Next film I might miss

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  pinhedz on Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:45 pm

Yakima Canutt wrote:Ann Hornyday?  No, one should not rely on Ann Hornyday.
I quite agree. As it happens, I have only just this moment returned from viewing the film, and I found it utterly enchanting.  
Much of the witty banter between Darcy and Elizabeth is ever so much more compelling when they are exchanging roundhouse kicks and breaking furniture.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11534
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Yakima Canutt on Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:21 am


http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Sensibility-Monsters-Jane-Austen/dp/1594744424/

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7861
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  pinhedz on Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:27 pm

I don't have to see Zealander II, because the bits reported to be the best are on Youtube. What a Face

One is SuBo, the other is Justin Bieber.

One reviewer says it's OK to tell what happens to Biebs, because it's in the trailer, but Yakima would probably complain. Rolling Eyes

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11534
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:13 pm

in fact, giving away the opening premise of a Ben Stiller comedy, that was revealed in 30 second TV spots, IS NOT THE SAME as revealing midpoint plot twists of the year's robot/alien drama sleeper fave. (when in doubt, there is always the SPOIL WARNRING, it is only a handful of letters to type)


The flop sweat drips from the first scene, where a labored Justin Bieber gag barely elicits a chuckle ... The thing is, if Stiller spent half as much time sharpening the film’s jokes as he did rifling through his Rolodex for celebrity cameos (Willie Nelson, Kiefer Sutherland, Susan Boyle?!), he might’ve coughed up a few laughs. As it is, though, Zoolander No. 2 is embarrassing, lazy, and aggressively unfunny. The only good news is that at the pace the franchise is moving, we won’t get Zoolander 3 until 2030.


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7861
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  pinhedz on Tue Feb 16, 2016 2:26 am

Yakima Canutt wrote:in fact, giving away the opening premise of a Ben Stiller comedy, that was revealed in 30 second TV spots, IS NOT THE SAME as revealing midpoint plot twists of the year's robot/alien drama sleeper fave. (when in doubt, there is always the SPOIL WARNRING, it is only a handful of letters to type)
I was, of course, referring to your injunction against giving away the content of THE TRAILER.
So now you are saying sometimes it's OK and sometimes not? So it turns out to be a judgment call with Yakima delivering the final judgment? The pinned has this to say about that .

[Hereinafter the pinhed will be known as the pinned. Autocorrect has spoken]

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11534
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Yakima Canutt on Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:27 am


THIS HAS ALRADY BEEN COVERD. IN THE CASE OF ATTACK OF THE ROBOT V. RUENER, IT WAS DEEMED BY A THIRD PARTY ADJUDOKATOR THAT YOUR DESCRIPTIONS GAVE AWAY MORE INFORMATION THAN A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD ASCERTAIN FROM THE PROMOTIONAL "TRAILER" REEL.


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7861
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  pinhedz on Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:00 am

The pinned did not agree to third-party adjudication. Suspect

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11534
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Yakima Canutt on Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:26 pm






can copy & paste this when one is too busy to type eight letters



Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7861
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Yakima Canutt on Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:57 pm






Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7861
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  pinhedz on Sun Mar 27, 2016 5:04 am

Yakima Canutt wrote:

The critics also seem sad (although they try to be smart-alecky about it). Neutral

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11534
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  pinhedz on Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:59 pm

Is there a reason why two movies about Florence Foster Jenkins were just made simultaneously?

How could such a thing be coincidence? Suspect Suspect Suspect


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11534
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:46 am



In 2007, a carefully researched, respectful, and highly entertaining documentary was issued: Florence Foster Jenkins: A World of Her Own, directed by Donald Collup with historical input from Gregor Benko. It presents an abundance of historical background that illuminates her remarkable career, and in so doing it puts to rest some of the inaccurate assumptions that naturally grew up in her wake. It is available from www.vaimusic.com, although you can also view it on YouTube. Fascinating in its own right, the documentary is particularly useful now, since Lady Florence is suddenly having her moment in the sun. The French Marguerite is now in theaters, and May will bring the premiere of Florence Foster Jenkins, a British-American bio-comedy-drama starring Meryl Streep, with Hugh Grant as her paramour and manager St. Clair Bayfield. In July, St. Martin’s Griffin will issue a new biography, Florence Foster Jenkins, by British journalists Nicholas Martin and Jasper Rees, and that will be followed, in September, by another book, from The Overlook Press, Florence Foster Jenkins: The Diva of Din: The Life of the World’s Worst Opera Singer, by “writer, publisher, and blogger” Darryl W. Bullock.

For the moment, though, the best written treatment of her life is to be found in the booklet accompanying a bitchin release from 2004 on the Homophone label: The Muse Surmounted: Florence Foster Jenkins and Eleven of Her Rivals. Homophone was an actual company that produced records from the turn of the century through 1925, but in this incarnation it looks very much like a one-off endeavor of Marston Records, an esteemed specialty label that releases meticulously curated collections of supremely rare recordings from long ago, mostly of singers but also of selected instrumentalists, with long, scholarly liner notes that practically qualify as monographs. Although the name Marston figures nowhere on The Muse Surmounted, the CD does appear in the Marston catalog and can be acquired from that company directly (www.marstonrecords.com). By the way, Marston presses a finite number of CDs, and once the stock runs out, that’s it: Almost never does it print a second press run. You might want to browse the “Endangered List” on its website to see if you spot something else you simply must have before it disappears.

The Muse Surmounted includes notes on the artists by Benko, who was consulted for the 2007 documentary. After explaining how Jenkins came to be viewed as “a slightly batty but charming dowager,” he lets loose to set the record straight: “Jenkins was a monster of vanity and selfishness, but not crazy. She was cheap, secretive, superstitious, mean, dowdy and a snob, with an ego comparable to the greatest divas.” Here she is represented by one of her Melotone discs, “Valse caressante,” written for her by Cosme McMoon, her accompanist. Her singing is up to her usual standards, although she does get the last few notes right; but it has the added allurement of being supplemented by an obbligato on the flute. Following it is a recorded reminiscence by McMoon. “His character does seem to have been unsavory,”  Benko writes. “In his old age he was a constant feature hanging around a particular gym on Manhattan’s West 42nd Street that was frequented by body-builders. ... This intercourse eventually blossomed and led to McMoon’s change of career, when he became co-manager of a male bordello located in the same building as the gym.”

This CD clarifies that Jenkins was not alone in the pathways of her particular Parnassus. All of the other singers whose achievements are sampled here display distinctive artistry. An aria by Baroque composer Carl Heinrich Graun, sung by Betty-Jo Schramm, is taken from a privately produced LP that was found posthumously among the effects of the New York Times music critic Harold C. Schonberg. She was, writes Benko, “an ‘unsung’ pioneer of the Early Music movement. ... Uncannily, the voice appears naturally tuned to Baroque pitch. Apparently she was singing Early Music a half-tone flat long before it became fashionable to do so.” A variation on this coping mechanism was part of the arsenal of Tryphosa Bates-Batcheller, who undertakes “Darling Nellie Gray” on a 1945 Melotone record; while her delivery is certainly emphatic, her range does not reach very high, inviting desperate hooting to suggest any pitches that lie above that altitude. Natalia de Andrade, once a Portuguese folksinger, redefines the expressive possibilities of vibrato in her interpretation of “Je marche sur tous les chemins,” an evocation of girlish delicacy from Manon. It might not automatically occur to you that Sari Bunchuk Wontner, the wife of a wealthy businessman, is singing La traviata, let alone in Italian, since her wailing sounds like something ominous that might waft up late at night through the air shaft of an apartment building in a dodgy neighborhood. In fact, it was surreptitiously recorded by a friend who attended one of her recitals in the music room of her home in Las Vegas. Benko notes, “It was her last Traviata before meeting her own tragic end, falling overboard the Wontner yacht in the Caribbean.”

None of these singers is widely famous, but a few of them may ring a bell with aficionados of operatic exotica. In the mid-1980s, Mari Lyn shared her artistry every week on a public-access TV show in New York City. She also issued four LPs she had precisely designed to mimic the high-class Philips label, even putting its logo on the cover. On the first, she sang chestnuts to the accompaniment of a Music Minus One pre-recorded orchestra. Introducing her rendition of “Una voce poco fa” from The Barber of Seville, taken from one of her broadcasts, she prepares listeners by explaining, “In the golden age, conductors tore the hair out of their heads in big handfuls because the coloratura sang very few of the notes that were in the original aria.” She demonstrates this decisively, and quite a few of the notes she does sing you might not immediately recognize as being of human origin.

We meet Olive Middleton, who had performed leading roles at Covent Garden in her native England before immigrating to America. She became a stalwart of the La Puma Opera Workshop in New York, where we hear her singing a scene from Il trovatore in 1966, cheered on by adoring fans. Benko quotes a description from critic Nicholas E. Limansky: “Her vocal art transcended the verismo approach and ideal and centered on realism combined with a vocal technique that had been lost for many decades.” An extraordinary rendition of the Tomb Scene from Aida, starring Norma-Jean Erdmann-Chadbourne and her husband, Ellis Chadbourne (listed on the record as Thomas Garcia), will set off a Pavlovian response: Their appalling voices are the same ones that recorded what was purveyed as “The Faust Travesty,” which eked out RCA’s The Glory (????) of the Human Voice album — but there they were identified as Jenny Williams and Thomas Burns. Their records were produced to accompany a book they wrote titled The Art of Messa di Voce: Scientific Singing in which she declares: “You must remember, I am past seventy years of age and have only recently discovered the secret techniques of this so-called lost art. But you, who have many years before you, can perfect the art, and I hope to aid in restoring singing to its rightful heritage as the noblest and highest of all the arts.” You can’t say these artists didn’t do their part.

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7861
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  pinhedz on Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:04 pm

... and now there are three more movies about frowny-faced heavy-drinking tortured-genius musicians, showing (from the looks of them) mostly made-up Hollywood-cliche events. Suspect

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11534
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Yakima Canutt on Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:21 pm


Sangeet said it was weird because the Cheadle Miles movie sometimes turns into a wacky 1980s buddy cop movie


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7861
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  pinhedz on Fri May 20, 2016 5:38 am

The Guardian (the preferred newspaper of internet posters) says that the Marvel Civil War movie is all fights and no cocktail parties. Mad

Until that trend is reversed, the pinhed will not be watching Marvel movies. bounce

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11534
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri May 20, 2016 7:14 am



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/04/20/captain-america-civil-war-is-marvels-best-film-so-far---review/

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7861
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  pinhedz on Fri May 20, 2016 7:38 am

For that to be right, The Guardian would have to be wrong.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11534
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  pinhedz on Fri May 20, 2016 2:37 pm

OK, I saw it. geek

Spoiler alert: the Sokovian guy speaks the worst Russian ever--way worse than Scarlett. Maybe he thinks he's doing a Sokovian accent, but a Sokovian would be a Slav, so he should speak Russian good. bounce

The working group coordination squabbles were fairly realistic.

Too many characters, but spider boy was refreshing.

Not sure how this will play abroad. On the one hand, it shows that when Americans kill a lot of people at least we feel bad. On the other hand, ... I think you know.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11534
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Yakima Canutt on Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:34 am


THR

When the fledgling team of paranormal investigators in Paul Feig's Ghostbusters reboot post details of their first supernatural encounter online, one of the comments it elicits is: "Ain't no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts." It's a clever wink at the kneejerk hostility engendered among self-appointed guardians of the beloved '80s comedy franchise, long before the new movie was publicly screened. The unfunny mess that hits theaters Friday, like a big goopy splat of ectoplasm, will no doubt make those naysayers feel vindicated. But the fact is that an estrogen-infused makeover, particularly one with such a comedically gifted cast, was a promising idea. Sadly, that's where the inventiveness ended.

The high curiosity factor, the stars' popularity and moviegoers' deep affection for the property should generate decent opening numbers for Sony. But despite the teasing hint of a sequel in a post-end-credits coda mention of Zuul, the malevolent demon who possessed Sigourney Weaver in Ivan Reitman's 1984 original, the afterlife this time around looks evanescent.

The trajectory from the character-driven laughs and raucous physicality of Bridesmaids through the odd-couple antics of The Heat to the well-oiled action-comedy heroics of Spy in theory makes director Feig an ideal fit — particularly since all three of those films were elevated by their warmly knotty depiction of female friendship.

However, although the new Ghostbusters follows the template of the original by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, the witless script by Feig and his co-writer on The Heat, Katie Dippold, has no juice. Short on both humor and tension, the spook encounters are rote collisions with vaporous CG specters that escalate into an uninvolving supernatural cataclysm unleashed upon New York's Times Square. It's all busy-ness, noise and chaos, with zero thrills and very little sustainable comic buoyancy.

There's some knowing amusement in a rep from the Mayor's office (Saturday Night Live regular Cecily Strong) keeping a lid on public hysteria by using the ghostbusters' gender to discredit them as "incredibly sad, lonely women." But those expecting a clever feminist spin or any other sharp 21st century twists will be disappointed, and the upgrade to new-generation VFX yields nothing remarkable.

What's most surprising is the curious shortage of chemistry among the four leads, who never quite appear comfortable as a unit despite their overlapping screen histories. Kate McKinnon is all off-kilter line readings and screwy reactions as eccentric engineer Jillian Holtzmann, who builds the team's anti-ghost gadgets — from familiar proton blasters to new improved gizmos. And Leslie Jones, despite being stuck playing a streetwise stereotype, has some moments as Patty Tolan, a transit worker who brings her vast knowledge of New York and her funeral-director uncle's hearse to the job. (Yes, it gets ECTO-1 license plates.)

But there's a hole in the movie where its anchoring central friendship should be — between Melissa McCarthy's Abby Yates and Kristen Wiig's Erin Gilbert, a bond that dates back to high school and is gradually rekindled after an extended chill. While the actors worked together effectively in Bridesmaids, there's minimal evidence of a connection in their scenes here, which are often flat and sagging under the weight of dead air. Concept suffocates comedy at almost every step.

All the supernatural mayhem of the first movie — and to a lesser extent its 1989 sequel — was supported by the terrific rapport among four distinctly drawn main characters. Bill Murray's deadpan drollery, Aykroyd's earnest enthusiasm, Ramis' geeky awkwardness and Ernie Hudson's relaxed everyman vibe intersected in appealing ways that made it a hoot to watch how the team approached each fresh menace.

Those predecessors go unmentioned here, but one of the reboot's biggest problems is that its four leads seem more like female variations on the original models than fully formed characters in their own right. This is especially limiting for McCarthy and Wiig. McCarthy puts her signature, aggressively irreverent spin on impassioned science nerd Abby, and she scores a few laughs — this is not one of her abrasive misfires like Identity Thief or Tammy. But you feel the strain. Wiig's Erin is introduced as a stiff academic who has distanced herself from her early paranormal dabbling; naturally her starchy suit makes her the first to get slimed. Then zany Erin starts to peek through but somehow never gains much traction.

The failure to reinvent the leads to any satisfying degree is arguably preferable, however, to the overhaul of the supporting players. While the original movies had Annie Potts' deliciously unflappable Janine Melnitz, this time around, the ghostbusters hire a hunky dolt named Kevin as their assistant, played by Chris Hemsworth in an ingratiating but wooden performance that sucks the comic energy out of his every scene. (It further undermines Erin's credibility that she gets all goo-goo-eyed and silly around him.)

As revealed in Sony's second trailer, Kevin also inherits some of the plot functions of Rick Moranis' character, Louis Tully, and Weaver's Dana Barrett in the original, though that possession thread never really catches fire. An elaborate production number conducted by Kevin, which owes a debt to Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video, looks like it might have been fun but survives only in glimpses spliced into the end credits.

There's also a villain of sorts, a bullied outsider named Rowan (Neil Casey) who is harnessing the power of dead spirits in a sinister plan to exact revenge on humanity. As an adversary, he's ineffectual, and his pressure-cooked apocalypse is merely assaultive sound and fury. It doesn't help that in place of iconic Manhattan monuments and buildings, we get fictional locations or generic studio facsimiles of the real thing, mixing vintage signage with prominently placed corporate brands.

Moranis is the sole surviving principal from the original Ghostbusters who doesn't turn up in a cameo, the best of them saved for the credits. Also reappearing is the blobby, hot dog-gorging Slimer, who gets a lady friend in the Mrs. Potato Head vein; and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, who appears incongruously alongside some kind of steampunk ghoul version of the Thanksgiving Day Parade. Those and other nostalgic nods to the progenitor only serve as a reminder of the charm that's lacking here, sacrificed to bland, effects-laden bloat and uninspired writing, making this a missed opportunity.

Distributor: Sony
Production companies: Columbia Pictures, in association with Village Roadshow Pictures


Last edited by Yakima Canutt on Sat Jul 16, 2016 4:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7861
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:27 am


'Busters reboot haunted by the ghost of Kate McKinnon's unfunniness
M. LaSalle
SF Chronc

When you have women as funny as Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy making movies, it’s smart to find ways to bring them together. And it was a good idea — or seemed like a good idea — to remake “Ghostbusters” as a vehicle for women like them. The original was a massive hit, after all, and there hasn’t been a “Ghostbusters” movie since 1989. But partly because of a weak script and partly from mistakes in casting, this new version collapses.



To put it bluntly, Wiig and McCarthy are funny, but Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones aren’t. McKinnon, in particular, is shockingly out of place, and she helps drag down the movie.

Watching McCarthy and Wiig go at each other in this early section of the movie, you’d be justified in thinking you’ve struck comic gold. The situation is good, the characters are there, and these are two of the funniest people in the United States playing off of each other. What could go wrong?

McKinnon plays Jillian, the engineer of the group, and all she offers the movie is astonishingly unfunny and impenetrable shtick — wild facial expressions and gestures, out-of-context reactions and odd voices for no particular reason. The performance is a wild mix of vanity and self-consciousness. Half the time McKinnon looks uncomfortable on camera, and the other half she looks as if she should be.

This doesn’t mean that scenes between McCarthy, Wiig and McKinnon are one-third bad. No, they’re all bad, because a machine doesn’t work with a major part missing. There are moments here in which Wiig looks at McKinnon with a certain puzzlement and disdain, and you have to wonder if this is Erin looking at Jillian or just Wiig looking at another actress and thinking, “Just stop it, already.”

Then add into the mix Jones, whose role as a transit worker turned ghostbuster is completely flat and unrealized, and you have the equivalent of Wiig and McCarthy trying to climb the mountain of comedy, each with a corpse tied around one leg.



What goes wrong is that Wiig and McCarthy are only two people, and “Ghostbusters” is a quartet.

Writer-director Paul Feig and Katie Dippold adapt the original “Ghostbusters,” tipping it in the direction of modern anxieties. And so the person waking the dead spirits throughout Manhattan is a classic lone nut (Neil Casey), and he poses an existential threat to life on this planet. Special effects have come a long way in the last generation, and they’re used to good effect in some scenes — as when demon-possessed parade floats mount an attack.

Feig (“Bridesmaids,” “Spy”) is an excellent comedy director, and we can see his hand in the performances of minor roles, such as Ed Begley Jr. as a nervous museum curator and Andy Garcia as the smiling, self-satisfied New York mayor. Feig knows what funny is, and yet he let McKinnon tank half the scenes. Maybe he didn’t realize it. Or maybe he just cut his losses, knowing that was the best he was going to get.


Last edited by Yakima Canutt on Sat Aug 20, 2016 10:42 am; edited 2 times in total

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7861
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  pinhedz on Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:03 pm

The Wrongington Post liked it.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11534
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Yakima Canutt on Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:41 am


film became politicized, it became sexist to give film bad review - ask Richard Roeper about hate tweets

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7861
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Yakima Canutt on Tue Jul 19, 2016 8:05 am



Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7861
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Yakima Canutt on Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:33 pm


Fans of the Divergent franchise might want to sit down

Fans of the Divergent franchise might want to sit down. What began as a highly anticipated potential successor to The Hunger Games may take its final bow on the small screen, with a TV movie that may or may not even star the original cast. Per Variety, the final installment in the film franchise, The Divergent Series: Ascendant, may be skipping a theatrical release altogether, with Lionsgate instead keen on wrapping up the film series with a TV movie that would introduce characters for a potential spinoff TV show.

The Divergent films began well enough, with buzzworthy Shailene Woodley toplining the adaptation of the first book in author Veronica Roth’s dystopian trilogy for director Neil Burger (Limitless). That movie didn’t hit the same box office heights as Lionsgate’s other YA franchise, The Hunger Games, and so the sequel The Divergent Series: Insurgent took it into a more action-oriented direction in the hopes of luring the teenage male demographic. That film topped out at $297.2 million worldwide, just $9 million more than its predecessor, so Lionsgate once again changed course for The Divergent Series: Allegiant with a sci-fi bent, opting to conclude the franchise with two films instead of one, as Allegiant sets up the events of The Divergent Series: Ascendant.

What Lionsgate didn’t count on, however, was that Allegiant crashed and burned at the box office this past March, scoring just $179.2 million worldwide as the studio was already in pre-production on Ascendant. A hiccup had already plagued the franchise as Insurgent and Allegiant director Robert Schwentke opted to drop out of directing Ascendant a month before, with Lionsgate subsequently setting The Age of Adaline director Lee Toland Krieger to take the helm of the series’ final installment.

However, as production on Ascendant was intended to get underway this summer, the final box office numbers for Allegiant caused Lionsgate to have a change of heart. The plan now is to have Lionsgate’s television group handle production of a TV movie that will finalize the storylines involving the current cast and introduce a new cast, who would then continue on with a TV series adaptation on either a traditional or streaming network.

This plan is in the early stages and it’s not even clear if Woodley, Theo James, Ansel Elgort or other franchise stars would return for the TV movie. I’m curious if their contractual obligations for the series extend to a TV movie if a whole other production arm takes control of the series.

Either way, this is one of the biggest franchise misses in recent memory. Usually it’s a matter of studios putting the cart before the horse with a first film that fails to take off with audiences while early plans are underway for sequels, but to get three films deep and then be faced with scrapping or severely altering the concluding installment? That’s unheard of. The closest example I can think of is the Mortal Instruments sequel at Screen Gems, which got a week or two into filming before box office receipts came in for the franchise’s first installment, and the movie was ultimately scrapped.

I’m curious to see how this plays out. Those who read the books know the franchise went in very different directions with its sequels, with Allegiant bearing little resemblance at all to Roth’s source material. So it’s not like most book fans are clamoring to see this final feature film installment through—it was already a semi-separate thing, and judging by the box office numbers, had a fanbase that did not warrant a major blockbuster budget.

I’m sure we’ll hear further word on this matter soon, but boyo, boyo, boyo ... what a turn of events.

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7861
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Yakima Canutt on Thu Jul 28, 2016 10:25 am





Yakima Canutt

Posts : 7861
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Next film I might miss

Post  Sponsored content Today at 12:33 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum