Seth Rogan stars (?!) as the Green Hornet

[Fpoonsie]

Yo3eI-03OtU

TBH, the trailer doesn't look THAT bad, but I can't get over the thought of this guy playing a "superhero". I'm not very knowledgable of comics, and am especially oblivious to the story of this guy in particular. Any of the comic book purists have a problem w/ this? Or would Seth actually make sense?

[monosylab1k]

I'm more interested in Michel Gondry directing.

[Trainwreck2100]

why does everything have to be i n 3d now?

[monosylab1k]

but the release date being pushed 2 or 3 times now, along with a laste minute decision to make it 3-D, means the studio probably thinks it's total shit and is doing whatever it can to hopefully make a profit.

[balli]

why does everything have to be i n 3d now?
What sucks is that everybody hates it. Hates it. I find it insulting that capitalistic forces are cramming it down our throats to the point that we have no collective response but acquiescence.

I got dragged to 3d Toy Story 3 the other day and I would have rather seen it in 2d, but no, the effin theater has twice as many showtimes for the 3d screening. So now some Hollywood asshole gets to point at my purchase and justify the use of 3d when in fact, I only purchased the 3d ticket because I wanted to see the movie at a reasonable hour as opposed to the 2d showing at 11:00 in the morning. It's fucking bullshit. The anti-freedom of consumerism.

Aside, I listened to an interesting NPR piece the other day about how awkward and shitty the 3d filming method is and how inexperienced most cinematographers are in using it and how they can't get near the same kinds of shots they used to. The bottom line implication is that 3d can be good if its done correctly, by talented film-makers, for the right reasons, but it's used so incorrectly and so often where it shouldn't be, that it's going to ruin film-making as we've known it. I agree.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128193019

[balli]

What's really lame is 3d TV. If people start running out and buying 3d tvs and wearing fucking goggles becomes the standard for whenever you throw on a re-run of Seinfeld, then well, I don't know what I'll do. But I'll certainly hate people more than I already do.

[Cane]

Yea I don't know shit about the Green Hornet but this movie looks like the typical, fun action blockbuster. Didn't Seth Rogen already star in a comic book superhero role anyway? Crazy that he went from a chubby stoner to a god damn super hero :lol

There better be some weed in this movie if its got Seth, frigging 'Green' in the name, and there's just too much green shit in the trailer not to have at least a reference :hat


What's really lame is 3d TV. If people start running out and buying 3d tvs and wearing fucking goggles becomes the standard for whenever you throw on a re-run of Seinfeld, then well, I don't know what I'll do. But I'll certainly hate people more than I already do.

Just wait until the Nintendo3DS comes out. It'll take 3D to another level :downspin:

[Trainwreck2100]

Yea I don't know shit about the Green Hornet but this movie looks like the typical, fun action blockbuster. Didn't Seth Rogen already star in a comic book superhero role anyway? Crazy that he went from a chubby stoner to a god damn super hero :lol

There better be some weed in this movie if its got Seth, frigging 'Green' in the name, and there's just too much green shit in the trailer not to have at least a reference :hat



Just wait until the Nintendo3DS comes out. It'll take 3D to another level :downspin:

thats steven chow not john cho

[Cane]

thats steven chow not john cho

Ninja edit ftw, would've been awesome if they did get Harold though so there's a pair of stoners as superheroes :lol

[CuckingFunt]

I'm more interested in Michel Gondry directing.

And Christoph Waltz as Chudnofsky.

Looks fun. Not great, by any means, but fun. Also not quite as interesting as some of the earlier adaptations that never got off the ground (one in the 90s with Clooney and Jason Scott Lee, one a few years ago with Gyllenhaal and Jet Li that was to be directed by Kevin Smith), but again, fun.

As for Seth Rogen... I was surprised back when I heard it, but I don't think it's a horrible choice. The Green Hornet was never meant to be Superman. The old radio show, which is where the character was created, and later TV show have typically been more about fun and style than a complex comic book mythos. I'd be more concerned if it looked like everyone was taking it too seriously, frankly.

[CuckingFunt]

Also, Al Hirt's theme music for the TV show is one of the single greatest things ever recorded (used to great effect in Kill Bill, hence the clip) and if a new movie means a crappy hip hop remake, that would be enough to keep me away.

2mtp3xpJ2Hk

[JoeChalupa]

Looks like more crap to me. Come on people, expand your minds!!!

[Fpoonsie]

Looks like more crap to me. Come on people, expand your minds!!!

What would you suggest? Cracking open a Twilight series novel?

[ChuckD]

Looks like more crap to me. Come on people, expand your minds!!!

Funny that a guy who pinches a penny until Abe screams, and never takes an position in the forum is telling people to "expand their minds". I'm sure you're just waiting for the VHS release, Joe. You know you want it.

[JoeChalupa]

Funny that a guy who pinches a penny until Abe screams, and never takes an position in the forum is telling people to "expand their minds". I'm sure you're just waiting for the VHS release, Joe. You know you want it.

:lol Never take a position? I think I've stated my position quite clearly in those twilight threads. Just being sarcastic since this is a movie based on a comic book and that, IMO, Seth Rogan does not fit the part. Oh, and yeah, I'll wait for the DVD.

[JoeChalupa]

What would you suggest? Cracking open a Twilight series novel?

:lol more like comic books.

[Blake]

As for Seth Rogen... I was surprised back when I heard it, but I don't think it's a horrible choice. The Green Hornet was never meant to be Superman. The old radio show, which is where the character was created, and later TV show have typically been more about fun and style than a complex comic book mythos. I'd be more concerned if it looked like everyone was taking it too seriously, frankly.

the old TV show was the launching pad for Bruce Lee whose character did all the fighting while GH got all the credit....

I think it's a decent choice.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

why does everything have to be i n 3d now?

Fuckin avatar's lasting legacy.

Check out this article by Roger Ebert in Newsweek, explaining teh whole plan behind 3d and why it sucks:


http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html


3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

That’s my position. I know it’s heresy to the biz side of show business. After all, 3-D has not only given Hollywood its biggest payday ($2.7 billion and counting for Avatar), but a slew of other hits. The year’s top three films—Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, and Clash of the Titans—were all projected in 3-D, and they’re only the beginning. The very notion of Jackass in 3-D may induce a wave of hysterical blindness, to avoid seeing Steve-O’s you-know-what in that way. But many directors, editors, and cinematographers agree with me about the shortcomings of 3-D. So do many movie lovers—even executives who feel stampeded by another Hollywood infatuation with a technology that was already pointless when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes. The heretics’ case, point by point:

1. IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION. When you look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, “Look how slowly he grows against the horizon”? Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing.

2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE. Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they “need” 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What would Fargo gain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?

3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION. Some 3-D consists of only separating the visual planes, so that some objects float above others, but everything is still in 2-D. We notice this. We shouldn’t. In 2-D, directors have often used a difference in focus to call attention to the foreground or the background. In 3-D the technology itself seems to suggest that the whole depth of field be in sharp focus. I don’t believe this is necessary, and it deprives directors of a tool to guide our focus.

4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES. AS 3-D TV sets were being introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, Reuters interviewed two leading ophthalmologists. “There are a lot of people walking around with very minor eye problems—for example, a muscle imbalance—which under normal circumstances the brain deals with naturally,” said Dr. Michael Rosenberg, a professor at Northwestern University. 3-D provides an unfamiliar visual experience, and “that translates into greater mental effort, making it easier to get a headache.” Dr. Deborah Friedman, a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at the University of Rochester Medical Center, said that in normal vision, each eye sees things at a slightly different angle. “When that gets processed in the brain, that creates the perception of depth. The illusions that you see in three dimensions in the movies is not calibrated the same way that your eyes and your brain are.” In a just-published article, Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.

5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM? Lenny Lipton is known as the father of the electronic stereoscopic-display industry. He knows how films made with his systems should look. Current digital projectors, he writes, are “intrinsically inefficient. Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination.” Then the glasses themselves absorb light. The vast majority of theaters show 3-D at between three and six foot-lamberts (fLs). Film projection provides about 15fLs. The original IMAX format threw 22fLs at the screen. If you don’t know what a foot-lambert is, join the crowd. (In short: it’s the level of light thrown on the screen from a projector with no film in it.) And don’t mistake a standard film for an IMAX film, or “fake IMAX” for original IMAX. What’s the difference? IMAX is building new theaters that have larger screens, which are quite nice, but are not the huge IMAX screens and do not use IMAX film technology. But since all their theaters are called IMAX anyway, this is confusing.

6. THERE’S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS. These projectors are not selling themselves. There was initial opposition from exhibitors to the huge cost of new equipment and infighting about whether studios would help share these expenses. Some studios, concerned with tarnishing the 3-D myth, have told exhibitors that if they don’t show a movie in 3-D, they can’t have it in 2-D. Although there’s room in most projection booths for both kinds of projectors, theaters are encouraged to remove analog projectors as soon as they can. Why so much haste to get rid of them? Are exhibitors being encouraged to burn their bridges by insecure digital manufacturers?

7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D. Yet when you see a 2-D film in a 3-D-ready theater, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: it uses the same projector but doesn’t charge extra. See the Catch-22? Are surcharges here to stay, or will they be dropped after the projectors are paid off? What do you think? I think 3-D is a form of extortion for parents whose children are tutored by advertising and product placement to “want” 3-D. In my review of Clash of the Titans, I added a footnote: “Explain to your kids that the movie was not filmed in 3-D and is only being shown in 3-D in order to charge you an extra $5 a ticket. I saw it in 2-D, and let me tell you, it looked terrific.” And it did. The “3-D” was hastily added in postproduction to ride on the coattails of Avatar. The fake-3-D Titans even got bad reviews from 3-D cheerleaders. Jeffrey Katzenberg, whose DreamWorks has moved wholeheartedly into 3-D, called it “cheeseball,” adding: “You just snookered the movie audience.” He told Variety he was afraid quickie, fake-3-D conversions would kill the goose that was being counted on for golden eggs.

8. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D. Neither can directors. Having shot Dial M for Murder in 3-D, Alfred Hitchcock was so displeased by the result that he released it in 2-D at its New York opening. The medium seems suited for children’s films, animation, and films such as James Cameron’s Avatar, which are largely made on computers. Cameron’s film is, of course, the elephant in the room: a splendid film, great-looking on a traditional IMAX screen, which is how I saw it, and the highest-grossing film in history. It’s used as the poster child for 3-D, but might it have done as well in 2-D (not taking the surcharge into account)? The second-highest all-time grosser is Cameron’s Titanic, which of course was in 2-D. Still, Avatar used 3-D very effectively. I loved it. Cameron is a technical genius who planned his film for 3-D from the ground up and spent $250 million getting it right. He is a master of cinematography and editing. Other directors are forced to use 3-D by marketing executives. The elephant in that room is the desire to add a surcharge.

Consider Tim Burton, who was forced by marketing executives to create a faux-3-D film that was then sold as Alice in Wonderland: An IMAX 3D Experience (although remember that the new IMAX theaters are not true IMAX). Yes, it had huge grosses. But its 3-D effects were minimal and unnecessary; a scam to justify the surcharge.

Even Cameron plans to rerelease Titanic in 3-D, and it’s worth recalling his 3-D documentary, Ghosts of the Abyss, which he personally photographed from the grave of the Titanic. Titanic 3-D will not be true 3-D, but Cameron is likely to do “fake 3-D” better than others have. My argument would nevertheless be: Titanic is wonderful just as it stands, so why add a distraction? Obviously, to return to the No. 2 cash cow in movie history and squeeze out more milk.

I once said I might become reconciled to 3-D if a director like Martin Scorsese ever used the format. I thought I was safe. Then Scorsese announced that his 2011 film The Invention of Hugo Cabret, about an orphan and a robot, will be in 3-D. Well, Scorsese knows film, and he has a voluptuous love of its possibilities. I expect he will adapt 3-D to his needs. And my hero, Werner Herzog, is using 3-D to film prehistoric cave paintings in France, to better show off the concavities of the ancient caves. He told me that nothing will “approach” the audience, and his film will stay behind the plane of the screen. In other words, nothing will hurtle at the audience, and 3-D will allow us the illusion of being able to occupy the space with the paintings and look into them, experiencing them as a prehistoric artist standing in the cavern might have.

9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN. In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well.

What Hollywood needs is a “premium” experience that is obviously, dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at all ages, and worth a surcharge. For years I’ve been praising a process invented by Dean Goodhill called MaxiVision48, which uses existing film technology but shoots at 48 frames per second and provides smooth projection that is absolutely jiggle-free. Modern film is projected at 24 frames per second (fps) because that is the lowest speed that would carry analog sound in the first days of the talkies. Analog sound has largely been replaced by digital sound. MaxiVision48 projects at 48fps, which doubles image quality. The result is dramatically better than existing 2-D. In terms of standard measurements used in the industry, it’s 400 percent better. That is not a misprint. Those who haven’t seen it have no idea how good it is. I’ve seen it, and also a system of some years ago, Douglas Trumbull’s Showscan. These systems are so good that the screen functions like a window into three dimensions. If moviegoers could see it, they would simply forget about 3-D.

I’m not opposed to 3-D as an option. I’m opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy. Scorsese and Herzog make films for grown-ups. Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market. Disney recently announced it will make no more traditional films at all, focusing entirely on animation, franchises, and superheroes. I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of executives possessed. It’s all about the marketing. Hollywood needs a projection system that is suitable for all kinds of films—every film—and is hands-down better than anything audiences have ever seen. The marketing executives are right that audiences will come to see a premium viewing experience they can’t get at home. But they’re betting on the wrong experience.

Ebert is the film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times.

[eyeh8u]

i remeber when everyone hated hdtv, 1,080 lines, fuck that shit, i am ok with my 360 lines

[Trainwreck2100]

:lol Never take a position? I think I've stated my position quite clearly in those twilight threads. Just being sarcastic since this is a movie based on a comic book and that, IMO, Seth Rogan does not fit the part. Oh, and yeah, I'll wait for the DVD.

lol paying for movies

lol paying for shitty movies based on even shittier books

[jacobdrj]

i remeber when everyone hated hdtv, 1,080 lines, fuck that shit, i am ok with my 360 lines

Avatar looks a LOT better on my 480p TV than it did in the theater in 3D... It is as if the editors of Avatar only used small monitors when they were rendering the CGI... Realism was lost with the CGI at 1080p...

[JoeChalupa]

lol paying for movies

lol paying for shitty movies based on even shittier books

Last move I saw at the theatre was The Passion of the Christ.

Yeah, sometimes I'll splurge $1 for a movie like I did for Avatar. Also broke down and rented Shutter Island to watch today.
I'm sure at one time you've paid to see a shitty movie based on a shitty book on a shitty date...well, if you dated that is. :toast

[JoeChalupa]

Avatar looks a LOT better on my 480p TV than it did in the theater in 3D... It is as if the editors of Avatar only used small monitors when they were rendering the CGI... Realism was lost with the CGI at 1080p...

I thought it looked fine on my old ass TV and I got the message of the movie just fine without 3D and the big screen.

[Trainwreck2100]

Last move I saw at the theatre was The Passion of the Christ.

Yeah, sometimes I'll splurge $1 for a movie like I did for Avatar. Also broke down and rented Shutter Island to watch today.
I'm sure at one time you've paid to see a shitty movie based on a shitty book on a shitty date...well, if you dated that is. :toast

insults? Unfortunately you're doing more damage to your rep than I ever could

[JoeChalupa]

insults? Unfortunately you're doing more damage to your rep than I ever could

I don't worry about my rep as much as you do.

[Trainwreck2100]

actually I don't give a fuck about your rep either

[MannyIsGod]

Just watched this. Actually really enjoyed it. :tu :tu