Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Flying Spaghetti Monster, Oct 4, 2013.
So I take it the movie takes place in Russia and not the USSR? No USSR no viewer here?
I think it looks like it could be pretty good. I didn't get the sense that they were turning Jack Ryan into Jason Bourne or anyone else like that; the fight scene in the beginning looked more like Ryan was a guy just pushing himself to the limit to survive, not a highly-trained killing machine like Bourne.
The rest of the trailer made it look like a pretty standard thriller. It doesn't even look like Ryan takes part in a ton of action scenes (outside of that one bit at the end). I don't think this is going to be a huge issue.
But as i also said it's different if your main star/character is Tom Cruise in a well established, current franchise and if your character is Jack Ryan who's been played by A list actors of their time (well, Harrison Ford is maybe still A List) but the movies are quite older, basically 90s movies which i like and maybe you too but the general audience may have already forgotten.
It just shows how much business thinking there is and how simple the formula actually is. Take Hot, young actor (Pine), give it some cool action scenes and try to ressurect an old franchise to appeal to older viewers and get them into seats.
It doesn't matter if you have twisted the character the movie shows into oblivion because no one cares apart from some idiots on message boards, right?
I may not see this in theatres as it looks too generic for me but i'll still catch it somewhere, it's just that the Jack Ryan is not needed at all if you're going to ignore his background (and i say this without having actually seen this movie so my opinion might change).
Fun trailer, but I sort of wish they hadn't spoiled Keira Knightley's character.
I'm sure you meant Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise's character in Mission Impossible) and not Ethan Hawke (actor, former husband of Uma Thurman).
If I were Kenneth Branagh, I'd be a bit dissatisfied as having myself only mentioned as ''the director of THOR.'' (And HENRY V, DEAD AGAIN, MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN and SLEUTH, thank you very much.)
I get what you're saying, however, this films target audience isn't going to be familiar with his prior work. IMO the target audience is "action film fan who saw MI:4, Bourne 4 or Skyfall", is 15-30yrs olf, not necessarily the Clancy readership which likely skews a larger age range demo
Thor is recent and did well so it makes sense to relate them together.
"You liked Thor a couple years ago, try this, same guy"
Isn't it that you usually get credited for your most recent work?
Recently I've seen a cheap DTV bluray with Bruce Willis, and the blurb credited him for "Expendables 2", not "Die Hard".
I miss the days when they'd bring up their BEST work, recent or otherwise. You don't see much of that lately except for Oscar winners in film casts....
Agreed. Who would be excited about an action/suspense movie if the director's previous work was "Henry V"?
"Man of Steel" credited Christopher Nolan as "The director of the dark Knight"
No mention of "Memento" or "Insomnia"
Just the movie that made 1 billion dollars at the box office.
I don't think that was ever the case in movie marketing.
Saw it when i saw Gravity.
The movie is now coming out Jan. 17 2014: http://www.deadline.com/2013/10/jack-ryan-shadow-recruit-release-date-moved-january-17/
I had heard that Scorsese's original cut for TWOWS was over three hours and the studio wanted him to get it down to two hours plus. This was why the film couldn't make its original release date in November. Since it's Scorsese and the film is something that would be nominated for the Oscar's, the studio gave the slot in December that once belonged to Shadow Recruit.
What is puzzling to me is that three hours is the norm for a Scorsese film...
January burnoff, DOA.
Separate names with a comma.