Comics Creators

Movie News and Trailers - Hollywood Hype


So it’s Collateral Damage 2 basically.


Fuck. That does not look like a good time at all.


Between this and Maggie I wouldn’t want to be Arnold’s daughter in a movie.


Let’s not forget Commando.


I think Arnold is still a great actor but I will likely give this film a wide berth.


I was thinking of his recent work. Otherwise, you have to include Collateral Damage as well.


I haven’t seen it myself but I hear he’s rubbish on The Apprentice :wink: Apparently many people are saying that.


They’re also saying that he should be president though.


Right up until the end of that trailer I was convinced it was a sequel to Kindergarten Cop.


‘World War Z’ Sequel Pulled From Release Calendar

Paramount and Skydance have taken World War Z 2 off the 2017 release calendar.

The movie, which finds Brad Pitt set to return in the lead role, was previously slated to open in theaters June 9, but the project was delayed when it lost director J.A. Bayona last year. Insiders say Paramount now hopes to have World War Z 2 ready for 2018 or 2019.

It has become commonplace for Hollywood studios to place stakeholders on the release calendars for their big franchise tentpoles long before they’ve even started shooting.

World War Z was a sleeper hit in summer 2013, earning $540 million globally.

In a twinned announcement, Paramount said that Darren Aronofsky’s mother!, starring Jennifer Lawrence, is set to hit theaters Oct. 13 at the beginning of awards season. The drama also stars Javier Bardem, Michelle Pfeiffer, Domhnall Gleeson and Ed Harris.

World War Z 2 isn’t the only Paramount title losing a slot. Friday the 13th, which was previously set to hit theaters Oct. 13, has also been removed from the schedule.

More on the second bit of news;

‘Friday the 13th’ Reboot Shut Down


The film was in preproduction and, while not cast, heading toward a production start in mid-March.

The exact reason for the move is unclear, although one factor could be the poor performance of the studio’s horror movie, Rings. That pic, which like Friday the 13th was to have restarted a horror franchise, cost $25 million and bowed to $13 million over the weekend.

Sources say that execs quickly began second-guessing Friday the 13th, believing it would have chased the same audience, although others point out that the project is on the opposite spectrum of the horror scale.

A source close to Friday the 13th would only say that “the production was not ready to go at this date.”



They really need to rethink any of these reboots. EVIL DEAD was another one that looked like it was really going to revive the franchise and then basically faded from memory while the completely ridiculously fun television adaptation with Bruce Campbell basically slipped right in with no problem.

Honestly, since SUPERNATURAL, more ridiculous and fun seemed far smarter than trying to make Evil Dead somehow really scary.

RINGS, on the other hand, wasn’t such a bad idea as terrible execution. Even when the first American RINGS came out, though, VHS was already pretty dated. Taking that into a world where a supernatural virus can actually go viral on the Internet is not a completely stupid idea. It just doesn’t seem like the people making it really understood how to do it.

They probably should’ve gone to the team that did UNFRIENDED.


The ‘Evil Dead’ remake was a hit;

I’m not sure why they didn’t follow it up fast, but yes, Bruce has made the bigger impact. Some ideas just work best in their original form and Bruce vs Deadites has a big appeal.

‘Rings’… I thought the trailers were ok, but I wasn’t in a rush to see it. Maybe it IS the idea that’s faded in it’s attraction? I think studios should be careful what they spend on these films anyway. $15m and above is just too much. They don’t need that sort of money to create a good horror film.


And if you only spend $15 mil for the movie, no reason it needs to be a remake or reboot.

At the same time, a lot of producers like to inflate the budget because they can put more of it into their pockets. Working with a few directors who had been in the business since the 80’s, they have some great stories about the rackets certain producers would run on productions.

Most of them, of course, were just the guys securing financing. None of these “producers” actually had anything to do with the filmmaking.


That’s fake news, Simon. Filled with alternative facts.



Vitally important people, can’t make films without money, but their objectives can derail a project.

I wonder how much of ‘Rings’ $25m was fees?


Kristen Wiig is playing the daughter.


I thought we’d all confirmed he’d retired?
And why are they remaking it so soon anyway, it’s only just out in cinema.


I think it was more that he just wasn’t working much any more than being officially retired.

I’m glad he’s still making movies anyway.


It’s far from unknown for actors that said they have quit to come back every now and again if a role takes their fancy.

Nicholson’s official line was he liked to sit under a tree and read and not that he’d never do a film again.

Which is fair enough, I think if we were given the same economic freedom we’d just turn up and do stuff when we get bored. :wink:

It make sense, if you are in your 70s, in demand with Oscars of the mantelpiece and $20m in the bank then you call the shots. Anthony Hopkins does a lot of stuff still but has said he won’t use an accent other than his own RSC tinged Port Talbot voice unless the part historically demands it. Won’t take a role unless he thinks it looks like fun.