Clash of the Titans Sequel May Start Filming next January

[mclay18]

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.

I hate to disagree with you on this, but I have to. Converted 3D pales in comparison to native 3D, yes, but Wrath was one of the better post-converted titles I've seen. The big Perseus/Kronos fight at the end was made for 3D.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I hate to disagree with you on this, but I have to. Converted 3D pales in comparison to native 3D, yes, but Wrath was one of the better post-converted titles I've seen. The big Perseus/Kronos fight at the end was made for 3D.

I just though I read it wasn't post-converted? Does that make it one of the worst native 3D films you have ever seen? t:

 

[Spider-X]

guess i need to leave a source here, but like i said last page, Wrath was filmed in native 3d:

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2011/01/confirmed-wrath-of-titans-will-be-shot.html

 

[Ultimatehero]

New about Wrath - all the monsters depicted like this on screen including tarturus. All that only existed prior in myths and not on screen. Closest we EVER got was Disney's Hercules. Everything else is very new. And to highlight, meant new action wise for these films.

And dude, I don't need to example it for you. KP2 just didn't catch me like KP1 did.

Look is one thing, but not end all be all to me. It's everything beyond that which is in the hands of said actor especially when talking performance.

Clone Wars Mace, AOTC, Revenge Mace didn't have as strong a presence. But still - Mace. Even then if you meant toon, hear that from people who never watched the cartoon. It's the bad ass element of the character.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Original in MI3 was story structure.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

New about Wrath - all the monsters depicted like this on screen including tarturus. All that only existed prior in myths and not on screen. Closest we EVER got was Disney's Hercules. Everything else is very new. And to highlight, meant new action wise for these films.

And dude, I don't need to example it for you. KP2 just didn't catch me like KP1 did.

Look is one thing, but not end all be all to me. It's everything beyond that which is in the hands of said actor especially when talking performance.

Clone Wars Mace, AOTC, Revenge Mace didn't have as strong a presence. But still - Mace. Even then if you meant toon, hear that from people who never watched the cartoon. It's the bad ass element of the character.

I have played all 5 God of Wars. I know exactly where they got their "inspiration". It wasn't myths. It was from my Playstation. It went from the small screen to the big one. It certainly isn't new.

And no, I would understand if you just didn't like Panda 2. That isn't what you said at all. You started off by calling it a cash-in when it clearly isn't the case. The Hangover 2 is a cash-in. If anything, Wrath is a cash-in on a bad film.

And there is no badass Mace in the prequels.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Image-wise, yes. Mythology wise, where do you think that series got the inspiration for the images? Even negative reviews point to the visuals being innovative in film. In positive reviews of MI4, it's always mentioned "although seen it before mostly, it's the craft."

I didn't like Panda because there seemed to not be heart in it. It just didn't feel as classic. I can't pin point since I didn't see it since theaters, just remember my reaction to it. Also Mace is your opinion dude. My friends and I, friends who didn't see the toons, are always saying how cool he is. So no, there is no "Mace sucks" like "Jar Jar sucks" going on.

It's your opinion that Clash wasn't good, it didn't get good reviews - but if the audience didn't like it you would see that in the box office and this film's box office. As is, 10 at night was practically sold out last night - in IMAX! That says a lot about crowd response to Clash. Not only that, even for those who didn't like it, the consensus seems to be better than the first at the least.

 

[Project862006]

imo if a film has ton of big action and cgi and epic battle scenes and is able to entertain me with it for 1 1/2 -2 hours then i dont care if it has flaws in story,character development,etc.

because it has done its job and it is to entertain me

that is a movie's job people here are so nitpicking saying oh the dialouge here and here was not right oh i would of of had a pivotal scene here and there ,etc. lol

always wanting some award winning acting in everything lol

there are plenty of movies that had good acting and characters that i hate because they failed to entertain me

 

[Liam_H]

A movie's job is to engage. Your on one end where the visuals are enough while other people feel they at least need the story/characters.

 

[Project862006]

no a film is meant to entertain

it is called entertainment just like music is meant to entertain

same with sports

you can have a nice story and decent characters with good acting

but if you dont entertain me

then whats the point

 

[The Morningstar]

Are you not entertained? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!?!?! That famous line wasn't only aimed at the spectators in the arena.

 

[Ultimatehero]

A movie's job is to engage. Your on one end where the visuals are enough while other people feel they at least need the story/characters.

If this is to me. No. I just want a film to be something NEW.

That's why I gave the Mission:Impossible 3 mention. While a lot of that movie, we've seen before too - what separated it was the way the story was told. That made it unique from the other films in the series. Mission:Impossible 4 didn't even have that - the story/characters and the action we've all seen before. Thereby even though, yes it was a well crafted film - it didn't leave me feeling like I saw something new. That's the problem I had with it. That something new could have been the story or the characters or something else along those lines. It just wasn't innovative despite being well crafted. And even positive reviews have mentioned this. It didn't take risks.

Whereas, you can say the characters/story in Wrath has been done before. You would be hard pressed to find people who have seen the film and say the visualization has been seen before and realized like this, even the negative reviews point this particular aspect out. That at the very least it is unlike anything you've ever seen before in film.

As a story-teller, I set high standards for myself to bring something new to the table whatever that may be. And I hold others to the same high standards. I'm in my early twenties and already have caught attention from a major film studio that is interested in me as a writer. This is why. I seek to be innovative, despite people saying "it's all been done before," I don't see things that way because there are still multiple means of going outside the box. And when a film brings nothing new? Well, to me it's not doing it's job well enough then even if it is well crafted. That's especially true of action films. To me a great film is well crafted, takes risks (is something new), and has something to say. Not many films accomplish all three.

To bring those three into a more recent example. X-Men: First Class. It's undoubtably well crafted and has great acting. It takes risks in that it's a period piece and a complete alternate reality superhero film. And it has a message of acceptance, on an LGBT forum I frequent - TONS of users have "mutant and proud" as their orientation. So it latched on there and across the board.

 

[The Morningstar]

And Mi4 didn't have inventive visuals? It had a guy climbing the biggest skyscraper in the world, filmed in IMAX. It had a car chase through a sand storm.

Can't remember seeing anything like those two examples before.

 

[Liam_H]

no a film is meant to entertain

it is called entertainment just like music is meant to entertain

same with sports

you can have a nice story and decent characters with good acting

but if you dont entertain me

then whats the point

Entertainment to me is anything that engages an audience. Whether its with visuals/story/dialogue/characters etc. That's why basically one of the worse crimes a movie can do is bore you.

For you Wrath had the visuals and that fine is while other people they wanted story/dialogue to be better because the visuals weren't enough.

 

[Ultimatehero]

And Mi4 didn't have inventive visuals? It had a guy climbing the biggest skyscraper in the world, filmed in IMAX. It had a car chase through a sand storm.

Can't remember seeing anything like those two examples before.

Locations changed. I've seen people climbing skyscrapers before. All that changed was the location. I've also seen car chases through extreme weather conditions - the sand was new, the concept is most usually done with snow. It just wasn't enough or at least didn't meet my expectations in comparison to the rest of the films in it's series. The final sequence also, reviews mentioned this too, seemed anti-climatic. And remember this is a guy with a main background in animation - he could have really come up with really innovative things we haven't seen before ever. I actually wonder what would have happened had he full control over the screenplay as well, probably would have done something more with it.

Even then, if the story itself was more original - that would have satisfied me as well - such as with the third one. Also within it's series it doesn't stand out. MI 2 is high octane action. MI 3 is interesting story design and a more personal story. MI 4 - how did it stand out?

 

[The Morningstar]

Yea, i'm not commenting on this film because i haven't seen it. But pure visual spectacle isn't enough for me.

The TF movies have amazing visuals. But they feel like they are about 8 hours long. They are sooooo ****ing boring.

Amazing visuals don't mean **** if you don't care about the characters involved or the story makes no sense. You might as well just be sitting in a classroom watching a tech demo of the latest CGI.

 

[The Morningstar]

Locations changed. I've seen people climbing skyscrapers before. All that changed was the location. I've also seen car chases through extreme weather conditions - the sand was new, the concept is most usually done with snow. It just wasn't enough or at least didn't meet my expectations in comparison to the rest of the films in it's series. The final sequence also, reviews mentioned this too, seemed anti-climatic. And remember this is a guy with a main background in animation - he could have really come up with really innovative things we haven't seen before ever. I actually wonder what would have happened had he full control over the screenplay as well, probably would have done something more with it.

What about the hologram wall?

There was plenty of imagination and invention in Mi4. The majority of people agree. It's why even though it was a pretty simple action movie, it's critically acclaimed, which is extremely rare. Because what it does, it does very, very well.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Amazing visuals don't mean **** if you don't care about the characters involved or the story makes no sense. You might as well just be sitting in a classroom watching a tech demo of the latest CGI.

Here's the thing. Transformers the pacing seems slow. You're not as involved in it. One thing I've been hearing a lot is this film goes by fast. A film only goes by fast if the audience is involved in it. If you don't care about the characters - it will just be pointless action on the screen. If you care about the characters - the action will be more intense and go by faster. So the pacing, here, is a testament to all the pieces coming together.

 

[Liam_H]

Even then, if the story itself was more original - that would have satisfied me as well - such as with the third one. Also within it's series it doesn't stand out. MI 2 is high octane action. MI 3 is interesting story design and a more personal story. MI 4 - how did it stand out?

Could it be you might be the minority in this situation since it seems a lot of people thought the actions pieces were pretty great. And that MI4 was more team oriented than the other movies.

I accept I'm in the minority that the TF films are crap based on how many people still pay to see it.

 

[The Morningstar]

Here's the thing. Transformers the pacing seems slow. You're not as involved in it. One thing I've been hearing a lot is this film goes by fast. A film only goes by fast if the audience is involved in it. If you don't care about the characters - it will just be pointless action on the screen. If you care about the characters - the action will be more intense and go by faster. So the pacing, here, is a testament to all the pieces coming together.

Indeed. But it seems like a lot of people don't care about the characters or the story. People who say they enjoy this movie but readily admit the dialogue, characterisation and story was bad. But then say "But the action was cool!"

I'll never, ever understand that mentality. How can the action be cool if you don't care about the characters or what is at stake?

 

[Ultimatehero]

What about the hologram wall?

There was plenty of imagination and invention in Mi4. The majority of people agree. It's why even though it was a pretty simple action movie, it's critically acclaimed, which is extremely rare. Because what it does, it does very, very well.

I mentioned the hologram wall as being the one thing that did stand out. Look at the positive reviews - it is generally seen as well crafted. And I never argued with that. HOWEVER most of those reviews usually say, "although you've likely seen everything in this movie before, what makes it stand out is the craft behind it." Meaning even the positive reviews have stated it isn't that innovative of a film and that the craft itself is what elevates it.

Hell, I'm even buying the blu-ray. But, I'm aligning with the reviews that say there is little new about it despite being a well crafted film. This is why I wonder what could have happened if the director was given more lee-way. I think he could have brought a lot more to the project.

To me it stands up there with the other MI films, but not as much because it seems to blend in too much to the others without anything particular standing out about it. And I'm not the first person to say so.

I'll never, ever understand that mentality. How can the action be cool if you don't care about the characters or what is at stake?

Subtle nuances. There weren't any major character scenes. Despite that we do get a sense of who they are, albeit not with a lot of detail. And the characters bring something to the roles that make them stand out. It was just a lot more low-key then films with main character crafting scenes.

Could it be you might be the minority in this situation since it seems a lot of people thought the actions pieces were pretty great. And that MI4 was more team oriented than the other movies.

I accept I'm in the minority that the TF films are crap based on how many people still pay to see it.

Not really or not by much since I didn't say I didn't like the film. All I said was it wasn't innovative enough to me. Even look at the review on the main site about the blu-ray and I'm pretty sure it says the exact same thing. I remember many reviews saying, "despite not being that new, it is still a good film due to the craft behind it." Plus a lot of reviews I've read agreed that the end battle seemed anti-climatic. Also it was better than TF for sure. I'm not a "visual" hound like you seem to be making me or Project (?) out to be - I just want things to be NEW. Whether that is in the story or in the visuals or in the character approach. Basically while there are those three elements I listed to be a great film, if it has only one - I prefer it to be innovative in some way, shape, or design over just well crafted.

 

[Project862006]

Indeed. But it seems like a lot of people don't care about the characters or the story. People who say they enjoy this movie but readily admit the dialogue, characterisation and story was bad. But then say "But the action was cool!"

I'll never, ever understand that mentality. How can the action be cool if you don't care about the characters or what is at stake?

well me personally i know no main characters are gonna die or anything in 99% of films so really nothing is really ever at stake

 

[TheVileOne]

There were only a couple shots in the movie that actually looked 3D. It didn't look as HORRIBLE where you could barely see anything like Clash, but overall the 3D added little to nothing to the picture.

 

[TheVileOne]

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.

Nope. Wrath was converted. It was NOT shot in 3D.

 

[chaseter]

I asked yesterday how this movie could be worse than the first and after seeing it today...I now understand why.

This movie has ZERO heart. You don't care for anybody at all. Everyone could die and no one would care. Even the amazing Bill Nighy is in it for only like 5 minutes. They have dulled down Hades since the last movie and of course they give Poseidon as much screen time as a Bill Murray cameo.

The only plus this movie has is Kronos' visual effects. That's it. The Mikhai looked awesome but yeah they weren't in it very long. Nothing is explained other than how to destroy Kronos. That is as far as they dive into Greek mythology. Such a waste. I actually got bored.