GUY RITCHIE REUNITES WITH SGT. ROCK

Jesus, Warners are flailing wildly aren't they?

If Sgt. Rock is set in...WW II, I will, absolutely see the film.  A Future War Sgt. Rock, I will skip.  Why not introduce...Wonder Woman, in such a film as well.  Give her a part as a nurse, just as was done in the pilot of...The New Adventures Of Wonder Woman, and have her join the Sarge and Easy Co., in the final battle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Jesus, Warners are flailing wildly aren't they?

They are scrambling for any and every franchise(s) they can think of to fill the Potter and Batman voids.  I won't be shocked one bit if a fifth Lethal Weapon starring Gibson and Glover is announced sometime in the next year or so.  I'm dead serious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

They are scrambling for any and every franchise(s) they can think of to fill the Potter and Batman voids.  I won't be shocked one bit if a fifth Lethal Weapon starring Gibson and Glover is announced sometime in the next year or so.  I'm dead serious.

It's just so obvious that they have no interest in getting Sgt Rock off the ground because of belief in the property, but purely so they could have their WW2 superhero film - just as Green Lantern was meant to be their otherwordly superhero to compete with Thor.

They need to stop following perceived trends and actually create a few. They did this to a degree with both Potter and Nolans Batman and they won't get themselves out of the shit until they start doing that again and stop playing follow the leader to Marvel Studios (who aren't anywhere near as clever as many of their defenders make out anyway).

I completely agree.  Instead of worrying about what everyone else is doing, they just need to get their shit together and do their own thing.  If not, they will continue to repeat the failure of Green Lantern.

S.D. Bob Plissken, Your idea of a Lethal Weapon 5, is just...All Kinds Of Awesome!

Why's what Marvel is doing not so smart? I've had good and bad things to say about them so I'm not asking that as a rabid defender who's just looking to be contrary. I'm genuinely curious.

Well, the business model they've employed has led to even their B-team characters making healthy to huge profits in solo pictures. And they've successfully got a team superhero picture underway starring several big names that will no doubt make a shitload of money. Their varied actor/director choices have been inspired and successful almost across the board, with no outright failures. Compared to the WB, Marvel's last few years have been some Brief History of Time-level shit.

I thought I'd sound angry if I said that along with my question so I left it off, but very well put, Andrew. If they aren't unparalleled geniuses, then Marvel are safely the Luke Wilson in Idiocracy of their world.

Never even heard of Sgt. Rock... Is the character any good?

Either way, it's sad that I'm no longer excited by the possibility of a new Ritchie film. Watched SNATCH again the other day and it's as brilliant as ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Well, the business model they've employed has led to even their B-team characters making healthy to huge profits in solo pictures. And they've successfully got a team superhero picture underway starring several big names that will no doubt make a shitload of money. Their varied actor/director choices have been inspired and successful almost across the board, with no outright failures. Compared to the WB, Marvel's last few years have been some Brief History of Time-level shit.

Oh I'm not arguing with the soundness of the current business model, if they were making toasters I'd be praising them to the high heavens. For me tho, on a purely subjective level, I personally believe that model is yet to produce a great film. It's produced one pretty good one in Iron Man thanks single-handedly to RDJ and that's pretty much it. 

So sure financially, bully for them. Creatively, ugh.

I think Guy Ritchie has become one of the most uninteresting directors in the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

I think Guy Ritchie has become one of the most uninteresting directors in the world.

"Become"? The guy had one original idea, to give the very popular Tarantino-esque crime sub genre that had taken hold in the nineties a bit of a brit cockney spin, then essentially made the same film twice off the back of that. Then he married Madonna and Matthew Vaughn realized he was the more talented of the two and left to direct movies of his own.

Hell, the first Sherlock Holmes looks like its using every trick he has, I think this is as good as Ritchies going to get really.

Well I don't want to sound like a Ritchie apologist but I think Lock, Stock and Snatch qualify as unique and interesting films -- at the very least they were an indication of potential. Now that's gone totally unfulfilled, but I still don't think either film should be totally discounted. They're highlights of modern crime comedy if you ask me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

Well I don't want to sound like a Ritchie apologist but I think Lock, Stock and Snatch qualify as unique and interesting films -- at the very least they were an indication of potential. Now that's gone totally unfulfilled, but I still don't think either film should be totally discounted. They're highlights of modern crime comedy if you ask me.

I love Lock Stock and always will. Snatch was essentially Ritchie repeating himself, but at least he did it enjoyably. I'll happily defend those first two of his films. That's it tho.

Am I the only one who really dug RocknRolla?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog  Creatively, ugh.

I think that's a little strong. They've yet to produce a truly bad film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

I think that's a little strong. They've yet to produce a truly bad film.

We're getting into the purely subjective, but I'd argue they've yet to produce a truly good one as well. The only one that even sticks in my memory is Iron Man and that's purely for RDJ.

I've enjoyed all of the Marvel movies, but there is a definite issue in that the meta-narrative, leading to the Avengers, seems to negatively impact the individual films. Because each of the films is essentially leading up to the Avengers it feels like a lot of the runtime of Iron Man 2, Thor, and even The Incredible Hulk is about moving pieces into place rather than actually telling a story. Films like Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 1 and 2, Superman are all superheroes films with their own enclosed plotting. The Marvel films feel compromised by having to constantly find a way to shoehorn Gregg Clark into the action.

I happen to think the movies work just as well with or without those bits. Really, as long as The Avengers delivers, then I will totally be a Harry Potter level fanboy (but probably not a discerning moviegoer) and sit through a theater screening of Captain America, followed by Iron Man, followed by Iron Man 2, followed by The Incredible Hulk, followed by Thor, just to feel the total experience of the pieces coming together.

I am with you about those movies lacking a thorough story, but I don't think that has to do with the Avengers shoehorning as much as it feels they are just checking themes and ideas inelegantly off the list. As in, the Marvel movies are fun, but none are really artful or altogether interesting - and the one that gives you the most to discuss from a sociopolitical perspective, Iron Man 2, is probably the most problematic from a storytelling perspective.

<Nerdy derail>