Ghost in the Shell | March 31, 2017 | Scarlett Johansson | Paramount | New Trailer on page 43!!!

[Mr Impossible]

Is there any good signs for this movie, any early screening reactions? I still have no idea where this film will land in terms of quality. The trailers haven't been bad or great, it just seems like it could be horrible, meh or good. I'm leaning on meh because of the director. 

[Arlborn]

4 minutes ago, Mr Impossible said:

Is there any good signs for this movie, any early screening reactions? I still have no idea where this film will land in terms of quality. The trailers haven't been bad or great, it just seems like it could be horrible, meh or good. I'm leaning on meh because of the director. 

 

Go back to page 52 and look for Empire City's post, the one with the gif of Scarlett Johansson. He seems to have enjoyed it.

[Gavin Feng]

A Chinese studio already paid $15m-20m to Paramount.

[RedX]

2 hours ago, EmpireCity said:

This movie is a visual treat with a lot of things you really haven't seen before and some great action .  Pretty damn good but will be interested to see if it can find an wide audience.  

 

LOL at saying Scarlett isn't athletic enough.  She damn well looks it and more than pulls it off.  Oh, and this....

 

 

You saw it? 

[eXtacy]

3 hours ago, EmpireCity said:

This movie is a visual treat with a lot of things you really haven't seen before and some great action .  Pretty damn good but will be interested to see if it can find an wide audience.  

 

LOL at saying Scarlett isn't athletic enough.  She damn well looks it and more than pulls it off.  Oh, and this....

 

 

 

Does it keep the psychological and philosophical story telling like the source material or is it more of a simple action story?

 

32 minutes ago, Gavin Feng said:

A Chinese studio already paid $15m-20m to Paramount.

 

What does that mean?

 

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by eXtacy

[RedX]

2 hours ago, The Futurist said:

I wouldn't say Disney doesn't have faith in Scarjo.

 

Remember what they did in Winter Soldier where she was co-lead.

 

My reasoning why Black Widow didn't have its own movie is power level, the character doesn't really have superpowers that are visually exciting.

 

 

That's sad because it's not far-fetched for a large film studio to prioritize spectacle over character. They could produce a great espionage thriller with BW 

[Orestes]

The reason Black Widow never got a solo movie is because Ike Perlmutter didn't think she'd move enough toys.

[Barnack]

12 minutes ago, Orestes said:

The reason Black Widow never got a solo movie is because Ike Perlmutter didn't think she'd move enough toys.

 

When Ike was in charge of the Marvel movies division, the reason was fairly clear (he did seem simply against women superheroes movie, box office wise and toys wise), but now that it is 100% in Disney control and run directly by them (since Ultron release) it is less obvious.

[Orestes]

4 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

When Ike was in charge of the Marvel movies division, the reason was fairly clear (he did seem simply against women superheroes movie, box office wise and toys wise), but now that it is 100% in Disney control and run directly by them (since Ultron release) it is less obvious.

 

Ike wasn't removed from the picture till phase 3 was aleady laid out.

[Barnack]

10 minutes ago, Orestes said:

 

Ike wasn't removed from the picture till phase 3 was aleady laid out.

 

That is a bit surprising that the 2019 captain marvel was already set in 2014 before Ike being pushed out, but you right, that is far ahead they are locking things now. But that would mean Ike gave the ok to a female superheroe movie ?

Edited March 18, 2017 by Barnack

[Orestes]

4 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

That is a bit surprising that the 2019 captain marvel was already set in 2014 before Ike being pushed out, but you right, that is far ahead they are locking things now. But that would mean Ike gave the ok to a female superheroe movie ?

 

Probably helped that they could cast a newish actor cheap, instead of renegotiating a bigger payday for SJ.

[Klingo]

Just now, EmpireCity said:

This movie is a visual treat with a lot of things you really haven't seen before and some great action .  Pretty damn good but will be interested to see if it can find an wide audience.  

 

LOL at saying Scarlett isn't athletic enough.  She damn well looks it and more than pulls it off.  Oh, and this....

 

 

If people want athletic women they look like this.

[Gavin Feng]

1 hour ago, eXtacy said:

 

What does that mean?

 

 

No matter how much money the film makes in China($20m or $200m), Paramount already get those money.

[MrMarosa]

4 hours ago, ChrisTelclear said:

 

The problem Scarlett is always going to have is her T&A is always going to upstage her acting. She needs to Charlize Theron Monster herself in a movie. She tried to get Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Fincher said she looked like "Marilyn(Monroe) on a motorcycle".

.

The problem is that Scarlett's so-called acting is awful, one-note and lifeless. Theron was/is an insanely beautiful woman, but her acting is never upstaged by her looks because, even when she hams it up, she is still a great ham. She can act. Scarlett is gorgeous but has zero acting range.

Edited March 18, 2017 by MrMarosa

[grey ghost]

Zero acting range?

 

Her, Don Jon, Lost in Translation and now the comedy Rough Night.

 

All easily distinguishable characters.

[grey ghost]

Zero acting range?

 

Her, Don Jon, Lost in Translation and now the comedy Rough Night.

 

All easily distinguishable characters.

[RandomCat]

1 hour ago, grey ghost said:

Zero acting range?

 

Her, Don Jon, Lost in Translation and now the comedy Rough Night.

 

All easily distinguishable characters.

 

It's ok. He doesn't know what a flop is either.

[Hatebox]

I wouldn't say she's a great actress, but her vacant detachment is put to very good use in Under The Skin. That was a brave movie on her part.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Hatebox

[RedX]

She plays a cyborg that frequently ponders her existence and humanity. This is definitely a role for her 

[robertman2]

6 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

That is a bit surprising that the 2019 captain marvel was already set in 2014 before Ike being pushed out, but you right, that is far ahead they are locking things now. But that would mean Ike gave the ok to a female superheroe movie ?

Ike gave the okay to Captain Marvel (And Black Panther) because Feige agreed to do an Inhumans movie, which Ike was pushing as the new X-Men at the time