I am actualley contiuneing thread of dicussion where one the board decided to discussion the casting for a imagined 'Nemesis the Warlock' movie.
Somebody sai Sean Peert wee shpuld do the voice of Nemesis.
Was that poster being serious.
I had always imagined that Warlocks have hollow, distant sounding voices not quite human.
Sort of mysterious.
Since seeing the Matrix trilogy, I had always compared
Lawrence Fishbourn's Morpheus to Nemesis the Warlock.
In that instance, Hugo Weaving's Mr Smith has also been compared to Torqumada.
Flesh and meltdown man please. No expense spared. And about 3 hours long each. Also Bill savage set in the UK 5 years from now after a further 5 years of New Labour dictatorship. The threat of terrorism is so bad that no one has any rights whatsoever and the freedom to say or do anything went long ago. This would make a good film if set against a backdrop of a police state instead of an invasion. In the film everyone realises that the government are the real terrorists. A true reflection of reality. This sounds a bit too much like V for Vendetta but i believe Invasion was first anyway
Thats 2 films with a plot that revolves around the idea of rebellion. Thats partly why i chose them.
"Flesh and meltdown man please. No expense spared. And about 3 hours long each."
Very, very few films deserve to be so arse-numbingly lengthy (Andre Tarkovsky excluded). No more than 120 minutes as an *absolute* maximum.
***Very, very few films deserve to be so arse-numbingly lengthy (Andre Tarkovsky excluded). ***
Actually that's the biggest problem with Tarkovsky's films, long declarative philosophical statements/dialogues that end up as navel gazing. What are very cinematic images are rendered dull and insipid by characters who constantly natter. Philosophical discussions don't work well on screen and should be kept short. Ivan's childhood is the rare exception of his films that is relatively short and all the better for it.
See, I should agree with you, but I don't because in the case of Tarkovsky I just think it ends up working despite itself. Now Solaris did eventually become a bit of a pain to sit through towards the end, whereas Stalker just seemed to fly by for me, despite the fact that it's actually the longer of the two films.
I think Stalker really could do with being cut down, especially the start with all that soliloquist moaning going on. The oppressive pictures speak for themselves, no need to hit us over the head with the philosopher's hammer. I used to like his films until they just became so tiresome.
What about Mirror, Andrei Rublev, the Sacrifice & Nostalgia? All talkfests that need the scissors.
I watched the outstanding Under the Sand last night, by the remarkable Ozon and featuring the still-stunning Charlotte Rampling, and while only 90-odd minutes long managed to give the impression of living for weeks with the main character - you don't need long running time to give the illusion of scale and duration.
I wasnt thinking about the cinema angle at the time. 2 hours and no less though. If the film is good then you dont notice it. I mainly wait for a dvd release to watch at home instead as you can drink and smoke as much as you like. As i have long legs i hate cinema seats and always sit on the front row.
Release the 2 hour version first then later on the special edition dvd comes out with an extra hour of film like a directors cut.
I wish i was a billionaire then i could make them myself and hire everyone to make it and get proper imput from fans themselves.
Lord of the rings worked well enough.
"Lord of the rings worked well enough."
If you're the sort of person who enjoys watching midgets walking for THREE HOURS, then sure.
Don't agree with all these 'director's cut'/special edition gubbins - what is released in the cinema is the definitive version, unless something's gone drastically wrong beforehand (ala Pat Garett & Billy the Kid).
"I think Stalker really could do with being cut down, especially the start with all that soliloquist moaning going on."
Again, I can totally see your point, but for me it works *because* rather than in spite of that stuff. That endless talking stuff really is the heart of the film, or at least that's what it seemed to me at the time.
I actually quite like the Clooney/Sodenburgh Solaris. I dunno if I would say it's better, but given the choice of watching either of them again that's the one I'd pick.
(the book, though, is better still)
ok I have never read lord of the Rings and i have only seen one of the three films anyway.
I just quoted it because it was successful and a good example.
Its not my thing either
With directors cuts i think it works to have their version as those extra 20 minutes can add a lot to the film as you can fit a lot of plot detail into that. 2 hours 20 minutes is my compromise then . I find if i am renting films i always look at how long they are and if they are under 90 minutes then i think twice.
I have a terrible wandering attention span unless i am working but its not hard to watch a film that is 2 hrs long as long as its not boring of course.
What about Mirror, Andrei Rublev, the Sacrifice & Nostalgia? All talkfests that need the scissors.
The only one of those I've seen is Andrei Rublev, which I had the pleasure of seeing in the pictures a couple of years ago. I thought it was absolutely magnificent and - getting to the point - I genuinely couldn't believe it was over, thinking I'd only been watching for an hour and a half at the most.
This is one of a very few exceptions to my rule that films should be under two hours in length. By Law. Both Solaris and Stalker go on for far too long, making the genuinely breathtaking sequences (like the bit where they're all passed out in The Zone, staring into the puddles. NB reminiscent of the "paint in the stream" bit of Rublev) seem like tiny islands of genius in a vast sea of fat, tedious Russkies in dirty jumpers.
For the record, I think the Soderbergh remake of Solaris is a substantial improvement on the original and the best sci-fi film since Gattaca.
I know it's not going to change anyone's opinion of the film's themselves, but Tarkovsky's book about his work is called "Sculptures in Time": a pretty good description of them, whether you find it tedious or invigorating.
...Somebody sai Sean Peert wee shpuld do the voice of Nemesis.
Was that poster being serious.
I was that poster (shortly before the plates started hitting the wall and the spaghetti bolognese sort of slid down the wallpaper behind me) , and I was indeed serious. Sean Pertwee manages to have a light-yet-gravelly voice (witness his turn as Ceasar in a recent docu-drama) which I think catches the contrast between Nemesis' deer-like poise and sinister overtones quite nicely. The booming "I am the Lord of the Flies" sequences can be rounded-out in post.
Why all the talk of a Meltdown Man film? It looked good but it was pretty much make-it-up-as-you-go-along stuff that didn't have any real point or explaination, or at least until when I gave up. The main character wasn't there for his personality, the 'bomb' idea is dated, and with most of the characters being talking animals it would be one of the most complicated films to make ever. You wouldn't get away with it in a comic no, let alone as a film.
Not that anyone's seriously threatening to make it, I'm just saying.
"Planet Of The Apes meets The Island Of Doctor Moreau", with its tried and tested unoriginality, would easily sell that. Besides, who wouldn't pay money to see a talking bull firing a kalashnikov?
I'm so worried about these films. So many comic book movies so few good ones... I think they should go with these two simple rules to not making total pants of these movies.
1)Director first. Choose a director you love and let them decide what they want to adapt. If you choose-I don't know- Ozon, and he says ABC Warriors, go with ABC Warriors even if his choice baffles you.
2)Use British Everything. From Keygrips to Financial Backing, its the only way the story won't be second guessed. A BIG problem with that last Dredd movie, is everyone thought they could improve it without reading the comics. Or at the very least DON'T use US anything.
Off topic and off color. I was watching Under the Sand a few years ago with a group of people and the shot of Ramplings breasts brought out a shout of "OH MY GOD!" from all watchers. One of the women demanded we rewind so she could see them again and again. She could not believe they belonged to a woman over fifty.
For a second there, I thought you were reponding to my bad grammer.
Sean Pertwee. Son of the third Dr who and who I can only remember for his famous line 'Sausages' after being diseboweled by a werewolf in 'Dog Soldiers'.
Not that I hate his acting ability or doubt his range as I think Nemesis would be a far stretch for most actors/voice actors.
So, Laurence Fishbourne speaking into fan to distort his voice is still my first choice.
The audio adventures from big finish are totally cool, great sets, perhaps an audio play would be easier to do than a film ?
***The audio adventures from big finish are totally cool, great sets,***
Great sets? surely because it's radio they don't need sets, it's all sound FX.
Erm...
stole that line from colin baker...........
Why all the talk of a Meltdown Man film?Link: My fault for putting the idea in his head...
Personally I think Leviathan would make for a great film. I know it was only a one-off, but I can imagine it being shot in grainy black and white, keeping the feel of the comic perfectly.
As you are a fan of the strip what do you think of the idea of a film of this strip ? I dont think it would work if it used exactly the same script as that needs work but otherwise i dont see any reason why it couldnt work. No doubt at all i am in a minority here.