A geek happy list

Posted by Sulkyblue (26th May 2004, 20:11) -

For anyone despairing over various cancellations, dreadful sounding productions and fearing for the state of the entertainment industry - here's a happy list of things a (fairly) geeky person is looking forward to and happy for. Including Hitchhikers, Joss Whedon, Star Wars and Marvel Films.

Back to news index / Refresh page


You can edit or delete your own comments, but you'll have to login first.

read biography for - gaspode

 gaspode ( 26th May 2004, 21:56, Rank: Killer Rabbit )  reply

Out of those, I suspect I'm most looking forward to The Hitchhiker's Guide movie (which I really hope they don't screw up terribly). Also looking forward to no more Star Wars movies... Possibly King Kong and Tarzan too. After all, who can argue with monkeys? I'm fairly indifferent toward the future output of Tarantino and Spielberg. QT, whilst producing fairly cool movies, is beginning to bore me with his excessive style-over-substance approach to things. Spielberg does big-name projects, some of which are good, but I'm not a major fan.

And another Batman movie? The last ones sucked... I'm not a superhero fan in general though.

Will be nice to see how Serenity turns out.

read biography for - Sulkyblue

 Sulkyblue ( 27th May 2004, 00:10, Rank: Nazgul )  reply

The new Batman *shouldn't* suck. Seems to be going back to roots, both of the story and style. Hitchhikers and King Kong also look like they're shaping up well with people in charge who want to do them justice. I've never been that intested in Tarantino's stuff, findingly him overly violent and smug, but Charlie Kaufman, the Coen Brothers and Spielberg continue to make interesting and flavourful films. I don't have any real hopes for Star Wars beyond hope that it's fun and avoids annoying creatures and romances. James Cameron's next offerings could be interesting, I honestly don't think Pixar are capable of making anything bad

Serenity will rock. It must do. Otherwise I will cry. Filming starts next week.

read biography for - John Kirk

 John Kirk ( 27th May 2004, 01:30, Rank: Patrician )  reply

Re: Batman, the roots of the character (in the 1930s) had him running around with a gun shooting people. I'd be surprised if they stick to that; it's more likely that they'll go with Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" (which is a good story), published in 1986-1987.

I'm curious, though - if you don't like reading comics, why is it a good thing for the film to be consistent with something you haven't read? That's a question for Lorna specifically, but I'm also thinking about the majority of people who will watch the film in the cinema, and who will probably never read a Batman comic in their lives.

Personally, I'd like to see a bit more emphasis on detective work, rather than action sequences. Batman originally appeared in "Detective Comics" (which is what DC stands for), and is often referred to as "the world's greatest detective", so it would be nice to see him earn that reputation.

As for "Tarzan", I don't think a live-action film can realistically have much in common with the original novels. You either have Tarzan chatting to animals, which is going to be hard to take seriously (think "Dr Doolittle"), or you have perceived racism (white guy in Africa killing loads of black savages and/or lording it over them). And of course all the nudity - there's an amusing thing in the first novel where Tarzan gets concerned that people might mistake him for an animal (because he's naked), so he starts wearing a belt. No loincloth, or anything else, just a belt around his waist! As for the Coen brothers, I think they've done a couple of nice little character pieces, but they wouldn't be my first choice for this kind of film.

Ending on a positive note, I'm definitely looking forward to "The Incredibles".

read biography for - Sulkyblue

 Sulkyblue ( 27th May 2004, 09:51, Rank: Nazgul )  reply

I don't actually care whether Batman is true to the comics or not, just that from what I can tell the first 2 films were closer to the style and feel and were infinitely better films. Batman comics have been around and popular for 70 years, Batman and Robin hasn't. I also just can't face having fanboys ranting for the next year about how it's incorrect. As for running around with a gun shooting people, they had a vigilante in Daredevil didn't they? *shrug* I don't know what they're doing with it, haven't followed it that closely, but the writer's done some interesting work before (Memento) so it should be interesting if nothing else.

Tarzan and the Coen brothers - what is Tarzan if he's not a character? Can't say as I'm interested in the actual idea of a Tarzan film, just intrigued by the possibilities of this pairing.

The Incredibles will also rock muchly. As will Cars which will finally see the light of day the following year.

read biography for - Siberman

 Siberman ( 27th May 2004, 10:18, Rank: Mentat )  reply

Star Wars could, well maybe, perhaps, be ok, I hope, although I'm not going to hold my breath. I look forward to seing King Kong, peter Jackson back playing with his beloved monsters should be able to produce a spectacular ape. I want the hitchhikers film to be good as wqell, although I have heard reports that Douglas Adams was doing his best to sabotage it.

Other than that it sounds like a reasonable list to look forqward to, although there's no LotR this christmas.

read biography for - John Kirk

 John Kirk ( 27th May 2004, 23:45, Rank: Patrician )  reply

Comparing the recent four Batman films (leaving aside the Adam West one), it's obviously a matter of opinion about which is best. Personally, I preferred "Batman Forever", but I'm not going to defend the merits of "Batman and Robin".

However, I don't think you can directly compare one film to an ongoing comic. For one thing, "Batman and Robin" only came out 10 years ago, so it would be impossible for it to have 70 years of popularity, but that shouldn't count against it. The wider issue is that it's the ongoing series as a whole that has been popular, rather than specific issues. It's not like "Lord of the Rings", where you can say that this particular book has been in print continuously for decades. That's mainly why I mentioned the 1930s gun business, since most people wouldn't be aware of that nowadays. And if you read Batman comics from the 1960s, he's a cheerful fellow who would often swap costumes with Superman, rather than a brooding avenger of the night who distrusts "the alien". It could be argued that the only thing the modern comics have in common with the old ones is the basic costume design and the origin story, which applies equally to the films.

On a side note, "Men in Black" was based on a comic (which I haven't read), although it apparently didn't stick very closely to it. Given that I enjoyed the film, those discrepancies doesn't bother me. Similarly with "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", I think that the comic and the film were trying to achieve different goals, and they both succeeded. I may sometimes think that changes have made a story worse, but I don't object to them on principle. E.g. with Spider-Man/Daredevil/Hulk, they got rid of the "radioactive origins", which is understandable, and that's fine. Whereas by giving Daredevil the ability to leap like Spider-Man, I thought they wasted potential.

As for the Tarzan directors, I'd describe "Raising Arizona" and "Fargo" as quiet films (the only two of theirs I've seen), whereas the linked article was talking about capturing the power of the original novels, so they don't seem like an obvious choice. On the other hand, based on "Bad Taste" I wouldn't have thought that Peter Jackson was a great choice for "Lord of the Rings", and he certainly did well there, so it could turn out that this is the film they were born to make...

read biography for - Sulkyblue

 Sulkyblue ( 28th May 2004, 11:15, Rank: Nazgul )  reply

A quiet film can still be powerful. Indeed quiet films are often *more* powerful. Things like Shawshank Redemption, power to me at least, isn't about noise, it's about focus. But I don't know anything about Tarzan, so don't know what they're going to do.

The comic-film discussion seems to have blown a bit out of proportion. Basically I would rather see a gothic moody batman than the travesty of Batman and Robin (pretty much the only film I've ever paid for and stopped watching before finishing). Of course Batman and Robin can't have 70 years of popularity, I wasn't commenting on numbers, I was commenting on the fact that in the 10 years of it's life it's largely thought of as one of the worst films ever, *despite* the fact that it has 70 years of popular stories, background and style ideas behind it.

Add your burblings

You are not logged in. Any comments submitted will be attributed to random.
Log in/Register

View large text box

Special tags: <user>username</user>,<link>URL</link>,<image (align="right|left|center")>URL</image>,<big>,<small>
Allowed HTML; <b>,<i>,<u>,<strike>,<p>,<br />,<hr />,<pre>,<ul>,<ol>,<li>,<dl>,<dt>,<dd>,<a>,<img>

Back to news index

Recent articles: [2x06!! Stream "The Fall" Season 2 Episode 6 Finale Online] ['Best of SF' article in Felix Today] [Science fiction bonanza in Felix] [Science Fiction Column - "Moon" Review] [Congratulations SpaceX]