Article about summer flicks

Here's a nice opinion piece on the whole summer blockbuster thing. I agree with a lot of it.

I agree completely. I can't think of one I'll want to see this summer, besides Harry Potter (duh).

We pay nearly $10 out here, so it's extremely hard for me to shell out the necessary dough. So I don't get around to it, and by the time the movie is in rentals, I've totally forgotten about it...

Though I agree with the general sentiment- specifically that "blockbuster" is a term that lost all meaning, and that big action/adventure fare has become expected and standard and not special anymore, and that the marketing and hype totally ignores that- there are a few flicks I'll probably check out. As dumb as Troy looks, I can't resist the ancient epic thing. Chronicles of Riddick looks like a nice guilty pleasure.

I'll be hitting the movies tonight, so it's either one of those or Supersize Me.

Before every summer, I always wonder what the new and next action/adventure flick will be. Back in the day when Die Hard 3 was opening, it was boasting the largest on-screen explosion ever filmed. What an achievement. Dont get me wrong, I love the movie anyway but if it's one claim to fame is a big explosion..well then I dont know what it has to offer other people then.
As for summer blockbusters, I went with my roommates Thursday night at 11:59pm to watch the first showing of The Day After. Yes it looked cheesy and the story was more about the weather than the actual people but I saw it anyway. I enjoyed it to a point. If you've seen one Roland Emmerich film you've seen them all..the exception being Stargate.
I'll be standing in line for Spiderman 2. But I think the big summer will be next year with the release of Star Wars episode VI and the new Batman movie. (A summer which might redeem both franchises)

But I think the big summer will be next year with the release of Star Wars episode VI ...

Click to expand...

Or episode III, even ...



(sorry, just couldn't resist)

...is to convey the message that no movie is worthy of our sustained attention because in just a few days something else will take its place.

Click to expand...

This is a good point. If you want to see a movie in a theater you have to pay attention or you'll miss it.

During this years Oscar season I checked out several movies that had been nominated that (until the nominations came out) I had never even heard of. In so doing I happened upon one of last years greatest movies, The Cooler. It's just brilliant. I also very much enjoyed Mystic River.

It's interesting to think that without those Oscar nods I would have missed them both entierly. And by extension, how many excellent movies out there have totally passed me by because they were not lucky enough to be nominated for a major award?


I do enjoy the mindless 'blockbusters'. Popcorn movies, as I call them, serve a purpose. It's nothing more then a 2 hour diversion from your usual routine. Of course real blockbusters like LotR or hidden gems like The Cooler are much more satisfying (and incidentally far more likely to wind up in my DVD collection) but you can't have everything.


The article also talks about people buying DVD enmasse for apparently no more reason then that they are 'blockbusters'. Is this really the case? Do people actually buy movies that they don't like because they are popular??? Hardly. However, buying movies has gotten a lot cheaper of late. I'm sure that there are many who don't go to the movies, but instead buy those titles they want when they come out on DVD.

As for myself I never buy a movie unless I've seen it first. And I only buy it if I consider it either a truly exceptional movie or I feel that it has a high rewatchability factor (these two sometimes go hand in hand, but that is not always the case).

We actually buy some movies that we've never seen, because we want to see them, but they're on sale.

Walmart has a bin of DVDs for $5.50ea, so, considering you pay in excess of $4.00 to rent a DVD, and can sell off the DVDs you don't like for at least a couple bucks to Used Video store, we don't lose anything like this, also we get some good classics that are stripped down versions in a cardboard sleeve for $1.00 from dollar stores (last time I saw Paris, Daddy's little Dividend, etc).

I bought the series "Rumpole of the Bailey" without ever having seen even a minute of that series because I just knew I'd enjoy it. (I was not disappointed )

Now that I have joined Netflix, I seem to be renting more British series/miniseries than either movies or shows from the USA. I find that interesting.

Brainless blockbusters? Yea, they have their place. But I'm getting to where I'd rather rent them than buy them. I'm pretty sure I won't see the last (hopefully) Star Wars film in the theater, and will probably just rent it to see with friends when it comes out on DVD.

I'm not putting more money into a franchise that has gone stale. I WILL however knock down little old ladies and small children to get to the front of the queue when Asimov's first two "Foundation" books are made into a movie. :devil:

Sci-Fi movies I've heard will be made or have been made:

"I, Robot" - from the 30 second or so trailer I saw, they are not only not basing this on Asimov's work, but they have completely IGNORED his work when making this. I think I'll pass

"Renvedous with Rama" - if they don't degenerate this into a "lets all stand around and be stunned by the FX" it could be a great movie. IF they can translate Clarke's vision onto screen.

"Foundation/Foundation and Empire" - Yea! From what I've read they are definitely taking the intelligent approach to this screen adaptation (summarize as back story virtually all of Foundation, it skips through generations too quickly for an audience to get to know any characters, get to the second book where individual characters start to emerge and stay around for awhile).

"X-Men III" - I have to see it because Patrick Stewart will be in it. It's the only series of comic-book-based movies I've seen, other than the first 3 "Batman" movies

"Shrek III" - at least I've heard it will, eventually, be made. Personally, I'm waiting for the lines to die down a bit before I see "Shrek II" in the theater.

Red Dwarf?- is this s perpetual tease, or will this movie ever be made?

"Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" - YEA! Please don't let them ruin it...

"Dr. Who" - o.k. so this is a BBC series, not a movie, but I had to put it in.

I know I am forgetting many, but I'd say the future looks kind of potentially good for sci-fi fans, at least on the big screen.

In the next 2 or 3 years there may be a Dr Strange movie. The script has already been written.

I'm looking forward to some of the movies you mentioned, Hypatia.

I'm not going to be queing up to see "I Robot" - I don't think they can say this is even based on an Asimov story.

The only think about Rendezvous with Rama is that I always felt if they were going to do a film based on the Rama books, they should've started at the second one, I preferred the idea of starting off there, then having the potential to continue the rest of the story. I think Nicole Wakefield is a good strong charachter too.

A Foundation movie would be great!

"I, Robot" - from the 30 second or so trailer I saw, they are not only not basing this on Asimov's work, but they have completely IGNORED his work when making this. I think I'll pass

Click to expand...

I think I'll pass on that one as well.

I mean changing a story when making it into a movie is one thing. Completely turning the basic theme on it's head is just nonsense.

"Renvedous with Rama" - if they don't degenerate this into a "lets all stand around and be stunned by the FX" it could be a great movie. IF they can translate Clarke's vision onto screen.

Click to expand...

Never read the Rama books myself. Just not that big a fan of Clarke (I know that may seem heretical but after wading through all the 2001 books as well as some other of his choice works I just can't stomach anymore).

That said I was never the less very excited about this movie because initial reports had David Fincher as director. However when I now look it up on IMDB.com I find no mention of the movie.

Looking at 'Greg's preview' on yahoo.com I then found the following:

"Variety reports that David Fincher's next film after Panic Room is likely to be Seared (expect a preview page soon), which sort of throws this film into a wave of tumult and confusion, presuming Fincher is indeed still attached to direct (there's certainly been no suggestion otherwise). Might this now be pushed farther back, past 2003?"

I'm guessing this project has been put on indefinate hold. Most likely it will never be made (sadly).

"Foundation/Foundation and Empire" - Yea! From what I've read they are definitely taking the intelligent approach to this screen adaptation (summarize as back story virtually all of Foundation, it skips through generations too quickly for an audience to get to know any characters, get to the second book where individual characters start to emerge and stay around for awhile).

Click to expand...

I had not heard anything about the Foundation books being turned into movies. I did like them, especially 2 and 3. Again I could finding nothing on it on IMDB.com which means that the project has not gotten a green (or even a yellow) light anywhere. What little info the general internet rumor mill had had the same writer that did I, Robot writing the script. Personally I wouldn't hold my breath for this one.

"X-Men III" - I have to see it because Patrick Stewart will be in it. It's the only series of comic-book-based movies I've seen, other than the first 3 "Batman" movies

Click to expand...

Brian Singer has done wonders with that Franchise. I was never interested in the X-Men comics (prefering Spider-Man) but this has rapidly become my favorite on screen comic.

Of course the inclusion of Famke Janssen in the cast might have something to do with that ...

"Shrek III" - at least I've heard it will, eventually, be made. Personally, I'm waiting for the lines to die down a bit before I see "Shrek II" in the theater.

Click to expand...

Loved the first one. Can't wait for number two to open up over here (whenever that might be - no confirmed date as yet)

"Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" - YEA! Please don't let them ruin it...

Click to expand...

We can but hope. For me though, the original radio play is the best HHGTTG ever made. The books were good but not as good and the TV show ... well best not say to much about that.

But we can hope...

"The ships hung in the air, the exact same way that bricks don't"

Well, it's a bit soon to be looking for details on "Foundation" since they apparantly just finished writing the script.

Suppose there is any chance the same guy who seems to have ruined "I, Robot" will NOT ruin Asimov's "Foundation"?

From scifi.com:

Screenwriter Jeff Vintar (I, Robot) told SCI FI Wire that he is working on film adaptations of SF author Isaac Asimov's epic Foundation trilogy of books, with Shekhar Kapur attached to direct. The trilogy will be consolidated into two scripts, Foundation and Second Foundation, with much of the first book's events summarized as backstory, Vintar said in an interview.

"Each story is separated usually by a period of 100, 200 or 300 years," Vintar said. "Each story has a new set of characters. So adapting it into the film comes with a unique series of problems. How can I create something which is still recognizably Foundation, and yet give us a narrative that has the requirements of a film?"

Vintar added that the studio, 20th Century Fox, encouraged him to focus on the latter half of the trilogy's timeframe. "So much of the Foundation stories take place over the course of, I think, 500 years, that we're narrowing down our story to the latter half of the period. The story that we're interested in telling—[that] the studio's interested in telling—seems to lend itself to two films. That's what we're trying to do right now. But we'll see how it goes." No cast or production announcements have been made.

Click to expand...

I mean changing a story when making it into a movie is one thing. Completely turning the basic theme on it's head is just nonsense.

Click to expand...

Well, it means that it isn't really the same story. However, that alone doesn't necessarily mean that the movie can't still work as a separate entity. The Natural changed the story (mostly the ending) so that the basic underlying message was exactly reversed (from "some mistakes are unrecoverable, no matter what you do" to "redemption is possible"). It still worked as a movie.

That I, Robot (the movie) appears to have almost nothing to do with Asimov's stories is disappointing, particularly to bigger fans of the stories. However, it is still *possible* that the movie could turn out to be a pretty decent separate entity (if entirely unrelated to the sotries). I have seen so little that it is simply too early for me to tell one way or the other.

Admittedly, the track record of movie people completely changing even the basics of SF "properties" that they buy would lead one to think that the percentages are against it being any good. However, you can't quite say for sure based only on that fact.