Another reason the Paramount news is good for Valiant

[yardstick]

I think that the movie would need to include the idea that these are teens. That was what made Harbinger click, I think. Everybody remembers feeling like an outcast, or not belonging for some reason when they were a teenager. The fact that these kids have harbinger abilities, to me, is just a tool to augment that natural teenage turmoil.

That, to me, is what the movie should focus on. I don't want an action flick, I want a drama that has action in it.

I think if they try to do an action flick its gonna fail miserably. Not to say that action shouldnt be in it.


Incidentally, does anyone think it coincidental that Paramount's (CBS') bid for this property could be a result of playing catch-up (after its "failed" 4400) with NBC (Heroes) and [20th Century] Fox's (X-Men)?

[ncameron]

I think that the movie would need to include the idea that these are teens. That was what made Harbinger click, I think. Everybody remembers feeling like an outcast, or not belonging for some reason when they were a teenager. The fact that these kids have harbinger abilities, to me, is just a tool to augment that natural teenage turmoil.

That, to me, is what the movie should focus on. I don't want an action flick, I want a drama that has action in it.

I think if they try to do an action flick its gonna fail miserably. Not to say that action shouldnt be in it.


Incidentally, does anyone think it coincidental that Paramount's (CBS') bid for this property could be a result of playing catch-up (after its "failed" 4400) with NBC (Heroes) and [20th Century] Fox's (X-Men)?

More of a catchup for all the comic book movies that have made money, plus Paramount has been hurting for a big action summer movie, hence paying Ford, Lucas and El Spielbergo huge money to do Indy 4 and the move for the Star Trek reboot from X-Mas to next summer. Harbinger in 2010 could be their next big thing.

-neil

[yardstick]

I think that the movie would need to include the idea that these are teens. That was what made Harbinger click, I think. Everybody remembers feeling like an outcast, or not belonging for some reason when they were a teenager. The fact that these kids have harbinger abilities, to me, is just a tool to augment that natural teenage turmoil.

That, to me, is what the movie should focus on. I don't want an action flick, I want a drama that has action in it.

I think if they try to do an action flick its gonna fail miserably. Not to say that action shouldnt be in it.


Incidentally, does anyone think it coincidental that Paramount's (CBS') bid for this property could be a result of playing catch-up (after its "failed" 4400) with NBC (Heroes) and [20th Century] Fox's (X-Men)?

More of a catchup for all the comic book movies that have made money, plus Paramount has been hurting for a big action summer movie, hence paying Ford, Lucas and El Spielbergo huge money to do Indy 4 and the move for the Star Trek reboot from X-Mas to next summer. Harbinger in 2010 could be their next big thing.

-neil

If they were doing a "future" Harbinger, then I would expect more action than issues 0-7. But at the moment, such a concept (to me) has a more Terminator flavor.

[yardstick]

I went back and read the press release (yes, I know, cart before the horse and all that) and observed something:

"The project may be branded under the MTV Films banner."

Here is a list of the MTV films made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV_Films

Question 1: How many of the above films are high-quality (read: Valiant-quality or better) films?

Question 2: What is the "budget" level of the films in the list?

[ncameron]

I went back and read the press release (yes, I know, cart before the horse and all that) and observed something:

"The project may be branded under the MTV Films banner."

Here is a list of the MTV films made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV_Films

Question 1: How many of the above films are high-quality (read: Valiant-quality or better) films?

Question 2: What is the "budget" level of the films in the list?

Varies, the early films were low budget, they did have an action movie in Aeon Flux, but all in all the MTv banner just means lots of advertising for the target audience, and a "*SQUEE*" soundtrack.
If its Ratner directing and producing I dont think the budget will be an issue, he can pull the money just by showing the grosses of the 3 rush hour films as well as predicted box office of superhero films.

-neil

[yardstick]

I went back and read the press release (yes, I know, cart before the horse and all that) and observed something:

"The project may be branded under the MTV Films banner."

Here is a list of the MTV films made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV_Films

Question 1: How many of the above films are high-quality (read: Valiant-quality or better) films?

Question 2: What is the "budget" level of the films in the list?

Varies, the early films were low budget, they did have an action movie in Aeon Flux, but all in all the MTv banner just means lots of advertising for the target audience, and a "*SQUEE*" soundtrack.
If its Ratner directing and producing I dont think the budget will be an issue, he can pull the money just by showing the grosses of the 3 rush hour films as well as predicted box office of superhero films.

-neil

And the quality level?

Also, I must point out, that according to the press release, Jason and Dinesh are the producers...

[BloodOfHeroes]

Possible changes from the comic to the movie can range from

<SNIP>

What else?

Pete and the renegades will most assuredly be referred to as "terrorists," don'tcha think?

[ManofTheAtom]

Possible changes from the comic to the movie can range from

<SNIP>

What else?

Pete and the renegades will most assuredly be referred to as "terrorists," don'tcha think?

That is how Harada will make them look to the press, yes.

[BloodOfHeroes]

That is how Harada will make them look to the press, yes.

And would you say they're not?

[ManofTheAtom]

That is how Harada will make them look to the press, yes.

And would you say they're not?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I'm sure that the British Crown accused George Washington of being a terrorist at least once.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

That is how Harada will make them look to the press, yes.

And would you say they're not?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I truly don't know what's the worst part of this travesty of a post, so let's just start at the top.

Terrorists are terrorists are terrorists. They are not "freedom fighters." You want "freedom"? Assemble your own damn army and take down the existing government.

Don't take potshots at the POPULACE. That's chickensh!t. That's not "freedom fighting"....that's cowardice.

"Freedom fighters" target THE GOVERNMENT and the MILITARY.

TERRORISTS target CIVILIANS.

BIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG difference.

I'm sure that the British Crown accused George Washington of being a terrorist at least once.

Um.

No.

George Washington was head of a STANDING ARMY, IN UNIFORM.

And the word "terrorist" didn't exist when George Washington AND THE COLONIAL MILITARY were fighting the British.

The word has its origins in the FRENCH Reign of Terror....a "terroriste", then, was an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal, which went about destroying the monarchy and nobility of France.

It's disgusting that you would even suggest such a thing. The British had a lot more class than that, and respected Washington at the VERY least. Remember....Washington was a GENERAL IN THE BRITISH ARMY.

As well, George Washington would NEVER....EVER....have stooped so low as to attack CIVILIANS.

Did George III accuse Washington of being a TRAITOR? YES. And that was the very WORST thing you could accuse someone of in those days...back when giving aid and comfort to the enemy was still considered a bad thing to do (not like now, of course.)

But a TERRORIST? No. Not even close.

Echhh. What a disgusting post.

[BloodOfHeroes]

Terrorists are terrorists are terrorists. They are not "freedom fighters." You want "freedom"? Assemble your own damn army and take down the existing government.

Don't take potshots at the POPULACE. That's chickensh!t. That's not "freedom fighting"....that's cowardice.

"Freedom fighters" target THE GOVERNMENT and the MILITARY.

TERRORISTS target CIVILIANS.

So Timothy McVeigh, who targeted a government facility, was a "freedom fighter," then? Yes, I know civilians were killed in that horrible tragedy, but civilian casualties are a part of any "war". And they weren't targeted (I believe that McVeigh referred to them as "collateral," no?). Or would it terrorism because, while he was targeting a government facility, he went after non-combatants [not in his mind--he claimed he was after ATF agents, who he felt were responsible for the Waco incident]?

And Ronald Reagan was wrong when he referred to Nicaragua's Contras as "freedom fighters"?

The word has its origins in the FRENCH Reign of Terror....a "terroriste", then, was an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal, which went about destroying the monarchy and nobility of France.

It's disgusting that you would even suggest such a thing. The British had a lot more class than that, and respected Washington at the VERY least. Remember....Washington was a GENERAL IN THE BRITISH ARMY.

Come on, now. "Disgusting"? That's a bit harsh, now, isn't it?

Echhh. What a disgusting post.

Guess not.

[RegalSin]

Paramount has acquired the rights to Harbinger.

Nah I am just kidding

[Brother J]

Paramount has acquired the rights to Harbinger.

Nah I am just kidding

32 posts and I haven't been able to make heads or tails out of the majority of them....

I think this guy comes from the school of "abstract posting".

[TKWill]

I went back and read the press release (yes, I know, cart before the horse and all that) and observed something:

"The project may be branded under the MTV Films banner."

Here is a list of the MTV films made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV_Films

Question 1: How many of the above films are high-quality (read: Valiant-quality or better) films?

Question 2: What is the "budget" level of the films in the list?

I notice that three of the 42 movies had nominations for Academy Awards in significant categories. I would say that they are relatively successful when they put their minds to it. For every one of their AA-nominated movies there are at least seven that they knew weren't going to win them any kind of acclaim but would bring money.

Hustle and Flow was brilliant.
Murderball is still on my list of movies to see.
Election is another brilliant movie.

BTW, The Wood is one of my favorite movies. Awesome soundtrack for those that grew up listening to Rap/Hip Hop. I highly recommend it.

[ManofTheAtom]

Election is another brilliant movie.

...um...

[TKWill]

Election is another brilliant movie.

...um...

Sorry, but it was.

[ManofTheAtom]

Election is another brilliant movie.

...um...

Sorry, but it was.

It was okay, but brilliant?

meh

[TKWill]

Election is another brilliant movie.

...um...

Sorry, but it was.

It was okay, but brilliant?

meh

[Chiclo]

Election is another brilliant movie.

...um...

Sorry, but it was.

It was okay, but brilliant?

meh

There's an excellent movie.

[xodacia81]

A very underrated film. Same with Election

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Terrorists are terrorists are terrorists. They are not "freedom fighters." You want "freedom"? Assemble your own damn army and take down the existing government.

Don't take potshots at the POPULACE. That's chickensh!t. That's not "freedom fighting"....that's cowardice.

"Freedom fighters" target THE GOVERNMENT and the MILITARY.

TERRORISTS target CIVILIANS.

So Timothy McVeigh, who targeted a government facility, was a "freedom fighter," then?

Assemble your own damn army.

Timothy McVeigh didn't target the GOVERNMENT...he targeted a BUILDING. It doesn't matter that it was a government building, he didn't target THE GOVERNMENT.

The GOVERNMENT is NOT the buildings. The GOVERNMENT is the members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. They are legitimate targets of a foreign invasion or domestic rebellion.

Yes, I know civilians were killed in that horrible tragedy, but civilian casualties are a part of any "war". And they weren't targeted (I believe that McVeigh referred to them as "collateral," no?).

It doesn't matter how McVeigh tried to justify his attack....he didn't assemble an army and attack THE GOVERNMENT.....he went after civilians, knowing FULL WELL the building would be FULL of them.

Chickensh!t cowardice.

Or would it terrorism because, while he was targeting a government facility, he went after non-combatants [not in his mind--he claimed he was after ATF agents, who he felt were responsible for the Waco incident]?

And Ronald Reagan was wrong when he referred to Nicaragua's Contras as "freedom fighters"?

Did they go after THE GOVERNMENT? Were they part of a MILITARY FORCE which could, itself, be targeted...?

The word has its origins in the FRENCH Reign of Terror....a "terroriste", then, was an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal, which went about destroying the monarchy and nobility of France.

It's disgusting that you would even suggest such a thing. The British had a lot more class than that, and respected Washington at the VERY least. Remember....Washington was a GENERAL IN THE BRITISH ARMY.

Come on, now. "Disgusting"? That's a bit harsh, now, isn't it?

Echhh. What a disgusting post.

Guess not.

Nope.

Suggesting that ANYONE would have called George Washington a terrorist....when the word didn't even EXIST until George Washington was PRESIDENT, and when the word doesn't apply to him in ANY WAY, by ANY stretch of the definition....is ridiculous, rude, and insulting.

Pardon me for taking personally potshots on the greatest military leader the United States of America has ever known....and a damn fine President to boot.....

[X-O HoboJoe]

So, Barbary pirates: Terrorists or an early form of LCS owner?

[BloodOfHeroes]

Assemble your own damn army.

Read it (and quoted it) the first time.

He had his co-conspirators, militia members, (nearly) one and all. Does the size matter, when it comes to armies?

Timothy McVeigh didn't target the GOVERNMENT...he targeted a BUILDING. It doesn't matter that it was a government building, he didn't target THE GOVERNMENT.

The GOVERNMENT is NOT the buildings. The GOVERNMENT is the members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. They are legitimate targets of a foreign invasion or domestic rebellion.

So how is it that the soldiers that GW attacked "government" but the agents McVeigh & Co. targeted are not? Where springs the legitimacy (and lack thereof) in your definitions? (these are serious questions of mine; I'm not "just becausing" here).

It doesn't matter how McVeigh tried to justify his attack....he didn't assemble an army and attack THE GOVERNMENT.....he went after civilians, knowing FULL WELL the building would be FULL of them.

Your opinion, not his. History is usually written by the winners. McVeigh *believed* he was fighting against a corrupt government. Just because he got caught (or "Defeated," if you prefer) and GW won makes all the difference? Intent? Results? Alignment of the determinor with the values of the movement's "general"?

Chickensh!t cowardice.

I don't disagree with you.

Did they go after THE GOVERNMENT? Were they part of a MILITARY FORCE which could, itself, be targeted...?

Sure. So, in his own mind, did McVeigh. And the Contras deliberately targeted "civilian" targets (including schools and hospitals). As did McVeigh.

Personally, I call 'em all "terrorists." Reagan, in his own words, disagreed.

Nope.

Suggesting that ANYONE would have called George Washington a terrorist....when the word didn't even EXIST until George Washington was PRESIDENT, and when the word doesn't apply to him in ANY WAY, by ANY stretch of the definition....is ridiculous, rude, and insulting.

"Unknowing"? "Uneducated" (in the strictest definition)? Yep. "Ridiculous, rude and insulting"? Maybe. "Disgusting"? For using a word that missed GW by roughly 20 years?

*I* don't see it, but it's your opinion and I now truly believe you're disgusted by it.

Pardon me for taking personally potshots on the greatest military leader the United States of America has ever known....and a damn fine President to boot.....

As I'm sure you know, Washington lost more battles than he won. He's a very intriguing human being (a slave owner opposed to slavery, a probable deist who attended church for a good many years) and a Patriot, to say the least, but he wouldn't be my (subjective) choice for "greatest military leader the United States of America has ever known," although his was war was certainly the most important one fought by our nation.

All I'm trying to do is get a better understanding of where "terrorism" ends and "freedom fighting" begins. Neither McVeigh nor the contras fought as "pure" a governmental foe as Washington. Again--I'd call the contras terrorists, and would do the same for McVeigh. IMO they have more similarities than differences. I'm just wondering the objective measurement that separates the two. Size? Success? "Intent"? Or "history"?

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

So, Barbary pirates: Terrorists or an early form of LCS owner?

PIRATES!

They're their own special class. ARRRRRR!