Jump to content
Uriel

Constantine Rating

Recommended Posts

Hollygrove sold tickets for the Constantine premiere on Ebay.

You can read this:

This film is rated PG-13 and runs approximately 143 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, why do I think that the Rating was left to dangle carrot like before online Hellblazer fans for as long as possible to stop them getting too riled up?

 

Fucking marketing shills, eh?

 

I'd sooner deal with demons, you know where you are with demons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't one of the first-lookers mention that it ran a little long for their liking ?

 

Is it usual for premier tickets to be up for grabs already ?

 

As for the PG13/Rating farce, I stand by my initial reading of it - the studio wanted a PG13, Francis gave tham an R so they had to reshoot it down to a PG13.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't one of the first-lookers mention that it ran a little long for their liking ?

I've always liked long movies myself.

 

Is it usual for premier tickets to be up for grabs already ?

Good question.

 

 

As for the PG13/Rating farce, I stand by my initial reading of it - the studio wanted a PG13, Francis gave tham an R so they had to reshoot it down to a PG13

This makes sense and suggests everyone in the production team isn't on the same page. Or Lawrence just screwed up.l

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as some of us would like to tar (and feather) the people involved in this film with the same brush, it has been clear all along that the "artists" side of the relationship wanted something darker.

 

I take what Keanu Reeves, Francis Lawrence and Lisa Gerrard's friend said on face value about the darkness they were striving for. And you just know that those people who make it their business to make films based on demography and money want to target their film as widely as possible.

Let's call it the LA LCD.

 

Sadly, it seems increasingly likely that they have ended up with something more like The Darkness than the darkness they were after.

 

Oh and the long film mentioned above ?

It'll be butchered.

 

Note to DVD producers: let's see that R version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The R version will probably be out on DVD two months after the original version.

 

If it's the premiere then surely it'll be the final cut? Unless it's actually just another test screening.

 

Regarding the length of the movie, the Constantine script does feel like it's whipping along at a fair old rate of knots, so it might feel shorter once you're actually in there (although the Chaz coda might ruin the pace of the ending). But 2 hours and twenty minutes seems like a long time for a Hollywood blockbuster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an approximate timing - because the film's not quite finished, is it?

 

They paid nearly $1600 !

That's an excellent price for the charity auction.

$400 each for the Premiere and party, without even knowing when it will be !

(Oh those crazy Reevesians!)

 

Reminds me, I must try and commission a John Constantine versus John Constanteen pic for the next Just 1 Page !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That picture was already in the last Just 1 Page, John. What, you didn't buy one? :)

 

Anyway, re. the length of the film. It's a frustrating tendency for modern films to be far too fucking long (I blame the huge commercial success of the LotR trilogy and Larry Porter: Boy Magician franchise, myself). I love a long film when the story actually warrants 2 hours plus of content, but too often directors just seem to be lazy about editing. Does anyone really feel that Kill Bill wouldn't, ultimately, have been better as one film, for example? If Tarantino hadn't been given so much freedom to indulge his ego, I'm sure he could easily have chopped up to an hour and a half out of those two films, at no real detriment to the story, and delivered one decent-sized epic. Critics would have preferred it, most of the audience would have preferred it, and I'd have been cheering. Vol.2 was just too fucking long.

 

Standard length for a Hollywood blockbuster is creeping well over 2 hours, and that's not really a good thing. It's like records - the size of a CD leads a lot of bands to feel a need to fill the disc, which is why so many albums of the last decade or so are simply too damn long. I like getting lots of music for my money as much as anyone, but it's no coincidence that the majority of my favourite albums are about 40-50 minutes long, tops. Back in the vinyl days, an artist really had to think hard about going longer than that (making a double album), so the editing process was harsher, and less filler material generally made it onto the records. That's why there are a good load of classic double albums - they tended to result from a genuine surfeit of top-notch material, rather than just a need to fill a lengthy running-time. Until the 70s, of course, when double-albums became de rigeur, resulting in monstrosities like Tales from Topographic Oceans. But that's enough of that.

 

Ahem. I went a bit off-topic there, I fear, but it's a pet grumble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the studio AND the producers knew all the time what they were doing. They have these things planned for too much time before even begin to shooting, they know what market they will want, how much they need to make a profit, every tiny detail. Of course they want the PG-13 version for theaters, but shot a R Rated version that will be put out on DVD, so they will make twice the cash because people will want to see all the stuff that was left out in the theather version. It´s how the market works nowadays, the DVD makes incredible cash for the studios, in US and overseas.

 

As for the Rating, it seems that the difference for a R and a PG-13 is more for sexual content and some words, isn´t it ? So, maybe they can maintain the dark tone and some violence. You know, nude parts and sex are EXTREMELY dangerous for young audiences, but you can kill a guy or scratch a body with a chainsaw and there´s no problem... :icon_rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, re. the length of the film. It's a frustrating tendency for modern films to be far too fucking long.  I love a long film when the story actually warrants 2 hours plus of content, but too often directors just seem to be lazy about editing. Does anyone really feel that Kill Bill wouldn't, ultimately, have been better as one film, for example? If Tarantino hadn't been given so much freedom to indulge his ego, I'm sure he could easily have chopped up to an hour and a half out of those two films, at no real detriment to the story, and delivered one decent-sized epic.

Tee hee.

 

Mark, you're so right you don't know it. This especially goes for Hollywood movies, which often would have worked a LOT better if they cut out a good half hour. Good example: Spiderman 2 - would have been a LOT more fun at 1 1/2 hours than 2.

 

(Btw: Case in point for music: Rubber Soul by The Beatles is 35 minutes or something!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did I end up in the land of the short movie loving airheads?

 

When I got to see a movie I want to SEE a movie, not just sit down and get back up again. At current movie prices and with the hassle of getting to the theater these days, I feel like I've been robbed if the movie lasts only 90 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like long movies, as long as the length is there to tell more of a story. Spidey 2 didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Red and Mark on this one - there's been a definite trend over the last two or three years to leave the cutting-scissors on the shelf when it comes to editing time.

 

Obviously if you've got a really good story that takes three hours (or more!) to tell, then I'm all for it getting that time but far too many movies seem to go for two hours plus just for the sake of doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Standard length for a Hollywood blockbuster is creeping well over 2 hours, and that's not really a good thing. It's like records - the size of a CD leads a lot of bands to feel a need to fill the disc, which is why so many albums of the last decade or so are simply too damn long.

 

Are you talking about Metallica's Saint Anger? I'm with you.

Anyway, the Black Metal bands doesn't have that fault. Listen Black Metal (You Don't Have Guts To :tongue: )

 

Aye, after watching LOTR, if I see one more lingering shot of New Zealand...

 

That film should have been three hours longer! They missed things! Don't think I'm a RingFreak, it's just... they missed things! Tolkien wanted his book in a film if and only if they put EVERYTHING in the screen. The last will should be sacred in some cases.

But how can Constantin be so long?? Did they say, 'well, if we are going to fuck a comic, let's do it to the end'?

That makes a minus to see that movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just say "damn!" Both to the PG-13 and to the fact that I didn't even KNOW about that charity auction. There are some mighty happy Keanu fans that got it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Wait a minute, someone here hates the adaptation of LOTR?????  I thought Jackson was a genius in just about everyone's eyes, even hearing -- "If only they could adapt Constantine with as much care and thought as Jackson did with LOTR."  So in other words some people will never be happy with seeing literature turned into moving pictures.  Not that there's anything wrong with that opinion but it just shows you how tough it is for any writer/filmmaker/studio venturing into adapting successful books.

Nah, that's just me. You know, I had a lot of problems with LOTR as it stood, but then I read what Jon "Excalibur" Borman wanted to do with the film, and decided very quickly that it could have been VASTLY worse. "Burn my eyes out with cagarettes and scrub out my brain with steel wool" worse.

 

But the Hollywood proof is cash in hand, is it not? As far as Hollywood is concerned, Peter Jackson is a fucking God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that there's anything wrong with that opinion but it just shows you how tough it is for any writer/filmmaker/studio venturing into adapting successful books.

 

I can show you fans (doesn't seem like the right word to be used in this instance, but how and ever...) of the LOTR books who enjoyed the pants off the movie adaptations (me!), I'm thinking it'll be a good deal harder to do so in the case of Constantine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that there's anything wrong with that opinion but it just shows you how tough it is for any writer/filmmaker/studio venturing into adapting successful books.

 

I can show you fans (doesn't seem like the right word to be used in this instance, but how and ever...) of the LOTR books who enjoyed the pants off the movie adaptations (me!), I'm thinking it'll be a good deal harder to do so in the case of Constantine.

 

LOTR was a masterwork written by one man - with one vision. To be fair there was a hell of lot more depth and substance to use in shaping a great movie than the still ongoing Constantine series. I'm sure in the wrong hands LOTR could have been a disaster but with 3 hours plus to do each book there was a pretty good chance that an interesting movie could be realized just by following the plot. The only complaints I've heard from LOTR book fans is that Jackson rearranged events and left a lot of great stuff out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait a minute, someone here hates the adaptation of LOTR?????  I thought Jackson was a genius in just about everyone's eyes,

You should get out more often. There definitely are people, including LOTR book fans, and those who never read the books, who don't like some or all of the movies.

 

 

even hearing -- "If only they could adapt Constantine with as much care and thought as Jackson did with LOTR."  So in other words some people will never be happy with seeing literature turned into moving pictures.

The people who won't be happy with any adaptation won't ever go see one, so they're not even part of the potential audience. You just don't like the fact that there are groups of intelligent, communicative people who know their chosen literature very well and have strong feelings about what's done with it. Sorry but you and the rest of your industry don't have the right to a mindlessly compliant movie-going public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'well, if we are going to fuck a comic, let's do it to the end'?

 

obviously said as a joke but the more i hear about the rape job they are doing on hellblazer the more this sentence seems logical

 

a mature comic to a pg-13 movie?? what the fuck?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, Birdchild!

 

LOTR = Good adaptation, good film(s)

Constantine = Lousy adaptation, possibly OK film

 

Shanice: Love the new avatar. What is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awww, please don't get me started on Lord of the fucking Rings. I HATE that film! I hate it, hate it , hate it!! :icon_evil:

 

The only pro's on that were Liv Tyler and Viggo Mortensen, oh and that superscary spider in part 3, but that's it! And that's 1 pro per film!

 

Fjoew, dat lucht op.

 

Wait a minute, someone here hates the adaptation of LOTR?????

 

(...)

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that opinion but it just shows you how tough it is for any writer/filmmaker/studio venturing into adapting successful books.

I'm not sure if Shanice has read the books at all, Tears. I think she may just not like the films.

 

At the old forum there was an big LOTR thread, and that showed clearly that most regulars at the forum have read the books, and love the LOTR adaptation by Peter Jackson.

 

No I haven't read the books indeed, so it doesn't prove the point that it's SO HARD to make a ::decent:: adaptation. I just hated the film for Elijah Wood, the Oscars, the length of the last film, the weak main character and that it was so overrated. I must admit that there were good points too and Peter Jackson is cute (as an uncle, not as in: sexy :wink: )

 

And Red, it's from Louis Royo's painting "Alone." I've had avatars from Louis Royo before , you should Google him. Some things are beautiful! But don't say something IS something. Not possibe. Opinions, okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...