Go Back   Horror.com Forums - Talk about horror. > Horror Movie Discussion > Upcoming Horror Movies

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 06-12-2007, 09:59 PM
_____V_____'s Avatar
_____V_____ _____V_____ is offline
For Vendetta
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 31,677
Rachel Weisz in Peter Jackson's "Bones" adaptation


English actress Rachel Weisz has signed on to star in Peter Jackson's adaptation of "The Lovely Bones."

Based on Alice Sebold's 2002 best-seller, the story is told through the voice of Susie Salmon, a young girl who is murdered but continues to observe her family on Earth after her death. She witnesses the impact of her loss on her loved ones, while her killer skillfully covers his tracks and prepares to murder again.

Weisz will play the mother of the dead girl, a role that Jackson and his writing team of Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh are expanding in their adaptation.

The $80 million picture is scheduled to begin filming in October in Pennsylvania and New Zealand. The DreamWorks project will be distributed worldwide by Paramount Pictures.

The film will mark the first teaming of the Academy Award-winning director and the Academy Award-winning actress. Weisz won an Oscar for her supporting role in 2005's "The Constant Gardner." Jackson won three Oscars for his work on 2003's "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King."


(reference - movies.yahoo.com)
__________________
"If you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  #12  
Old 06-13-2007, 09:03 AM
_____V_____'s Avatar
_____V_____ _____V_____ is offline
For Vendetta
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 31,677
D-War set to rock the screens in August, 2007

Yesterday two amazing international posters were revealed from Shim Hyung-Rae's D-War, which Freestyle Releasing will send to theaters later this year here in the States.

Based on the Korean legend, unknown creatures will return and devastate the planet. Reporter Ethan Kendrick is called in to investigate the matter, and he arrives at the conclusion that a girl stricken with a mysterious illness named Sarah is suppose to help him. The Imoogi makes its way to Los Angeles, wreaking havoc and destruction. With the entire city under arms, will Ethan and Sarah make it in time to save the people of Los Angeles?

The posters can be viewed here and here. The posters look awesome...and I must admit this can be the next big thing from Asian cinema to hit US screens.

The teaser trailer can be downloaded from here.



New stills from Argento's Mother of Tears

Dario Argento's The Mother of Tears, which is the third and final "Mother" movie (after Inferno, Suspiria), centers on a young American art student, Sarah, who "unwittingly opens an ancient urn that unleashes the demonic power of the world's most powerful witch. As a scourge of suicides plague the city and witches from all over the world converge on Rome to pay homage, Sarah must use all her own psychic powers to stop the 'Mother of Tears' before her evil conquers the world.

You can see plenty of interesting gorific stills here.



Final Official Poster for Danny Boyle's Sunshine

Today the final official poster was revealed for Danny Boyle's Sunshine, which Fox Searchlight will release on July 20.

Fifty years from now, the sun is dying, and mankind is dying with it. Our last hope: a spaceship and a crew of eight men and women. They carry a device which will breathe new life into the star. But deep into their voyage, out of radio contact with Earth, their mission is starting to unravel. There is an accident, a fatal mistake, and a distress beacon from a spaceship that disappeared seven years earlier. Soon the crew is fighting not only for their lives, but their sanity.

The poster can be viewed here.




(References - bloody-disgusting.com)
__________________
"If you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Last edited by _____V_____; 06-13-2007 at 09:07 AM.
  #13  
Old 06-13-2007, 09:34 AM
MisterSadistro's Avatar
MisterSadistro MisterSadistro is offline
Can you dig it ?
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
While I can understand the orginalality aurgment, I still feel like alot of people think film makers are tampering with something "sacred". Theres nothing sacred about any movie. They made every movie with the hopes it would make them money. I refuse to belive anybodys ever made a movie, remake or otherwise and said "man, I sure hopes this movie sucks and nobody likes it".
Again, if you feel that strongly about it, dont watch it. But theres no point in complaing about it.

As far as younger viewers are concerned, your comparing the remakes to thier orginals. People who havnt saw the orginals cant compare. Besides that, those "CGI laden" movies must be doing alright, Hollywood keeps churning them out. Im not saying Im particularly wild about most remakes. Im saying, if you were to take a cencus, most old school horror fans probley wouldnt be in favor of remaking such classic movies. But old school, hardcore horror fans represent such a small amount of the population I dont think most film makers make a point to cater to them.
With over 25 spelling and grammar errors alone in a two paragraph reply, I'm having difficulty understanding your argument at all :rolleyes: Your first two sentences alone contradict each other. I digress.
If "old school, hardcore horror fans represent such a small amount of the population" to begin with (according to you), then why do you think Hollywood even bothers to reuse the exact same titles as the originals to begin with ? There are thousands of murderous masked madmen movies out there so why use the title 'Halloween' rather than 'Rob Zombie's Killer X Movie' ? People would be less likely to see that I bet. If Hollywood was so concerned about doing justice to a remake, there were plenty of subpar slasher movies from the 1980s alone that could've been better with a little polishing. So why does Hollywood only keep grabbing the titles of movies that "such a small amount of the population" would identify ?
The correct answer: money.
I'll let you in on a little secret: Hollywood doesn't care if you enjoy a movie or not. They just want your paying ass in a seat. They might even get you again later with a DVD afterwards, especially if they slap something on the cover like "director's cut" or "unrated version". That's a great marketing ploy. It's almost like saying "new and improved movie with 10% more entertainment value" on it. The recent 'King Kong' movie costed a lot of money to make (CGI laden films usually do) and didn't make back the billions of dollars as expected. To date it's had 4 or 5 DVD versions already released of it. Why would Hollywood release what is in essence an incomplete version of the movie in the theaters only to release it on DVD later with even more footage if it made the movie better to begin with ?
The correct answer is: money.
By now you are probably screaming at your monitor "Mister Sadistro ! My God ! You're right ! I can't believe I haven't been able to see any of this before your enlightenment ! What can I do as a fan to help prevent this nefarious act of larceny commited by The Great Beast Hollywood ?"
Well, I'm glad you asked (and please, don't interrupt me when I'm on a roll).
Hollywood is much like an assembly line. Get a famous name for an actor, even if they can't act or wouldn't be correct for a part (that doesn't matter- this is about making money, not entertainment) like, say, Paris Hilton, add anybody as a director no matter how incompetent (let's say Uwe Boll), spend as much needed on advertising and CGI (this part hurts, but people are often distracted by shiny things- see Paris Hilton- and makes sure those paying asses are in seats and buy DVDs). Most importantly, use a title that people already know, even if they haven't seen or heard it in awhile (like 'House Of Wax'). Movie completed !
"But, Mister Sadistro ! You forgot them adding a story to these assembly line movies !" you are saying. I did NOT forget adding a story and please don't interrupt. We already spent money on advertising, Paris Hilton's name and CGI. This is about making money, not spending money. Do you know how much it costs for an original story ? Approximately 10-13% of the overall budget (I'm pretty sure Roderick Usher on here will back me up on this). Those CGI fx add up and a known name to boot ? Geez. 10-13% of all that ends up to be an awful lot (well, maybe not by Hollywood standards, but why spend more when they already have the key ingredients to assure them paying asses are in seats ?). Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to remake something they already own the rights to than to <gasp !> pay for something original ? Hell, people already know the title and that's a built in audience. This is like the loaves and fishes ! Back to the assembly line ! We can churn out a few of these each month easily !
Maybe these "filmmakers" don't go out of their way to "make a bad movie", but do you seriously get the impression that they're even attempting to make a good one ? It's a mass produced, mass marketed product and as long as paying asses are still in the seats, subpar horror movies will continue to be remade and rehashed. Don't see them, don't support them, don't enable them. If the money doesn't come, they will have to rethink their formula.
Class dismissed :D

Last edited by MisterSadistro; 06-13-2007 at 11:31 AM.
  #14  
Old 06-13-2007, 11:42 AM
jenna26's Avatar
jenna26 jenna26 is offline
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,960
Send a message via MSN to jenna26
Well, I think we all know its about money, and like Wensday13's previous point, no one makes a film, invests their money and/or time in it hoping that it fails miserably and is a complete loss. They want an audience. Its a business after all, and if no one likes the product, if everyone refuses to see it, then its a loss.

But I do think there have been times when it wasn't completely about that, when filmmakers wanted to make money, of course, but also put a little love and respect into their work. And that still happens, it just seems a lot more rare. I think very few filmmakers fight to make the movies they want to make anymore, and even when they do, they are pretty restricted unless they can figure ways to finance it all themselves.

MisterSadistro is absolutely right, they don't have to put much thought, effort or as much money into a remake, and they are almost always guaranteed to make money. They are comfortable, they know people will pay to see them, out of curiosity, or because they are just desperate for new horror, and will see any horror film hitting a local theater, remake or not, or they know nothing about the original films and don't care to know. And when you have a genuine love for movies, that can be frustrating.

Honestly, I give just about every movie a chance, even remakes, I will see them. And like I said, the occasional remake I wouldn't have a problem with if it was done the right way, but the sheer amount of remakes hitting the theaters is way past ridiculous. And I am not going to pay 7 dollars a ticket to see a remakes of films that was done the RIGHT way the first time. Unfortunately, most people don't feel the same way, so we are going to see more and more of them. Obviously, people do like remakes. I even know people that preferred the remake of Psycho to the original.....and I will just leave you with that disturbing thought.

Last edited by jenna26; 06-13-2007 at 11:45 AM.
  #15  
Old 06-13-2007, 12:15 PM
MisterSadistro's Avatar
MisterSadistro MisterSadistro is offline
Can you dig it ?
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
MisterSadistro is absolutely right
I love to hear that. Wish it was more often :D
I'm currently doing a 5.1 sound mix and composing the music for a movie that has now been in the making for 2 years. Do you know who has got money invested in it ? The director and myself. It gets a lot more personal when you actually have an interest in making a movie the best that it can be rather than just cashing in on a name for another disposable remake.
We've got deadlines coming up in 3 weeks in order to get it entered to several filmfests. Do you think we'd say "Time's up ! Good enough !" and cross our fingers ? No way ! It will be seen when it's the best it can be. No DVD releases of "unrated versions" or pre-planned sequels. It's a true labor of love and has a lot more heart going for it than any reheated Hollywood leftovers. If we never make a dime off it (and that is always possible), it's worth it more to me to hear "Hey, man. I really liked your movie." Know why ? It is ours and not somebody else's title to begin with.
  #16  
Old 06-13-2007, 02:23 PM
Wensday13's Avatar
Wensday13 Wensday13 is offline
Biggest and Best
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Planet 13
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterSadistro View Post
With over 25 spelling and grammar errors alone in a two paragraph reply, I'm having difficulty understanding your argument at all :rolleyes: Your first two sentences alone contradict each other. I digress.
If "old school, hardcore horror fans represent such a small amount of the population" to begin with (according to you), then why do you think Hollywood even bothers to reuse the exact same titles as the originals to begin with ? There are thousands of murderous masked madmen movies out there so why use the title 'Halloween' rather than 'Rob Zombie's Killer X Movie' ? People would be less likely to see that I bet. If Hollywood was so concerned about doing justice to a remake, there were plenty of subpar slasher movies from the 1980s alone that could've been better with a little polishing. So why does Hollywood only keep grabbing the titles of movies that "such a small amount of the population" would identify ?
The correct answer: money.
I'll let you in on a little secret: Hollywood doesn't care if you enjoy a movie or not. They just want your paying ass in a seat. They might even get you again later with a DVD afterwards, especially if they slap something on the cover like "director's cut" or "unrated version". That's a great marketing ploy. It's almost like saying "new and improved movie with 10% more entertainment value" on it. The recent 'King Kong' movie costed a lot of money to make (CGI laden films usually do) and didn't make back the billions of dollars as expected. To date it's had 4 or 5 DVD versions already released of it. Why would Hollywood release what is in essence an incomplete version of the movie in the theaters only to release it on DVD later with even more footage if it made the movie better to begin with ?
The correct answer is: money.
By now you are probably screaming at your monitor "Mister Sadistro ! My God ! You're right ! I can't believe I haven't been able to see any of this before your enlightenment ! What can I do as a fan to help prevent this nefarious act of larceny commited by The Great Beast Hollywood ?"
Well, I'm glad you asked (and please, don't interrupt me when I'm on a roll).
Hollywood is much like an assembly line. Get a famous name for an actor, even if they can't act or wouldn't be correct for a part (that doesn't matter- this is about making money, not entertainment) like, say, Paris Hilton, add anybody as a director no matter how incompetent (let's say Uwe Boll), spend as much needed on advertising and CGI (this part hurts, but people are often distracted by shiny things- see Paris Hilton- and makes sure those paying asses are in seats and buy DVDs). Most importantly, use a title that people already know, even if they haven't seen or heard it in awhile (like 'House Of Wax'). Movie completed !
"But, Mister Sadistro ! You forgot them adding a story to these assembly line movies !" you are saying. I did NOT forget adding a story and please don't interrupt. We already spent money on advertising, Paris Hilton's name and CGI. This is about making money, not spending money. Do you know how much it costs for an original story ? Approximately 10-13% of the overall budget (I'm pretty sure Roderick Usher on here will back me up on this). Those CGI fx add up and a known name to boot ? Geez. 10-13% of all that ends up to be an awful lot (well, maybe not by Hollywood standards, but why spend more when they already have the key ingredients to assure them paying asses are in seats ?). Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to remake something they already own the rights to than to <gasp !> pay for something original ? Hell, people already know the title and that's a built in audience. This is like the loaves and fishes ! Back to the assembly line ! We can churn out a few of these each month easily !
Maybe these "filmmakers" don't go out of their way to "make a bad movie", but do you seriously get the impression that they're even attempting to make a good one ? It's a mass produced, mass marketed product and as long as paying asses are still in the seats, subpar horror movies will continue to be remade and rehashed. Don't see them, don't support them, don't enable them. If the money doesn't come, they will have to rethink their formula.
Class dismissed :D

Well, if your head wasnt so far up your ass you would be able to see what Im saying.
Theres absoulty nothing sacred about any movie, at all, whatsoever. The fact that YOU like something dosnt mean shit to anybody but you. Another thing, dont think your impressing me. Ill be honest, right now your coming off like a spoiled child. You seem to belive your opinion of something is the only one that matters. I mean, remakes for movies for the most part must be doing alright. There wouldnt be as many of them. And of course its about money.

Old school, hardcore horror fans do represnt a small amount of the population.
The people who feel these films are "scared" are a minority. Otherwise, there would be public outcry to stop remaking movies. Dosnt seem that way. Tell you what, your wasting your time on me. Go to the people making these movies, I havnt made any of them. Tell them, you post alot on the internet, tell them how smart you are, tell them class is in session. All this youve told me, tell them. If you convince them, Im with you.


Alot of the people flocking to see remakes dont always even know thier remakes. Alot of people who went to see Black Christmas or The Hills Have Eyes probley didnt even know there was an orginal. Is there money any less spendable? Just because they havnt seen the orginal, dose what they think matter anymore than what you think? No.
The orginal story was interesting enough to try to make some more money off of it. Why not? Thier "sacred"????? Bullshit. Again, if you dont like it, dont watch. I dont like country music, I also dont spend any time complaing about it.
For something you claim to not like you seem to be putting alot of effort into changing my mind about it.

The rest of this isnt worth replying to. Its mostly a self-rightous attempt to enlarge your e-penis. Go for you. Bust your ass to impress somebody youll claim not to care about.
__________________
LISTEN TO BLACK SABBATH AND WATCH MOVIES THAT ROT YOUR MIND

I dont know why the rest of you think Halloween is only one day a year
  #17  
Old 06-13-2007, 07:40 PM
MisterSadistro's Avatar
MisterSadistro MisterSadistro is offline
Can you dig it ?
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,632
If memory serves correctly, it was you who asked why remakes are looked down upon. I answered, bringing some very valid points to the discussion. You brought "e-penis" comments. Then you complained since you are in the minority of people that actually prefers wasting your time and money on remakes. That is unfortunate. Both could've been better served on reading some books in a decent school to get you past a third grade reading level so when you decide to debate someone with an opinion different than your own, it doesn't come across sounding like "I know you are, but what am I ?" :rolleyes:
You are not only another strong point against remakes as far as I'm concerned, you should be the poster child as well. Good job :D
  #18  
Old 06-13-2007, 08:20 PM
Wensday13's Avatar
Wensday13 Wensday13 is offline
Biggest and Best
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Planet 13
Posts: 153
The only valid point you made was you like orginal ideas. Well, okay. Dont watch remakes. Im not trying to sway the opinion of anyone here.
Im wondering, still, why people pitch such a bitch about it. If its not something you agree with, dont support it. Seems like your a little upset because I disagreed with you. Otherwise, you wouldnt be pointing out my grammer errors.
You seem to think "since I like something everybody else should, and nobody should remake it because since I like it, it must be perfect because my opinion is the only one that counts"
Thats a textbook childish way of thinking.
__________________
LISTEN TO BLACK SABBATH AND WATCH MOVIES THAT ROT YOUR MIND

I dont know why the rest of you think Halloween is only one day a year
  #19  
Old 06-13-2007, 08:26 PM
Wensday13's Avatar
Wensday13 Wensday13 is offline
Biggest and Best
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Planet 13
Posts: 153
Actually I was debating, you started this pissing contest. Go back and re-read it.

Oh and by the way. If youd have read what I posted youd have read that Im not even particulary that found of most remakes.
Im not closed minded enough to say that just because I dont like something everybody who does is wrong.
Im also not closed-minded enough to decide I hate a movie that I havnt seen.


And why are you wasting all this time here? Dont you have a pile of shit of your to work on?
__________________
LISTEN TO BLACK SABBATH AND WATCH MOVIES THAT ROT YOUR MIND

I dont know why the rest of you think Halloween is only one day a year

Last edited by Wensday13; 06-13-2007 at 09:13 PM.
  #20  
Old 06-14-2007, 08:27 AM
_____V_____'s Avatar
_____V_____ _____V_____ is offline
For Vendetta
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 31,677
Comic book scribe David Goyer hired to write and direct "The Invisible Man"

The go-to scribe for comic book movies David Goyer (“Blade”, “Batman Begins”) has inked a deal to write and direct “The Invisible Man”, a new take on the H.G. Wells classic.

Goyer, whose last film was the spooky “The Invisible”, has always been a fan of the story and looks set to get to work on it after he shoots the “X-Men” spin-off, “Magneto”.

"I've always been a fan of the original H.G. Wells book as well as the Universal film and felt the property was ripe for re-imagining," Goyer said.

Conceived as a sequel to Wells' original tale, the story centers on a British nephew of the original Invisible Man. Once he discovers his uncle's formula for achieving invisibility, he is recruited by British intelligence agency MI5 during WWII.



"Castlevania" is happening

"Stomp the Yard” director Sylvain White will change gears as he signs on to direct “Castlevania," a live-action adaptation of the Konami vampire videogame that's co-produced by Rogue Pictures and Crystal Sky Entertainment.

The movie, which will shoot late fall in South Africa and Romania, has been co-financed and will be distributed by Rogue later next year.

Scripted by Paul W.S. Anderson ("Alien vs. Predator"), the drama begins as a Transylvanian knight leads his men into a gothic castle to seek refuge from the Turkish army. The knights soon discover the castle is controlled by the original vampire.

White grew up playing the game in the early 1990s, and was attracted to the chance to make a vampire film. The script sets up a generational clash between Vlad the Impaler and the Belmont family, a clan that unleashed the original vampire and battles to defeat him.

"Most of the vampire films have been present or set in the future, from 'Blade' to 'Underworld,' and I was attracted by the chance to make a dark, epic period movie that almost has an anime feel to it," White said.



(References - bloody-disgusting.com, moviehole.net)
__________________
"If you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:56 PM.