Messages

The first nine episodes of Born Again will premiere in March 2025. A new logo has been revealed.

A teaser trailer was shown at the Disney upfront event in New York. The footage hasn't been released to the public yet, but there are descriptions online. D'Onofrio and Cox were there to promote the series.

Here's a fair take on Kingdom from the Critical Drinker.

Hudson says they tried getting Rick Moranis back, but for whatever reason he just wasn't interested.

Yeah, because Rick is such an important part of the success of all of this. I think everybody understands that and agrees with that. I don't know why. I haven't had a personal conversation. I talked to Ivan Reitman before he transitioned, who I know had spent a lot of time trying to convince Rick. I know that the other guys have talked to him, and I'm not sure why. He just said no.

I know they offered him more money than they offered me. And if I thought going to his house would make a difference, I'd be there. Because I'd love to see [him]. And not just in Ghostbusters, but I just think he's an amazing talent. I would love to see him working, but obviously, it was a personal choice. [Maybe] if they did a country western album or something, but I don't know. I'd love to see him back if there was any possible way, you know?

https://screenrant.com/ghostbusters-frozen-empire-rick-moranis-return-no-why-explained/

The purple cowl, dress and cape ensemble has always been my favourite Catwoman costume. I don't know if it'd work in live action, but it looks good here.

[the undeniable devotion Peter, Fran and Philippa have shown towards protecting the legacy of Tolkien's works, and to ensure audiences could experience the incredible world he created in a way that honors his literary vision,"]

It so happens I'm currently re-reading The Lord of the Rings novels, and I'm hoping to catch the theatrical rereleases of Jackson's trilogy next month. But I remain cynical about any further screen adaptations of Tolkien's work. All my fears about The Rings of Power turned out to be well founded, and while I don't think the Warner Bros films will be as bad as TROP I'm still sceptical they'll be any good.

Tolkien's writing just isn't compatible with the modern entertainment industry. He wrote what many consider to be the greatest fantasy saga in modern literature, and studio execs are kicking themselves that they don't have the rights to adapt more of his books. So now they're creating fan fiction out of the appendices, just like Disney is doing with Star Wars. It's been reported that this Gollum film is the first in a series of movies. What should we expect next? Arwen: A Middle-earth Story?

It sounds like they're milking the IP in an attempt to Marvelise it with all these spinoffs. Again, like Disney did with Star Wars. We already had the Rings of Power, and we know how that turned out. Then there was the Gollum game that came out last year, which was apparently dreadful.

Will WB's upcoming The War of the Rohirrim animated movie be any good? Maybe. Maybe the Gollum film will be good. Some of the wording in the press release sounds like a deliberate repudiation of the wording used by Amazon when promoting TROP, and that could be a good sign. For example:

"For over two decades, moviegoers have embraced the 'Lord of the Rings' film trilogy because of the undeniable devotion Peter, Fran and Philippa have shown towards protecting the legacy of Tolkien's works, and to ensure audiences could experience the incredible world he created in a way that honors his literary vision," De Luca and Abdy said in a statement Thursday. "We are honored they have agreed be our partners on these two new films. With Andy coming aboard to direct 'Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum,' we continue an important commitment to excellence that is a true hallmark of how we all want to venture ahead and further contribute to the 'Lord of the Rings' cinematic history."

Jackson, Walsh and Boyens added: "It is an honour and a privilege to travel back to Middle-earth with our good friend and collaborator, Andy Serkis, who has unfinished business with that Stinker — Gollum! As life long fans of Professor Tolkien's vast mythology, we are proud to be working with Mike De Luca, Pam Abdy and the entire team at Warner Bros. on another epic adventure!"

"Yesssss, Precious," Serkis said. "The time has come once more to venture into the unknown with my dear friends, the extraordinary and incomparable guardians of Middle Earth Peter, Fran and Philippa. With Mike and Pam, and the Warner Bros team on the quest as well, alongside WETA and our filmmaking family in New Zealand, it's just all too delicious..."   

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/lord-of-the-rings-movie-2026-release-warner-bros-1235997102/

From these statements, it does sound like they're trying to stay true to Tolkien's vision, unlike Amazon. But will they actually do it? Hopefully they'll learn not only from the mistakes of TROP but also from those of The Hobbit trilogy. We'll just have to wait and see. But I'd feel more enthusiastic if Serkis and Jackson had announced they were collaborating on an adaptation of a novel that hadn't previously been adapted. There are plenty of classics to choose from.

I just got back from seeing Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.

It's not bad, but I'd say it's a step down from the Caesar trilogy. In place of the portentous tone of Reeves' films, Kingdom offers a more straightforward sci-fi adventure movie. That could be a plus or a negative, depending on how much you liked the Caesar trilogy. The acting, special effects and production values are all good. I liked the reclaimed Earth aesthetic, with vegetation growing over all the old structures. I prefer that to the typical wasteland imagery prevalent in most post-apocalyptic movies.

But the storyline didn't grip me. I just never felt terribly absorbed by it, and at times I found my mind wandering as I was distracted by the visuals. Noa's a likeable protagonist and I cared about him and his family, yet never felt quite as emotionally engaged as I did with Caesar's storyline in the previous three films. I think the biggest problem with Kingdom is its failure to break new ground. If you've seen all the other Planet of the Apes films, then there's nothing new here to surprise you. It's composed entirely of familiar elements.

For what it is, it's good. But it evokes a somewhat wearisome sense of déjà vu. It'll probably appeal most to younger fans who've never seen any of the older POTA movies. For people like that, Kingdom's a good introduction to the franchise. But for those of us who've seen the previous nine POTA films, there's a disappointing lack of fresh ideas. I wished they'd brought in the mutants from the older movies, or some of the other weird creatures that appeared in the comics and 1970s cartoon show. Anything that would've expanded the mythology a bit. I also noticed strong plot similarities with Mel Gibson's Apocalypto (2006), particularly in the first half of the film, and that further added to my sense of having seen it all before.

John Paesano's score sounds like it was influenced by the works of Danny Elfman. In one or two places I could hear echoes of Edward Scissorhands (1990), and the music that plays during the hunt sequence is strikingly similar to Elfman's theme from Tim Burton's 2001 POTA movie. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd used Elfman's score as a temp track. This is another example of how Kingdom frequently evokes the earlier POTA films without leaving a distinctive stamp of its own on the series.

To sum up, KOTPOTA is a decent solid mid-tier entry in the franchise. If you hate POTA, Kingdom won't convert you. If you're a long-time fan, you might find it a little too derivative of the earlier films. If you're a newcomer who's curious about the Apes saga, then this is a good entry point. As far as where I'd rank it among other recent sci-fi films, it's definitely nowhere near as good as Godzilla Minus One or Dune: Part Two. But it's a well-made workmanlike sci-fi adventure that'll keep you entertained for a couple of hours. I'd give it 6 out of 10.

The pose is an odd choice for a reveal shot, but the costume itself... I don't know, it looks all right to me.

I don't like the tubing. I don't know why every modern superhero costume has to have that now. All those lines needlessly complicate what should be a simple design. I'm also not sold on the New 52 collar. But it might work. I'll wait and see what that looks like in other pictures. The texture looks a little rubbery, which I'm also not mad on. It's not as bad as Routh's costume, but I'd prefer a simpler fabric.

However, I do like the colours. I'm glad they've brought the trunks and belt back. The creases in the suit might look awkward in this pic, but they suggest a thinner and more flexible material that's a welcome change from the sculpted armour look. When it comes to Superman's costume, as a matter of personal preference I like it kept simple. These are my favourite live action Superman suits.

The Kirk Alyn and Superboy (1988-1992) costumes were good too. I know many people would say these costumes look silly. But then some would say a grown man flying through the sky wearing a blue bodysuit and red cape is silly anyway, regardless of the design specifics. I say embrace the fantasy and don't overcomplicate it.

Sculpted muscle suits are best reserved for slim average-build actors like Michael Keaton. All of the Superman actors have been tall and muscularly built. As long as the actor has the right body shape, he doesn't need padding or sculpted muscles. I don't know if Corenswet's suit has padding, but judging from this picture his personal trainer posted he doesn't need it.

I also like that they've brought back the spit curl. Corenswet's got that classic chiselled blue-eyed Superman look that Reeves, Reeve, Welling and Cavill all had. He's 6'3 or 6'4, depending on different sources, and he certainly looks the part. I'd like to see some better images of the costume – to see what he looks like standing up and striking a more heroic pose – but based on this early glimpse I think the suit looks ok. It's not my ideal Superman costume, and I'm not blown away by it. But so far it doesn't look terrible to me.

Maybe it's because I grew up with the animated series, but I always preferred the more physically imposing depictions of Magneto over the frail old man we got in the movies. Hauer looked closer to how I envisage the character in live action. After watching Blind Fury (1989) earlier this year, I'd also keep him on the shortlist for a 1980s Matt Murdock.

But really he was a better physical match for Magneto than Daredevil. As discussed in other threads, he also would've been my top pick of Adrian Veidt in a 1980s Watchmen film.

I have that issue on my bookcase. Even back then, I disagreed with casting Clancy Brown as Sabretooth. He would've been a great Magneto... if Rutger Hauer has other obligations going on. But Hauer is already accounted for, I love Brown but I don't see much else for him in an X-Men movie.

Brown's performance as the Kurgan ranks as one of the most intimidating movie villains of the eighties. If you wanted a younger and more menacing version of Magneto, Brown's voice and height alone would've qualified him.

But the cartoon's determination to set all (or most?) scenes at night does indicate a desire (on somebody's part) to take Batman in a darker direction.

Were I inclined to put this into some sort of context, my suggestion would be that the TV versions of Batman and Robin had become more active at night because their villains had become more active at night. The Westverse was never going to be very dark. At most, it might become a little poorly lit. But never "dark".

This leads one to believe that there might have been some influence from DC Comics with what Batman comics were then-currently depicting at the time. Considering "New Adventures" aired post-Schwartz/O'Neil/Adams collaboration, the night setting could have been a tip of the hat of some form of synergy between the two.

The nocturnal setting does give the series a darker and sometimes spookier look than most other superhero cartoons from the 1970s. I think Joker's right about it being an attempt to reflect the imagery of the contemporary comics. The Galactic Guardians show (which also starred West) was the pre-DCAU series that best reflected the Bronze Age tone, but that was a Hanna-Barbera production. The New Adventures of Batman is certainly the closest Filmation got to the 1970s comics, even though most of their plots and characterisations were still drawn from earlier eras.

Makes me want to get acquainted with the show, quite frankly. Especially since, as you state, nothing happens that is egregiously opposed to the '66 Batman show's continuity, and this could be considered something of a 'lost 4th season' of the Adam West show, depending on how you want to view it.

In that sense, The New Adventures of Batman can be compared with Star Trek: The Animated Series. Both 1970s Filmation cartoons brought back the actors from a popular 1960s live action show to voice their characters in a cheaper more kid-friendly format. If each of the three live action seasons of Star Trek represents one year of the Enterprise's five-year mission, then the two animated seasons can be seen as years four and five. Similarly The New Adventures of Batman can be seen as year four of Batman and Robin's crime-fighting careers, and year two of Batgirl's.

The absence of Chief O'Hara, Aunt Harriet and Alfred could be explained by them simply moving away from Gotham. Or maybe they're still there and we just don't see them. The Bat-Computer has clearly undergone an upgrade, as has Batman's arsenal of weapons and vehicles, but there's nothing here that West's ingenious Batman couldn't have constructed. I can't offhand think of any discrepancies between this show and the Batman '66 comics either, so it fits into the canon reasonably well.

Good timing with this analysis given the complete series is being released June 25:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/new-adventures-of-batman-the-complete-collection-blu-ray/1100-6523099/

That is quite a coincidence. I hadn't heard about the Blu-ray release until now.

I'd like something like this too, but I'd prefer it to be handled very carefully. Their relationship seems more hands off and terse even in Returns. I can't imagine anything traditional like the 60s show, or even Nolan. I quite like the idea they communicate mostly with notes, with face to face meetings being very minimal.

I can imagine Hingle's Gordon never quite losing his initial fear of Batman. He grows to trust him, yes, but he's still scared of him. Keaton's Bruce might intentionally cultivate that fear, even among his allies, in order to keep them at bay and prevent them from getting too close to him. That's obviously not what we see in the Schumacher films, where Batman and Gordon appear relaxed in one another's company. But compare that with their interaction in Batman Returns – where Batman doesn't stand still or even look at Gordon and responds tersely when speaking to him – and we see evidence of a more distant relationship between the two.

Maybe Batman kept walking in BR because he didn't want Gordon looking too closely at his face for fear he'd recognise him, similar to how he kept turning away from Vicki and keeping to the shadows when he took her to the Batcave in the 1989 film. Again, this novel needs to show us the Burton Batman, not the comic book version. Seeing how someone so secretive builds a trusting communication channel with his allies, while simultaneously trying to maintain his distance from them, is an intriguing avenue for the novel to explore.