prehistoric movie

Prehistoric Shark Thriller Meg is slated for release on August 10, 2018 by Warner Bros. Pictures, Gravity Pictures, Filming underway.

After almost twenty years in development hell, a film adaptation of Steve Alten’s 1997 shark thriller novel MEG has finally made it into production.

MEG Fans have waited so long to see this movie happen, including yours truly (If you never read my 2012 review of the novel MEG, you can do so here)
and if you have never heard of it, but love sharks and are fascinated with Carcharodon megalodon, then revel in the good news that Warner Bros. Pictures is moving forward with this prehistoric shark movie. It was revealed last month that Jason Statham had signed on to headline the thriller and very recently the studio has given the megalodon shark movie an August 10, 2018 release date.

In various stages of development for some time, the megalodon movie will be directed by National Treasure‘s Jon Turteltaub from a script by James Vanderbilt (The Amazing Spider-Man, Independence Day: Resurgence ((Can’t say I’m thrilled at the choice for script writer, but…))


Based on Steve Alten‘s New York Times best-selling novel, Alten describes his 1997 novel as follows on his official site:

On a top-secret dive into the Pacific Ocean’s deepest canyon, Jonas Taylor found himself face-to-face with the largest and most ferocious predator in the history of the animal kingdom. The sole survivor of the mission, Taylor is haunted by what he’s sure he saw but still can’t prove exists – Carcharodon megalodon, the massive mother of the great white shark. The average prehistoric Meg weighs in at twenty tons and could tear apart a Tyrannosaurus rex in seconds.

Written off as a crackpot suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, Taylor refuses to forget the depths that nearly cost him his life. With a Ph.D. in paleontology under his belt, Taylor spends years theorizing, lecturing, and writing about the possibility that Meg still feeds at the deepest levels of the sea. But it takes an old friend in need to get him to return to the water, and a hotshot female submarine pilot to dare him back into a high-tech miniature sub.

Diving deeper than he ever has before, Taylor will face terror like he’s never imagined, and what he finds could turn the tides bloody red until the end of time. MEG is about to surface. When she does, nothing and no one is going to be safe, and Jonas must face his greatest fear once again.

Starring: Jason Statham, Li Bingbing (X-Men: Days of Future Past), Cliff Curtis (Fear The Walking Dead), Jessica McNamee , Rainn Wilson (The Office), Masi Oka (Heroes) and Ruby Rose


Here are all the posters I finished the last one today! Most of these took 5 to 4 hours and one took 2 and a half but I am done. I really like them all! Especially the  Aviary one which I’m going to put in my portfolio without the text and logo. 

This was my last college assignment and I feel like I ended it strong so I hope you all enjoy it! Think I’ll start sketching up the movie gifs now!

You know what the only dinosaur to eat anyone in the original King Kong is? An apatosaurus, which, if you may remember, is the dinosaur that was voted Least Likely To Eat Flesh in its Jurassic High School Class of Oh Shit It’s A Fucking Comet yearbook. And it does more damage than any other animal in that movie, eating people in the swamp, and then chasing a dude down specifically to defeat its basic biological instincts and eat him, too. We had a lot of weird opinions in 1933, but you’d have to go out of your way to put a tyrannosaurus, a giant snake, and a pteranodon into your movie, and then say “Scrap all of our former plans, boys. Give me that long-necked fella. That sucker looks mean.”

One Million Years B.C. pits man not only against the allure of Raquel Welch’s Mesozoic lingerie, but against a sea turtle that is apparently getting pre-emptive revenge for all the soda can rings that will eventually invade its descendants’ homes. There’s no other way to justify that kind of action. When sea turtles are attacking you, maybe it’s time to rethink some shit.

In Unknown Island, both the main villain of the movie and the biggest dinosaur in the land are killed by a rampaging “giant sloth.”

Got to make a prehistoric movie, but creatively drained from figuring out all the non-dinosaurs you’re gonna use? Throw in a giant plant, or something vaguely plant-esque.

What I’m trying to say is that I don’t know why we keep having all of these conversations about the deadliest dinosaurs when we’re probably going to end up being consumed by a large snail, or a weirdly antagonistic rock.

5 Silly Rules That Old Dinosaur Movies All Seem To Follow

prehistoric-warrior  asked:

It can be both. A bad review is concerning how good a movie is based on how well made and enjoyable the movie is. However, while they are great works in film history, they are still only films made with the intent for entertainment. Bringing in social issues into something into something that has nothing to do with such is idiotic unless the film itself directly or nearly directly points out or uses social issues.

I disagree completely. Bringing social issues into films is never idiotic, and is actually a much needed and often ignored practice. And I mean ignored because sometimes it’s just too difficult for some people to accept or even acknowledge that some of their favourite films may indeed contain problematic elements or material. And you know what? That’s fine. Of course you’re allowed to enjoy problematic media and it’s near impossible to cut it out of your life completely. What I’m saying is a film doesn’t have to directly address or deal with a social issue for said social issue to be applied to it, or even to be present within it. Films are products of the society in which they are produced, so regardless of whether they intend to or not, most - if not all - films do indeed tread social issues in one way or another. It can take many forms, and can be both intentional (for example, themes and issues directly addressed by the film’s story, themes, and/or characters) and unintentional (looking at the kinds of roles played by and the representation of different gender or racial groups). Believe me when I say that kaiju films - of all periods - are very much reflections of the Japan in which they were produced. Your saying that “they are still only films made with the intent for entertainment” robs many of these films of a lot of creator intent, and also extremely patronises the genre you’re trying to defend. I’ve seen a lot of fans regard this genre as beyond (or even above) media criticism because the films are “just monster movies”, “so bad they’re good”, or anything else equally condescending and pithy in-between. If people were to broaden their horizons a little bit and apply any given social issue to any given kaiju film - say, the role of women in Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster - then a whole new way of looking at these films opens up, and a fresh new perspective presents itself, and it’s so satisfying. Is a feminist approach the definitive reading of the kaiju genre? Of course it isn’t. But you know what? Neither is an anti-nuclear one. We’re unique and lucky in loving this genre as it’s one of the most allegorically fluid and symbolically rich in the history of cult cinema, and it consistently refuses to be defined by any one reading. I’ve said of Godzilla as a character before that he is not and should not be defined and restricted by his Japaneseness and an anti-nuclear reading, so why should the genre he belongs to be restricted by being and defined as “just” monster movies?