So, with all the Hobbit excitement and Avatar bashing, it's easy to overlook some of the other projects currently in development. I'm interested in gauging the various levels of anticipation the movie buffs here at UCF have regarding the following random sample of upcoming movies. Indicate your interest with a rating of 1 to 5, with 5 being 'very excited, to 1 being 'who cares!'

*Note* - I fully e xp ect our resident cynic (that's Sedhal, for all you newbies) to give all these movies a personal rating of 1.

Predator - (reboot - not a remake but an actual continuation - almost Predator 3) - 4

Alien - (prequel - yep, Ridley is going back to his baby; you can call this one Alien Zero) - 5

Thor - (Marvel attempts to bring to the big screen what is possibly the most difficult super-hero story of them all.) - 3

Dune - (yep, yet another screen version of the classic novel.) - 2

Sin City 2 - (need I say more?) - 4

Men In Black 3 - (I consider this one unnecessary, as I found the first two only mildly amusing and interesting.) - 1

P.S. Feel free to add your own entries to this list.

Smart thread.

Predator: 1 (who cares, really?)

Alien: 3 (I'd give it 2 just because I'm curious, and I'd give it 4 because it's
Ridley, so this is the middle, I'm just cautious.)

Thor: 1 (I know many people care, but I don't.)

Dune: 1 (No need for adaptation, Lynch proved that a long time ago.)

Sin City 2: 4 (Very excited, but Rodriguez I doubt, he might screw it this
time.)

MIB 3: 1 (No comment.)

Predator - 4

Alien - 3

Thor - 4

Dune - 2

Sin City 2 - 5 (been waiting for this since i turned off Sin City 1)

Men In Black 3 - 1 or 2 (Didn't know about this one... I liked the first one a lot better than the 2nd... maybe because I was about 15 when MIB 1 came out)

Ghostbusters III - this one, has been "confirmed" by a few people involved as being very early in development, mainly by Aykroyd, Ramis and Reitman, but I wouold be very excited for this movie (and then probably completely dissapointed, haha) - 5

Spiderman 4 - 4 or 5... I'm a sucker for seeing Marvel movies

1

1


1


1


1


1


1


1
1
1

1

1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1



Val is right. Okay, Ridley on Alien I'll keep an open mind for. He's my 2nd favorite filmmaker. But I really really loathe rehashing and a total lack of originality, as I always say. Are we doomed to endure an endless loop of the same ten franchises for the rest of humanity? Thor? **** Thor. **** Marvel. Avi Arad and Marvel films are just turning cinema into the comics: convoluted cross-overs and sensless cash cows. Hulk in IronMan, IronMan in Hulk, Nick Fury in both, all in The Avengers ( ), etc. Thor? Really? That will suck so bad. Spiderman 4? I like 1 and 2. Not holding my breath for 4. I'll give it this - at least it's not a remake. If remakes were considered sequels, Dune could be "Dune 10". Here's the subtitle I'll give it before needing a trailer to confirm this: "The O.C. in space", or "The S.C.: Spice County". Sin City 2? Well I WOULD be excited if it wasn't for all the Johnny Depp hype and the fact that Frank Miller completely wore out Sin City's style with the Spirit (honestly, too much of a good thing and now it sucks). Yawn.

I've always hated Men in Black despite liking both the lead actors in it. And Ghostbusters can take a hike and get lost with all the other 80s cast reunions (face it, that's all it is).

Sed raises many good points...

Now let us go drown some puppies...

Ghostbusters 3 - 2 - I was excited about this one until I heard that it would be a bunch of new kids taking over from the old guys. I get the premise and the logic behind it, but I don't have to like it. Leave my memories alone, please.

Spider Man 4 - 1 - Love the Marvel movies, but I think that after three movies, Spidey has overstayed his welcome. It's just a cash cow now.

I am cautiously excited about the premise of an Avengers movie, but given the scope of the project and the differing heroes involved, I can't help but feel it's a massive failure in the making.

Iron Man should stay technology and Hulk should stay fantasy, I can't STAND cross-overs. Especially with Iron Man of all the movies. The best Marvel movie yet (imo) and they're going to throw it away so hastily. Take this X-Men crap for example. The first two movies rocked (I'll always have a soft spot for the first). But now they're doing Wolverine backstories, Magneto backstories, Professor X, a Deadpool spinoff from the Wolverine spinoff, a Cyclops spinoff from the Wolverine spinoff, and even Halle Berry wanted a movie about Storm in Africa. And *** was with Sabertooth. Nice continuity, people. Just like the comics... different writers, different artists, NO continuity or logic. **** Marvel in the rectum. My childhood will always remember it as it was (pre-Hollywood perversion).

Oh yeah, not to mention they needed Sam-will-do-any-role-for-five-bucks-L. Jackson to play Nick Fury. Gee, I wonder what they had in mind... character, or fans flocking to Sam with a wad of money.

Predators - 3 - I will definitely go see it but I was never as into the Predator movies as I was the Alien movies. And I thought the AVP movies were dreck.

Alien prequel - 4 - In the past, my interest level for this would have been 5+ but there are a number of mitigating factors now. First and foremost, I'm really losing my taste for grossness in movies, and the Alien films have always had a fair bit of that. Second, no Sigourney Weaver. To me, it isn't really Alien without her. Third, Ridley is a director almost with equal, but he's not a writer. No matter how good the director, if the story is bad, the movie is bad. Finally, it's a prequel, but what's it going to be about? I heard one rumor it's to be about the crew of the derelict, but if that's so, we'll either have a movie full of subtitles, which would be bothersome, or a movie full of these completely non-humanoid aliens speaking perfect English with nary a human in sight to be speaking it to, and that would seem pretty silly.

Thor - 0 - I'm not a big comic superhero fan, and I've never even heard of this one before.

Dune - 2 - I'm trying to remember if I knew they were redoing this. It's almost guaranteed to be lousy, unless they make it 4+ hours long (and break it into 2 parts) and have a tremendous writer.

Sin City 2 - 0 - I loathed the first one. It was well made, but it was one of those movies that made me feel like my brain needed a shower after watching it.

Men In Black 3 - 1 - The chances of this being good are pretty slim. The second one was only just ok.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Ghostbusters 3 - 2 - I was excited about this one until I heard that it would be a bunch of new kids taking over from the old guys. I get the premise and the logic behind it, but I don't have to like it. Leave my memories alone, please.
[/quote]

I grew up watching these Val. I think, the first Ghostbusters, is still my favorite movie of all time. Definitely in my top 5.

That said, I think Ghostbusters 3 could work. They did resurrect Indiana Jones afterall.

For me, GB3 needs to have all the original actors as the Ghostbusters themselves as well as Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis

[quote=""Curunir""]For me, GB3 needs to have all the original actors as the Ghostbusters themselves as well as Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis [/quote]

Well, according to Ackroyd, that's pretty much a lock. Himself, Murray, Ramis, Moranis, Hudson, and Weaver are a go if this movie gets made, and it seems they are moving forward with it. I have no problems with that. What irks me is this whole 'passing of the torch' concept that Hollywood seems to deem necessary in order to make these kind of movies these days. Despite what Sed mentioned about this endless loop of rehashed franchises, I would love to see the old guys come out for one more round of ghostbusting. Problem is, the plot will more likely revolve around the tired old formula of trying to find the hip, cool, and good-looking 90210 youngsters that Hollywood is obsessed with, and turn them into the new Ghostbusters so that they can then churn out more sequels ad nauseum.

To be honest, if it wasn't for some sentimental attempt at bringing continuity to the series and providing closure for the original characters, I doubt they would have even appeared in this movie, and it would have just been called 'The New Ghostbusters.'

It saddens me that they won't bother writing a script that makes a movie like this work merely on the merits of the original cast, and then just leave it at that: a trilogy. Instead they have to get new people so they can option sequels. It's nothing but a desperate cash grab at the e xp ense of our treasured memories. No thanks, I'll wait for cable.

I don't like the idea of the "younger crew" having the torch passed to them either. For me, this situation is similar to music. Take musicians for example. They don't get so old that the band consists of completely alternate members. Take Fleetwood Mac... all those guys/gals are now in their 60s... and I don't think theyll be passing the Fleetwood Mac "name" to any youngsters. That just wouldn't work. I see how it's different for film, but it shouldn't necessarily be.

Bad thing about the ghostbusters cast is the fact that they are almost ghosts themselves. They arent of the "I am in as good of shape at 60 as I was at 20" kind of people... have you seen Aykroyd, Ramis and Murray lately? They'd look retarded in a Ghostbusters movie right now (although, I'd still love to see it)

BC, you completely missed the point of my post.

Yes, I have seen what they look like, and yes, they will look a bit ridiculous in their jumpsuits and proton packs, but so what? What I was trying to get at is that there seems to be no one in Hollywood with the creativity or will to write a good movie that would fit the situation and go with it, rather than using it as an excuse to introduce younger characters. Why do you have to be young, beautiful, and in shape to bust ghosts? What are we saying about age, wisdom, maturity, and a few extra pounds of weight? Take what you have and write a good story that focuses on having the cast overcoming the natural ageing process and conquering the villain regardless. Don't give me this bullcrap about letting the young ones take over. It's just formula, and it stinks. By this line of thought, soon there will be no work for actors over 40, unless the role calls for someone to have a grandfather.

I completely agree. Look at the original movie... the actors were by no means anywhere near "90210" actors. I'd LOVE to see the original guys in the movies again.

What bothers me is some of the things I have read the actors saying, especially a quote from Ramis talking about Egon, he was almost alluding to Egon, himself, being a ghost of some sort, which would suck.

Also, I thought I read that Moranis won't be in the movie if it was made as he is retired from film and wouldnt even come out of retirement to voice the video game

Actually, the Ghostbusters coming out of retirement to fight one of their own who is now a ghost would be far more interesting than watching a bunch of kids taking over.

Here's the way I see it: the Hollywood big wigs don't feel the original cast commands the star power and marquee attention they once did. To the current generation of young moviegoers, these people are practically fossils, and to accountants, that means no money. Not that there isn't some merit to this concept, because sadly enough it is true, but it simply means it is not a movie being made for Ghostbuster fans, but simply the attempted reopening of a mine that was long ago tapped out of natural resources.

Didn't hear anything about Moranis, but if that's right, it would be a shame not to see him again. Then again, he's probably the smart one of the whole bunch.

Too bad its my age and younger that are those movie goers you refer too, although my circle of friends appreciates those guys that were in the ghostbusters and would much rather them than your run of the mill new age Star Trek actors.

[quote=""Valkrist""]What are we saying about age, wisdom, maturity, and a few extra pounds of weight? [/quote]

Not to take this further off-point, but I'm not sure the Ghostbuster characters would have added much wisdom or maturity in spite of the years....

lol... that is an excellent and valid point, considering not only the cast involved, but also the characters. Yet, buffoons or not, there's no denying that e xp erience and a lesson or two learned along the road of life could lead to some great moments onscreen for these guys.

Just thought I'd update this old thread a little and revisit my thoughts on some of the movies that are coming our way. Feel free to share.

The Hobbit - My misgivings are well documented, but I haven't completely given up hope of this turning out good yet.

Pirates of the Caribbean 4 - Why did they bother?

Spiderman reboot - Unforgiveable and shameless.

Prometheus (formerly the Alien prequel) - Once the Star Trek writers got involved and the Alien connection was dropped, I lost interest. Pass.

Wrath of the Titans - Ok, you guys get one more chance to do this right.

Batman: The Dark Knight Rises - Sigh. Catwoman? Really? Ok, I'll still watch it, but it better be good.

Mad Max 4: Fury Road - I'll say it again: this series is nothing without Mel Gibson. I'm curious about it, but skeptical.

I'm excited for PotC 4, if only because it's a new Pirates and I always get excited for a new Pirates movie. I'm not e xp ecting anything special, especially given the scope of the last one, but I'll go see it nonetheless.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Pirates of the Caribbean 4 - Why did they bother?[/quote]

I'm not a huge Pirates fan, but since I just finished watching the complete Deadwood series and its star, Ian McShane, is going to be in the new Pirates movie, that makes me interested.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Prometheus (formerly the Alien prequel) - Once the Star Trek writers got involved and the Alien connection was dropped, I lost interest. Pass. [/quote]

They've been ambiguous about how much it will have to do with Alien, but they've said it's definitely in the Alien universe, the story has Alien DNA (meaning it's akin to Alien, not that the story is about Alien DNA), and the Space Jockey is in it, so I think it will still have a strong connection to Alien. If you know the story of the mythical Prometheus, he stole fire from the Gods and gave it to man, and for that he was eternally punished by being chained up and having a vulture eat out his liver (which regrew every day). I suspect the name and the reference will bear on the Space Jockey's race, or some other extraterrestrial race, that bioengineered the Alien and pays a terrible price for doing so. If the movie is more about that race than their hell-born progeny, I could see why they would not be calling this a prequel. Moreover, they're probably aware of the disdain that's held for the innumerable prequels and sequels that plague us, and saying it's not a prequel could just be a way to deflect that criticism and antipathy.

But like you, once the Star Trek team, or at least the one member, became involved, it put a damper on my enthusiasm. My enthusiasm was relatively tepid to begin with, as I've grown more squeamish with age and have lost my taste for grossness and body horror (not that I had a strong taste for it to begin with). I guess my status toward it would be best described as curiosity.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Just thought I'd update this old thread a little and revisit my thoughts on some of the movies that are coming our way. Feel free to share.

The Hobbit - My misgivings are well documented, but I haven't completely given up hope of this turning out good yet.

Pirates of the Caribbean 4 - Why did they bother?

Spiderman reboot - Unforgiveable and shameless.

Prometheus (formerly the Alien prequel) - Once the Star Trek writers got involved and the Alien connection was dropped, I lost interest. Pass.

Wrath of the Titans - Ok, you guys get one more chance to do this right.

Batman: The Dark Knight Rises - Sigh. Catwoman? Really? Ok, I'll still watch it, but it better be good.

Mad Max 4: Fury Road - I'll say it again: this series is nothing without Mel Gibson. I'm curious about it, but skeptical.[/quote]
Going down your list Val my thoughts are similar;
Hobbit's a wait and see with both fingers crossed that all the rumors and media fluff are wrong.
Pirates, Spidey, Titan Wrath, Mad Max- All popcorn Hollywood flix about making $$.
Prometheus is a wait and see, but it's easier to think I'll roll my eyes than be impressed.
And as far as Batman is concerned, of course Catwoman, doesn't every single movie these days include a butt kicking chick? And just to clarify my opinion here; it isn't the Women rule attitude that bugs me, it's the way men have responded with their tails between their legs and ears back, like a great book I read called "Wild at Heart" where the author points out how so many men have become a bunch of emasculated spineless wimps because of it.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Just thought I'd update this old thread a little and revisit my thoughts on some of the movies that are coming our way. Feel free to share.

The Hobbit - My misgivings are well documented, but I haven't completely given up hope of this turning out good yet.

Pirates of the Caribbean 4 - Why did they bother?

Spiderman reboot - Unforgiveable and shameless.

Prometheus (formerly the Alien prequel) - Once the Star Trek writers got involved and the Alien connection was dropped, I lost interest. Pass.

Wrath of the Titans - Ok, you guys get one more chance to do this right.

Batman: The Dark Knight Rises - Sigh. Catwoman? Really? Ok, I'll still watch it, but it better be good.

Mad Max 4: Fury Road - I'll say it again: this series is nothing without Mel Gibson. I'm curious about it, but skeptical.[/quote]

Much obliged, Val.

You saved me from wasting my time reading any reviews.

Re The Hobbit: here's hoping against hope, but if it is finally a big disappointment, I would like to think that the weapons [Orcrist!] would still be worth acquiring -- provided, of course, that they are not afixxed to plaques

Don't mention the evil swords attached to plaques! Ew!

I just saw Aliens last night so now I'm curious. I'll probably see the new Alien Universe movie, whatever it's about.

[quote=""Fingolfin""] I just saw Aliens last night so now I'm curious. I'll probably see the new Alien Universe movie, whatever it's about.[/quote]

The latest so-called leak on Prometheus is that the sole link between it and Alien is the mere mention of a planet were bioweapons exist or are being used (the aforementioned xenomorphs.) There is not/will not be any appearances by the Space Jockeys, and if the aliens are seen, they will be virtually unrecognizable due to their chameleon DNA.

That's completely at odds with what I read, which stated an animatronic space jockey was being built. Considering Scott's professed curiosity about the space jockey, it would be odd if he made a movie even remotely bearing on the original Alien and didn't e xp lore the space jockey.

Time will tell! In the mean time, one thing is certain: if there's one movie that has more rumors circling about it than The Hobbit, it's Prometheus.

I did say it was another leak, not that there was any veracity to it, much like the previous rumour about the animatronic Space Jockey (which, incidentally, I also posted the link to) remains unverified.

I'm not going to waste the face-palming and eyerolling going into detail (we all know how I feel) but I need to clarify one thing:

Pirates, Spidey, Titan Wrath, Mad Max- All popcorn Hollywood flix about making $$.

I'd like Mad Max to be excluded from the rest until we see it sucks. It may, yeah. But the one thing this has going (and Prometheus) is that the original director is doing it. If George Miller messes it up, it's his to mess up (he's done it before, it was called Thunderdome). So whatever. If it's good, it's good. But it's worth a shot. And with Tom Hardy as Max, I'll be seeing it.

Interesting bit of trivia: The film has actually been delayed due to environmental issues, which will allow both stars to film their other roles: Hardy for "Rises" and Theron for "Prometheus".

Actually, I loook forward to the new pirates film. Me and a friend decided to watch all the movies one weekend, and now I honestly can't wait for the fourth film. Shame Keira Knightley won't be in it, that chick's smoking hot =P

[quote=""Darlak""] Shame Keira Knightley won't be in it, that chick's smoking hot =P[/quote]
Smoking? Are you kidding? If she was a crematorium I'd volunteer to crawl in.
Please Keira, incinerate me!

I always found the Keira/Orlando story line a bit dull, and since they tied a nice bow on it at the end of the third one, I'd have been very surprised had either character come back. The centerpiece of this series has always been Depp's character, and to a lesser extent, Rush's.

My problem with this series is that it became an overly convoluted mess that tried to be too clever for its own good and ended up losing two thirds of the audience by the middle the second film. By the time the third film wrapped up, no one was exactly sure what they had seen. I never saw a more confused-looking crowd coming out of a theatre, myself included. Just read the reviews on Pirates 2 and 3 if you doubt me.

They have promised to return to the light and fun tone of the first movie (the most successful in my view,) with this new entry, but I remain doubtful as I think they won't be able to resist throwing in the kitchen sink again.

I just want to say, for the record, regarding all this speculation for casting "The Dark Knight Rises," that this Joeseph Gorden Levitt reminds me, and looks a lot like the late Heath Ledger. I'm only familier with him from Inception, though I do remember seeing the 500 days of summer trailer, and thinking he might be a good replacement as the Joker. I'm not saying it would be a good thing to bring that character back, but I'm just speculating. I don't know if anyone else has brought this up or not.

Also, just saw the Kings Speech, wonderful f-f-f-film. Geoffry Rush is a marvelous actor, I'm looking forward to seeing him in Pirates, as he will probably be the only good thing that sequel has going.

[quote=""Grima Wormtongue""] I don't know if anyone else has brought this up or not.[/quote]



Thousands.


But it's not like you were advocating it or anything, so I won't feel the need to rant. However, JGL was originally rumored to be playing Falcone's son, but that was recently squashed. I'm glad there's enough keeping my mind off the horrible Hathaway/Selina Kyle thing... in the words of Charlie Sheen, "Jesus CRAP".

[quote=""Grima Wormtongue""]I....
Also, just saw the Kings Speech, wonderful f-f-f-film. Geoffry Rush is a marvelous actor, I'm looking forward to seeing him in Pirates, as he will probably be the only good thing that sequel has going.[/quote]

The King's Speech is on my [RedBox] short list along with Another Year.

Just watched The Fighter. Super flick, great acting.

Christian Bale as a crack head is absolutely manic.

The whole family is dysfunctional. The mom and 6 sisters are a trip.

Check it out.

[quote=""Sedhal""]Thousands.


But it's not like you were advocating it or anything, so I won't feel the need to rant. However, JGL was originally rumored to be playing Falcone's son, but that was recently squashed. I'm glad there's enough keeping my mind off the horrible Hathaway/Selina Kyle thing... in the words of Charlie Sheen, "Jesus CRAP". [/quote]

Ahh, I knew I couldn't be the only one, but I hadn't seen it mentioned before. I heard about Flacone's son, and the riddler, but that is obviously bogus. I like Hathaway, but I can't envision her taking on this type of role. She's not dabbled much in dramas or thrillers. I would have preferred Marion Cotillard, who is also rumored to being cast, as Selina/Cat women.

Oh well, I can't think of a bad Chris Nolan movie, so I will try to keep an open mind regarding his casting and characters.

I will be sure to check out The Fighter, I've been meaning to for a while. Not a big fan of Walberg though, he has done a few good roles, but "The Happening" was oh so terrible.

[quote=""Grima Wormtongue""]Marion Cotillard, who is also rumored to being cast, as Selina/Cat women.

[/quote]


Was. Hathaway got the part. I mean... clown-face. Horse-faced clown. Steve Tyler-mouthed, Tom Petty-toothed, Stallone-eyed horse-faced clown. I hate her.

Needless to say, I would have much preferred Cotillard. Although if you ask me, Catwoman shouldn't ever be in Nolan's universe. I hope she stays Selina Kyle and never puts the Catwoman suit on (unless it covers her incredibly awkward face, then I hope she wears it 100% of the time).

[quote=""Sedhal""]Was. Hathaway got the part. I mean... clown-face. Horse-faced clown. Steve Tyler-mouthed, Tom Petty-toothed, Stallone-eyed horse-faced clown. I hate her.
[/quote]

I just had an image of all that smushed together like one of those old Conan O'Brien skits "if they mated"

Related to Batman, I have heard that Nolan says that the Penguin would never fit in with his universe... why couldn't a non-comical version of the penguin exist. A short stocky mob boss with a slight limp and a goofy laugh isn't that unrealistic, it doesn't have to be the Danny Devito version with webbed fingers and black blood, etc. The mob is well established in the Nolan universe, a mob boss with my description with the nickname Penguin seems just as realistic as a guy that walks around in clown makeup that looks like he got his clothes from Goodwill or a guy that is half burned with a eyeball that looks like it about to fall out of the socket...

I think the main issue there is that it no longer becomes necessary or important for it to be Penguin. If they brought him to that level of believability he'd really not be interesting at all. As you say, we've already seen the mob quite a bit. Penguin as a bland mob character would be very uninteresting and a waste of screentime. I'm glad he's staying out altogether. If he was going to do a sinister mob character, Black Mask would have been the way to go. And I would have still preferred Talia Al Ghul for a female role...

In other news, Paramount has officially dropped all development plans for a Dune remake.

Not sure how I feel about this, but I'm leaning towards feeling disappointed. Lynch's 1984 Dune was visually impressive and very cool, but somewhat disjointed and took a few liberties with the source material. The Dune miniseries on tv was way more faithful but suffered from severe budget limitations. I think we are long overdue for this great story to get a proper screen treatment, and now it is back in limbo.

Good. Because a proper treatment isn't what you would have gotten, and you know it.

[quote=""Sedhal""]Good. Because a proper treatment isn't what you would have gotten, and you know it. [/quote]

Sadly, you're probably right, but I'm still disappointed because the alternative now is that we'll get nothing. This isn't like a Blade Runner remake, where there is nothing wrong with the original and thus it shouldn't be touched. In contrast, the first Dune we were given was badly botched so I don't see how they can make it any worse. I guess my point is, any new attempt can only be an improvement, but with Hollywood trends these days, I suppose they would find a way to mess it up even more.

Dune could only be done properly if the main book DUNE was broken into three flicks like LOTR. It needs to be 3 films, lavished with literal details from the text in all areas, characters, scenery, props, etc. And as I once mentioned it needs a real Paul Atreides, like Elijah Wood was to Frodo.

But that said, it is a totally intellectual story that I doubt would have the mass appeal that LOTR did. These things are tough calls to make due to the $$.

Sad to hear its been shelved.

[quote=""Sedhal""]Was. Hathaway got the part. I mean... clown-face. Horse-faced clown. Steve Tyler-mouthed, Tom Petty-toothed, Stallone-eyed horse-faced clown. I hate her.

Needless to say, I would have much preferred Cotillard. Although if you ask me, Catwoman shouldn't ever be in Nolan's universe. I hope she stays Selina Kyle and never puts the Catwoman suit on (unless it covers her incredibly awkward face, then I hope she wears it 100% of the time).[/quote]

Yeah, I meant Cotillard is still rumered to have a part in this film, not as catwomen, who's obviously been cast. And c'mon Hathaway aint that bad looking, but by all means, she is not the best actor, and not the right choice. On the other hand, Sarah Jessica Parker = Shadowfax.

Every time I see SJP I'm assaulted with visions of a horse eating a carrot through a fence.

I'm with you on this one, Val—mixed feelings. Dune is very much like LOTR...very hard to adapt into a theatrical movie because of its complexity and length. IMHO, the Lynch version was pretty dreadful (a friend of mine coined the phrase "s*ck worse than Dune," which she uses to this day), and the TV series, although well scripted, suffered greatly in other areas. Possibly the only way to do Dune justice on the big screen would be to split it into two parts, so it could have enough running time and budget to have a decent chance.

[quote=""Deimos""]The King's Speech is on my [RedBox] short list along with Another Year.

Just watched The Fighter. Super flick, great acting.

Christian Bale as a crack head is absolutely manic.

The whole family is dysfunctional. The mom and 6 sisters are a trip.

Check it out. [/quote]

I just watched The Fighter, Bale deserved his Academy Award.
And the dysfunctional family was too real for me to watch it twice, very sad.

I'm glad Bale finally got an Oscar, but I was cheering for Jeremy Renner for the Town. He got robbed on The Hurt Locker (better performance than it was a film, yet it won and he did not -- although he was going up against Jeff Bridges, who was also long overdue for an Oscar... ignoring 70s King Kong). However, I think Bale's had plenty of Oscar-worthy roles in the past: Empire of the Sun, American Psycho, The Machinist, Rescue Dawn, Harsh Times, The New World (supporting), even the Prestige. But it's typical Hollywood where he needs to play a white-trash crackhead to get recognition. No disrespect to his performance or the film, just commenting on the subject matter.

Being one of my top two favorite actors, it recalls an instance with the other one for 2007's awards. I was saddened to see Mortensen not win, but at the same time, I couldn't argue with Daniel Day Lewis. They always nominate my favorites to face off with each other, whereas most other categories will leave me totally indifferent regarding who wins-- rather, in many cases I wish they would all lose.

Interesting you mentioned The Hurt Locker, I just watched that too and Renner was awesome.

Bale has been long over due for an Oscar. Empire of the Sun would have sucked without him, being it was his first film I'm glad he didn't get an Oscar for that; like a lot of child actors he probably would have ended up a crack smoking loser with too much notoriety

Well maybe it's best you don't find out what Bale did to get into character for the Fighter then... (LOL)