The Wachowskis Returning to Sci-Fi with Jupiter Ascending

Status
Not open for further replies.
from 1999 until 2012 its obvious that Andy and Lana know how to cast actors. why did WB think they need to throw Kunis and Tatum?

Kunis was cast in april 2012. that when hollywood thought that The great Oz would become a big hit and start a franchise. Kunis would be the green witch in sequels and WB could use this to promote Jupiter. didnt work out. the same story with Tatum and White House Down.
 
I didn't mind Kunis in Oz but she is a slight actress, charming but lacking depth. I think she is better at playing a girlfriend or a wife in comedies. Tatum pretty much proved in White House Down that he is a servicable lead in action films but nothing too memorable. I think comedy and side roles in dramas are more his thing. I hope I'm wrong but I don't see these two being an amazing fit for the type of film JA is.
 
i respect that the Wachowskis used a fairy tale as inspiration and than made something original around it.

hollywood is focused on remakes and reboots. but if you use a familiar story and repack it into something different you get more interesting movies out of it. thats what they do with books. they dont reboot books. a writter will be inspired by a story that he read when he was younger. years later he will use it as inspiration and create original characters.

of course the negative side to this is that they will call you a liar and thief. like with Avatar. that bastard thief Cameron stole Princess of Mars and made a new movie. thats what hollywood did to movie fans. similar with Gravity. movie got bashed that it was nothing new and that they only added space and made it more expensive.
 
This looks like it has "bomb" written all over it. It seems like one of those movies that the directors THINK is really epic but audiences will greet it with a shrug. Kind of like The Golden Compass.
 
i respect that the Wachowskis used a fairy tale as inspiration and than made something original around it.

hollywood is focused on remakes and reboots. but if you use a familiar story and repack it into something different you get more interesting movies out of it. thats what they do with books. they dont reboot books. a writter will be inspired by a story that he read when he was younger. years later he will use it as inspiration and create original characters.

of course the negative side to this is that they will call you a liar and thief. like with Avatar. that bastard thief Cameron stole Princess of Mars and made a new movie. thats what hollywood did to movie fans. similar with Gravity. movie got bashed that it was nothing new and that they only added space and made it more expensive.

Who said this and about what?
 
about gravity. that there are alredy 100 movies with the same type character like Ryan Stone. where the whole movie is about one person who needs to survive. water,fire,earthquake,sharks,coffin,....
 
GVIFUyH.jpg

5ej1PH4.jpg
 
Last edited:
fantastic concept for the posters.

if painted they could be one of the best posters.
 
Also, just because it doesn't do well financially does NOT automatically mean that it's a bad film. There have been plenty of good, or even great, films that haven't made a lot of money.
 
G-damn Tatum again. Their marketing obsession rages for the man. Does Kunis and her character really suck as much as trailer #1?
 
Also, just because it doesn't do well financially does NOT automatically mean that it's a bad film. There have been plenty of good, or even great, films that haven't made a lot of money.

This is true, but good luck telling that to certain posters.
 
I have got a good feeling about it.

The trailer was meh because literally it had Mila screaming and falling 10 times in the trailer. For such an important character, we didn't get to see or hear anything from her point of view.

I feel the same. I just think it was a bad trailer. I'm not a huge fan of the actors but I like the sci-fi fantasy vibe it's got. Hopefully, this new trailer is better.
 
G-damn Tatum again. Their marketing obsession rages for the man. Does Kunis and her character really suck as much as trailer #1?
Can you blame them for pimping Tatum more?

Although I completely get why Tatum is being promoted the most I do agree that it would be interesting to see and hear more about Kunis's character though.
 
Can you blame them for pimping Tatum more?

Although I completely get why Tatum is being promoted the most I do agree that it would be interesting to see and hear more about Kunis's character though.
/
It makes me not see the movie. The adventures of wolf/elf space alien man and his pathetic damsel in distress saps away any enthusiasm I have for the movie, driving it down to a 0% chance of me paying to see such a concept. The thing left to see will be if Trailer #2 revives or buries it for me for good.
 
/
It makes me not see the movie. The adventures of wolf/elf space alien man and his pathetic damsel in distress saps away any enthusiasm I have for the movie, driving it down to a 0% chance of me paying to see such a concept. The thing left to see will be if Trailer #2 revives or buries it for me for good.
Your description is hilarious. It doesn't sound that interesting to me either.

Do we really need a Futuristic version of Snow White and the Huntsman? That second trailer is going to have to be awesome.
 
Last edited:
I'll say this:

I applaud the Wach siblings for making an original tentpole. But also, they've had their struggles in the past, and there's a bit of a stigma with them.

But it seems like the only filmmaker today who can make an original tentpole and MONEY is one CHRIS NOLAN!
 
The Tatum poster actually looks pretty epic. The Kunis one though... that image just give me a "community theater production of The Wizard of Oz" vibe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"