Spawn 2 ?
#1
Did they ever film or have any plans to film another Spawn ? I thought the first one was pretty good.
Reply
#2
Yea I liked the first one and I would like to see a 2nd part.
LORD OF THE RINGS IS THE BEST MOVIE SERIES EVER!
Reply
#3
Yes, it's been in the works for some time. I think Todd McFarlane (the creator of Spawn), or someone has written the screenplay. I don't know when they're planning to get it in front of the camera, though.
Reply
#4
Err...there already is a SPAWN 2. (Of course, it is animated, but you can't have everything. As the original live action Spawn did not perform as well as expected at the box office, it is unlikely there will be a live action sequel unless it did tremendously well overseas and/or on video).
Reply
#5
Quote:Originally posted by SFfilmfan
Err...there already is a SPAWN 2. (Of course, it is animated, but you can't have everything. ...it is unlikely there will be a live action sequel...


That's the Spawn animated series that was on HBO, it's a totally different thing. It's the same character, but it wasn't concieved or executed as a sequel to the live action movie.

A live action sequel is in the works, at least it was. It'll just be a while before anything comes of it.
Reply
#6
Incidentally, I recently read, can't remember where, that the Spawn animated series is going to start up again.
Reply
#7
Well, I hope they do a better job on the sequel than they did on the original. Way too campy and the CGI was lame imo. I loved the animated series though, that one blew the movies away.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke: Clarke's Third Law from Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible
Reply
#8
Quote:Originally posted by Ivo
Well, I hope they do a better job on the sequel than they did on the original. Way too campy and the CGI was lame imo.


I thought the CGI was pretty good. Decent, at least. Consider that the movie came out in 1997, and had a $40 Million budget. That's alot, yes, but nothing compared to 1997's other superhero movie, Batman & Robin, which had a $110 Million budget. 1997 is still fairly early in the game as far as big-time CGI is concerned (realative to today anyway), so I think it was ok. His cape was wicked cool at least.
Reply
#9
Quote:Originally posted by Boomstick
I thought the CGI was pretty good. Decent, at least. Consider that the movie came out in 1997, and had a $40 Million budget. That's alot, yes, but nothing compared to 1997's other superhero movie, Batman & Robin, which had a $110 Million budget. 1997 is still fairly early in the game as far as big-time CGI is concerned (realative to today anyway), so I think it was ok. His cape was wicked cool at least.

Yes, it was early in the game, but I remember clearly seeing it in the theatre and turning to my friend during the Hell scene and saying, 'They should have done a little less CGI in this scene and had more sets built.' I felt like they just didn't realize or want to realize that the technology wasn't up to speed yet. It would have been better to use limited CGI in conjuction with sets imo. But, I realize that new toys are hard to resist.

I agree, they did a good job on the cape, but again, it was an example of what I was saying, CGI use only when necessary and incorporated into a real set. That's the problem I have with the recent SW movies, the CGI looks great but there is so much of it that it almost feels cartoon like in many scenes.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke: Clarke's Third Law from Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible
Reply
#10
Quote:Originally posted by Ivo
Yes, it was early in the game, but I remember clearly seeing it in the theatre and turning to my friend during the Hell scene and saying, 'They should have done a little less CGI in this scene and had more sets built.'
It's worth mentioning that I never saw it in the theater. Sometimes the big screen can bring out bad CGI in a different way than the television.

Quote:I agree, they did a good job on the cape, but again, it was an example of what I was saying, CGI use only when necessary and incorporated into a real set. That's the problem I have with the recent SW movies, the CGI looks great but there is so much of it that it almost feels cartoon like in many scenes.


I understand that, and I'd have to agree. Less is more, as the saying goes.
Reply

MYCode Guide

Forum Jump: