While I have to admit that I liked this trailer, what bothered me a bit was that it–the trailer–felt somehow familiar, as if I had seen it before. Seeing that I am too broke to have any connect to either Bad Robot (J.J. Abrams’ production company) or Paramount Pictures, I have no idea why.
Then it hit me: If somehow feels like the trailer for Joss Whedon’s “The Avengers.”
I know it’s (probably) nothing like Whedon’s film, but the trailer tonally seems similar.
And wasn’t Benedict Cumberbach (BBC’s “Sherlock”) supposedly not playing Khan, from the original “Star Trek” Episode “Space Seed,” as well as “Star Trek: Wrath of Khan?” Listening to his character talk, as well as looking at him, it seems like Khan.
And apropos of nothing, it’s great to see that Abrams reeled in the lens flairs.
Thanks to Joblo.com and DeadlineHollywood for the info.
Nick Fury, the head of S.H.I.E.L.D, the guy on the right (not the Sam Jackson version of the character).
This is so cool. According to Hollywood Reporter Joss Whedon is developing a television based upon S.H.I.E.L.D (Supreme Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division) for ABC. The best thing about this is that a S.H.I.E.L.D series can deal with more traditional threats as well as those of a super-powered nature.
It’s uncertain if Whedon will direct the pilot, but I am sure that he will be involved on some level beyond developing the property.
Since Marvel flirted with bankruptcy a while ago, various studios have taken a stab at their characters, with varying degrees of success. Some, like Spider-Man or The X-Men, have been unequivocal successes, while others, like 2003′s “Hulk,” and the “The Fantastic Four” were profitable, though not nearly as successful.
So, why do studios keep making them? Because when some of them are profitable, they are EXTREMELY profitable. By way of example, first three Spider-Man films pulled in over a billion dollars at the box office.
Then there’s the Hulk, the rights for which were originally purchased by Universal Pictures. Ang Lee, hot off of “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” having never done a film like “Hulk” before, made a movie that, while not without its charms, didn’t necessarily do the character justice.
One problem was that the people who translated it to the screen–Lee, Michael France, and James Shamus–didn’t necessarily know how to relate to superheroes, or their audience. Another was that special effects at the time weren’t quite able to create a realistic-looking creature.
This ambivalence was reflected in its box office receipts, which weren’t remarkable, though enough to warrant a sequel.
Which happened in 2007, with “The Incredible Hulk.” This time Louis Leterrier is behind the camera, and he delivers a Hulk significantly more faithful to the character as he appears in comics, though financially it doesn’t do significantly better than Lee’s film, despite the aforementioned faithfulness and more advanced computer effects.
While it’s not good form to revel in the misfortune of others (which pretty much means that I am about to do just that) I have to admit that hearing that Peter Berg’s “Battleship” is looking very John Carter-ish makes me feel a bit better than it should.
First, it means that “The Avengers” continues to run riot over the box office, which is good for anyone who wants Joss Whedon to return for the sequel (and the hope that he doesn’t feel the need to kill anyone else off).
Second, there’s Universal, the studio that released ‘Battleship,’ passing on Guillermo Del Toro’s passion project, “At The Mountains of Madness,” which would have cost somewhere in the ballpark of $150 million.
Which is significantly less than the studio will probably lose over “Battleship” (which is assuming that ATOM would have been unsuccessful, which I doubt).
For anyone that hasn’t seen Marvel’s “The Avengers,”–and considering all the moolah it’s pulling in, there are probably very few people who haven’t–get out there and catch what will probably be one of the best movies of the summer.
For those who have, you’ll notice that NO time was spent exploring the origins of the assembled superheroes. Why not?
Can you say, “Iron Man,” “Iron Man 2,” “Thor,” and “Captain America?”
In other words Joss Whedon knew that the characters that he was working with were already firmly established in the public consciousness, and there was no need to re-tread already familiar territory.
Though notice that in the case of Black Widow and Hawkeye, there are hints given of their past together–in fact the first part of the movie spends quite a bit of time establishing the two characters (which is probably why it’s a bit off tonally from the rest of the film).
Which brings me to Marc Webb’s “The Amazing Spider-Man.” If you’ve noticed from the trailers, they appear to spend quite a bit of time with Spider-Man’s origin, despite the fact that there are THREE prior films that did just that, to varying degrees. Now, I understand that the origin story being presented is not exactly same one that we see in Sam Raimi’s films, but I would argue that’s it’s close enough–Peter Parker bitten by radioactive spider, father killed because of his negligence, “With great power comes great responsibility,” and so on–that we don’t need to see it again.
Then there’s the time that’s spent establishing what will be a mostly familiar origin, despite the differences, as opposed to just throwing the view into whichever situation that Spidey happens to be in.
In case anyone has doubts about “The Avengers” being THE summer movie to see (and yes, I am including “The Dark Knight Rises” in that boast) then consider this excerpt from The Hollywood Reporter:
“The Avengers is humongous — the film Marvel and its legions of fans have been waiting for.” It’s hard to imagine that anyone with an appetite for the trademark’s patented brand of fantasy, effects, mayhem and strangely dressed he-men will be disappointed; not only does this eye-popping 3D display of visual effects fireworks feature an enormously high proportion of action scenes, but director Joss Whedon has adroitly balanced the celebrity circus to give every single one of the superstar characters his or her due. Worldwide box-office returns will be, in a word, Marvelous.”
This one is going to be the real deal, and as I have posted elsewhere, I fully expect that it will pull in at least a billion dollars in worldwide box office receipts before its theatrical run is complete.
Marvel Studios’ “The Avengers” premieres Friday, May 24.
“If you don’t go into “Cabin In The Woods” expecting the best thing since “The Exorcist,” then you’ll definitely enjoy yourself.”
Vulture says that Drew Goddard’s “Cabin In The Woods,” is a “teen slasher movie that redefines the horror genre.”
It’s not necessarily what I would call a teen slasher flick, since none of the young people are teens–the youngest person happens to be a zombie–and it definitely does not redefine the horror genre.
What it is is a moderately ambitious horror film–that wimps out at the end–that plays like an episode of ‘Buffy,’ (The Initiative storyline, particularly), except for lots of weed references and the occasional boob shot.
The similarity is probably not a coincidence, since Goddard wrote it with Joss Whedon (the writer and occasional director of “Buffy, The Vampire Slayer).
What ‘Cabin’ does remarkably well is to showcase the banality of evil, as embodied by Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins, who are easily the best part of the film.
Their nonchalance over some pretty despicable acts that they initiate–in the name of what they perceive as the greater good–is pretty entertaining stuff.
The rest of the staff, while not nearly as interesting, acquit themselves well enough.
Now to the wimp-out at the end, which I will not give away except to say that the film spends much of its third act building toward some nameless horror that ended up as a reject from “Wraith Of The Titans.”
I am not a huge fan of Joss Whedon’s “Buffy, The Vampire Slayer”–which is interesting, because I think that the movie it was based upon was, on the whole, a lot more fun. One reason is that it shares a vampire master with the remake of “Salem’s Lot,” (which is so much better than Tobe Hooper’s version) and everyone knows that the enjoyability factor of a film is directly proportional to how often Rutger Hauer makes an appearance.
It works like one of those laws that govern the universe, like gravity, for instance.
Then there’s Kristy Swanson‘s Buffy, who was a lot more ditzier than Sarah Michelle Gellar‘s interpretation, which better suited the character.
Though I didn’t start this to write about Hauer and Swanson, but to sing the praises of Joss Whedon, who converted me with ‘The Initiative’ storyline from ‘Buffy’ as well as “Serenity,” which was much better than many make it out to be.
Then there was “Angel,” which worked a lot better than the premise may have led one to believe.
Anyway, you might have heard that he has two films coming out, one being a little film called “The Avengers.”
The other is “Cabin In The Woods,” which Whedon co-wrote and Drew Goddard directs (Goddard also wrote “Cloverfield,” quite possibly one of the most irritating movies ever).
‘Cabin’ is supposedly wicked clever, and supposedly going to change the rules for horror films.
I’ll believe it when I see it (probably over the weekend, though tomorrow is Friday, the 13th; a perfect release date for a horror film).
I have posted the trailer for “The Avengers,” and it’s all sorts of awesome. There are explosions, though unlike the typical Michael Bay production, there also seems to be some character development going on. I can’t wait to see how Joss Whedon juggles all the star-power involved with what appears to be huge special effects.
I know that this is just a trailer with minimal dialogue, but it has an epic feel to it, fitting the subject matter.
Joss Whedon Rocks
I like Joss Whedon (which is a little odd–and mildly creepy–since I have never met the man). He not only can direct kick-arse action films (“Serenity,” “The Avengers”) but he also has this snarky way toward responding to events around him that’s refreshing, especially in these days of self-important commentators that are more about telling you what the news is, as opposed to giving you the information, and letting you decide yourself.
Here’s his commentary on the upcoming Presidential election, and why you should perhaps consider voting for Mitt Romney.
Personally, as much as I like the idea of zombies, I like it even better not facing them, so Obama is my man.
Share this:
Like this: