red snow

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About red snow

  • Rank
    Prince of Procrastination

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Bristol, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

9,304 profile views
  1. I think that approach by netflix is only damaging if they make films that could have benefitted from the big screen. I don't know how many films they have where that's the case? Okja maybe (need to see it). War Machine? Not from when I watched it at home. So far Netflix seems to be creating a direct-to-video style which I don't think is trying to replace cinema as they know others are keeping that afloat. Amazon are different in the sense they've always had a "to buy" option outside their "prime" model so it's ok for them to have the delayed release from cinema to streaming. Netflix's whole thing is access to everything at the same time so I can see why it's an issue. I guess Netflix could please Nolan and everyone by investing in cinema screens down the road where subscribers watch for free. Given they charge more for HD subscriptions they could charge an extra $ a month for free access to see screenings of their films at the cinema. I don't know how much much ammo a spitfire could carry but I thought the use of bullets was conservative by film standards. I loved how "basic" the fighter planes were, from using a notepad for navigation to guesstimating the amount of fuel (which I know was due to a fault rather than a default). My admiration of those pilots increased even further upon realising just how adaptable they were. I also always find it amazing how the human mind/body can adapt and feel at home in things it was never designed for. Those pilots flew those planes as an extension of themselves and I'm sure much of their flying was instinct.
  2. That article is pretty good, thanks. I also like the idea of directors forming a help-group for cinema. I think some of the criticism of Netflix is overly harsh - there are a lot of great indie films that can be enjoyed on the small screen and the fact netflix is now funding some of those is only good for the industry. I do agree that "spectacle" film still requires the big screen but I'm not sure Netflix is really doing that with its films yet. If anything there are aspects of shows like "Narcos" and "sense8" where I sometimes wish I could watch scenes at the cinema. In general it's the visually engaging films that take up cinema these days. There's the superhero effects-laden works and then there are Nolan/tarrantino style films too. Blade Runner 2049 trailers look 5x better at the cinema than they do on a laptop screen. The scenes in the desert are gorgeous.
  3. I enjoyed this a lot. Like others have mentioned I found "interstellar" frustratingly flawed. This one is a return to form and quite different from his other films in that it's quite straight-forward (besides some narrative tricks) and focuses on the event. This is a good thing given the dialogue/characterisation was the worst aspect of interstellar. He immerses you in the event completely and while I came out of it not really knowing any of the characters I felt like I could empathise with what they had been through which can be just as important. I liked how Nolan didn't rely on gore at all yet still got the terror and confusion across. I'm not sure it will have as much of a rewatch factor as most of his other films do but I 100% see where Nolan is coming from with his vendetta against Netflix and what he perceives as an attempt by them to destroy cinema. Unless you have a massive screen and a great sound system, this film really needs to be seen at a cinema. Although I was left thinking that spitfires have incredible gliding capabilities at the end of the film, that's my only real quibble with it.
  4. I've read a few comments on the humour of how a franchise famed for fake moustaches are having such an issue with Cavill maybe having to get rid of his 'tash for Justice League reshoots. Cavill showed a great sense of humour in responding to this. Seems like a social media storm in a teacup but at least it gave us some funny photos and the phrase "Justache League"
  5. I can understand people being upset at how SGA was canned and replaced with SGU. Although I agree it seems hard to imagine how this feeling could remain if they watched some of the show. I guess an argument could be made that SGU side-stepped some of the evolution of Earth-human society on a galactic scale by deliberately separating the cast from the existing continuity. Although this was also true to some extent with SGA. It's understandable to conceive a plot that initially allows some isolation so a show can establish its own identity. Exactly - if I was a producer or in a writers room and read the above as a brief I'd find it fascinating the amount of directions you could take it. Much moreso than being told it's set in the 40s and you can't do "x" because the show from the 90s did have that until 2007. Another factor I think was key to the TV franchise was its contemporary setting. I think that's often forgotten about but it meant the human characters were all people we could recognise, who lived lives comparable to our own. It also allowed for pop culture references, etc which I think does help the viewer buy into the world. It's why a show set in the far future or in the past doesn't have quite the same feel as a contemporary setting.
  6. I can remember listening to him at a launch for the event in London back in the day and he stated quite clearly that it was a homage to "Point Blank" (Payback was a remake with Mel Gibson). Maybe he's just upset no-one has spotted that influence over Kill Bill? I guess Kill Bill and Point Blank have the same revenge plot at heart. The big difference is that BSC is a team effort where the others are more of a lone wolf venture.
  7. Kehmet and Cyclades are both decent war-based board games that should appeal to "risk" style players. Carcassonne is still my go to favourite - easy but with lots of different strategies depending on the tiles and people you play against. Great for playing at the pub on a rainy weekend.
  8. ^^^^ There'll be some lazy excuse about the technology getting too advanced and it making it hard to create a recognisable show, no doubt. It's just a bit infuriating because in making a prequel which really has no connection to the shows we've seen they will judge it's success as a test for whether people want more stargate. The thing is if it turns out no-one wants a prequel show set in the 40s that doesn't mean we don't want a SG-1 continuation. If I watch it though by the same warped logic they can conclude that viewers really want a 1940s stargate show. Screwed either way! I'm just hoping they'll at least try a few SG webisode ideas before rushing to any conclusions. Shame to hear the comic is crap. To be honest I've been burned so often on comic continuations (Angel and farscape) that I've given up on them. They really need to be by the showrunners or with heavy involvement from them eg Buffy and Avatar. Even then you realise a lot is lost without the actors presence. Your mention of books is a good one. Even better would be an audio adaptation involving as much of the cast as possible - like they've recently done with the X-files.
  9. Great, another fucking prequel show/movie. How imaginative. It's like they are deliberately trying to emulate Discovery in every way. What are the chances the Goa'uld are now giant CGI dragons that shrink into hosts ears and the Jaffa literally have animal heads? I'm interested in new material - one of the great things about the SG-1 franchise was that humanity actually incorporated the technology into society (secretly) so we went from soldiers stumbling through stargates to fleets of interstellar warships with warp drives. I'd like to see where they are nearly a decade further on. Not them digging up the original stargate.
  10. The advertising would be pretty false in terms of the posters if Superman wasn't the one returning in the final act. I'm not ruling out Green Lantern or possibly even supergirl (she could be a Joss Whedon reshoot insertion) but the film will have screwed up if Superman is not the last minute saviour. Did anyone see the pictures of Cavill at the polo event he was at during comic-con? That "moustache" would be murder to regrow. I think they are just trying to keep a non-secret, secret. Maybe outside of social media there are some people thinking Superman isn't in the film/is still dead? They'll get a nice surprise when they watch it. Although maybe it's going to be Luke Skywalker levels of screentime?
  11. No need to apologise - I really didn't point out his lack of film experience, so you were right. Johns did start out in film - I think he was an understudy/assistant to superman director Richard Donner. But I guess the implication was he didn't take off there or he wouldn't have wound up in comics. Now he's taken a circular route back. So I think his track record so far is Wonder Woman.
  12. Odd, I thought I had stressed that comics success don't translate to film success but on a re-read I hadn't. That's an obvious caveat I should have included. If he can translate those skills to films it'll be pretty promising. We do need to see more films with his involvement before we know whether this is the case. The good thing about Jeph Loeb is that his work in TV prevents him from writing any more terrible Marvel comics. I think Loeb's role is to have an idea for how he wants a show to turn out and then selects the right people for the job. He's not that involved beyond that and in the examples you mention it's clear that the quality of the showrunner determines the quality of the show (eg guy who made "Fargo" makes a great "legion" show,while the guy who did the last few seasons of "dexter" made a mediocre/poor "iron fist"). I guess we can still lay blame at Loeb's feet for that - especially if "inhumans" is bad because it means he's hired a bad creator twice. In a similar vein I guess Johns has to have an idea of what he wants "wonder woman" etc to be like and then needs to be involved in hiring a director that brings that idea to life. Using a comics analogy i guess Loeb/Johns are more like Editors. They are responsible for hiring the talent but the talent is responsible for the product. If the talent continually makes poor product then the editor is to blame for bad hiring choices. But I could be talking out my ass as I have no direct experience in either media
  13. creator combos in comics are a thing to be cherished. Ellis and Hunt on paper should be equally/more entertaining than Simone/Hunt but I've yet to get into the "wildstorm" book. I think some of the best authors/artists are the ones that recognise a good partnership when it clicks. It still strikes me as odd how Simone is the sole creator in the credits. It's fairly rare these days that the writers don't include the initial artist as a creator. Then again it may be that Simone has done the designs for the project and Hunt is interpreting it.
  14. It's still one where I'll await reviews before going into it. So far the DCEU reviews have been on the money - if it's shit it tends to be and if it's good it's fun. I wish Marvel reviews were more reliable in this sense. I think the other thing to keep in mind with Geoff Johns is that he's a good franchise builder. People have their opinions about some of his storytelling but his track record with comics is very strong. He turned Green Lantern from a struggling solo title into 4 plus comics that at one point were the best selling titles (although I've heard the same was true of Kyle Rayner's adventures under Ron Marz at one point) with genuinely well-received and successful "events". He had similar success with Flash and Aquaman. I realise it's a different thing getting films to work but he seems like a good person to try out. He may not be turning out Dark Knight trilogies but his films could easily be as entertaining and fun as the MCU
  15. I agree the TV show nailed his powers (even the faithful keeping of nonsensical elements) and X-men Quicksilver is more "Flash" than comic Quicksilver. I'm releived his powers aren't suit based which is what i initially thought (although I guess he wasn't in a suit in the (trailers) BvS scenes. At least he doesn't appear to be a megalomaniac in the film unlike his TV counterpart. Rogue One was the example I was going to use. Maybe Han Solo will turn out to be another. But I think this kind of thing happens more often than we realise and that it's only in the age of "knowing everything" that it appears reshoots/changes in approach are a new thing. Usually applied to the more fandom style of film where there is super scrutiny too. I guess in terms of DCEU there is Suicide Squad as a precedent for reshoots/edits. So that aspect is worrying. But it seems that's also been covered upthread I think those elements were probably always there, especially with Aquaman as they are setting up his film in Justice League. Again with Suicide Squad it shows the art of a trailer. I suspect with the first one they were still thinking of Batman as their lynchpin and BvS was the only film they had out (Supes doesn't really work for the trailers given his "death") they had to appeal to viewers of that film. The drawback being if you hated BvS you were left thinking Justice League was more of the same. But if Wonder Woman had bombed she'd still be appearing like she was in the background. No idea whether the story has been changed. You can add in scenes of dialogue and expand on certain scenes/characters without changing the story too much. I still guess the story is "Justice League fights the heralds of Darkseid/ Superman returns". If they had ditched the Darkseid story and the Justice League were now fighting Lex Luthor and Joker that would have been a fundamental story change.