Jack the Giant Killer

[yoco]

Release Date: June 15, 2012
Studio: New Line Cinema (Warner Bros.)
Director: Bryan Singer
Screenwriter: Darren Lemke, Christopher McQuarrie, Dan Studney
Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Stanley Tucci, Ian McShane, Bill Nighy, Eleanor Tomlinson, Ewan McGregor
Genre: Action, Adventure, Drama, Fantasy
MPAA Rating: Not Available

"Jack the Giant Killer" tells the story of an ancient war that is reignited when a young farmhand unwittingly opens a gateway between our world and a fearsome race of giants. Unleashed on the Earth for the first time in centuries, the giants strive to reclaim the land they once lost, forcing the young man, Jack, into the battle of his life to stop them. Fighting for a kingdom, its people, and the love of a brave princess, he comes face to face with the unstoppable warriors he thought only existed in legend—and gets the chance to become a legend himself.

[SealLion]

There once was an old fairy tale called "Jack and the Beanstalk" which supposedly was aligned with "jack the giant killer".
It's definitely different and pleasant to see remakes of old fairy tales brought to film. I'd say this film is more closely associated with the beanstalk story as "jack and the beanstalk' is basically about a young boy climbing up a beanstalk to fetch gold and some golden eggs. I remember this story quite fondly and I think this film does bring back some good memories.

Historical link to both films:

Jack and the Beanstalk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

Jack the Giant Killer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though it does have different characteristics of it rather than the original theme of jack and his beanstalk, it might still be interesting to watch.

[slikrapid]

when a young farmhand unwittingly opens a gateway between our world and a fearsome race of giants.

with magic beans from a scared monk? guess this is as silly as it gets

forcing the young man, Jack, into the battle of his life to stop them. Fighting for a kingdom, its people, and the love of a brave princess,

so we get yet another unlikely (n00b) borderline-teen hero in yet another unlikely or ridiculously unbelievable quest

and gets the chance to become a legend himself.

must be something that everybody (male) desires, eh?


@SealLion:

There once was an old fairy tale called "Jack and the Beanstalk" which supposedly was aligned with "jack the giant killer".

yeah, its all about 'little jack' transforming into 'big Jack' (of all/certain trades), reaping the rewards of his endeavors

I'd say this film is more closely associated with the beanstalk story

its pretty obvious that they are hell-bent on fusing both of these stories regardless of how silly it all sounds

it might still be interesting to watch.

judging from the trailer, the story & from the unremarkable main actor i'd say its likely gonna fail on multiple levels (except cgi ofc)

[SealLion]

.......


judging from the trailer, the story & from the unremarkable main actor i'd say its likely gonna fail on multiple levels (except cgi ofc)

It might fall on multiple levels; however, I like to also think that the producers had a good idea to bring a fairy-tale story, that originated a few hundred years ago, to present day film. I'd like to see more fairy tale stories being brought to light; however, I think that there may exist a problem with such endeavors and that is that the producers focus either too much on sexuality or too much violence (or both) within the story's context. No doubt this is what present day audiences expect too.

It is true that cutting off one's head or any other kind of violence was virulent in the middle ages. It was part of that time's culture. So violence was pretty much the norm; however, I also wonder if violence is becoming the norm now-a-days ( more likely, it probably already is. You just need to look around you and I'm sure you will see the heavy presence of violence around you. And not just what's in the news either). Perhaps it is considering the vast influence that gaming and also Hollywood have on the effect of the human psyche when you consider the growing trend that of movies that portray violence in them. Seems like people don't consider much of a film to be interesting to watch unless it's got some kind of violence portrayed in it.

[hellman]

with magic beans from a scared monk? guess this is as silly as it gets



so we get yet another unlikely (n00b) borderline-teen hero in yet another unlikely or ridiculously unbelievable quest



must be something that everybody (male) desires, eh?


@SealLion:



yeah, its all about 'little jack' transforming into 'big Jack' (of all/certain trades), reaping the rewards of his endeavors



its pretty obvious that they are hell-bent on fusing both of these stories regardless of how silly it all sounds



judging from the trailer, the story & from the unremarkable main actor i'd say its likely gonna fail on multiple levels (except cgi ofc)

wow u made wonderful mess of the things hey anon give him critic title haha
movie looks good though..

[slikrapid]

It is true that cutting off one's head or any other kind of violence was virulent in the middle ages. It was part of that time's culture.

well, they were living in harsh conditions and had to be familiar with (dealing with) violence in order to survive/prevail - nowadays it is not so much of a necessity, however one still ought to know how to deal with it, regardless of how much supposedly pacified the society has become

I also wonder if violence is becoming the norm now-a-days ( more likely, it probably already is. You just need to look around you and I'm sure you will see the heavy presence of violence around you. And not just what's in the news either). Perhaps it is considering the vast influence that gaming and also Hollywood have on the effect of the human psyche when you consider the growing trend that of movies that portray violence in them. Seems like people don't consider much of a film to be interesting to watch unless it's got some kind of violence portrayed in it.

judging by the history it has always been the norm, at least occasionally depending on the situation/conditions & acteurs involved

as for games & movies depicting violence, on one hand they are merely reflecting 'reality', processing an interesting subject matter, providing an entertaining variation on the theme and on the other presenting their own ideas, thoughts, views & propaganda in the process

regarding the viewer/user psyche: this contents may represent a problem if the viewer has a highly susceptible psyche (like children, teens, unstable/weak/gullible/immature/fanatical/indoctrinated/... persons) and in the case of overdosing on it

generally, going to extremes regarding violence (or sex or comedy or melodrama or cgi or any other major element) is mostly a sign of a weak movie which cannot stand on its own, but has to resort to cheap methods of keeping the interest alive - also, it might suggest that these movie-makers have a low opinion of the viewer's intelligence, thus any exaggerated/pumped-up cr*p would do, or that these methods are simply a cover-up for their cinematographic incompetence

[SealLion]

I don't quite understand how film producers might have a low opinion of a viewer's intelligence when specifically cgi effects are used?? The strongest reason is that there are no giants, monsters with tentacles, or dinosaurs; hence, they need creation via cgi if that is what your saying with the 'low opinion' context.

I can see the reason for producers having low opinions of viewers when they resort to cheap comedy or cheap infiltrations of sexual content into film as there generally is no astute drama that gives any kind of conversant effect onto the viewer. As for the producer's cinematographic incompetence, that might be resulting from a lack of accountability. Of course, that can come about from lack of funding (some indie films are known for poor or bad production). There is also the possibility of film-making franchises wherein there is just a complete lack of synergy in creative vision between both the filmmaker and the studio itself. Both, I would say may be to blame for the outcome. And of course, sometimes it's just the simple, yet awful direction by the actors themselves. Hence we get poor-rated and poorly produced films.

[slikrapid]

@SealLion:

I don't quite understand how film producers might have a low opinion of a viewer's intelligence when specifically cgi effects are used??

'going to extremes regarding ... cgi' - examples for that could include: unnecessary, exaggerated, unbelievable and/or amateurishly executed cgi-aided/rendered stunts/moves, objects, characters, effects, scenes,...causing multiple reactions and questions/comments like: huh...wtf...srsly...what were they thinking?!

As for the producer's cinematographic incompetence, that might be resulting from a lack of accountability.

also: internal system corruption, spoiled & inflated egos/personalities/values, lack of integrity, entertainment industry degradation,...

that can come about from lack of funding (some indie films are known for poor or bad production). There is also the possibility of film-making franchises wherein there is just a complete lack of synergy in creative vision between both the filmmaker and the studio itself. Both, I would say may be to blame for the outcome. And of course, sometimes it's just the simple, yet awful direction by the actors themselves. Hence we get poor-rated and poorly produced films.

a competent dedicated filmmaker is usually able to (sufficiently) overcome the majority of emerging obstacles, he would likely firstly make sure certain basics have been covered prior to signing-up for a project, making sure his work & reputation don't suffer due to some avoidable elements/circumstances, though it is questionable how much freedom & auteurism one can achieve with sometimes? many competing interests/influences (writers/scriptwriters, producers, studios, stars, financiers/sponsors, vip's, 3rd party groups) regarding the final product

[SealLion]

.....many competing interests/influences (writers/scriptwriters, producers, studios, stars, financiers/sponsors, vip's, 3rd party groups) regarding the final product

For sure.
From what I understand some but not all people in the acting profession would like to have certain scenes performed their way ( to increase their own acting profile). No doubt this also includes sponsors which could be a wide array of groups such as Coca-Cola (when scenes of drink machines or characters drinking a soda beverage, for example b/c scenes like this help to increase that company's profile somewhat), Boeing or some other airline (when planes are used in films) and both of these examples will no doubt have varying influence unto that film.

Another subject that comes to mind with respect to image and influence is that places like Hollywood no doubt also set the image that the US has of itself and that outsiders have of that country and it's people. To be honest, seeing these super rich, super flashy, and living only amongst the elite having without (perhaps) even a realistic or true understanding of the reality in this world we live in. It's certainly neither a true nor correct representation of US people, I think. However, b/c of that global fame it makes me ponder that this is how people outside of the States see US people.

I mean think about it like this: When-ever there's a global problem happening somewhere, regardless of what-ever external influence caused it, the prevailing image, which Hollywood helps to construct conceptualizes the idea that it's time to roll out the guns and the steroid-pumped action heroes to solve that problem. Only in this case it's a huge army instead, with some guy in a big white house setting the drum roll. Hollywood builds up these scenarios in it's films and when things like this happen in the reals sense of global activity, the same thing happens. Again, only in this case it's an army that portrays this pumped up on steroids ready to beat the bad guy image that's indirectly portrayed on film and subsequently when people outside the US see the some Hollywood produced film it's tied in to what they (Americans and their country) are conceptualized as.

Now I know that this part of the discussion might be going off topic a bit but I'm going to mention it anyways because it brings to ligth another idea and that the people who are the famous stars in Hollywood are the American aristocracy. Elsewhere in the world you don't have such depraved, decadent, loony, and eccentric people other than in Europe in the position of Lords, Ladies, Barons, Counts, Dukes, and who knows what else. Americans use stardom to build an aristocracy of people whose life style fascinates and sometimes even disgusts the spectators. I am sure that even US people (the one's that are down-to-earth normal people) might at times think similarity. And this image of aristocratic eccentricity (read Hollywood starts) and down-right lunacy coupled with aristocratic decadence might also lead to that image that people outside of the US have of the people and of their country. That's my opinion,.

[slikrapid]

@SealLion:

groups such as Coca-Cola (when scenes of drink machines or characters drinking a soda beverage, for example b/c scenes like this help to increase that company's profile somewhat)

yeah, the idea is to imprint the brand image (& the quality/reliability/class and whatnot that supposedly comes with it) onto the viewers, making them familiar with it, steering their purchasing choice accordingly, especially when competing with some noname product (that might have equal or maybe even better characteristics, but no head-start regarding fame/popularity/familiarity), relying on frequent appearance throughout various media formats, as per the old proverb: 'repetitio est mater studiorum'

seeing these super rich, super flashy, and living only amongst the elite having without (perhaps) even a realistic or true understanding of the reality in this world we live in. It's certainly neither a true nor correct representation of US people, I think. However, b/c of that global fame it makes me ponder that this is how people outside of the States see US people.

it might be a relatively accurate representation of that particular (higher) societal class, intentionally depicted as something desirable/fun/advanced/'free' (setting a goal & object of worship for aspirants from the usa & in general), possibly also cinematographically (ie. virtually) punished for their status/way of life/misdeeds (providing a virtual satisfaction & moralizing for ordinary viewers), ie. the viewers are often 'treated to' a combination of patronizing & pandering

as for foreign audience, with a bit of common sense, awareness of locally/globally spread class differences, a grain of salt (regarding hollywood products/messages/depictions), it shouldn't be too hard to conclude that the movie representations may at any given point/scene differ greatly from what is present in reality

the prevailing image, which Hollywood helps to construct conceptualizes the idea that it's time to roll out the guns and the steroid-pumped action heroes to solve that problem.

indeed, they are often reinforcing/justifying this intrusive attitude/position - it makes matters even worse when the action setting is closely correlated with the actual (current) historical setting - in effect, the viewers treat such aggressive actions with less criticism, subconsciously leaning towards approval of invasive military acts, due to being already heavily desensitized via the entertainment industry's propaganda - it also creates positive bias (regarding the usa political/military position) with less careful (and directly unaffected) foreign viewers

Again, only in this case it's an army that portrays this pumped up on steroids ready to beat the bad guy image that's indirectly portrayed on film and subsequently when people outside the US see the some Hollywood produced film it's tied in to what they (Americans and their country) are conceptualized as.

certainly the simpleton good guy vs. bad guy fodder doesn't help when considering real scenarios, it only fortifies simplistic b/w reasoning (which is cheap & easy, not to mention dialectically appealing/familiar/common)

as for the image of usa & its citizens, the common sense & co. principle should apply again, where one ought to be able to distinguish between fi. a common citizen (ordinary voter, a 'tool', majority), a government & its military/political apparatus/machinery (giving orders, using/abusing vote(r)s for certain agendas, tool-wielders, minority), a soldier (obeying orders, proud to serve his country, a 'tool')

that the people who are the famous stars in Hollywood are the American aristocracy.

not really, they are mostly just well-paid employees & famous/familiar/PR faces of the entertainment industry, similar to star athletes/sportspersons, accustomed to a high-class, often extrovert life & fame (aka 'rich') - the real aristocracy (aka 'wealthy') can be divided into ~3 categories (true, nu & others):

1. upper class usually made up of hereditary nobility - old families (incl. royalty) with a pedigree so to speak, usually less visible (noticeable fi. through heraldry)
2. upper class usually made up of successful businessmen - nu-aristocracy of more visible, lets say forbes-fame (granted, some of the aforementioned stars do manage to enter this rank)
1. upper class usually made up of high-level clergy - a sort-of parallel government closely connected to royalty, again with a pedigree, though less visible (especially regarding their wealth)
3. other more obscure persons & groups, lets call them 'the gray eminence'

also, along with the class positioning, aristocracy implies a governing/leading/ruling position of their members

Elsewhere in the world you don't have such depraved, decadent, loony, and eccentric people other than in Europe in the position of Lords, Ladies, Barons, Counts, Dukes, and who knows what else. Americans use stardom to build an aristocracy of people whose life style fascinates and sometimes even disgusts the spectators.

i'm pretty sure every single country has representatives that might more or less fit this description (though having a less brightly illuminated stage or inferior global coverage), also, since usa represents 'the new world', most of its aristocracy is essentially imported and/or newly created (hence: nu-aristocracy)

as for their lifestyle & habits, it seems that having acquired many things they can't think of anything better than showing-off, exhibiting extreme indulgence, playing local/global games, toying with others for their personal and/or group amusement, ie. displaying quite a primitive/shallow life philosophy, especially considering their supposedly advanced status

[yoco]

[yoco]