Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 2009 - Anything Exciting Coming Out?

This is topic 2009 - Anything Exciting Coming Out? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005701

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 02-01-2009, 08:55 AM:

Watchmen - I'm curious. I read the book last summer, but I appreciated it more than I enjoyed it.
Star Trek - Meh. I like the idea of a reboot here, but this looks too 90210 to me.
Harry Potter - I never got into HP myself, but I understand the popularity.
G.I.Joe - Meh. "From the director of The Mummy!" Ooooh -scary Cobra!
Transformers 2 - Didn't even bother with the first one.
Terminator 4 - The first film is in my top 5... But my confidence is very low in McG. (I'm more excited to see T2 at a flashback this month!)

(I'm sure many of these will do well... They just don't do anything for me.)

Three that I AM excited about:
The Road
Up (the trailer doesn't excite me much, but I will be there on day 1 because of Pixar's track record)
Avatar

Am I overlooking anything?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 02-01-2009, 10:26 AM:

quote: Geoff Jones
Transformers 2 - Didn't even bother with the first one.

You should "bother" with it. It's quite good.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-01-2009, 10:48 AM:

quote: Geoff Jones
Up (the trailer doesn't excite me much

Not me.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 02-01-2009, 01:10 PM:

Now THAT'S funny! [thumbsup]

quote: Geoff Jones
Three that I AM excited about: The Road

You're excited about a movie based on one of the most incredibly and suicidally depressing novels of the last five years? Well, OK, but you might not want to bring a date . . .

I'd be exited about Watchmen, but two hours and forty minutes of philosophsing super heroes sounds a bit tedious. I guess that leaves Up! and Avatar for me, and possibly The Wolfman, Toy Story 3-D and the Pelham 1-2-3 remake

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-01-2009, 02:01 PM:

I was looking over the summer release schedule the other day, and aside from a handful of potential blockbusters, it looks like the weakest summer line up in years. May should be a pretty busy month and July should be very busy. But June looks pretty weak and August looks like a graveyard.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-01-2009, 04:34 PM:

quote:
2009 - Anything Exciting Coming Out?

Nope.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 02-01-2009, 04:56 PM:

I cant wait for "Public Enemys" Michael Mann doing a 20's/30's gangster flick about John Dillinger?! Yeah I'm there for it, its to bad its being released on the 1st of July. Bad release date.

I agree with Chris, Transformers was a good movie. Just watched the Super Bowl spot for the new one and it looks bigger and better then the first.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-01-2009, 04:56 PM:

For me, AVATAR, STAR TREK, and INGLORIOUS BASTERDS are the big ones.

As far as other movies are concerned, I'm really excited about FANBOYS. William Shatner plays himself. 'Nuff said.

Steven Soderbergh potentially has three movies coming out this year. THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE, THE INFORMANT, and maybe his Spalding Gray documentary. Each of those sound very interesting.

Then there's new movies from the Coen Brothers, Robert Rodriguez, and Antoine Fuqua. I don't know anything about them, but I'll see anything those guys do.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 02-02-2009, 02:54 AM:

(500) Days of Summer

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 03-22-2009, 07:01 PM:

I had forgotten about the Toy Story re-release. I'm very excited about that. I assume there will be 2D showings also... can anyone confirm?

I'm also (honestly) excited about Bruno: Delicious Journeys Through America for the Purpose of Making Heterosexual Males Visibly Uncomfortable in the Presence of a Gay Foreigner in a Mesh T-Shirt. Who's going to put the whole title up on the marquee?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-22-2009, 08:34 PM:

Wow, that title is even too long for our marquee!

I'm severely disappointed in the teaser one-sheets for the new Harry Potter film....they've jumped on the abbreviated-title bandwagon, putting "HP6" on the poster.

I also nominate "Inglorious Basterds" as the title that will be misspelled the most on marquees this year.

Posted by Sally Ann Burgess (Member # 4746) on 03-22-2009, 10:43 PM:

I'm mildly excited to see Terminator 4, but Bruno for me is the must-see this year.
Actually, I would trade T4 for just 20 mins of Bruno.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-22-2009, 11:46 PM:

I saw a trailer for Public Enemies a week ago, and wow you can totally tell it was shot on video. It just didn't look right to me.

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 03-23-2009, 01:49 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I also nominate "Inglorious Basterds" as the title that will be misspelled the most on marquees this year.

Especially if can be misspelled here ... twice

Inglourious Basterds

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 03-23-2009, 04:26 AM:

i like that public enemies looks like what it is. i like honesty. film, when allowed to express its filmic properties, looks fantastic. video will never excite me as much, but it does have aesthetic possibilities of its own and they should be explored. video trying to be film and ending up as nondescript visual mush is the worst. see: knowing.

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 03-24-2009, 09:10 PM:

quote: Carl Martin
see: knowing.

Um... thanks anyway, but no. [puke]

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 03-25-2009, 01:01 PM:

quote: Sally Ann Burgess
Bruno for me is the must-see this year

I will see it, but he was my least favorite character from the HBO show. I would have rather they gone back and made another Ali G movie - this one in a similar format as Borat. Indahouse just didn't work.

My must-see is Whatever Works because Larry David is hilarious.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-25-2009, 03:00 PM:

After being totally disgusted by Borat, I won't even attempt to watch Bruno.

I made it about halfway through Borat. But once he came back to the table with his bag of shit, that was it for me. Although I didn't find the movie even slightly funny, I was willing to give it a chance up to that point. After that I felt it was simply a waste of my time to keep watching.

Posted by Robert Crabtree (Member # 4795) on 03-26-2009, 02:14 PM:

Later this year, Almodóvar's newest film, Los abrazos rotos, is supposed to come stateside. I like most of his stuff, and hope it'll roll out to some of the art houses nearby.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-26-2009, 02:34 PM:

quote: Mike Heenan
I saw a trailer for Public Enemies a week ago, and wow you can totally tell it was shot on video. It just didn't look right to me.

Not only that, but I find it very retarded for the video look to be showing up in a 1930's era gangster flick. It's not quite as laughable as SD video-based stock footage of American battleships firing their guns showing up in the John Woo WWII movie Windtalkers (the footage was blown up so scan lines were plainly visible). Still, it's pretty bad.

The video look may seem fine for a contemporary, current day feature like Collateral or Miami Vice, especially with all the video-based reality shows about police officers being shown on TV. The public is familiar with real life cops being presented with the video look. However, it just sucks for a story based on people who lived and died decades ago.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-26-2009, 03:33 PM:

I've always found that argument to be kind of weird considering how technologically advanced even film is compared to what was available during periods in which many movies are set. Should movies set a hundred years ago be in black and white too?

Sure, it looks a little weird right now, but that's because it hasn't really been done before. After a while, it won't be any stranger than any other format.

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 03-27-2009, 07:13 PM:

Public Enemies... so a 30s version of Heat? Sign. Me. Up.

500 Days of Summer. Joseph Gordon-Levitt has been Sundance gold for 3 years, Fox picked this up for a (limited?) summer release, can't wait!

The Brothers Bloom. Director of Brick, a shame Summit keeps pushing this back.

Where the Wild Things Are. Watching the trailer on Monsters vs. Aliens almost made me cry. I can't wait.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-27-2009, 11:50 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
I've always found that argument to be kind of weird considering how technologically advanced even film is compared to what was available during periods in which many movies are set. Should movies set a hundred years ago be in black and white too?

Some movie productions have chosen that route out of artistic reasons.

At least film existed in the 1930s. Even color film technology was developed during the 1930s. The digital video look doesn't have any relevance for that time. A show taking place during the 1930s doesn't need to look like a present day video-documentary of an episode of Cops or the 6 o'clock news. I think Michael Mann has either turned into a total fanboy of the "digital" buzzword or he just likes the convenience of shooting on video over the higher quality you get from shooting on film.

Maybe that's also what's holding up the Blu-ray release of Heat: good looking anamorphic 35mm film quality. Can't have something like a catalog title you directed 14 years ago upstaging the look of newer "digital" based movies created a couple or so years ago. Mann probably shouldn't worry. With the current management at Warner Bros. Home Video they'll probably do one of their DNR-it-to-death smoothie video transfers that kills all the fine detail out of the negative. Then the "digital" stuff can be claimed to have superior image quality.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 03-28-2009, 06:05 AM:

I hate the argument that "It doesn't look like the 1930's so the movies going to suck." As long as the story's good, the action is good, and the acting is solid then who cares what it was shot on. Your average movie goer who is going to make this movie money don't give two shits what it was filmed on.

If you really want to complain about something, why don't you complain about the horrible CGI Depp that hops over the counter with the Tommy Gun towards the start of the trailer. That's something to bitch about, not the format the film was shot in.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-28-2009, 01:40 PM:

I mainly complaining about the video look of that movie because it's making the image quality look like shit. It's distracting, just like the bad CGI you noticed.

If the "filmmakers" did a proper job with the videography people like me wouldn't be noticing the electronic look of it quite so easily.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-28-2009, 02:02 PM:

Yeah I agree with Bobby. My beef with the "look" of it is just that the image doesn't look all that great. I dont think just because the movie takes place in the 30s it needs to be shot in black and white and full frame, but when I saw the trailer, it just looked like a higher quality episode of Cops.