What's the over/under bet that this is PG-13?

Gonna be a whole bunch of scenes like that.

Has there ever been a question of the rating?
I wouldn't believe for a second that this will be anything over than PG-13.

That entire scene is completely real though. There is no CG whatsoever in that shot.

Other than horror films and a choice few others, how many films today do have an R rating? Very, very few. Then again, if it was my money on the line, I'd probably go with a PG-13 as well. Then again, I don't get up in arms over the rating, because rating rarely has anything to do with whether a film is any good. Here's a good article on why PG-13 is all the rage.

http://gawker.com/5896566/the-reign-...loads-of-money

I can't disagree with that. It's probably his past as an addict and bad boy womanizer that probably makes you feel that way. But at the very least, he will act rings around Schwarzenegger.

The trailer looks really good. The movie may turn out to be pretty good.

Bullshit, it's obviously CGI at the very least for the transitions.

I don't think that was accidental.

Looks kind of meh IMO. Will admit to having a soft spot for the old one though. Beckinsale, however, does look capable of being deliciously evil.

There is absolutely no CG in that scene whatsoever, unless you want to consider the computer controlled cameras CG. The entire shoot was done practically, the set is real, the armored police are real men in costumes, of course Farrell is real. Wiseman has already confirmed it. He says it's 100% practical. You can listen here.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/168...mmentary.jhtml

There's a lot in that trailer that people just assume is CG, but it's not. Regardless of what you might think of Wiseman, he's one of the few directors working today who prefers the practical over CG. The robot police droids were done with stuntment in costumes. The only digital part of those is the wires in the joints. The hover cars and the chase was also done with full scale built cars, not CG. Even a large portion of the shots of the future city are done with aerial shots of Toronto.

I have little doubt that the film will look amazing, have great effects, great action and stunts, and competent acting. The only question I have is will Wiseman improve and grow as a director by adding some real depth and intelligence to the film and make something more than just a pretty good action film. I have my doubts, but only time will tell.

It doesn't look good though, so even if he didn't CG it up, he didn't do a good job in making it look real.

Opinions vary! It looks fine to me. I'd agree it might be over-stylized to an unnecessary degree, and would probably have been better shot in a more conventional fashion. But I'm not seeing what's so fake. How can something that's completely real look fake? I don't particularly see anything in that sequence that comes close to looking fake. Now we can definitely have a discussion about whether you like how it was shot.

Gee, someone's really looking forward to this movie.

They would be looping out a lot of f bombs if it changes to PG13. Not sure if Len is trying to make up for the lack of cursing in LFoDH.

My problem is that many scenes are reminiscent of other films. And it's not clear at the end what is happening. And yes, there is the three titty lady in this.

At the end of the original, they release the core and return a breathable atmosphere to Mars. This ending was confusing especially since

Sometime's I wonder about the films Terrell defends. I remember when he was riding the crotch of AOTC and ROTS (I was right there with you) but now he spits on those films. Will the SW loving Terrell ever come back to these boards? The world needs you.

yes! 3 titty lady is in there! woooo

Is there a problem with that?

I haven't even seen the film. How can I defend it? I only defend it being remade, because the original isn't some masterpiece that needs to be barred from ever being remade. I'm simply excited to see what the film is, and don't entirely know what to expect. I find that more interesting to discuss than something like Prometheus, because I know what to expect out of that film. I think the trailer to this looks good.

As for the prequels, every Star Wars fanboy defended those films initially. Over time, you come to realize that they just aren't that great and you have to let go. I realized that when I found that I never watched them again after the initial viewing of them on DVD. I don't even own the Blu-Ray sets.

Nope! Love for the originals, but the prequel defender will never return. You'll also rarely see me talking about Star Wars period. There's nothing more that can be said. Besides, Star Wars discussion is the same bitch-fest that goes round and round.

Are you related to someone whos working on this movie or something?

Colin Terrell?

Why the f*ck do you have a problem with me being excited for this film?

Doesn't sound like that poster has a problem with you being excited. He/she was asking a question.

Sounds more like people are curious as to you're fascination.

Considering the condescension and the fact that he even asked the question sure made it sound like he has a problem. To answer the question, I don't know a single soul in the film industry. As for the film, I like the source material, I really like the cast, I like these types of film and the world they are in. I also really liked Wiseman's last two projects. I know that's sacrilege to some folks here. No, I'm not talking about Underworld, though the original is a decent little genre film in it's own right.

I listened to the commentary and I'm not buying it. I never said that any of the characters were CGI but it's obvious that it was used to complete the sequence. There are invisible edits that had to be spliced together with CGI enhancement, because there is no way that was done with one camera. Similar to techniques used in The Matrix and Fight Club. The 100% practical thing is bullshit. Either way I think the execution is weak and derivative and it seems cheesy to me. Having seen Underworld I find it hard to label Wiseman as a director that prefers practical effects whenever possible. Before you say it had fantastical elements that needed CGI I'd like to cite An American Werewolf in London which still has the best werewolf transformation I've ever seen.

So you're saying he's lying? Why would the man flat out lie? He even states that the camera is moving at so many frames per second. He's even on record as saying he prefers the practical over CGI. You can clearly see that in his films.

Are you actually watching these films. Of course there is some CG. I never said the man doesn't use CG. But Underworld has very little CG, period. Most of the CG is for things like transformations, set extensions, miniature compositions, and eyes changing color. Many directors would have made the werewolves and vampires completely CG. However, most of the werewolf effects in Underworld were done with practical makeup effects with men in suits. You only need to watch the film to see that, and watch behind the scene documentaries. I'm not sure how you're seeing heavy CG use in Underworld, of all films. Same goes for the vampires. You want heavy CG use, watch Transformers or the Star Wars prequels.

I can't speak to Underworld 3 and 4 as Wiseman didn't direct those.

There is quite a bit in Underworld. You guys are arguing over the level of it. Or course it's not to the tune of the almost comic Transformers, Star Wars, Avatar...

Not sure why any of that matters though. Cheese is cheese regardless of how it's made. And I love me some cheese

I like the trailer, I like Wiseman, I like the cast. The original movie is fun, but not a great movie. If this is also fun I will be fine with it.