly 7ft in height.
Viggo's Aragorn was just that - the Aragorn that Viggo 'made up' - transmuting his own persona into the role and kind of making Aragorn his character. Emotional, introspective, quiet, and doubtful. When he did begin to take a stronger stance, it became somewhat out of character. One of the parts of RoTK that made me cringe was when he addresses the Rohirrim/Gondorian army at the Black Gates. His public speaking voice just sounds weak. Now, this could be because I have been a soldier for a number of years and know what a command voice 'should' sound like - but other people I know said that his voice still did not give the confidence it should have.
Russell Crowe is more in tune with the way Tolkien portrayed Aragorn. I remember seeing Gladiator for the first time thinking during the opening battle - 'Man, he would make an excellent Aragorn'. He was cool, calm, and confident and the audience knew it - yet no-one could deny that he had an emotional depth just as good as Viggo. Viggo softened Aragorn, where as Russell would have empowered him.
Of course, Viggo is now Aragorn to our generation. I felt he did a good job, but it was not as epic role as it could have been.
On another note: I will agree that Sean Connery might have overpowered the role of Gandalf. But, when you watch movies like 'Finding Forrester', you can see that Sean is capable of not overpowering the screen with his presence by offering an excellent depth of character. He would have been stronger in the role, but perhaps not as lovable as Ian McKellan. Now, Sean Connery as Denethor or Theoden might have been very interesting indeed.
Other problems I had with LoTR was just the dramatic plot varations from the novels. Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath? Elves at Helm's Deep? Frodo showing the Ring to a Nazgul? No Tom Bombadil? The list goes on. Some people think of these things as nit-picking, but to me, they really scattered the pages of LoTR to the four winds. I loved Fellowship, hated the Two Towers, and liked Return of the King primarily based on plot deviations. I was wanting to see exactly what I had read for 20+ years. I understand the concept of creative liberty when doing films, but there was alot of stuff that could have been in tune with Tolkien that PJ just took to the extreme left for no real reason at all.
I have fell into assisting side-track this thread, so I will cut myself short. I will end with saying:
I look forward to seeing Robin Hood! 'Nough said!
|
|