If Spawn doesn’t have much to say, then why Foxx, the Oscar-winner who delivered so many memorable lines in everything from Django Unchained to Collateral and Ray?
“There are five or six moments where I’m going to need things from my actors, and a couple of them have to come from Jamie, and I’ve seen him deliver them onscreen,” McFarlane said. “He gets into a zone, with body language and a look that basically will say way more than anything i could type on a piece of paper, and this movie is going to need those moments. And in the odd moment where he has to deliver a line that’s short, curt and has impact, he can do it in a way that makes you go, ‘Whoa, I don’t want to mess with that guy. What a badass.’”
McFarlane adds that Foxx was the actor in his mind when he wrote the script.
“Jamie came to my office five years ago, and he had an idea about Spawn and we talked about it,” McFarlane said. “I never forgot him, and when I was writing this script, you sort of plug people in, and he was my visual guy and I never let go of him. When I got done and my agents and everybody was talking about what actor, I said, I’m going to Jamie first and until he says no I don’t want to think about anyone else because I’ve never had anyone else in my head. Luckily, he hadn’t forgotten either. I said, ‘Hey, I’m back to talk about Spawn again, and he was like, let’s do it.’”
Todd is a good salesman.
Django is a minimalist role. Seems legit.
I hope it’s blue bodypaint rather than CGI.
Have they announced any other cast members?
On a film of that scale there must be hundreds of people who know, but no-one has said anything.
Robert Pattinson, Sean Harris, Ben Mendelsohn and Lily-Rose Depp are joining Timothée Chalamet and Joel Edgerton in Netflix’s feature The King, which begins shoot in the UK tomorrow [June 1].
Director David Michôd’s (War Machine) drama is based on classic Shakespeare plays Henry The IV [Parts 1 and 2] and Henry V, in which a young disgraced prince Hal (Chalamet) inherits the crown at a particularly turbulent time in English history and must learn what it means to be a king, guided by his one true friend, Falstaff (Edgerton). The plays take place before, during and after England’s military conflict with France at the famous Battle Of Agincourt in 1415, part of the ‘Hundred Years’ War’ between the two nations.
Pattinson will play French prince The Dauphin; Mendelsohn will play King Henry IV; Depp, in her fifth feature, will play French Princess Catherine, who goes on to marry Henry V; Harris will play William [possibly soldier Williams]. Rounding out cast are Tom Glynn-Carney (Dunkirk) and Thomasin Harcourt McKenzie (Leave No Trace) who play nobleman and rebel Hotspur and Henry V’s younger sister Philippa, respectively.
Yeah, I was wondering exactly how much work Foxx will have to do if Spawn is rarely seen and barely says anything. Sounds like Jamie Foxx has been cast as a CGI character who doesn’t have any lines. I mean, if Spawn was like Freddie Krueger it IT in the movie, it would make sense, but MacFarlane is saying he’s gonna be more like The Babadook or the Sinister demon. Who cares who played those?
I’m betting they’re looking at Ethan Hawke for Twitch, though. However, so far, I think the movie will be stuck in limbo about as long as the Crow reboot has.
James Cameron still believes in 3D;
What I always hoped would happen is that 3D became commonplace, and therefore, not remarkable, in the same way that colour is commonplace and not remarkable. I think we’ve accomplished that. At the time that Avatar was released there were about three or four thousand theatres worldwide that were digital 3D enabled projection systems. We now have on the order of 65,000 or 70,000 3D enabled screens. It’s become ubiquitous. It’s become commonplace, and therefore not remarkable, which is why a lot of people attributed such a climb with 3D or the failure of 3D. I think going from 3,000 to 70,000 theatres is far from failure. That’s good news because I want Avatar 2 to play on all 70,000 of them!
That said, I think that Hollywood has done 3D a disservice by embracing post-conversion, which to me is the wrong track. We should do native photography because if we’re ever going to incorporate 3D into broad content production, which most of which is live or near realtime or short turnaround TV production, we have to use the native production tools. Native production technology has basically stalled as of about three or four years ago. We need to re-embrace native production. My hopeful prediction is we’ll get 4K out of our system from a broadcast perspective. When that becomes utterly commonplace and 100 percent saturated, everyone will look around for the next big thing.
The next big thing will be staring them in the face when they look in the mirror, which is, you’ve got two eyes. We perceive the world stereoscopically. We will want our content stereoscopically. What we don’t want is to have to wear glasses and then some kind of specialised viewing apparatus. We just want the screens to be all 3D and a good 3D. We’re on the cusp of that being possible now. The question is, will it? From my own perspective since I’m not doing television production, I’m doing Avatar sequels – four of them. They will be, to the best of my ability, the best 3D that’s possible to make. That includes collaborating with the people at Dolby Cinema, who have developed high dynamic range projection that could put 16 foot-lamberts of light on a 3D screen through the glasses, which is revolutionary. Normally, you’re looking at about three foot-lamberts. Sixteen is what you should be seeing. That’s what movies should look like.
We need to see the roll out of these laser projection systems, so that we can fully appreciate 3D through glasses in cinemas. Then, we need the roll out of autostereoscopic screens – large panel displays, where you don’t need glasses at all. You have multiple discreet viewing angles and all that sort of thing. Anybody that’s geeking out on 3D knows what I’m talking about. It’s all possible. It’s just a question of will it happen or not.
But I guarantee one thing: Avatar 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all going to be in 3D and they will look sumptuous.
Yeah, about that:
The original movie is one of my favorite films. Considering how the sequels just took everything to hell (even though I kinda like City of Angels), I really don’t care if one good Crow movie is all we’ll ever have.
I think a reviewer recently wrote something about Deadpool 2 saying that it was what we might’ve gotten if Jim Carrey had been cast as The Crow instead of The Mask. Honestly, I think I’d be more excited for that movie than for a serious Crow reboot.
Same here. It came out the summer before my senior year of college and I still recall how excited everyone was about this movie.
Looks like Jennifer Garner has some kind of Death Wish …It’s good to see her going back to action again though. Feel like she’s hasn’t done a lot of that since Alias.
Considering what happened, it is amazing that it still holds up today as one of the best films from that time and for any particular time. Every time I watch it, I feel bad that Brandon Lee died. I think he might have had a terrific career after that.
I think a Crow Reboot is a good idea.
The original movie is good, but the comic itself has a lot of emotion, energy, and pathos that it just wasn’t quite able to capture.
I’d love to see a movie take another crack at it. That said, it wouldn’t be very financially viable since the way the comic does it doesn’t translate cinematically.
I know somebody who wants a Crow reboot!