I'm just saying there's no logical reason why it has to be the same planet as PB. Hell, they didn't even give it a name.
I'm also saying that the first was filmed in Coober Pedy here in Australia & the terrain they built on set does not have the same environmental "feel" to PB's planet.
I remember reading that years ago, too. About him returning to his home planet to save it from destruction. But then suddenly that part disappeared from all the synopses I've read. I think I first read it when someone was reviewing an early draft of the script, so I wonder if the script was revamped since then to stretch that out for later films. They may have been trying to condense the rest of the series into this film originally. Who knows.
But I seriously doubt that this planet is going to be the same one from Pitch Black. And I ALSO seriously doubt that it will turn out to be Riddick's home planet. (Both would be silly twists.) If it is abandoned and overrun by vicious mosters then it would probably be beyond saving. And "Furya" is the title of the (hopefullly) 5th and final film. "Underverse" is number 4 where there is supposed to be some seriously all-out f#cking war (citing this interview with Twohy). Let's hope this film succeeds at the Box Office so that can happen.
Yeah it seems an odd notion that he is to save Furya when it's strongly suggested that almost all Furyan's were killed by the Lord Marshall. Also odd that if Furya did survive as a planet rather than a civilisation then why didn't the Lord Marshall simply destroy the actual planet during that purge of furyans? An odd discrepancy.
As for the film doing well, I hope so. It deserves to make its money back and then some. I've noticed general opinion against it seems to be changing more for it which can only be a good sign. I go to Cineworld cinemas to see most movies and so follow them on Facebook and Twitter and early posts about Riddick were met mostly with universal disdain but opinions have changed the closer the release date has gotten.
Vin is cited as being one of the 1st actors to actually use Twiiter & listen to what his fanbase has to say, especially with the Riddick franchise.
Vin posted a couple years ago that he could easily get the funding for the next Riddick instalment but it would've been on the condition that it would be PG-17. Fans reacted badly to the rating & so Vin had to a) go to Germany to seek the funding needed & b) agree to another F&F movie before getting the greenlight to do an R-Rated version of Riddick.
Well I thought that Vin had said that the premiere for the film was yesterday (Aug. 28th), but I can't find anything about it. Perhaps he was mistaken. Anyway, here's some interview footage with 3 cast members...
Shit, and now perhaps a longer version...
__________________
Last edited by Patient_Leech on Aug 29th, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Here in Aust we have G, PG, MA15+ & R.
Admittedly it's been a long time since something was rated R.
Theatres tend to go with MA15+ then we get the R-version on dvd release.
So far as I know the cinema cut is getting an 18 rating in the UK. We have ratings as below
U for universal suitable for all.
PG for parental guidance. Suitable for but with some older kid appropriate themes
12 dvd release rating only.
12A. Supposedly suitable for older kids only accompanied by an adult.
15.
18.
R18. Pornos
It's settling in at about 54% on RT with about 59 total reviews so far. Which is actually damn good for a Riddick movie, heh. I was hoping it would land that 60% and above "fresh" rating, but oh well. As long as people are saying things like this I think the film is right on target (and fu#k everybody else):
I even saw one reviewer who compares it to Kubrick's 2001. Haha, that sounds absurd, nevertheless I look forward to reading his take. But sometimes I think these critics go into it expecting Citizen Kane or something. I've got my ticket for tomorrow.
Saw it and enjoyed it. The opening 20 or 30 minutes is great, beautifully done. It establishes quickly that this isn't childsplay anymore. It's rated R for you-know-who. There's a few good thrills to make it fun, and definitely some humor. It was definitely cast well. And yes, it definitely feels a lot more scaled down than the previous installment. But it works for the most part. Just as I suspected it wasn't going to really conclude anything. I felt like it needed a little more time to tie things up at the end...
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: ...maybe some explanation of Dahl being a Furyan or something. Don't know if that's true or not, but that's my guess. Something like that would have helped the ending not feel quite so abrupt. And it definitely needed more Necromongers. Twohy wants to add more in for the Extended blu-ray release. So hopefully that'll happen.
I'll admit, some of the effects look cheap, but not the animated creatures. Those look great as far as I'm concerned. To me it's more the lighting with the greenscreens. When you're used to seeing all these upwards of $150 million budget movies, this definitely looks different (only about $38 million). But it's not too distracting. It keeps things simplified a little and it's more intimate. But I do honestly miss the epic, sweeping visuals of Chronicles and the expanded mythology. Some of the meat-and-potatoes action shots of this film feel like they could have been beefed up and made much more interesting with a little more budget. I'll give examples when more people have seen it, but I do think the film will play well with repeat viewings. I look forward to seeing it again. But I won't do IMAX again. I swear they have to cut off some of the film for IMAX. I can't stand that.
Hope it fairs better overseas, because it's already not debuting very well here in the States (est. 7.3 million Friday). I think I realize now why there weren't any other major releases coming out this weekend: football celebrations. Fu#k me. That's what everyone was doing instead. Everyone was out and about last night.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 17th, 2013 01:53 AM
I've got my ticket for tomorrow.
