Clash of the Titans Sequel May Start Filming next January

[DarthSkywalker]

The sad thing about Wrath is that it's perfectly entertaining as it is, and if the first was written and directed as well as this one it would have been much more well received, but people were so put off by Clash that they're pretty much predisposed to want to hate Wrath. You want an example? look at the first few pages of this thread.

I watched Clash the night before my advanced screening and it was as I've read and heard: crap. So I went into my screening not expecting much but keeping an open mind, trying to remove bias to give it a completely fair shake. And I came out very surprised saying it was a good movie. Not great (other than visually), but more than serviceable.

If a memorable script, great character development, and amazing plot are must have's for you to enjoy a movie, then you won't care much for this one. But these aspects are handled fine enough to keep the action and adventure going in Wrath, which are aspects that are handled really well. It's a surprisingly well paced movie as well. I never felt bored.

If you are an action movie fan you'll more than likely really enjoy this movie. Just try to leave the Clash negative bias at the door for a good time.

You mean if you like good, entertaining cinema you won't care much for this movie? I mean really, that is what you are saying?

Last I checked T2 was an action film. It had all those things and more. Just because a film has action in it, doesn't mean it can be devoid of anything else you might find in good film. Ghost Protocol just showed us this.

 

[Ultimatehero]

You mean if you like good, entertaining cinema you won't care much for this movie? I mean really, that is what you are saying?

Last I checked T2 was an action film. It had all those things and more. Just because a film has action in it, doesn't mean it has to be devoid of anything else you might find in good film.

You're using one of the top rated considered action movies. Is this in the top? No. And I don't hear anyone saying it was. Some movies are made just to be enjoyable and this movie was, just like there were plenty - yes - even in the 80s. Not every action film can or is in that top top percentile. That said, is this film better than a lot of action movies? 100% completely, yes, I'd put it in about the middle. Expecting T2 every time you go to the movie theaters or any in the way top? You'll be disappointed 99 times out of a hundred. This is coming from a guy who goes to the theaters about twice, if not more than that, per week. Thus, in seeing the scales - comparisons - I've gotten really good at that since there's A LOT to compare to.

 

[Spider-X]

You mean if you like good, entertaining cinema you won't care much for this movie? I mean really, that is what you are saying?

Last I checked T2 was an action film. It had all those things and more. Just because a film has action in it, doesn't mean it can be devoid of anything else you might find in good film. Ghost Protocol just showed us this.

"Good, entertaining cinema" is completely subjective, man. People like to make things black and white because it can be fun to slam things...but, really, there are shades of grey everywhere.

If my bolded comment above is a must for you to enjoy a movie, you can't look passed some faults for the sake of a good time, the movie just has to be absolutely amazing on all fronts, then that's you.

I'm fine with movies having some aspects being strong or weaker than others. Unbalanced movies can still be plenty entertaining. That's a perfectly realistic expectation to have really.

I dont' cater to this idea of "oh no...it's has to be absolutely amazing in order to be deserving my my eyes!" There is such thing as a guilty pleasure after all. Do you have any of those?

 

[Spider-X]

You're using one of the top rated considered action movies. Is this in the top? No. And I don't hear anyone saying it was. Some movies are made just to be enjoyable and this movie was, just like there were plenty - yes - even in the 80s. Not every action film can or is in that top top percentile. That said, is this film better than a lot of action movies? 100% completely, yes, I'd put it in about the middle. Expecting T2 every time you go to the movie theaters or any in the way top? You'll be disappointed 99 times out of a hundred. This is coming from a guy who goes to the theaters about twice, if not more than that, per week. Thus, in seeing the scales - comparisons - I've gotten really good at that since there's A LOT to compare to.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You're using one of the top rated considered action movies. Is this in the top? No. And I don't hear anyone saying it was. Some movies are made just to be enjoyable and this movie was, just like there were plenty - yes - even in the 80s. Not every action film can or is in that top top percentile. That said, is this film better than a lot of action movies? 100% completely, yes, I'd put it in about the middle. Expecting T2 every time you go to the movie theaters or any in the way top? You'll be disappointed 99 times out of a hundred.

So because most action movies are horrible, and this one is better then them, it automatically becomes a good film? That is what I call grading on a curve.

Ghost Protocol, Hanna, The Grey, Thor, Captain America, 13 Assassins, Fast Five, First Class, Super 8, DH Part 2, and Kung Fu Panda 2 all came out in the last year. They are all movies you could consider action films. They weren't devoid of qualities outside of that.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

"Good, entertaining cinema" is completely subjective, man. People like to make things black and white because it can be fun to slam things...but, really, there are shades of grey everywhere.

If my bolded comment above is a must for you to enjoy a movie, you can't look passed some faults for the sake of a good time, the movie just has to be absolutely amazing on all fronts, then that's you.

I'm fine with movies having some aspects being strong or weaker than others. Unbalanced movies can still be plenty entertaining. That's a perfectly realistic expectation to have really.

I dont' cater to this idea of "oh no...it's has to be absolutely amazing in order to be deserving my my eyes!" There is such thing as a guilty pleasure after all. Do you have any of those?

Yes it is. Which is why I am not sure how you can acknowledge that the film is devoid of most things and then wonder why it is getting panned.

It isn't like you said it was hurt in one area or unbalanced. There is flawed and then there is looking like you got beat on by Anderson Silva.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I would rank this film up with but just a tad below Thor and Captain America, while equal to Fast Five. I really wasn't one for Ghost Protocol. Never saw 13 Assassins, unsure what DH2 is. And it was definitely better than Kung Foo Panda 2. First Class I'd personally rank up as being in the top top, along with The Grey.

This film had characters, it had heart, it had action, it remain true to the mythology, it had the right amount of comic relief, it had amazing production value, it has amazing actors that brought their A game (the God cast is astounding). What else are you looking for really? And talking actors, you are aware that Walker and Diesel couldn't really find work outside of the Fast & The Furious movies - right? Sam Worthington, despite some people not liking him, has already surpassed them career wise and continues to do so - for a reason.

 

[Spider-X]

So because most action movies are horrible, and this one is better then them, it automatically becomes a good film? That is what I call grading on a curve.

Ghost Protocol, Hanna, The Grey, Thor, Captain America, 13 Assassins, Fast Five, First Class, Super 8, DH Part 2, and Kung Fu Panda 2 all came out in the last year. They are all movies you could consider action films. They weren't devoid of qualities outside of that.

You're coming off as just wanting to argue for the sake of it here.

Wrath is good because it's perfectly enjoyable if you like a good action movie. If this was the first action movie you'd ever seen, you'd think "not that great of a script and what not, but not horrible either, and the action was very cool."

 

[Spider-X]

Yes it is. Which is why I am not sure how you can acknowledge that the film is devoid of most things and then wonder why it is getting panned.

It isn't like you said it was hurt in one area or unbalanced. There is flawed and then there is looking like you got beat on by Anderson Silva.

where am i wondering why it's getting panned

btw, have you even seen Wrath?

 

[protocida]

Funny story: The original Clash of the Titans and the remake were both called Fúria de Titãs ("Wrath of the Titans") here in Brazil. So, when this came out, it had to be called Fúria de Titãs 2 ("Wrath of the Titans 2").

Just trying to light up the mood.

 

[Spider-X]

This film had characters, it had heart, it had action, it remain true to the mythology, it had the right amount of comic relief, it had amazing production value, it has amazing actors that brought their A game (the God cast is astounding). What else are you looking for really? And talking actors, you are aware that Walker and Diesel couldn't really find work outside of the Fast & The Furious movies - right? Sam Worthington, despite some people not liking him, has already surpassed them career wise and continues to do so - for a reason.

I'd agree with this whole heatedly.

 

[Spider-X]

Here's something I'd like to know...how it is that Wrath gets a 25% on RT...yet Mirror Mirror gets a 50%?!?

I might be the only person that will go into this thread anytime soon having seen both (not by choice on the Mirror Mirror side) but I can't remember the last time I wanted to walk out of a movie. I can't even imagine it being that entertaining for the intended audience: young kids.

I didn't out of respect for my friends who actually wanted to check it out, but I was relieved when they stood up during the credits and said the same thing i was feeling "good god was that bad, i wanted to leave."

 

[DarthSkywalker]

where am i wondering why it's getting panned

btw, have you even seen Wrath?

You are blaming Clash for predisposing those who are giving this film a bad reception or did I read that wrong?

 

[Spider-X]

You are blaming Clash for predisposing those who are giving this film a bad reception or did I read that wrong?

That's not me wondering, that's an observation and there's next to know doubt in my mind that's part of the reason for the poor reception.

But you won't know unless you've seen the movie. You can only rely on others opinions to help shape your own. It would be nice to see what you'd think after having seen it, though i have a feeling you would only watch it to find areas where you could tear it down instead of giving it a fair shake.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I would rank this film up with but just a tad below Thor and Captain America, while equal to Fast Five. I really wasn't one for Ghost Protocol. Never saw 13 Assassins, unsure what DH2 is. And it was definitely better than Kung Foo Panda 2. First Class I'd personally rank up as being in the top top, along with The Grey.

Harry Potter DH: Part 2.

I found Kung Fu Panda 2 and Hanna to be the best of the bunch in my list, so we probably have vastly different taste.

This film had characters, it had heart, it had action, it remain true to the mythology, it had the right amount of comic relief, it had amazing production value, it has amazing actors that brought their A game (the God cast is astounding). What else are you looking for really? And talking actors, you are aware that Walker and Diesel couldn't really find work outside of the Fast & The Furious movies - right? Sam Worthington, despite some people not liking him, has already surpassed them career wise and continues to do so - for a reason.

I am not sure why you are complaining about Walker Diesel's career when it has nothing to do with their performances in the movies we are talking about.

Walker and Diesel aren't good actors. I agree. I don't find them particular good. They were however cast correctly and fit their roles. Worthington is completely miscast in the Titan films and looks lost in both Clash and Wrath surrounded by plenty of actors who fit their roles.

It is like Sam Jackson in Pulp Fiction (perfect casting) and Sam Jackson in Star Wars (complete miscast).

 

[Ultimatehero]

Hannah was just too weird for me. It was entertaining, but the weirdness didn't let me get completely into it. I found KP1 to be better and KP2 to be cashing in. Those wondering about my response to Ghost Protocol - I was a fan of the first two and the new one while entertaining didn't bring anything new or original to the mix or genre even and that was deeply disappointing to me; the only original thing really was the hall gag.

It says a lot about them as actors. People are complaining that Worthington is wooden, yet you point out a film that relies on two actors who aren't good and only passable due to what they are surrounded by. If they were actually good - they would have a career beyond that film. I found Worthington's acting good in both films.

Samuel Jackson didn't really stick out to me in Star Wars that way. Or maybe that's because I've seen so many films I'm used to actors seeming more familiar than their character. Even strictly indie actors. And just judge it based on acting and role alone.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's not me wondering, that's an observation and there's next to know doubt in my mind that's part of the reason for the poor reception.

But you won't know unless you've seen the movie. You can only rely on others opinions to help shape your own. It would be nice to see what you'd think after having seen it, though i have a feeling you would only watch it to find areas where you could tear it down instead of giving it a fair shake.

You keep saying that. You really shouldn't.

MI:2 reference. Bad movie, but I love that line. t:

 

[Spider-X]

How is my statement in bold incorrect in any way?

 

[TheVileOne]

The movie was entertaining but it wasn't great. Considering the franchise and subject matter I wanted a true cinematic epic about Greek Mythology instead of left over plot and visuals from the God of War franchise.

Wrath of The Titans is OK but it's really nothing more than an a disposable matinee ticket. Worth a cheap matinee ticket? Yes. Full 3D or IMAX pricing? No.

The 3D looks like ****. Converted 3D looks terrible and adds nothing to the overall movie.

Liebesman I don't feel good about his directing Ninja Turtles with everything I've heard so far. Liebesman is a journeyman director who will get attached to other franchises but he's not a true visionary.

 

[Spider-X]

The movie was entertaining but it wasn't great. Considering the franchise and subject matter I wanted a true cinematic epic about Greek Mythology instead of left over plot and visuals from the God of War franchise.

Wrath of The Titans is OK but it's really nothing more than an a disposable matinee ticket. Worth a cheap matinee ticket? Yes. Full 3D or IMAX pricing? No.

The 3D looks like ****. Converted 3D looks terrible and adds nothing to the overall movie.

Liebesman I don't feel good about his directing Ninja Turtles with everything I've heard so far. Liebesman is a journeyman director who will get attached to other franchises but he's not a true visionary.

Wrath wasn't 3D conversion...it was shot with 3D cameras. Having seen many 3D movies at this point I thought it's use in Wrath was really good.

 

[Ultimatehero]

For those wondering about IMAX 3D - my take on it? It's the way this movie HAS TO BE SEEN. It was one of the rare 3D movies where I felt myself having to dodge debris and thinking something was actually being thrown my way. Plus the sound and image quality is amazing - it's the FULL SCREEN instead of just half of the screen. And with that the image is crystal clear.

 

[Spider-X]

For those wondering about IMAX 3D - my take on it? It's the way this movie HAS TO BE SEEN. It was one of the rare 3D movies where I felt myself having to dodge debris and thinking something was actually being thrown my way. Plus the sound and image quality is amazing - it's the FULL SCREEN instead of just half of the screen. And with that the image is crystal clear.

noted! I only got to see it in a standard theater and thought it was cool. what you've described sounds awesome though! I'm a sucker for full screen IMAX

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Hannah was just too weird for me. It was entertaining, but the weirdness didn't let me get completely into it. I found KP1 to be better and KP2 to be cashing in. Those wondering about my response to Ghost Protocol - I was a fan of the first two and the new one while entertaining didn't bring anything new or original to the mix or genre even and that was deeply disappointing to me; the only original thing really was the hall gag.

It is Hanna. Not exactly sure what is weird about the film. Beautifully filmed, extremely well-acted with a story which the questions are answered without hitting you in the face with the answers. Blanchett's character and performance is a fine example. A cold blooded and sadistic woman who has a strange need to mother her killing machine. And that is just a very skeletal look at that part of the film. I couldn't possibly do Blanchett's performance justice. Every frame tells a story.

A fan of MI, MI:3 and Ghost Protocol. Can't stand the second one. Ghost Protocol is extremely well made, with a sharp script and good performances. I didn't need to do anything new because it did everything right.

I honestly don't understand your opinion of Kung Fu Panda 2 and find it completely wrong. What exactly makes you see it as a cash-in? If it was a cash-in it would of been a cut and paste of the original. Instead they bettered the art, brought new and inventive action, and brought us a new, rich story that really explored Po's character and his relationship with his team members without losing what makes Po Po.

It says a lot about them as actors. People are complaining that Worthington is wooden, yet you point out a film that relies on two actors who aren't good and only passable due to what they are surrounded by. If they were actually good - they would have a career beyond that film. I found Worthington's acting good in both films.

Samuel Jackson didn't really stick out to me in Star Wars that way. Or maybe that's because I've seen so many films I'm used to actors seeming more familiar than their character. Even strictly indie actors. And just judge it based on acting and role alone.

But not the parts we are talking about Worthington is fine in some roles. I kind of liked him In Terminator Salvation. He was also not all that good in Last Night.

That doesn't change his performance here, which I found bad. It isn't simply about being wooden. He doesn't fit the world or the other actors around him. They keep setting up this version of ancient Greece around British character and stage actors, and then dump Worthington and his off putting accent right in he middle of all of it. Walker and Van Diesel fit Fast Five much better. Same with the Rock. They just fit the roles better. That doesn't necessarily make them better actors, just means better casting of the leads.

It is not a question of liking an actor but their performance. With Mace Windu, we are talking about the Jedi second only to Yoda. The combination of Jackon's line delivery, not so athletic body and looking like never swung a sword in his life did not convince me he was a Jedi Master, much less the second best duelist in the galaxy.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I tend to need to see/experience something new. MI 4 just left me thinking, "more of the same." Which is never a good thing in my opinion. KP3 just seemed to lose the heart the first one had. Technically better, but everything else just didn't seem it.

I don't find aethetics distracting, so I just look at the acting itself and not what surrounds them. It's like your Mace Windu example. You hated him. Ask general audiences and Star Wars fans who their favorite Jedi are - you will hear Mace Windu more often than not amongst them. Which speaks for itself.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I tend to need to see/experience something new. MI 4 just left me thinking, "more of the same." Which is never a good thing in my opinion. KP3 just seemed to lose the heart the first one had. Technically better, but everything else just didn't seem it.

You could say every film is more of the same. No story or ideas are truly original. Just the tech with which it is made. What is new about Wrath?

You need to example how they lost any heart in Kung Fu Panda 2. Po's flashbacks and his interaction with Tigress show the exact opposite.

I don't find aethetics distracting, so I just look at the acting itself and not what surrounds them. It's like your Mace Windu example. You hated him. Ask general audiences and Star Wars fans who their favorite Jedi are - you will hear Mace Windu more often than not amongst them. Which speaks for itself.

I am a big Star Wars fan. I talk to many other Star Wars fans. Yoda, Obi-Wan, Anakin and Plo-Koon are the usual answers. The only time i get Mace is with the caveat that we are talking Clone Wars Mace, not Sam Jackson Mace. t:

And I am not sure what you mean. Acting and looking the part is part of acting. It isn't simply aesthetics. If a woman is called a well-endowed 35 year old African American socialite, and then you have a 10 year old white boy dressed in rags playing the part, it just doesn't work.

Yes and extreme example, but it seemed it had to be to prove my point.