TearsInRain

He says he'd rather have a black American Constantine than a white one, not that he'd rather have a black American Constantine than a white English one.

 

And who knows? Maybe if you'd got the character from the comic right, some of those other actors would've liked the script.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh right, he'd take ANY black american actor over a white one. How about Martin Lawrence over Mel Gibson? Or Chris Rock over Dennis Leary? To admit that you'd find ANY american actor interesting in the role defeats the stand that having an American Constaneen is totally UNACCEPTABLE. Does anyone here ever admit to seeing another point of view?? I ask if skin color would make a difference - Tom answers - no, in fact he'd prefer it. WHY?? So ly surmist that skin color DOES make a difference... to Tom. He's more accepting of a black american in the role than a white one. Doesn't make any sense to me but that's his opinion. But it certainly sounds like he's more accepting of anyone else in the role other than Keanu? Can that even be admitted here? Can't we all just get along?!

When people focus on the surface it kind of indicates how shallow they are as people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

i wonder if you're trying to tell us something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see the wink and I understand a good ribbing but I do understand why I catch hell in here. I have this flaw of seeing beyond the box. I don;t believe things are etched in gold. I've never felt that constraining an idea because of what's come before is such a noble concept. So what - you may fail miserably for trying something new but sometimes you actually succeed and push a concept further than any one thought possible. The worst thing - IMO - that any artist can do is to continue the status quo and not have the courage to shake things up. It's from an old Teddy Roosevelt quote that my father gave me that's still hanging on wall --

Far better to dare mighty things, to win glorius battles, even though checkered with failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

Ooh, right-wing allegations again. Man, that never gets old.

 

If he was a black, British actor then I wouldn't be bothered.

 

Actually thinking about it I'd way prefer a black American Constantine than a white one, Denzel, Forrest, hell even Sam Jackson. Might be cool.

 

But then I would prefer that there was some kind of interest in the source material, even if it was just pronouncing the character's surname correctly and an absence of super-powers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just made my point, Tom. From your own admission it seems it's about who's playing this Amerikan Constanteen than the fact that he isn't British. Denzel, Forrest - great powerful actors. Keanu... the ruling has been made here, Dude.

Now imagine you're a writer or a director hired by a studio that looked for a STAR that would support a 90 mill film and Keanu was the only one who responded best. (Yeah, actors actually do decide if they want to play a role). So for better or worse, that's who they signed - now, do you write and play him as a Brit or an American? What would you do? And saying you wouldn't touch it is not an answer.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

Oh piss off. I'm sick of the constant stream of fucking double talk gushing forth from the pro-Constanteen lobby.

 

It's always the fans or the creators fault isn't it?

 

It's not the usual rancid cultural imperialism that Hollywood usually revels in at all is it?

 

Look, you seem like a nice enough person and that but surely you can see why British people (and fans of the character in general) might get a little irate about this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course I can, Tom, but I can also see the other side. That's a flaw in my personality, I admit. Someone else here mentions the car analogy of having a black car painted green and having the steering wheel switched to the other side. You see, to me - it 's still the same fucking car underneath. When people focus on the surface it kind of indicates how shallow they are as people.

Say you took that same analogy to color of skin. What would these discussions be like if say Hollywood picked a black actor to play Constantine? Would the color of his skin be a source of distaste? Would it matter if he were a great actor? if he were British? Where do you draw the line? Just curious.

Yeah I know. It seems like he might or something. But it also feels like he's going to pull a Halle Berri. "This isnt THE John Constantine.. Its his distant 4th cousin who lives in LA..."

 

I just find it stupid how they made it a action flick. Hellblazer is a Horror book. And the fact that he's not British is taking away from his character. It would be like making James Bond Puerto Rican or something. John being a brit is his character. Its what makes him such a great character..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/quote

 

I find it stupid that someone who has not seen the film can put any any kind of label on it. ACTION is the last genre this film could be placed in. And I know it's not a very popular opinion here but you actually demean Constantine when you said his nationality is his character. There's a hell of lot more to the man then his accent and his hate of the Queen. If you don't see anything else than the creators truly failed.

Why are you critiquing my opinions on what I think is good and bad and not anyone else here? I thought this was a simple binary thread where we expressed what we personally think? I am not entitled to my opinion like anyone else without getting a disertation?

Film makers replaced tired and overused occult devices such as candles and pentagrams with something more provacative.  You have to actually see it to understand what I mean.

Are you talking about the beetle in a box? You are, aren't you? Stop talking about the beetle in a box!

The organic nature of Constantine's world and work has been retained.  No high tech gadgets, no cell phones, no SUV's.

Instead you get dumb supernatural gadgets. I SAID STOP TALKING ABOUT THE BEETLE IN A BOX!

And there are cell phones in Hellblazer - John just doesn't have one of his own.

Johns attitude has been retained altough is somewhat darker than comic but this seems to work by the nature of the Dangerous Habit's spine.

I'm not sure I understood that sentence, but if you're saying that John's arsehole demeanour works within the context of the film, I have to disagree. The great thing about Dangerous Habits was that it had many scenes where John was just a regular guy and good friend (his last night with Brendan, the scenes where he says goodbye to his family and Chas, the discussions with Matthew the other cancer patient). This film doesn't have any of that, save a rather nice bit of banter between himself and Midnite just before the final reel.

Rachel Weiss is phonomenal in the film and her story really shines.

She's pretty. =^_^=

Her story sucks, though. She's mostly just there to get put in danger.

Not too much CGI or in your face FX.

Um... working from memory:

*The Scavenger being hit by a car.

*The "Deportation".

*John's childhood.

*A business of flies.

*The various visits to Hell.

*Midnite's Club.

*The scenes on the electric chair.

*Angela's kidnapping (dragged through an office block).

*The new bit in the graveyard at the end that we all hate.

*Everything in the final act.

No sex with demons.

They cut out the bit about Ellie?

Positives:

That Keanu is actually a better choice in the end then last attached star Nick Cage. Go see National Treasure to see what I mean.

Tone and style of the comic has been perfectly realized by Francis Lawrence and the production designers.

Film makers replaced tired and overused occult devices such as candles and pentagrams with something more provacative. You have to actually see it to understand what I mean.

The organic nature of Constantine's world and work has been retained. No high tech gadgets, no cell phones, no SUV's.

No silly romance between female lead and John.

Johns attitude has been retained altough is somewhat darker than comic but this seems to work by the nature of the Dangerous Habit's spine.

Rachel Weiss is phonomenal in the film and her story really shines.

Not too much CGI or in your face FX.

Measured pace, no MTV style cutting to amp everything up.

John's use of simple cons to get what he needs.

No car chases.

No explosions.

Jude Law is not in this film, the only one he isn;t in in 2004.

NEGATIVES

Chaz as a young sidekick.

Keanu's hair should have been buzzed cut.

No sex with demons.

Holy shotgun only used for 30 seconds (just to rattle the cage)

It's not out now.

Rachel Weisz's character Angela Dodson is introduced in a scene where she is researching John Constantine on the Internet.

 

Will she be turning up here, then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

She's probably already here.... hmmmmmm....

How do youi know it was "them" who put out the earlier release dates?  Do you believe everything you read on the WWW?

No. I don't believe a lot of what you say.

 

 

Not one great film was completed as shot and sent out without any consideration to making it better and that includes Apocolyps Now, The Godfather, Star Wars,  7even, Citisen Kane and any film made by Kurosowa.  In fact the one common denomator to most classic films is that none of them were cake walks.  They struggled, argued, bitched and fought because no one wanted to make a crappy film.  Constantine is no exception.

No matter how good you might think Constantine is, don't you think it's pushing it to call it great? I mean, it has the standard Hollywood kiss-up-to-God-to-avoid-upsetting-the-god-botherers storyline, with the standard Hollywood pseudo-Catholic spirituality (because if they try to make the spirituality look Protestant, the fundies will rip out WB's jugular), a retarded action movie shotgun, an action sequence involving one or more cars, a supernatural/action sequence through a new, characterless LA office building (shades of Die Hard?), standard Hollywood consumerist glitz with an obnoxious cell phone conversation in an SUV, a tittilating and unnecessary romance, an irritating and unnecessary sidekick who will secure the youngest audiences though all the older ones will hate him, the laughable "bucket" method for visiting Hell, and some truly bad lines in some parts of the script. All this, and you can seriously tell us this movie is or will be great? Get real....

 

Oh, oh, I have to ask, will Constantine have a least one explosion? Explosions are so important for securing the 15-24 year old male < 100 IQ demographic! Please tell me that there is at least one explosion in the film! 8-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry and I do not mean to be disrespectful, but that is about the lamest excuse for an attack I have ever seen in print. It's about as illinformed as saying a Ferrarri is a piece of shit because it has the same elements as a Yugo - "Let's see, four tires, an engine and a steering wheel... so what's the difference???"

No one said Constantine was "great", (check my post again) but it should not condemned because of a fan's misunderstandig on how the process works.

Um....Constantine was originally meant to come out in October 2004, anyone who claims different is wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry John but the only other date ever mentioned officially was sept 2004. That was a date the studio set in it's initial PR release before the film actually began production. That date was never set in stone and was changed before the filnm even finished principal photography. This is such a stupid discussion, really, because the Hollywood release schedule is constantly in flux every year with every film. Each weekend starts to shape up the closer that date comes - with studio's finishing their films and jockeying for position so its films will garner the most audience share. Why is that so hard to believe?

The fact that the producers and studio picked president's day weekend almost 3/4 of a year before that release date and have stuck to it since should say something about their faith in the film. But if it changes - so what? It would mean they're repositioning themselves for better results. What if Lucas decides to shift Revenge of the Facial Cists to the same day - does WB keep constantine on the same weekend? Would that really be smart?

Of course this film is being scrutinized here because of the fan base but it should be an education in the process, not a condemnation of the film.

If you go back through the threads you may find one where I stated months ago that the film was always to be released on President's Day weekend in Feb.  That is what I was told from very high officials last June.  They were never ever going to release it sooner.

So how did they benefit by falsely giving people earlier release dates?

 

 

They have incredible faith in the picture these days and there is no reason to have new trailers running 3 months before release.

If they have so much faith, why are they showing people these scruffy, unfinished versions of the film three months before it comes out?

 

It looks to me like something important was screwed up during the initial planning and creation of the film, and WB is now thrashing away trying to fix what they should have gotten right in the first place before its release date. Yes, the whole thing reeks of desperation.

 

I have to admit that I know little about the process of making a major motion picture. However, I have seen things messed up in the governmental and corporate realms and don't think organizational screwups are too different from milieu to milieu.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do youi know it was "them" who put out the earlier release dates? Do you believe everything you read on the WWW?

It looks to you? You admit you know little about the process and yet you venture out your opinion as if it were based on something. WB is not thrashing away to fix something that is broken - they are doing what EVERY MAJOR film does - finishing it. Extra filming is actually a line item in every studio picture budget because they know once editing is done and test audiences have spoken, certain things will need to be clarified, enhanced or excised. Not one great film was completed as shot and sent out without any consideration to making it better and that includes Apocolyps Now, The Godfather, Star Wars, 7even, Citisen Kane and any film made by Kurosowa. In fact the one common denomator to most classic films is that none of them were cake walks. They struggled, argued, bitched and fought because no one wanted to make a crappy film. Constantine is no exception.

A Sneak Peek At Constantine

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeee...it says good things about the Keanu.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

And this coming from a DIE HARD FAN

 

Sounds promising indeed. If this guy can take the whole holyshot gun thing and still like , then i do think that it bodes well for the movie.

 

And of course i'm very happy that he thinks that Shia is utterly useless like he was in I ROBOT ( a movie which truly has raped the Asimov world for ever)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sounds like the studio is desperate, considering the fact that the majority of the reviews that has come out so far has not really been favorable towards the movie and the fact that Keanu is being called the weakest actor in the entire cast. Almost to the point that his co-stars are getting better praise than he is and he’s the lead in the film.

 

If the studio had more faith in the project, there would have been a real trailer for the movie out right now and a real push to finish it on time. It’s seems to me that the movie is really not finish yet and they are trying to find away to savage it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you go back through the threads you may find one where I stated months ago that the film was always to be released on President's Day weekend in Feb. That is what I was told from very high officials last June. They were never ever going to release it sooner. Check your calender and you will see that it is now set for President's weekend. It's a long and very popular movie going weekend and Constantine will own it because nothing else in the genre will be competing. That's not because of fear - it's smart programming and every studio would love to own a weekend all to themselves. You sometimes have to plan a year in advance to own a weekend, it's not some spur of the moment thing. This was the plan from the beginning, believe me.

They have incredible faith in the picture these days and there is no reason to have new trailers running 3 months before release. That's wasteful - unless you're releasing Spiderman 2 -- and reeks of desperation.

Remember--just because they plan on releasing it with an "r" rateing doesn't mean that they will stick to it when opening day comes.  Look at "Aliens Vs. Predator".

 

jaynova

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Official word I just heard is that they were shooting for a PG-13, not an R. Bummer of all bummers... I was wrong.

Chas sprouts wings and becomes an angel at the end?!!!!  Who the fuck's idea was that????  Sorry but I loved the first screening and din;t see this last one and that certainly wasn't in there or in any of the scripts.  Fuck, why even try sometimes...

It's why the review committees try to never set up screenings near LA because you get so many poser wanna-bees trying to prove how superior they are.

 

Where do they tend to set up the screenings then, and what are the purposes of the screenings?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Usually 30 miles away in orange county. The purpose is to try and get a sense of how the movie is playing to an average audience. Not an undustry crowd of people that make movies for a living.

Around LA you get many who say to the screeners handing out free tickets -- "no, i'm not in the industry" and then they go and get in the talk-about after the film. And when you ask a wanna-bee poser or even a seasoned pro what he thinks should change they suddenly get the spotlight to flex their superior knowledge. This can actually skew the results and cause the film to be altered in ways that could actually hurt it. It's my theory that audience members are not critics and therefore should not be asked technical questions of what should be changed.

"Did you like the lead character?" "No, he was nasty and kicked cats..." "Well we better make him more likabe then." Well what if that was the intention ? That actual statement was made in one the reviews - "John is a smart ass - isn;t very likable" - as if that were a bad thing. Asking a generakl audience to edit your film is assinine and can round off every interesting edge..

I dug Alien 3 as a stand-alone. Killing off hicks and Newt was silly, but the movie itself was good.

 

And TearsInRain should register and get an avatar and shit. Don't worry, you'll still be anonymous!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay.. jeepers, I hate belonging to anything that I could actually be a member in. (woody allen move over). But there, I'm registered. Is that better? My avatar is a kitten that posed for me behind the bars around the ruins in Rome. Most evil/innocent creature I had ever seen. Like -- "pet me and I'll tear your fucking jugglar out." Funny how with all the grafetti in Rome that they had to chain link most of the more interesting ruins and now the abandoned cats have completely taken it over. Imagine climbing that fence at night... Even ConJob would find that taxing.