Peter T Chattaway

Member
  • Content count

    33,181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Peter T Chattaway

  • Rank
    He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
  • Birthday 10/01/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://patheos.com/blogs/filmchat
  • ICQ
    0
  • Skype
    peter.chattaway
  • Twitter
    ptchat

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Vancouver, BC

Recent Profile Visitors

5,400 profile views
  1. Links to our threads on rival in-development Tolkien biopics Middle Earth and Tolkien & Lewis. Links to our threads on the books Heaven's War, Looking for the King: An Inklings Novel and the in-development film adaptation of Here, There Be Dragons. - - - Nicholas Hoult Frontrunner To Play Young JRR Tolkien EXCLUSIVE: Nicholas Hoult is in early talks to star in Tolkien. He will play J.R.R. Tolkien, whose Middle-Earth epic novels hatched the Peter Jackson-directed film trilogies The Lord of The Rings and The Hobbit. Dome Karukoski has been set to direct Tolkien, with Chernin Entertainment producing for Fox Searchlight. The script by David Gleeson and Stephen Beresford explores the formative years of the orphaned author as he finds friendship, love and artistic inspiration among a fellow group of outcasts at school. This takes him into the outbreak of World War I, which threatens to tear the “fellowship” apart. All of these experiences would inspire Tolkien to write his famous Middle-Earth novels. The filmmakers sparked to Hoult’s performance in the Yorgos Lanthimos-directed The Favorite. . . . Deadline.com, July 25 - - - I just noticed that the bulk of this thread was written on the 50th anniversary of C.S. Lewis's death. Which... doesn't really mean anything, but still.
  2. If this is a big pop-culture mash-up, I wonder if in some ways it might be comparable to Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which Spielberg produced. (Spielberg was instrumental in sweet-talking Warner Brothers and other companies into letting their animated characters appear in a Disney movie.) Someone on Twitter quipped that Warner Brothers had no idea how to market The Iron Giant when it came out 18 years ago, so it seems a little odd that they're now basing *another* film's marketing campaign, in part, on imagery from that film.
  3. kenmorefield wrote: : Typically I like a more traditional narrative, but that didn't bother me here because I didn't really need or want it to be any one person's story...the relative anonymity of the characters felt...appropriate... I haven't seen this film yet, but I wonder how it would compare to The Longest Day, which used lots of Hollywood stars (as well as up-and-comers like Sean Connery, whose first James Bond film came out a few weeks after The Longest Day did, I think) to *distinguish* its cast of characters, while preventing the movie from becoming any one person's story... The Longest Day is also noteworthy for having prominent French and German characters, which I gather this film doesn't.
  4. NBooth wrote: : Well, I mean at least giving Spock secret siblings is totally consistent with the way the series has always worked. The only precedent I can think of is Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, the movie that Gene Roddenberry considered non-canonical. I'm not sure that *that's* the most promising analogy that one could make here. (But hey, if this series found a way to bring Sybok into the story, that would be... interesting.)
  5. First Matt Reeves (Cloverfield, Let Me In, the last two Planet of the Apes films) was hired to direct the film in Affleck's place. Then it was reported that Reeves has ditched the script that Affleck wrote in favour of a script that he, Reeves, will write himself. And *now* the latest rumour is that Warner Brothers is looking for a way to gracefully ease Affleck out of the film altogether. Affleck denied this, of course, when asked about it the other day (at Comic-Con, I think?), but, as they say, stay tuned.
  6. 1. The Thor / Hulk trailer looked fun. This looks... okay... though you can see how DC is trying to include some of the self-referential fun that has been a Marvel staple for years now. 2. The other day, at the movie theatre, I pointed to a poster for Justice League in which Batman was easily the most prominent figure, and predicted that the film's marketing strategy would change soon because of (a) the big success of Wonder Woman and (b) the rumour that Warner Brothers was looking for a way to ease Affleck out of the role. And, sure enough, this trailer emphasizes Wonder Woman far more than it does Batman (though he's certainly in there, as are Alfred and Commissioner Gordon).
  7. Whoever runs the Movies Silently Twitter feed has been complaining all day about the direction this series seems likely to go: First there's the seeming revelation that Spock had a secret human sister all this time, and then there's the producer going on and on about how TV shows are becoming more like film (which is arguably a problem for a franchise like Star Trek, which has always been very TV-ish even when it went for serialized storylines a la Deep Space Nine).
  8. I watched the film on YouTube years ago but would need to see it again before I could say much about it. FWIW, links to our threads on The Exorcist (1973) and Shutter Island (2010), the latter of which reportedly has some similarities to The Ninth Configuration.
  9. Evan C wrote: : As regards Keaton's line about "Native Americans," I believe the preferred term has actually gone back to being American Indians, because Native Americans more accurately refers to the Inuit, or that's what I was told by scholars studying music traditions of American Indians, so in addition to the line not making sense in context, it was dating itself as well. I think the Canadian government now uses "Indigenous" as a catch-all term for First Nations, Inuit and Metis. But no one ever looks back to their childhoods in the 1960s and talks about playing "Cowboys and First Nations", y'know? : The one scene that really stuck out to me as pointless and out of place was the gym scene where the three girls are playing Marry, F*ck, or Murder with members of the Avengers. Right! I'd almost forgotten about that scene. : And speaking of needless crudity, I'm sure every middle-schooler with the name Peter is really going to hate the film, or at least the party scene at Liz's. And that was the *second* scene in which Flash calls Peter that. (He did it earlier when he drove by in the car, at school.) : On the plus side, Keaton is one of the best Marvel villains . . . Indeed. : . . . the tie into Civil War was well done, and Holland is a very likeable Peter and Spiderman. Agreed.
  10. One other annoyance: the way the film tries to signal its wokeness from the opening scene, where Michael Keaton says he used to read "Cowboys & Indians" comics and his employee says -- unrealistically, given the context -- "You're supposed to say Native Americans." (I was reminded of kenmorefield's gripe about the way Key & Peele kinda-sorta lecture the audience on the reasons for not using the n-word in Keanu, instead of just *using* the word in a way that pushes our buttons the way that, say, Richard Pryor did. See also Baywatch -- or at least the trailer for the film (I haven't seen the film itself) -- where Zac Efron takes offense at the term "you people" and Dwayne Johnson tells him he's not allowed to take offense at it. The audience isn't trusted to get the joke, or the reference; the audience has to be schooled on the correct boundaries for correct speech in the 21st century.) There's another scene where Michelle (who says she wants to take part in some "light protesting" outside some embassies while she's in Washington, DC) says the Washington Monument was built by slaves, and a guard at the monument signals his agreement, and... apparently, the historical evidence around this claim isn't quite the slam-dunk that Michelle (and, through her, the film) seems to indicate. Slate notes that only the first 150 feet of the monument were built prior to the Civil War, and it quotes Jesse Holland (Black Men Built the Capitol) to the effect that "There has not been any clear evidence found to prove that slaves were used in the construction of the Washington Monument: no receipts, no log entries, no newspaper stories. We have all of those proving the use of slave construction on the U.S. Capitol and the White House. But we have yet to discover irrefutable evidence that slaves were used in the construction of the Washington Monument," though he also notes that DC was a slave city "and accustomed to the use of slave labor on major building projects". (Would Michelle refuse to enter the U.S. Capitol or the White House?) Meanwhile, Vulture quotes John Steele Gordon (Washington’s Monument and the Fascinating History of the Obelisk) to the effect that " the stonemasonry was pretty highly skilled, so it’s unlikely that slaves would’ve been doing it . . . The stones were cut by stonecutters, which is highly skilled work; and the stones were hoisted by means of steam engines, so you’d need a skilled engineer and foreman for stuff like that. Tending the steam engine, building the cast-iron staircase inside — that wasn’t grunt work," though he also notes that "The early quarries were in Maryland, so slave labor was undoubtedly used to quarry and haul the stone."
  11. Juliet who? (Meaning no disrespect. I've just never heard of her.)
  12. I don't think I care for this new Aunt May and her four-letter words.
  13. I haven't seen Ed Wood since it first came out (in fact, I hadn't seen this scene again until just now), but "Let's shoot this fucker!" is a line I've quoted often while trying to psyche myself into getting some job or other done. Landau was also *fantastic* as the biblical patriarch Jacob in the Emmy-winning 1995 miniseries Joseph. (He also played Abraham in a 2000 production called In the Beginning.)
  14. A writer friend of mine complained on Facebook that she didn't expect to see the three witches (well, the two non-Oprah ones, at least) looking so young and slim. She was expecting a little more... maturity? I happened to read the book to my kids a few months ago, and it struck me as a very 1950s sort of story (though it was technically published in 1963). The critique of conformity feels *very* aimed at the modernist culture of the mid-20th century -- very TOS, but not particularly TNG, if I can put it in Star Trek terms -- and I don't know how well it will translate to the post-modern (or post-post-modern?) present day. (My kids also commented that Camazotz felt very much like the drab planet we see in the recent film version of The Little Prince, which I thought was interesting.)