ShockTillYouDrop.com

Posted by: Matthew J Williams on February 6, 2010 at 18:20:47

Hmm...I recall Mark Steven Johnson setting aside all the "obligatory" story (AKA exposition, character development, etc) in Ghost Rider in order to get him to turn into a flaming skull. Studios messing with a cut of the film to make it thinner doesn't sit well with audiences and purists.

Posted by: Nathan K on February 6, 2010 at 18:46:12

Even if every second of footage had been reinstated into Ghost Rider, it would still be a terrible film.

Posted by: BoomingEchoes on February 6, 2010 at 19:10:14

Nathan K is right, but also Mark isn't Joe, even if they're related it doesn't mean their style is the same. I will agree however that the studio stepping in and asking him to speed things up is a little unnerving. More so that the studio did it at all and not really for how the movie is going to be any way.

Posted by: FKCGIITSUX on February 6, 2010 at 19:32:27

The first of many crappy CG transformations? Lame.

Posted by: Howler on February 6, 2010 at 20:45:43

Related? Joe JohnSTon is not related to Mark Steven JohNSon. Two different people. And although Ghost Rider wasn't the movie I was hoping for it was not a terrible movie. It's still a very enjoyable action movie and the Ghost Rider looked awesome. The criticism on that movie has gotten ridiculous.

Posted by: luis molina on February 6, 2010 at 22:39:03

I agree with Howler, al it needed was a better scrip, and I belive they are working on it for G.R II, cant wait to see hoe it turns out.

Posted by: Carl Grissom on February 7, 2010 at 00:47:27

What about an extended blu-ray version?

Posted by: Matthew J Williams on February 7, 2010 at 02:18:20

Ghost Rider disappointed the hell out of me. That was a bad, unintentional pun there...but I wasn't talking about the style. I was merely commenting on how sped up exposition can really damage a film. And for the record, I think Joe Johnston has a pretty bad track record too. MSJ isn't the only one.
My point was that story takes its time. That's important. There's a build-up involved; an anticipation that really adds to the suspense and the intrigue of the film. "Iron Man", for example; though it is a VERY different kind of movie, it had a considerably slow start. A long long time before Stark showed up in the Mark 1, 2, especially 3 Iron Man suit. The more story it has, the less I'll personally be disappointed with it. I'd rent the extended cut for sure, just to see what he adds.

Posted by: dude on February 7, 2010 at 09:21:54

I'm not sure why everyone is all up-in-arms over the CGI thing. I mean, the original used a ****ing TIME LAPSE. Let's be honest, the only reason the original transformation gets a free pass into greatness is because the rest of the film happened to be great. Seriously, it's like listening to a six year old girl complain that she wanted the pink Talking Barbie house and not the blue one. The house you're getting is a lot more expensive than what kids were getting in 1943, and I'll bet those kids would kill to have it.

Anyway, back on track, I'm a little worried about this studio interference business, but I'll try to be optimistic.

Posted by: Nick Ortiz on February 7, 2010 at 11:16:12

As a filmmaker, the timing and pacing of a film is something you always wrestle with. With Iron Man, it was about the creation of the suit and so a slower start made sense. Where in the Incredible Hulk, it's a transformation that happens quickly, so to have him change by the 20 minute mark, also makes sense. Plus I think studios want to deliver the goods to audiences, so I can understand, them wanting to get to the change. I mean, the movie is called THE WOLFMAN, why should we wait to see him...? I wish Peter Jackson had done that with KING KONG...

I'm with dude, the original used a time dissolve, which is essentially 1940's cgi. Stop hating on the technique. Judge the movie on how good it is on a whole, not because you think CG is crappy and want just only practical effects. CG has certain advantages over practical, conversely practical effects also have certain advantages over cg. Using the best of both and I dare you to even notice. You know the Jurassic Park series used both and those are still good movies, because the stories are compelling. the effects are the gravy.

Posted by: J. Barnett on February 7, 2010 at 12:43:13

NICK ORTIZ- If only they used a combination of practical and digital. The transformations are all CG and they look like cartoons. They could've had a perfect blend and had a stand out transformation. Rick Baker wanted this all along, but the producers screwed him over by going all CG for the transformations. It looks bad and takes you out of the movie.

Posted by: J. Barnett on February 7, 2010 at 12:53:45

THE PROBLEM is that the technology of both CGI and practical effects should be used together to create very realistic effects (Jurassic Park). Instead, producers are only using CGI and for the most part, it looks like what it is, a drawing.

The industry is skipping over the potential of some outstanding screen illusions. Sure, CGI is getting a lot better and it will be the future, but right now we should be blending both.

Posted by: ico on February 7, 2010 at 14:17:26

Either way, Johnston is a sucky director, so i don't see this being good at all.

Posted by: Jonesy on February 7, 2010 at 15:04:19

Should have stayed with Mark Romanek. And you all ****ing know it. I'll always take the director of One Hour Photo (a great film; if you haven't seen it WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!!??) over the director of Jurassic Park 3 (I guess it was only ok for what it was but the first is still the best; that is not a compliment). It just makes more sense to use a director who can make a thriller(Romanek) over a hack who can go through the motions (Johnston).

Posted by: 67fuifui on February 7, 2010 at 15:39:24

im definitely getting the dvd 1ce it comes out,which will probably be in may or june depending on the film's gross revenue which i hope is alot!!!

Posted by: Fierce_Creature on February 7, 2010 at 16:17:02

Give us the option of seeing the intended cut in theaters! We don't care about studio cuts! Universal still learns nothing all these years later after Brazil! A producer is NOT a director, and a studio does certainly not know how to edit.
I don't care about Cgi, I'll always watch American Werewolf and respect that transformation. They should of stuck to that method, it's classic, it will always be remembered. Nobody remembers Amer. Werewolf in Paris for it's Cgi.
I'm paying to see characters and story, effects come into play when acting has reached it's extent. We live in lazy days of movie making. And this film has a lot riding on it as far as a horror movie that can be memorable like they used to be.
I'm so f***ing fed up with all this sped up story to get to action and effects! It makes films completely forgettable! If you spend no time on character development why the hell would we give a **** about what they are doing?!? Do the math!!

Posted by: IWW on February 7, 2010 at 19:14:48

Blue ray is ****.